Boo!
Time for Tort Reform? Check this out...
by JWoods 116 Replies latest social current
-
-
sammielee24
Although Aunt Sophie might of gotten cancer from smoking, she very well might have had every right to sue the manufacturer. There was a time when smoking was pushed as a way to relax, even on a medical level..and most people were never told that the substance was not only addictive but had dangerous chemicals added to it. Most thought that a cigarette was made of tobacco and not tobacco with 45 additives manufactured to burn your lungs out. Now it may be a different story, but at one time Aunt Sophie might have been advised to smoke by her doctor via the tobacco companies. Ditto, all the drug companies - sitting on knowledge that a drug kills but choosing to pump up profits and let people die as collateral damages....tort reform is a necessary part of health care reform and works with a universal health care system. It won't work without reform. sammieswife.
Pfizer in court again, this time for Wyeth's menopause treatment Prempro
Melly Alazraki
Oct 27th 2009 at 8:15PM Text Size A A ANo stranger to finding itself in court. The pharmaceutical giant is constantly defending its practices and drugs, often ending up paying millions if not billions in damages -- even admitting to felony criminal charges. Pfizer has also inherited lawsuits with some of the companies it has purchased. It's recent $68 billion mega acquisition of Wyeth is no different.
On Monday, a Philadelphia jury, which had earlier found a link between a woman's breast cancer and the hormone-replacement drug she was taking, also found that Wyeth hid and ignored evidence of the drug's potential cancer risk. The jury awarded Connie Barton an undisclosed amount of punitive-damages.
Barton's case is one of 9,000 Prempro lawsuits across the country. About 1,500 are pending in Philadelphia alone, opening up the door to more potential liabilities for Pfizer, which just recently was ordered to pay a record $2.3 billion fine for illegally marketing painkiller Bextra, which is now off the market.
The drug, Prempro, from Pfizer's unit Wyeth, is a combination of hormones estrogen-progestin (Premarin and Provera) and is taken as a menopause treatment.
Barton took Prempro for five years before she was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2002. Wyeth's lawyer George McDavid had argued that Barton had breast cancer before she began taking Prempro. The jury was not convinced and found that Prempro caused Barton's breast cancer. She was awarded $3.75 million in compensatory damages in September. The punitive award was sealed pending another verdict in a second Prempro case in the same courthouse.
Once again, this case highlights the reasons for the public's longstanding distrust and mistrust of pharmaceutical companies. The AP reports that Esther Berezofsky, one of Barton's lawyers said, "They knew back in the 1970s that these drugs had the potential to cause breast cancer, so they didn't have the studies done." Wyeth, the lawyer added, consistently downplayed bad results.
Only on Monday, Booster Shots reported that a new study by French researchers examined how clinical trials are being reported in medical journals. They found that even though "The reporting of harm is as important as the reporting of efficacy [...] harm is frequently insufficiently reported." Often hard data is not being provided in the publications, and when it is, it is often distorted.
It is interesting that in the editorial to this study, Dr. John Ioannidis of the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, attributed some of the under-reporting to companies intent on "silencing the evidence." He singled out Merck's (MRK) Vioxx -- the painkiller that doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke, and Pfizer's Neurontin -- an epilepsy drug that the FDA linked to an 80 percent increase in suicidal thoughts and behavior. "In these cases," Dr. Ioannidis wrote, "marketing needs prevail over scientific accuracy and clinical prudence."
During its court case, Wyeth, told jurors that women are now fully informed of the risks and benefits of Prempro. Further, in arguing against the punitive damages, a lawyer, on behalf of Wyeth, said the drug maker changed its practices and policies such as letting its consultants ghostwrite medical journal articles, promoting off-label drug use and giving gifts to doctors. Attempts to reach the company were not immediately answered.
Sales of the drug have plummeted since 2002 when a large federal health study, the Women's Health Initiative, linked the therapy to breast cancer and cardiovascular risks. The study was stopped as a result. Another study this year also showed that lung cancer seems more likely to prove fatal in women who are taking the combination drug.
Berezofsky claims that 200,000 women who got breast cancer could have avoided it had they not taken Prempro. However, Prempro and the combination hormones remain on the market. More than six million women have taken hormone-replacement medicines to treat menopause symptoms such as hot flashes, night sweats, and mood swings.
So far, Wyeth has lost five of eight trials regarding this matter since 2006. All cases are on appeal. In cases in Arkansas and Nevada, some damages were set aside or reduced.
-
JWoods
JWoods, I just read the Wiki entry on Unsafe at any Speed. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and isn't even about the Corvair.
Beks, if the Wiki thing is perfectly reasonable, and it isn't even about the Corvair, then this was not the Nader book I read and did the paper on in 1966. In answer to the person asking about the gas tank, no - that was never the Corvair issue. Almost all mid and rear engine cars have a front gas tank, and there has never been a statistical problem for them being much more likely to catch fire than a rear gas tank. The famous car on fire case that you are probably thinking about was the Pinto, front engine/rear gas tank Ford compact. It had such a weak rear structure that even a minor rear end crash (common enough in city traffic) could cause the filler pipe to pierce the tank and set them on fire. In answer to the person asking about the Porsche, yes...this car will go into oversteer when pressed beyond it's (uncommenly high) cornering limits. The tendency has been much reduced over the years of development. I have driven a Porsche 911 as my daily driver since 1969 and have never had occasion to spin one except in practice spins on an abandoned parking lot from time to time. The 911 is an iconic classic, and very safe for its class, a high performance sports car. The conventional front engine Corvette has a far higher death/accident rate - not from design, mind you - but because of the people that drive them. The danger with people like Nader is that he sees absolutely nothing wrong with limiting people's free choice through social(ized) engineering. If he had thought about it more, he probably would have tried to eliminate the Porsche and the VW beetle from the market like he did the Corvair. Did you know that Nader once attempted an unsuccessful campaign to eliminate ALL private aviation in the United States? - ALL PRIVATE PLANES!!! The implications are obvious - now that this baseball case is out there, some so-gooder is almost certainly going to try to eliminate aluminum bats. And the sad truth remains - this boy could very well have been killed by a ball from a wooden bat just as well. It really strains the imagination that he absolutely could not have dodged the aluminum bat flyer, but certainly would have been able to dodge a hardball from a wooden bat. Maybe we should just be really safe and eliminate organized baseball for kids and have it over. Mr. Nader, your next windmill is ready to tilt.
-
beksbks
The famous car on fire case that you are probably thinking about was the Pinto
The Pinto! I kept thinking Vega. There was a Vega, right?
Well Woods, there was one chapter on the Corvair, but apparently the book was focused on the unwillingness of manufacturers to address safety issues in general. The Corvair was one example of a particular issue. I've heard of the book and the whole Corvair controversy, but I'm only familiar with it to the extent of the Wiki article.
I can't find anthing saying he wanted to ban private planes, can you direct me?
-
JWoods
I can't find anthing saying he wanted to ban private planes, can you direct me?
It would take a while to find a link - this was back in the 70s or 80s. I know about it by reading it in Flying magazine, also saw it on TV. I seem to remember it was before I owned Citabria 5190X which was from about 1982 to 1987. But, yes - it was the real deal. It had the aircraft liability insurance industry so paranoid that it almost destroyed the U.S. manufacture of small private planes (Cessna, Beechraft, etc.) for over a decade.
I got my private ticket in 1968, BTW, at the age of 19. I guess that Mr. Nader and myself are somehow cosmic polar opposites, wouldn't you say?
-
sammielee24
Nader isn't the evil doer...is this the excerpt you are looking for in reference to private planes? Trying to make people aware that private plane owners/companies were able to use taxpayer dollars to operate their planes? sammieswife.
Nurturing the Consumer Side Economy - The Nader Page...
The Crusades Against Corporate Welfare
One special calling of the consumer movement has been to hold up the cherished myths of the free enterprise tradition to the stark light of empirical fact. Are the captains of business indeed the rugged individualists whose brash risk-taking and creativity have made them millions? Or do they tower over Ronald Reagan's mythical "welfare queen" in shamelessly bilking taxpayers? In a great many industries, the latter description is the more accurate portrayal. As Nader put it, "Ours is a system of corporate socialism, where companies capitalize their profits and socialize their losses....In effect, they tax you for their accidents, bunglings, boondoggles and mismanagement just like a government. We should be able to dis-elect them."
That government resources are used to reduce the costs and risks of private investment is no revelation, of course. But the actual dimensions of corporate welfare are often cloaked in obscure terminologies and technical arguments, thus preempting any public outcry. How many people realize, for example, that the "Accelerated Cost Recovery System" in the Reagan 1982 tax bill simply meant that corporations would be able to deduct more than a dollar for each dollar they spent on new equipment? Or that the "Hazardous Response Trust Fund" means that the government will contribute a large portion of the money needed to help the chemical industry clean up its mess? How many people realize that the owners of private airplanes received a government subsidy of $700 million in 1982 for the free use of air traffic control, communications and other airport assistance?
The idea that average consumers and taxpayers might object in meaningful ways to particular instances of corporate welfare was largely a theoretical possibility until Nader arrived on the scene. In 1973, Nader took the unusual tack of identifying himself as a "consumer of milk" and suing the Nixon administration in an attempt to roll back its unwarranted $500-700 billion increase in price supports to the milk industry. Nader argued that the milk industry's $422,500 in contributions to Nixon's 1972 presidential campaign had essentially been a payoff for the price support increases of the preceding year. -
BurnTheShips
I agree with Nader in that we need to eliminate corporate welfare.
However, I would like to ask a serious question based on what you bolded:
How many people realize that the owners of private airplanes received a government subsidy of $700 million in 1982 for the free use of air traffic control, communications and other airport assistance?
For good or ill, our entire transportation infrastructure is generally funded and maintained by government at various levels. I think your bolded statement is misleading. It is the airports that are getting federal funding, not the aircraft. How is the government funding for our aviation infrastructure any different than it's funding of our road infrastructure? Both are part of our transportation infrastructure. And both are used by private individuals, be it private aviation or commercial aviation, private automobiles or commercial ones. Let me rephrase the quote to illustrate:
How many people realize that the owners of private vehicles received a government subsidy of $X billion in 1982 for the free use of vehicular traffic control, communications and other road assistance?
BTS
-
JWoods
No, that is not it. But here is the deal: Nader wanted to eliminate ALL private planes, not just the big corporate jets. He hated them all, maybe especially the jets, but in fact all of them. The small planes, like I used to have, were targeted as a public safety menace. I am asking in an aviation section of another board if somebody has a link to this ancient history. I remember it well because I was an owner back then.
AOPA had to wage about a 5 to 10 year war to fend this off. It (and of course agressive product liability lawsuits) still nearly ruined the small AC business in the U.S. during the very time that Carter was fighting a bad recession.
-
sammielee24
My father had a Corvair, one of the later ones - I just asked him about the issues. Apparently, the early Corvairs had a problem with the rear tie-down system which could cause the car to severely mishandle, causing damage to property and person. It took 2 years for them to get around to admitting there was a problem and fixing it but the fix was crappy. They finally got the car running great but by then the damage was done to the line and they had to scrap it. My father liked his and felt they were a good road car - by the end production. sammieswife.
-
JWoods
The NTSB found that the 60-63 Corvair was "no more dangerous than any of it's contemporaries". The oversteer only could occur under extreme conditions which would likely wreck any other car too. What your dad may be thinking of was that the 1964 had a compensator spring added under the swing axles. It was not crappy (this had been sold as an aftermarket performance part for the early cars and used in sports car racing.) It was just not as good as the later 1965 full IRS, but was doable at the time before the next redesign.
The 1965 to 1969 cars had four UV joints in the rear axles, making them essentially like a Corvette or Jaguar XKE rear suspension system. They would still oversteer, (my 1967 sure would) but the new system increased the limits somewhat. It might be of interest to know that from first principles, this was a superior rear suspension system to the trailing arm system on a 1965 Porsche 911 - which itself was a redesign of the earlier 356 model that was just like a 60-63 Corvair.
The Nader book was released in 1965 and he would not admit that the 1965 car had already been redesigned to actually be a superior handler than any contemporary 4 seat american car. Agenda to do, ya know? He went ahead and attacked the 1965-up suspension system on a second (and totally bogus) line of reasoning that somehow the U-joints could cause a drive torque resonance even on the non-swing axle cars and still they were dangerous. It was a flight of engineering madness, but this got printed anyway and had its day in the public view.
Now, let me make a point on the thread as a whole: Is it not obvious and interesting that people who adamantly and often post on the left have come here upholding the judgement against the bat company as good social jurisdiction? They support Nader even if he wants to interfere with the public free choice of product in the name of consumerism.
Is it not equally obvious that people like myself who usually or almost always post conservative views, have come here denouncing the judgement as excessive and an example of the need for a cleanup of the tort system? They, like myself, have posted against Naderism in general. (just as the American public have voted at least 4 times in the presidential election against his tirades).
And yet, for some strange reason, the liberals deny that resistance to tort reform is part of their agenda. This I cannot understand, unless, of course, they wish to hide it for some strange reason.
