Re: Gout from Lipitor damage? NAPROXEN increases heart attack risk. BEWARE

From: Don Kirkman (donkirk_at_covad.net)
Date: 12/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 00:43:19 -0800

It seems to me I heard somewhere that zwalanga wrote in article
<1104012962.659790.43240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that zwalanga wrote in article
>> <1103946428.336622.50320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

>> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
>> >> <mANyd.281110$HA.94857@attbi_s01>:

>> [...]

>> >> >Thus the synonymous "cardiovascular event" , "myocardial
>> >infarction", and
>> >> >the common vernacular "heart attack"

>> >> The definition of "heart attack" and its cognates is not at issue;
>> >you
>> >> said the FDA *warned* of additional risk of heart attack. Where
>is
>> >that
>> >> warning to be found?

>> >This warning, couched as carefully as it has been, will most
>certainly
>> >have been done to give away as little as possible,while still
>meeting
>> >requisites for legal disclaimer should some unfortunate soul(s)
>ever
>> >decide Naproxen damage constitutes a class action. But having played
>> >big game law, you knew that, didn't you Don.

>> Couched so carefully it can't be found, Zee. A suggestion is not a
>> warning, either in law or in common sense. And don't misinterpret
>what
>> I wrote early as my having "played big game law;" I specifically said
>I
>> am not a lawyer though I worked with and among lawyers and other
>justice
>> system folks for most of my career.

>I did not misinterpret what you did Don. ~Heh~ I know the difference.

<G>

>I also know, and you know too, that this statement would be presented
>as having been warning in a law suit undertaken on behalf of one
>injured by naproxen. And it would be presented as such by the
>defendents.

>This advisory is a warning. Legally. And that is just why it was done.
>So that in the event of law suits, pharma can say it warned. And then
>legally, the burden bounces back to the injured. Whether or not a case
>could be won or lost on this alone is moot.

>This is warning. This is legal.

Can you give me a case citation or a reference to legislation equating
advise with warning? What legislature or what court deemed an advisory
to be a warning?

>Split hairs all you like. Pharma warned. They're clear from here on for
>anyone taking that medication NOW.
>Sharon had it right.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm parsing English statements. 

-- 
Don
donkirk@covad.net

Relevant Pages