Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Add to FDA regulations.This is against the constitution, 9th and 10th of the Bill of Rights.Important

[Guest guest]

Origin1 MedicalConspiracies@googlegroual sender's name: Dr. Betty

Martini,D.Hum.

Original sender's address: bettym19

 

>This needs to be overturned. You cannot take

>away the rights of the people and the rights of

>the statse. Big Pharma is trying to rid itself of

>all the liability of putting poisons on the market like aspartame.

>

>Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder

>Mission Possible International

>9270 River Club Parkway

>Duluth, Georgia 30097

>770 242-2599

>www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com and www.wnho.net

>Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

>

>Newswire.

>

>

>Supreme Court rules States cannot add to FDA regulatons

>

>July 27, 2008

>

>Dallas, Texas (WiredPRNews.com) America is facing

>a tough call deciding who should hold the final

>say when it comes to the accountability of

>pharmaceutical and drug companies. Thus far, the

>Supreme Court has ruled in favor of pre-emption

>(i.e. that federal regulations automatically

>overrule state laws). The Supreme Court case of

>Wyeth vs. Levine may potentially create a

>precedent for all future related drug-company

>liability cases (by placing the FDA above state courts).

>

>The case involves a musician from Vermont, Diana

>Levine, who lost her arm to gangrene caused by an

>anti-nausea drug. The drug was injected by means

>of a method that was not specified in the label

>(called the IV-push method). After settling with

>her health care provider, she sued Wyeth (the

>drug company) and was awarded $6.7 million by a

>Vermont jury. On appeal, The Vermont Supreme

>court upheld the ruling and found that the drug

>company could have been held accountable

>according to state standards and additional

>labels validating the risks involved with the

>IV-push method could have been added (without interfering with the FDA).

>

>Wyeth’s lawyers argued that different states

>could not hold drug companies to different

>standards. In addition, the drug company argued

>that the FDA’s required label was not to be

>considered a minimum requirement/standard but the

>best, most effective and most informative. The

>final and most effective argument was that the

>State of Vermont could not rule to prohibit the

>administration of the drug via the IV-push

>method, as that would interfere with the FDA.

>

>The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Wyeth

>based on preemption and thus further increasing

>the power of the federal government (as has been

>the trend since the beginning of the 20th

>century). The ruling in this case could set a

>precedence that may shield tobacco and drug

>companies from liability lawsuits and any state

>regulation (as such responsibility is explicitly

>within domain of the federal government not the state).

>

>Legal News Desk

>

>newsdesk · Filed Under <http://www.wiredprnews.com/category/law>Law

>

>Sunday, July 27, 2008

>

>

>«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»

>

>§ - PULSE ON 21st CENTURY ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE! §

>

>

>Subscribe:......... -

>

>«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»

07-28