Really…? I work there too and look what I recently found…

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/02/omniscan-and-ge-healthcares-sinister-libel-suit.html

… a theory was advanced that should it have merit, frankly makes my stomach sick … It is one that the MSA (the agreement) was actually written so that it could then be transferred into LAW by Congress (or say most of it…) so pharma and other industry will use it to shield themselves from MASS TORTS.

That does not mean that locally one cannot sue for being run over by a car, but it WOULD mean that damage perpetuated by a drug company will have one heck of a hard time gaining any shred of adequate compensation for the rest of our lives, and our children’s also. It would certainly seem to encourage adequate testing to come out of the laboratory and into the public, and will discourage proper pharma post-marketing tracking/analysis. It will make litigation merely a fixed, product life cycle cost. By providing fixed costs and capping risk, it will then permit other reckless and too risky behavior by the pharma industry. The ramifications get worse…. unless MAJOR NOISE IS MADE to the public, the Attorney Generals, the US Supreme Court, and the best we can do to warn Congress. It will complete the “loop” and it all fits very well. I am not a radical – in fact I have quite conservative values in re to family and right/wrong – but in re to CIVIL RIGHTS of MANY kinds, I would consider myself in the liberal camp, as I DO see movement towards as I say – “peeling away our CIVIL RIGHTS like onions”.

Shall it have merit, it is one of the worst things that we have seen in our lifetimes in re to real perversion of our Legal System; with Pharma/the courts and the large firms largely in control of protecting pharma, and now looking to suggest to Congress – “we have the perfect solution – look, it’s already done… all you need to do is sign on the dotted line, and you can go tell your constituents how well you FOUGHT for TORT REFORM (actually is DEFORM) - but the PUBLIC does not, cannot yet currently differentiate between frivolous litigation (and of course we understand that) and the massive fraud and collusion taking place under the guise of “TORT REFORM”.

IF you are a vIOXX Plaintiff and wish to get involved, in addition to learning/educating/sharing – please feel free to apply:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MerckSettlement/
Posted by Dennis Harrison (bones)
Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:42 AM EST
What I get out of CAFA is that jurisdiction for large class action is moved to Federal; that would then seem to be the first stage as it consolidates POWER centralized. Note that the STATES, by the way, ARE AGAINST PRE-EMPTION; kind of tells you that the STATES continue to be very way of Federal Power over-reaching. Some things certainly make sense from a Federal Point of view, certainly that is the case. However, in the case of TORT/PHARMA - it seems clear to me that the first step is to centralize power into the Federal Government, where it then becomes under their control how to move further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness_Act_of_2005

Then, along comes TORT REFORM - and since the PUBLIC DOES not understand what it really means, the PUBLIC thinks hot coffee/and near $50M (amt ?) award. SURE, the public opinion says, something must be done, let’s support TORT REFORM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform

OK, now along comes PHARMA. Things are starting to look great for Pharma.

TORT REFORM? what a great way to PUSH a private “settlement” (DEAL), surely the public at large will support such a brave effort…

OK, now we get the “settlement” (DEAL)….

The Public has been quoted with MANY mean spirited quotations (we are blood sucking thieves, we steal $ from the research for children, we steal $ from greater research efforts, etc…).

Merck poor mouths itself and declares that $5B is SUCH A LARGE amount (don’t we know where that amount gets now a days divided by so many people?).

The COURTS say - sure, we have been instructed by our Congress and House to seek TORT REFORM;

The COURTS collude (sorry, I know a lot don’t like that word…) with PHARMA and design/collude the referred “private settlement” (DEAL) that has, without question, stolen CIVIL RIGHTS up the kazoo….

BUT, then go further…. while at it… why not actually draft the MSA (”settlement” (DEAL)) so that we can then bring it to the legislative body for their signature? Sounds quick and easy enough…

And that is where it seems to be:

1 - pharma knew for a long time where this was going…

2 - the courts are only too glad to have a nice, easy way to wipe away their dockets…

3 - the legislative branch wishes (this is NOT an issue of which party) to look good to their consitutents and claim - SURE, we have WORKED VERY HARD AT TORT REFORM (i.e. signing what Merck DIRECTED for the entire industry)…. By the way, they do so via illegal “bill of attainer”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

Besides seeking JUSTICE AND FAIR COMPENSATION, a goal of 2009 needs to beat back this new realization.

On another front there is the issue of Vytorin: there are suggestions that statins may have their beneficial clinical effects not through lowering cholesterol but through an anti-inflammatory mechanism. This might explain why lowering cholesterol with Zetia (the non-statin part of Vytorin) may have no benefit. If this turns out to be true, I wonder how long it will take for this to be accepted in the medical community? There are so many vested interests in this case (doctors, health advisory boards, diet advisors, food companies, etc.), in addition to the drug companies. The cynical side of me suspects that, if cholesterol levels are clinically irrelevant, a shift in opinion will not begin until patents on all of the statins expire.

This is one of several reasons whey, even if we had a utopian FDA (wistful thinking), civil liability would still be needed. Actions of this kind are simply not covered by what FDA does, but they are relevant in both criminal prosecution and civil actions.