by Arjun Walia.http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/03/29/supreme-court-legislation-exempts-pharmaceutical-companies-from-disclosing-risks-associated-with-products/
“The
learned intermediary doctrine is itself an exception to the manufacturer’s
traditional duty to warn consumers directly of the risks associated with any product.” (source)
It’s
called the “learned intermediary doctrine,” and it’s important to drug
manufactures because it allows them to avoid warning consumers directly
about their products when it comes to the risks associated with their use.
Instead, these warnings are (supposedly) given to the physician, who lends
their trust over to the corporation in the hopes that they are disclosing all
information, who in turn is then responsible (the doctor) for relaying these
risks to their patient. It takes all responsibility and liability (regarding
risks associated with pharmaceutical products like vaccines and prescription
drugs) away from the drug manufacturer, and places it solely on the physician.
“Thus,
prescription drug manufacturers’ duty to warn consumers flows through the
patients’ prescribing physicians, not directly to consumers.” (source)
This
is a scary thought, given the fact that the education doctors receive regarding
all medicines comes directly from the drug manufactures themselves. Most of the
time, doctors are educated on how the drug works to heal the patient and what
biological processes take place with regards to the disease. In their own
practices, some doctors accept the drugs without ever questioning their
validity, giving complete trust over to the the pharmaceutical companies. Many
doctors often assume that these drugs have passed through government safety
checks by, for example, the Food and Drug Administration. It is still not
properly acknowledged that pharmaceutical companies have a hand in dictating
governmental policy, or that there are monetary incentives offered for
dishonesty, especially when it comes to the health industry.
This
is not just conspiracy theory, there are countless examples that clearly show
why we cannot trust pharmaceutical companies to properly relay information
regarding the risks associated with their products to doctors or to people who
use their products and don’t require a doctor’s visit. I am talking about
scientific fraud.
“It
is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is
published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative
medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached
slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England
Journal of Medicine” (considered to be one of the most prestigious
peer-reviewed medical journals in the world). – Dr Marcia Angell, Physician, Author, Former Editor in Chief
of the NEJM (source)
Documents
obtained by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in
the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of
British Columbia,ddd reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical
companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated
with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific
fraud, and suggests that this practice continues today. (source)
This
is no secret. The list literally goes on and on, with many examples to
choose from. And again, the law states that relaying the risks associated with
these drugs are the doctors’ responsibility.
“For
prescription drug manufacturers, the rationale behind the doctrine is based
largely on the fact that prescription drugs’ actions are complex and the
prescribing physician is the one best able to determine the drug’s potential
benefits and risks for a particular patient.” Humble Sand & Gravel,
Inc. v. Gomez, 146 S.W.3d 170, 191 (Tex. 2004) (stating that the doctrine is
based on the idea “that it is better for the patient for the warning to come
from his or her physician”); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab.
§ 6(d)(1) cmt. b (1998) (“The rationale supporting this ‘learned intermediary’
rule is that only health-care professionals are in a position to understand the
significance of the risks involved and to assess the relative advantages and
disadvantages of a given form of prescription-based therapy.’)” (source)
There
are also exceptions to this law, where pharmaceutical companies provide health
products directly to the consumer. In this case, they do not have to go through
a physician. Examples include contraceptive pills, vaccines, and more.
“Modern
realities have rendered the learned intermediary doctrine obsolete because its
application allows pharmaceutical manufacturers to escape their traditional
duty to warn at the expense of consumer health and well-being.” (source)
One
example is the polio vaccine, where a (1968) court held that manufacturers of
the polio vaccine had an obligation to warn patients directly of the fatal
risks that are associated with vaccination. This is a great example where there
was little to no physician supervision (still common today) when it comes
to mass immunization clinics. In this case, the learned intermediary doctrine
was inapplicable to drugs being directly marketed to consumers. Reasons
include:
- Informed consent requires a patient-based decision rather than the paternalistic approach of a bygone era
- Many of the drugs marketed directly to consumers are lifestyle drugs that are not medically necessary, so it is not the physician weighing the risks and benefits but rather the patients
- Drug manufacturers are already spending billions on advertising to consumers, so it is clear that they have effective means of communicating with consumers.
Why Are Pharmaceutical Companies Above The Law? Why Are They
Constantly Exempt From Any Wrongdoing?
What
we are looking at here are measures put in place that completely protect
pharmaceutical companies. Another great example is The National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act.
The mid-1970’s
saw an increased focus on personal health, and accordingly, more people became
concerned about vaccine safety. Several lawsuits were filed against vaccine
manufacturers and healthcare providers by people who believed they had been
injured by vaccines, and the evidence presented in court was good enough to
win.
As
a result, this act was developed to protect any pharmaceutical company, doctor,
or medical association from any “fault.” It’s not about pointing fingers, many
people really do believe that every vaccine is fine to inject into somebody.
Instead of suing the vaccine manufacturer directly, parents have to
undergo complex legal proceedings, asking the government to admit that
the vaccine was responsible for their child’s injury and asking for
compensation for the child’s care.
Do Vaccines Cause Autism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg
Pharmaceutical
companies are exempt from participating in these proceedings, and tax payers
are the ones who pay for all the vaccine-related damages, of which there have
been many. Below is a great video explaining the process in detail. You can
learn more about that here.
Again,
ask yourself – why are so many laws, mandates, and programs put in place to
completely protect pharmaceutical companies from any wrongdoing whatsoever?
Think about that for a moment.
Sources:
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BSEM-2011.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment