Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • This ruling was bought and paid for by Pfizer. Guarantee it.
  • Commercial speech is not exactly the same as personal expression, I expect a SCOTUS smackdown in the coming months.
  • 3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
     

    Ah the good old days....
  • All the time I was on a drug (Neurontin) which was not approved for use as an MS drug, but was recommended as such pretty widely, was time my nervous system was getting shot to shiat because instead of taking drugs that had been tested for good efficacy, I was taking the advice of my doctor, who was taking the advice of a drug rep. =/ Fark those lying sons of biatches with rusty spoons... when you're poor and scratching together a third of your pay to afford drugs, mistakes like these are bad... but when they cause you to miss time when irreversible damage is needlessly done because you're on the wrong drug, it totally blows donkey balls.
  • Seems pretty strong evidence that the court was purchased... not exactly a surprise, but it sucks when they don't even try to hide it anymore... I fully expect at some point in the near future, the "judge" will request his payments from the representing counsel and whoever provides the highest check will get the winning judgement.

    www.salem-news.comView Full Size
  • firefly212: All the time I was on a drug (Neurontin) which was not approved for use as an MS drug, but was recommended as such pretty widely, was time my nervous system was getting shot to shiat because instead of taking drugs that had been tested for good efficacy, I was taking the advice of my doctor, who was taking the advice of a drug rep. =/ Fark those lying sons of biatches with rusty spoons... when you're poor and scratching together a third of your pay to afford drugs, mistakes like these are bad... but when they cause you to miss time when irreversible damage is needlessly done because you're on the wrong drug, it totally blows donkey balls.


    "Goorrram balls."
  • Whoo-Hoo! Time to break out the piss and ink and warm up the vats! Phil's Miracle Hair Tonic is back in business!
  • tricycleracer: fuk yea free makret


    Is that anything like a Meerkat?
  • Fart_Machine: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 360x600] 

    Ah the good old days....


    If the ATF is monitoring the 50% ethanol claim, I'm down to buy a case. It would be a hit at parties.

    /Is it laudanum? I hope it's laudanum.
  • "The government clearly prosecuted Caronia for his words - for his speech," the majority wrote in the 2-to-1 decision. It concluded that "the government cannot prosecute pharmaceutical manufacturers and their representatives" under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for speech promoting off-label drug uses.

    "Off-label" usage is not the same thing as making up uses for a drug out of whole cloth and claiming your snake oil will cure brain tumors and retardation. I've been using off-label meds for years, since the process for approving psychotropic medications is very slow--as it should be. I certainly wouldn't want pharmaceutical companies to ban off-label usage completely; but I don't want to see their reps allowed to run around claiming whatever they want to, either.

    It sounds like either this was a paid-for decision...or, just as likely, some judges didn't bother to understand what "off-label" really meant before they ruled. Either way, it better get overturned.
  • My father is taking some drug for back pain, but its only approved use is for something else. The company that made it marketed it for a laundry list of uses, and got sued for 8 figures.over the practice.

    However, it is still prescribed all the time for those uses so the company easily recouped the money paid out.

    /I thought I was contributing originally, but I think that qualifies for True Story Bro instead.
  • super_grass: Commercial speech is not exactly the same as personal expression, I expect a SCOTUS smackdown in the coming months.


    Yup. Farking with meds can create (in the light of the recent meningitis scare) panic in the public, distrust in their physicians and is one of the worst ideas this century. This is the free-speech equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
  • Spiffy? That's farking scary!
  • Well, perhaps it can.Just like Fosters is Australian for beer, because texas and georgia are clearly down under
  • HindiDiscoMonster: tricycleracer: fuk yea free makret

    Is that anything like a Meerkat?


    Related. Different genus.
  • Alt-med peddlers are likely celebrating the decision.
  • super_grass: Commercial speech is not exactly the same as personal expression, I expect a SCOTUS smackdown in the coming months.


    I wouldn't be too sure. Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.

    "the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment"
  • Nowhere in the article does it say where this cancer-curing hand sanitizer may be purchased. It sounds convenient to keep in the glove box, in case I ever get cancer on the road, or just want to clean my hands and yet remain cancer free.
  • Meh, caveat emptor.

    /why do we have the FDA anyway? It's restraint of trade.
    //I don't need nanny government to run drug trials I can damn well perform myself.
  • Gyrfalcon: "The government clearly prosecuted Caronia for his words - for his speech," the majority wrote in the 2-to-1 decision. It concluded that "the government cannot prosecute pharmaceutical manufacturers and their representatives" under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for speech promoting off-label drug uses.

    "Off-label" usage is not the same thing as making up uses for a drug out of whole cloth and claiming your snake oil will cure brain tumors and retardation. I've been using off-label meds for years, since the process for approving psychotropic medications is very slow--as it should be. I certainly wouldn't want pharmaceutical companies to ban off-label usage completely; but I don't want to see their reps allowed to run around claiming whatever they want to, either.

    It sounds like either this was a paid-for decision...or, just as likely, some judges didn't bother to understand what "off-label" really meant before they ruled. Either way, it better get overturned.


    But "off-label" literally means "indications not validated by the FDA" - not "clinically proven indications not validated by the FDA". And there was no such clause attached to this ruling.

    A doctor is allowed to prescribe medications for any purpose they deem valid. Because our medical licensing is pretty strict about doctors providing science-based care, that opening has generally meant the latter. But this opens the door to more bad information interfering with their practice.
  • AliceBToklasLives: Meh, caveat emptor.

    /why do we have the FDA anyway? It's restraint of trade.
    //I don't need nanny government to run drug trials I can damn well perform myself.


    Because neither you nor I (a trained toxicologist with a higher education) nor anyone else is able to tell exactly what is in that medicinal bottle (or pill or whatever) you're being sold without equipment that cost hundreds of thousand of dollars to purchase and years of training to operate and analyze.
  • This ruling opens the door to endless squabbles over what "truthful" speech about off-label uses is. Italy has approved the drug in this case (Xyrem) for uses that the FDA has not approved. It'll be a clusterfark.

    OTOH, the more uses for a drug, the lower its price. Xyrem has a very small approved market, so it costs $3500 to $7000 per month.
  • Load 25 of 64 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.