"Can The Court Force Treatment on Jared Loughner?" ››
"After You Shoot Three Women, Who Should You Call?" ››
"NY v Junco: Sex, Civil, Hygiene, and Mental, All In One Post" ››
"What US v. Comstock Means To You" ››
Then I opened my mail.
"More On Amygdala, Anxiety, and MRIs" ››
"Written Authority For Standard Of Care" ››
"Violence Intervention Program" ››
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"When Lilly Pays Out $800M, Where Does That Money Go?" ››
"MMR Vaccine Finally Cleared Of Assault" ››
"Judges Accused Of Supporting Social Change As Per Script" ››
"The Chart Is Dead, Long Live The Chart" ››
"Man Convicted Either For Child Porn Or Nothing" ››
"The Supreme Court Hears Arguments That Warning Labels Should Include Things Done Correctly" ››
Making the internet rounds is a post written by Debbie Nathan, (Pornography: A Groundwork Guide and Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt) on what the government is going to do when computer generated child porn becomes indistinguishable from actual photos.
Other than freak out.
"When CGI Porn Looks Real: Is Anyone Thinking About The Children?" ››
The $253M Vioxx verdict against Merck is overturned.
(It was actually only a reduced $26M verdict, but since the media didn't highlight that fact when Merck lost, I'm following in kind.)
Meanwhile, A New Jersey court removed a $9M punitive damages award in another case, and upheld another Merck verdict in another case.
The court found no evidence that Vioxx caused a fatal cardiac embolus, because-- surprise-- there isn't any evidence. At best we have an association, not causation, and it may be that the Vioxx itself has nothing at all to do with death. (Though I realize that the law accepts association as evidence.)
The score is now Merck 11, plaintiff's attorneys 3.
Question: well, what are they supposed to do when there's some evidence that a drug poses a health risk? Ignore it?
Answer: who is they? There isn't supposed to be a they at all. (There it is again, the steady creep of social democracy, sister of narcissism.) There's a chemical, it exists, doctors are supposed to know when to use it appropriately. Not to mention it may later be discovered to have additional value (aspirin, thorazine, thalidomide, etc.)
When you create a body to decide for doctors whether a drug is worth the risk, then you are saying you do not trust doctors to make this assessment. Therefore, you do not need doctors at all, you need flowcharts.
Unfortunately, I'll admit, they might be right.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
A post sure to offend everyone, conservatives and liberals, parents and pedophiles.
"Elizabeth Smart: Hey, You Brought It Up" ››
You probably think this is an example of the new FDA, the new anti-Pharma FDA, more attentive to public health, getting their act and their data together for the benefit of Americans.
"FDA Discovers That Anticonvulsants Cause Suicide, Too" ››
And then we all have a big problem.
"You Can Have Your License Revoked For That?" ››
- Does depression in kids raise their risk of violence?
- If a kid is violent, is it more or less likely they are depressed?
- If someone is depressed and violent, is it likely they are a kid?
- Can you define any of the nouns in the preceding questions?
"Deus Ex Homonymia" ››
For more articles check out the Archives Web page ››