NYT on FDA (I hope Obama kicks Anthony Fauci's butt to Saturn) (081107)

[Mort Zuckerman]

To: emcsw...@nasw.org, zerh...@od.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com,
for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com, nati...@nytimes.com,
dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net, tr...@hotmail.com,
illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com, tinaj...@yahoo.com,
jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, FalN...@aol.com,
brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us,
freet...@charter.net, scott....@po.state.ct.us,
govern...@po.state.ct.us, attorney...@po.state.ct.us,
randall...@usdoj.gov, robert....@yale.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org

Subject: NYT FDA Failures and Bush's Criminal Regime

Date: Nov 7, 2008 1:59 AM

[NYT ARTICLE BELOW]

This is not to mention the tremendous effort we very sick people
had to put into organizing and reporting all the adverse events to
LYMErix that were not reported by Yale and SmithKline deliberately,
and the fact that the FDA never did its job, or it would have found
that the testing used to qualify LYMErix was fraudulent:
http://www.actionlyme.org/DICKSON_FDA_SUBMISSION_FULL.htm

I know for sure because I worked in that division at Pfizer.

McSweegan was there at the FDA meeting, in the back of the Versailles
room. He was so furious at the end of it all, he looked like he
had one eyebrow:
http://www.actionlyme.org/McSweegan.htm

Here is McSweegan's comment about my scientific analysis of the
bogus testing for Lyme and how it falsely qualified LYMErix for
the FDA:
http://www.actionlyme.org/McSweegan_Stalking_Feb_2001_38a561b9b28962b5.htm

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3680s2_11.pdf


Secondly, when I confronted the FDA about it, they referred me to
their disclaimer page, which shows that the FDA does not actually
have to look at the data generated by Methods Validations departments
such as mine:
http://www.actionlyme.org/FDA_DISCLAIMS_JOB_RESPONSIBILITY.htm

Thirdly, because the FDA, Customs, Tommy Thompson (Sec of DHHS), and
USDOJ did not do their jobs prosecuting this as a crime, the CT
Attorney
General sued the Yale Lyme crooks under CT AntiTrust law.

The Times fourthly neglects to mention that the FDA is crooked, and
even
more crooked is the CDC.

The Czech Republic and others called the CDC and Yale Lyme crooks
flat
out STUPID LIARS and that they themselves would have to take a new
approach
to RELAPSING FEVER:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CHP3_B.htm

I know the Times does not like to use the example of Lyme Disease
as a crime, because of they're off the charts embarrassed, in addition
to employing one of the CDC criminals, Larry Altman.


Have no fear. The rest of the world is watching this particular crime
and blowing off US intellectual property claims. Consider, the world
of TBDs patents is wide open, since there has been nothing truthful
published about it since 1989.

not that much can be done, since Relapsing Fever and Ehrlichiosis
do the same thing the AIDS vorus does, which is antigenic variation
and Anthony Fauci says - quoting me -

"Unexpectedly, post hoc analyses of the STEP trial also found a trend
toward a greater number of new infections among vaccine recipients
than
among placebo recipients."
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/9/888 -- (NIAID's Anthony
Fauci)

Yeah, we know, Ton'. The same thing happened in the LYMErix Pam3Cys
vaccine
trials and tuberculosis fungal antigen vaccine trials. Too bad the
OspA / gp120
Pam3Cys immune suppression results and the
http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_IMMUNE_SUPPRESSION.htm
truth about chronic Lyme (they are the same thing,
***autovaccination*** via blebbing)
weren't reported by Yale (LYMErix) and Gary Wormser (ImmuLyme) or we
all would
be 10 years ahead of where we are now with all of these chronic deadly
diseases,
like ALS, MS, Lupus, AIDS and cancer...


Look what a moron Fauci is:
http://www.actionlyme.org/The_Fauci_Files.htm

"We've had an effective vaccine, but it's the kind of vaccine that
you have to essentially vaccinate people each year. And from the
standpoint of it's
use, it has not been used as efficiently as it could have been used.
So scientifically,
we had a vaccine and still do have a vaccine, but it's not really well
used."
-- Fauci


Anthony Fauci does not even talk right. He does not
even talk like he knows what he's talking about at all.
The vaccine was taken off the market by then, exactly
because it WASN'T scientifically validated. It seems
as though someone told Fauci what to say, there, on the
Lou Dobbs show. Talk about self-ass-biting. If that
asshole Fauci had believed us, he would not have even started
so many of is own HIV vaccine trials and wasted 5 more
years.


I hope Obama kicks Fauci's butt to Saturn.


In a nutshell, the New York Times staff put themselves at risk for
not throwing a fit - like we did - over LYMErix. There might have
been more legal protections for us all, had any "government"
entity and the MSM done their jobs, here, and told the truth about
"Lyme Disease."



Duh.

It never EVER pays to lie.

EVER!


Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.relapsingfever.org


================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07fri1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

November 7, 2008
Editorial
The Court Confronts a Grievous Injury

For years, the Bush administration has worked with industry to try to
water down
the public’s protections by preventing states from enforcing rules and
regulations
tougher than those required by the federal government.

It has tried to apply this policy of pre-emption to rules issued by a
slew of federal
agencies and is now asking the Supreme Court to approve its improper
ideological
stand when it comes to drug safety.

On Monday, the court heard arguments in the case of a Vermont musician
who lost
her arm after being injected with an anti-nausea drug. There is no
doubt that Diana
Levine was badly injured by a drug made by Wyeth. The only question is
whether the
Supreme Court will uphold her right to sue the company over its
failure to adequately
warn of a drug’s dangers. Or will it buy the arguments of the industry
and the Bush
administration that companies like Wyeth should be protected from such
lawsuits
in state courts if the products that caused the injury met federal
regulatory standards?

The administration wants approval by the Food and Drug Administration
to be the
final word in these cases, not state laws like Vermont’s that often
require the
manufacturer to meet a higher standard in warning doctors and patients
about potential
dangers. The court should rule in favor of Ms. Levine.

Ms. Levine went to a clinic seeking relief for a migraine headache.
She received
Demerol for her headache and Wyeth’s Phenergan to combat nausea, both
administered
by injections into the muscle, which is the preferred route of
administration. When
the headaches persisted, she returned for more treatment.

This time, the same medicines were administered by an intravenous
“push” technique
that is known to be risky — using a needle inserted into a vein. A
physician’s assistant
mistakenly hit an artery, with catastrophic results. Ms. Levine
quickly developed
gangrene; her hand and lower arm had to be amputated. She sued the
physician’s assistant,
the supervising physician and the clinic for malpractice and won an
out-of-court
settlement, as well she should have.

Then she sued Wyeth for failing to warn the clinicians to use the much
safer “IV
drip” technique, in which the drug is injected into a stream of liquid
flowing from
a hanging bag that already has been safely connected to a vein, making
it highly
unlikely that the drug will reach an artery. A trial court awarded her
$6.7 million,
and the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the verdict. Now Wyeth, supported
by the Bush
administration, has asked the Supreme Court to reverse the verdict on
the grounds
that Wyeth complied with federal regulatory requirements.

We do not buy Wyeth’s argument that it did everything it needed to, or
could have
done, to warn doctors about the dangers involved in the treatment Ms.
Levine received.
Wyeth did warn of some dangers of the drug treatment, in words
approved by the F.D.A.,
but the state court was well within its rights to conclude that those
warnings were
insufficient.

And that is the greater point. When Congress revised the federal law
governing the
F.D.A. in 2007, drug companies wanted, but did not get, a provision
shielding them
from this sort of lawsuit. The drug industry and its administration
allies now want
the court to ignore the absence of express legal language and grant
drug companies
immunity based on a phony assertion that state lawsuits improperly
usurp federal
regulatory authority.

For the court to broadly endorse the concept of “implied pre-emption”
in this case
would show disrespect for the considered decisions of Congress and
could foreclose
injury suits involving not only drugs, but also motor vehicles,
household products
and other things. The ultimate effect would be to undermine consumer
safety.

Far from usurping the F.D.A.’s power, litigation aimed at holding drug
companies
liable for problems like those in this case complement the agency’s
efforts to protect
the public. For many years the F.D.A. welcomed state failure-to-warn
suits as reinforcing
those efforts; two former commissioners, David Kessler and Donald
Kennedy, made
that point in a brief in the case.

Only under President Bush did the agency overrule its top staff
members and try
to pre-empt such suits. We hope this business-friendly Supreme Court
will preserve
the consumer protection that state tort actions often provide.
Otherwise, the incoming
president and Congress will need to pass corrective legislation.

Home

* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region