You are viewing the most recent 10 entries
January 12th, 2009
October 21st, 2008
September 22nd, 2008
From the same administration that for that past 8 years has erroded our Constitution,
moral standing in the world, ignored laws of torture and privacy, etc...
now brings us this little gem from the blank check bill they would like to have so Mr. Paulson
can fix our broken financial system.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Here Mr. Paulson, you take this $700 Billion of our money that we scraped up for you.
You just head over there to that room in the back with your friends and ya'll see what
you can do to help us out. We trust you to do what's right.
September 10th, 2008
Now I'm in for it.
I ran up my credit cards and the world didn't end.
Black Holes are weak... and they suck too.
August 20th, 2008
August 19th, 2008
So you don't actually mean 100%:
Tropicana 100% Orange Juice.
And after the word "flavors" an asterisk
So…what part of "100%" does Tropicana not understand?
August 12th, 2008
...not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime:
Gee, thanks Attorney General Mukasey. That one would go over real well with the local police
if I tried it.
Not every crime is a crime
If an unmarried Republican woman walks down the street and is extremely pregnant but everyone looks
the other way, she must not be pregnant.
July 31st, 2008
You can no longer sue the drug companies:
It hasn't happened yet but that is the direction the drug companies are moving in.
Pre-emption would make these sorts of lawsuits illegal on the basis that a pharmaceutical company can't be sued over a drug or other product once it has been approved by the FDA.
Now for the really scary part: Pre-emption protects Big Pharma even if a company has suppressed information about potential dangers associated with its products. Which is precisely what Johnson & Johnson did with its OrthoEvera birth-control patch, which contained higher levels of estrogen than stated on its labeling information. That increased dosage of a space-alien version of estrogen also increased women's risks of the side effects associated with the Pill, like blood clots and strokes. But now Johnson & Johnson is arguing that pre-emption should protect them against being sued by a woman who experienced problems from OrthoEvra because the FDA had approved the drug.
The FDA makes plenty of bad calls and puts plenty of people at risk as a result, but it hardly seems fair to point the finger at them here, or for Johnson & Johnson to use them as a scapegoat, when the agency wasn't even given the full story to begin with. And for the past several decades, courts in the U.S. have agreed, dismissing claims of pre- emption. But, according to The New York Times article I read, that may change very soon.
According to the Times, "The Bush Administration has argued strongly in favor of the doctrine, which holds that the FDA is the only agency with enough expertise to regulate drug makers and that its decisions should not be second-guessed by courts."
Is the Bush administration talking about the right FDA? The same agency that took six years to warn the public of the potential risks of OthroEvra after it finally DID discover that Johnson & Johnson had concealed the truth? And the one that admitted recently it can't keep up with scientific advancement and has a hard time making decisions under the "pressure" of deadlines?
Apparently, these self-incriminating admissions and the plethora of mistakes the FDA has made over the years at the expense of our health and safety don't bother los Federales. According to the Times article, "The Supreme Court is to rule on a case next term that could make pre-emption a legal standard for drug cases."