Initially, we'd invite anybody who doesn't think that plaintiffs in product liability litigation aren't asking state courts to ignore FDA decisions to read the statements of fact in either of these briefs. The causation claims plaintiffs advance in these cases have been rejected by the FDA time and time again.
Ditto for the concept of "overwarning." The proposition that too many warnings can have detrimental health effects by deterring the use of beneficial drugs isn't something made up by the Bush administration. The SSRI record detailed in these briefs indicates FDA concern about overwarning back in 1991. Moreover, as we've already noted, there's solid epidemiological evidence (only the largest increase in history in pediatric suicide rates coming hard on the heels of the addition of a pediatric suicide warning) indicating that the FDA's concern about overwarning is 100% legitimate - certainly where SSRIs are concerned.
Preemption and SSRI/suicide suits
- Update on California foreign policy efforts
- Greg Conko: Can brand makers be sued for generic drug injuries?
- Romney and self-deporting
- Greg Conko discusses the FDA's ban on off-label promotion
- Another lawless jackpot award over propofol in Nevada
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Rehearing sought in Mensing
- Around the web, June 5
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- Martin Act abuses
- "Abnormal Use" interview
- Lasker on preemption
- Around the web, March 28
- Teva and Baxter appeal $505 million Nevada propofol verdict
- Breaking: unanimous vote against preemption in Williamson v. Mazda