Guest guest Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Absolutely gutted for you ,know how you feel cos it happened to us a few years ago .having to fight for our children on a daily basis in this postcode lottery is immensely painful.God bless,ninaveronicamadigan wrote: Decision arrived as expected we lost.Our Ed Psyche was much quoted at endorsing the LEA and school which she did indeed do. Our Speech therapist was cited as being in agreement with their Speech therapist, ous barrister was barely mentioned which is understandable seeing as he hardly opened his mouth all day!We gained next to nothing on the statement either, school was trumpeted as being excellent, head cited as a very credible witness, on and on.We have been completely turned over by all involved, undoubtedly one of the worst experiences of my life, was sold down the river by our own side, no other way of putting it, I have it here in black and white!Vicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Absolutely gutted for you ,know how you feel cos it happened to us a few years ago .having to fight for our children on a daily basis in this postcode lottery is immensely painful.God bless,ninaveronicamadigan wrote: Decision arrived as expected we lost.Our Ed Psyche was much quoted at endorsing the LEA and school which she did indeed do. Our Speech therapist was cited as being in agreement with their Speech therapist, ous barrister was barely mentioned which is understandable seeing as he hardly opened his mouth all day!We gained next to nothing on the statement either, school was trumpeted as being excellent, head cited as a very credible witness, on and on.We have been completely turned over by all involved, undoubtedly one of the worst experiences of my life, was sold down the river by our own side, no other way of putting it, I have it here in black and white!Vicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2006 Report Share Posted December 25, 2006 Thanks Everyone for all your messages of support you cannot know how much they meant to me. I haven't been dramatic, the decision reads as a complete humiliation, even down to telling me to get in to school on time, and to continue the schools communication work at home! This was an amazing piece of work by anyone's standards, had I taken it all on myself and had no legal representation or independent witnessess I could never have pulled off this piece of utter destruction. Anyway already working on plan B, but it is going to be darned hard walking into that school in Jan and holding my head up, but I will do it, as we will be employing another Ed Psyche to do a base line assessment and monitor , so we will be fully furnished with indesputible evidence of progress or lack of. Now I need a reccomendation for a very good Ed Psyche, anyone know one? Thanks Vicky xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 The tribunal can't give you instructions surely. It is about your child's entitlement from the lea. You can be as inept and difficult as you choose. Plan B sounds excellent. I remember now who gave me similar advice. It was a very experienced SEN teacher. She also said that unless I co-operated with the school and allowed them to carry out their own programmes I couldn't complain about their failures. It was this which actually stopped me because the school was too awful to allow them their own devices and desires Sally MaddiganV@... wrote: Thanks Everyone for all your messages of support you cannot know how much they meant to me. I haven't been dramatic, the decision reads as a complete humiliation, even down to telling me to get in to school on time, and to continue the schools communication work at home! This was an amazing piece of work by anyone's standards, had I taken it all on myself and had no legal representation or independent witnessess I could never have pulled off this piece of utter destruction. Anyway already working on plan B, but it is going to be darned hard walking into that school in Jan and holding my head up, but I will do it, as we will be employing another Ed Psyche to do a base line assessment and monitor , so we will be fully furnished with indesputible evidence of progress or lack of. Now I need a reccomendation for a very good Ed Psyche, anyone know one? Thanks Vicky xx No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/601 - Release Date: 24/12/2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Try Colin, Jackie or at www.inclusive-solutions.com and tell them (aka 's mum) sent you:o) All the very best to one and all..... & family x Re: Re: We Lost Thanks Everyone for all your messages of support you cannot know how much they meant to me. I haven't been dramatic, the decision reads as a complete humiliation, even down to telling me to get in to school on time, and to continue the schools communication work at home! This was an amazing piece of work by anyone's standards, had I taken it all on myself and had no legal representation or independent witnessess I could never have pulled off this piece of utter destruction. Anyway already working on plan B, but it is going to be darned hard walking into that school in Jan and holding my head up, but I will do it, as we will be employing another Ed Psyche to do a base line assessment and monitor , so we will be fully furnished with indesputible evidence of progress or lack of. Now I need a reccomendation for a very good Ed Psyche, anyone know one? Thanks Vicky xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 I would suggest contacting Alan Willis and discussing the situation with him. Margaret > > Thanks Everyone for all your messages of support you cannot know how much > they meant to me. > I haven't been dramatic, the decision reads as a complete humiliation, even > down to telling me to get in to school on time, and to continue the > schools communication work at home! This was an amazing piece of work by anyone's > standards, had I taken it all on myself and had no legal representation or > independent witnessess I could never have pulled off this piece of utter > destruction. > Anyway already working on plan B, but it is going to be darned hard walking > into that school in Jan and holding my head up, but I will do it, as we will > be employing another Ed Psyche to do a base line assessment and monitor , > so we will be fully furnished with indesputible evidence of progress or lack > of. > Now I need a reccomendation for a very good Ed Psyche, anyone know one? > Thanks > Vicky > xx > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Vicky, Its hard putting your son back to a school which goes against your hard work. Again, I have been there. I have a tribunal decision that states clearly that 'requests us(parents) to deliver our son to school but does not require us to formulate the education' - in other words glorified minibus service nothing else. Yes the best advice is to get as much baseline assessments from SALT and psychologist and PUT PRESSURE ON THE SCHOOL REGARDING HOW THEY SET YOUR SONS TRAGETS, HOW IT MONITORS AND RECORDS PROGRESS AND HOW IT REVIEW TARGETS IN SHORT TERM. At the very least, you know the schools game and if the school fails to deliver - well, GOOD NEWS (poss back to tribunal with evidence) but this is all waste of valuable time. Chin up in january. You are more clever than the school would like. Bridget > > From: MaddiganV@... > Date: 2006/12/25 Mon PM 10:06:45 GMT > Autism Treatment > CC: MaddiganV@... > Subject: Re: Re: We Lost > > Thanks Everyone for all your messages of support you cannot know how much > they meant to me. > I haven't been dramatic, the decision reads as a complete humiliation, even > down to telling me to get in to school on time, and to continue the > schools communication work at home! This was an amazing piece of work by anyone's > standards, had I taken it all on myself and had no legal representation or > independent witnessess I could never have pulled off this piece of utter > destruction. > Anyway already working on plan B, but it is going to be darned hard walking > into that school in Jan and holding my head up, but I will do it, as we will > be employing another Ed Psyche to do a base line assessment and monitor , > so we will be fully furnished with indesputible evidence of progress or lack > of. > Now I need a reccomendation for a very good Ed Psyche, anyone know one? > Thanks > Vicky > xx > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Boy, that sure tells me we need a change in the White House so we can get Supreme Court Justices that care about the people. Lynda At 09:11 AM 3/4/2008, you wrote: >We're done for. This is just what these manufacturer's were hoping >for. More than ever now, Buyer beware! I'm speechless, disgusted and angry. > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/022713.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/022713.html > >Supreme Court Shields Medical Device Manufacturers from Consumer Lawsuits >by Mike > >(NaturalNews) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that medical device >manufacturers cannot be sued for injuries caused by their products >if those products were pre-approved for use by the FDA. > >The court ruled that Riegel, who was injured in 1996 when a >balloon catheter made by Medtronic Inc. burst while being inserted >into one of his coronary arteries during an angioplasty, could not >sue the company for damages. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld a >ruling by a U.S. appeals court and an earlier ruling by a trial >court in New York. > >I discuss the disastrous consequences of this issue in great detail >in a new <http://www.naturalnews.com/podcast.html>podcast (#11). >Click here to listen: ><http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/Inde\ x-Podcasts.html > > > >Hiding behind a legal technicality > > > >Medtronic, which no longer makes the balloon catheter in question, >said that the fault was with the doctor, who used the device >contrary to the operating instructions. The company also said that >the doctor made an error in using that type of product for a patient >in Riegel's condition. But rather than ruling in Medtronic's favor >merely for the one specific instance, the court dismissed the case >entirely, saying that ><http://www.naturalnews.com/federal_law.html>federal law prohibits >suing device manufacturers in state courts if the device was >approved as safe by <http://www.naturalnews.com/the_FDA.html>the >FDA. The decision is expected to have ramifications for a large >number of pending <http://www.naturalnews.com/lawsuits.html>lawsuits >against manufacturers of devices such as breast implants, >defibrillators, artificial heart pumps and valves, drug-coated >stents, spinal cord stimulators, and prosthetic hips and knees. > >Because there is no federal law that allows consumers to sue medical >device manufacturers for damages, state courts have become a common >venue for such suits. > >The legal reasoning behind the court's decision centered on the >wording of the 1976 Medical Device Amendments law. The law, which >set in place an FDA pre-approval process for ><http://www.naturalnews.com/medical_devices.html>medical devices, >explicitly prohibited states from putting in place " any requirement " >that is " different from, or in addition to " FDA requirements. In an >8-1 majority, the court ruled that allowing citizens to sue device >companies in state courts amounts to " a requirement " that undermines >the FDA approval process. > >Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the FDA >may approve devices " that present great risks if they nonetheless >offer great benefits in light of available alternatives. " In other >words, there is no requirement that devices actually achieve any >reasonable level of safety for all patients. To receive FDA approval >and be immunized from lawsuits, medical devices merely have to keep >alive slightly more people than they kill. > >It would be inappropriate to empower juries second-guess these FDA >decisions without full access to data about the benefits of >technologies, Scalia said. This is the Supreme Court's way of saying >that medical device safety is define solely by the FDA, and if the >FDA says something is safe, the fact that such devices actually kill >people does not in any way disprove the device's safety. > >A jury " sees only the cost of a more dangerous design, and is not >concerned with its benefits; the patient who reaped those benefits >are not represented in court, " he wrote. This is a clever way of >saying that products that kill some consumers -- but not all -- are >safe enough to be granted blanket immunity because there are some >survivors. It's a ridiculous position, of course, and it's never >applied to natural remedies. > >Note that if an herb kills even ten people in the entire country, >the FDA immediately leaps to the conclusion that the herb is " unsafe >at any dose. " (Google the history of the FDA's ephedra ban for >details.) But medical devices and pharmaceuticals are held to an >entirely different standard: They must only avoid killing more >people than they kill! The fact that some people survived the >treatment is apparently sufficient to justify all those who died! >This is precisely what Justice Scalia is saying in this decision. > > >A whisper of sanity from Justice Ginsburg > > > >Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with the logic that >the ability to sue companies constitutes an unfair " requirement. " > > " Congress, in my view, did not intend [for the 1976 law] to effect a >radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation >for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical >devices, " she wrote. > >The purpose of the law, according to Ginsburg, was to prevent states >from imposing confusing additional regulatory processes on top of >the new federal standard. Prior to 1976, the absence of a federal >regulatory process for medical devices had spurred many states to >initiate their own. > >Senator Kennedy, one of the sponsors of the 1976 law and head >of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, agreed with >Ginsburg's analysis. " In enacting legislation on medical devices, >Congress never intended that FDA approval would give blanket >immunity to manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by >faulty devices, " Kennedy said. " Congress obviously needs to correct >the court's decision. Otherwise, FDA approval will become a green >light for shoddy practices by manufacturers. " > >The <http://www.naturalnews.com/Supreme_Court.html>Supreme Court >ruling applies only to medical devices pre-approved under the >process set in place by the 1976 law, not to devices grandfathered >in under a separate process, in which the FDA decides that a product >is " substantially equivalent " to one that was already on the market >prior to 1976. In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers >of those devices can indeed be sued by states. > >Devices that undergo the FDA pre-approval process, and thus are >exempted from lawsuits under the current ruling, tend to be more >technologically advanced, expensive and risky than older devices. > >Under the new ruling, device manufacturers that fail to follow FDA >specifications can still be sued in state courts. In addition, >lawsuits or prosecutions can be brought against companies for >violations of state laws that are the same as federal laws, just not >state laws with different requirements. > > >Supreme Court's decision will unleash a wave of shoddy medical >devices that could kill tens of thousands > > > > Zieve, the lawyer who represented Riegel's family, said that >the court's ruling will have a dangerous effect on the quality of >medical devices. Because the threat of lawsuits is a primary >incentive for manufacturers to make sure their products are as safe >as possible, the removal of this threat will lead to more dangerous >devices staying on the market. > > " By minimizing the incentive, the Supreme Court's decision poses a >risk to the safety of medical devices, " she said. > >This is crucial to understand: When medical device manufacturers are >granted blanket immunity that protects them from all lawsuits, they >no longer have any reason to make their products safe. They only >need to seek FDA approval, not genuine product safety, and FDA >approval is a political process, not a scientific one, so achieving >such approval for unsafe medical devices is simply a matter of >paying off the right people, fudging the right scientific studies, >and filling out the paperwork. The FDA grants its approval to deadly >products on a regular basis. (Just look at Vioxx, Rezulin, and all >the other deadly drugs approved by the FDA...) > >Remember: The FDA serves the interests of corporations, not the ><http://www.naturalnews.com/American_people.html>American people. >When it comes down to a question of public safety vs. corporate >profits, the FDA favors the ><http://www.naturalnews.com/corporations.html>corporations in nearly >every case. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court handing medical device >manufacturers blanket immunity, the American public has absolutely >no legal recourse for the harm caused by dangerous medical devices, >even if they are defective! > > > >What's next? Immunity for Big Pharma of course > > > >The Bush administration, which supported Medtronic in the current >case, has announced its intentions to seek similar lawsuit immunity >for <http://www.naturalnews.com/drug_companies.html>drug companies. >This would make it impossible for consumers to sue drug companies >for the harm caused by pharmaceutical side effects, unleashing a new >era of blanket immunity for the very corporations that are now >poisoning the American population with dangerous and deadly >synthetic chemicals. > >Drugs are regulated under a different law than medical devices: the >Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Unlike the 1976 medical device >law, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not explicitly prohibit >alternate state regulations. But according to the Bush >administration, the ban is implicit. > >The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant this immunity to >drug companies on Monday, in the case of Warner-Lambert Co. V. Kent. >(See ><http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-1498.html>http://www.law.cornell.edu/\ supct/cert/0... >) If the drug companies win this case, it will unleash a chemical >holocaust on the American people, where the most dangerous chemicals >imaginable are patented, marketed and sold to unsuspecting >consumers, with absolutely no legal recourse for those harmed or >killed by such products. The American people will find themselves >chemically and financially enslaved to the drug companies, poisoned >by an evil conspiracy of greed between Big Pharma and the FDA while >being stripped of their right to justice thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. > >Listen to my podcast (#11) to learn what happens next: ><http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/Inde\ x-Podcasts.html > >Hint: The coming collapse of ><http://www.naturalnews.com/America.html>America is accelerating, >and the people running this country will not stop until every right >is stripped, every person is drugged, every dollar is stolen and >every wage earner is forever indebted to a system of disease >management that is intentionally designed to prevent health and keep >the population in a state of chronic disease (and mental weakness). > > > >The U.S. Supreme Traitors > > > >That the U.S. Supreme Court would take away the rights of consumers >to sue medical device manufacturers for the harm caused by their >dangerous devices is not even the issue here: It's the fact that the >U.S. Supreme Court is WILLING to take away such consumer rights! It >means the Constitution is deemed irrelevant, and its last-ditch >protectors have now sold out to the corporations. The U.S. Supreme >Court is now operating as a band of traitors who have surrendered >the future of this nation to the corporations. Today, it's with >medical device manufacturers, tomorrow it's with pharmaceuticals, >and in another year, it could be for any product or service that is > " approved " by a government regulator. > >Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced its intent to >enslave the U.S. population and grant total power to the >corporations and the corrupt, centralized regulators (like the FDA >and USDA) influenced by those corporations. > >You've just lost your country, folks. Good luck trying to get it >back. The corruption is now so deep that the U.S. Supreme Court no >longer protects the People. The very concept of " We the People " is >now history. The new message to the People is simple this: Take your >medicine. Don't ask questions. Pay your taxes. Do what you're told, >vote for who you're told, and don't demand any more rights. > >And if you're killed by a medical device, rest in peace with the >knowledge that someone else wasn't. > > >Looking for last minute shopping deals? ><http://us.rd./evt=51734/*http://tools.search./newsearch/cate\ gory.php?category=shopping>Find >them fast with Search. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Boy, that sure tells me we need a change in the White House so we can get Supreme Court Justices that care about the people. Lynda At 09:11 AM 3/4/2008, you wrote: >We're done for. This is just what these manufacturer's were hoping >for. More than ever now, Buyer beware! I'm speechless, disgusted and angry. > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/022713.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/022713.html > >Supreme Court Shields Medical Device Manufacturers from Consumer Lawsuits >by Mike > >(NaturalNews) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that medical device >manufacturers cannot be sued for injuries caused by their products >if those products were pre-approved for use by the FDA. > >The court ruled that Riegel, who was injured in 1996 when a >balloon catheter made by Medtronic Inc. burst while being inserted >into one of his coronary arteries during an angioplasty, could not >sue the company for damages. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld a >ruling by a U.S. appeals court and an earlier ruling by a trial >court in New York. > >I discuss the disastrous consequences of this issue in great detail >in a new <http://www.naturalnews.com/podcast.html>podcast (#11). >Click here to listen: ><http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/Inde\ x-Podcasts.html > > > >Hiding behind a legal technicality > > > >Medtronic, which no longer makes the balloon catheter in question, >said that the fault was with the doctor, who used the device >contrary to the operating instructions. The company also said that >the doctor made an error in using that type of product for a patient >in Riegel's condition. But rather than ruling in Medtronic's favor >merely for the one specific instance, the court dismissed the case >entirely, saying that ><http://www.naturalnews.com/federal_law.html>federal law prohibits >suing device manufacturers in state courts if the device was >approved as safe by <http://www.naturalnews.com/the_FDA.html>the >FDA. The decision is expected to have ramifications for a large >number of pending <http://www.naturalnews.com/lawsuits.html>lawsuits >against manufacturers of devices such as breast implants, >defibrillators, artificial heart pumps and valves, drug-coated >stents, spinal cord stimulators, and prosthetic hips and knees. > >Because there is no federal law that allows consumers to sue medical >device manufacturers for damages, state courts have become a common >venue for such suits. > >The legal reasoning behind the court's decision centered on the >wording of the 1976 Medical Device Amendments law. The law, which >set in place an FDA pre-approval process for ><http://www.naturalnews.com/medical_devices.html>medical devices, >explicitly prohibited states from putting in place " any requirement " >that is " different from, or in addition to " FDA requirements. In an >8-1 majority, the court ruled that allowing citizens to sue device >companies in state courts amounts to " a requirement " that undermines >the FDA approval process. > >Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the FDA >may approve devices " that present great risks if they nonetheless >offer great benefits in light of available alternatives. " In other >words, there is no requirement that devices actually achieve any >reasonable level of safety for all patients. To receive FDA approval >and be immunized from lawsuits, medical devices merely have to keep >alive slightly more people than they kill. > >It would be inappropriate to empower juries second-guess these FDA >decisions without full access to data about the benefits of >technologies, Scalia said. This is the Supreme Court's way of saying >that medical device safety is define solely by the FDA, and if the >FDA says something is safe, the fact that such devices actually kill >people does not in any way disprove the device's safety. > >A jury " sees only the cost of a more dangerous design, and is not >concerned with its benefits; the patient who reaped those benefits >are not represented in court, " he wrote. This is a clever way of >saying that products that kill some consumers -- but not all -- are >safe enough to be granted blanket immunity because there are some >survivors. It's a ridiculous position, of course, and it's never >applied to natural remedies. > >Note that if an herb kills even ten people in the entire country, >the FDA immediately leaps to the conclusion that the herb is " unsafe >at any dose. " (Google the history of the FDA's ephedra ban for >details.) But medical devices and pharmaceuticals are held to an >entirely different standard: They must only avoid killing more >people than they kill! The fact that some people survived the >treatment is apparently sufficient to justify all those who died! >This is precisely what Justice Scalia is saying in this decision. > > >A whisper of sanity from Justice Ginsburg > > > >Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with the logic that >the ability to sue companies constitutes an unfair " requirement. " > > " Congress, in my view, did not intend [for the 1976 law] to effect a >radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation >for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical >devices, " she wrote. > >The purpose of the law, according to Ginsburg, was to prevent states >from imposing confusing additional regulatory processes on top of >the new federal standard. Prior to 1976, the absence of a federal >regulatory process for medical devices had spurred many states to >initiate their own. > >Senator Kennedy, one of the sponsors of the 1976 law and head >of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, agreed with >Ginsburg's analysis. " In enacting legislation on medical devices, >Congress never intended that FDA approval would give blanket >immunity to manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by >faulty devices, " Kennedy said. " Congress obviously needs to correct >the court's decision. Otherwise, FDA approval will become a green >light for shoddy practices by manufacturers. " > >The <http://www.naturalnews.com/Supreme_Court.html>Supreme Court >ruling applies only to medical devices pre-approved under the >process set in place by the 1976 law, not to devices grandfathered >in under a separate process, in which the FDA decides that a product >is " substantially equivalent " to one that was already on the market >prior to 1976. In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers >of those devices can indeed be sued by states. > >Devices that undergo the FDA pre-approval process, and thus are >exempted from lawsuits under the current ruling, tend to be more >technologically advanced, expensive and risky than older devices. > >Under the new ruling, device manufacturers that fail to follow FDA >specifications can still be sued in state courts. In addition, >lawsuits or prosecutions can be brought against companies for >violations of state laws that are the same as federal laws, just not >state laws with different requirements. > > >Supreme Court's decision will unleash a wave of shoddy medical >devices that could kill tens of thousands > > > > Zieve, the lawyer who represented Riegel's family, said that >the court's ruling will have a dangerous effect on the quality of >medical devices. Because the threat of lawsuits is a primary >incentive for manufacturers to make sure their products are as safe >as possible, the removal of this threat will lead to more dangerous >devices staying on the market. > > " By minimizing the incentive, the Supreme Court's decision poses a >risk to the safety of medical devices, " she said. > >This is crucial to understand: When medical device manufacturers are >granted blanket immunity that protects them from all lawsuits, they >no longer have any reason to make their products safe. They only >need to seek FDA approval, not genuine product safety, and FDA >approval is a political process, not a scientific one, so achieving >such approval for unsafe medical devices is simply a matter of >paying off the right people, fudging the right scientific studies, >and filling out the paperwork. The FDA grants its approval to deadly >products on a regular basis. (Just look at Vioxx, Rezulin, and all >the other deadly drugs approved by the FDA...) > >Remember: The FDA serves the interests of corporations, not the ><http://www.naturalnews.com/American_people.html>American people. >When it comes down to a question of public safety vs. corporate >profits, the FDA favors the ><http://www.naturalnews.com/corporations.html>corporations in nearly >every case. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court handing medical device >manufacturers blanket immunity, the American public has absolutely >no legal recourse for the harm caused by dangerous medical devices, >even if they are defective! > > > >What's next? Immunity for Big Pharma of course > > > >The Bush administration, which supported Medtronic in the current >case, has announced its intentions to seek similar lawsuit immunity >for <http://www.naturalnews.com/drug_companies.html>drug companies. >This would make it impossible for consumers to sue drug companies >for the harm caused by pharmaceutical side effects, unleashing a new >era of blanket immunity for the very corporations that are now >poisoning the American population with dangerous and deadly >synthetic chemicals. > >Drugs are regulated under a different law than medical devices: the >Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Unlike the 1976 medical device >law, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not explicitly prohibit >alternate state regulations. But according to the Bush >administration, the ban is implicit. > >The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant this immunity to >drug companies on Monday, in the case of Warner-Lambert Co. V. Kent. >(See ><http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-1498.html>http://www.law.cornell.edu/\ supct/cert/0... >) If the drug companies win this case, it will unleash a chemical >holocaust on the American people, where the most dangerous chemicals >imaginable are patented, marketed and sold to unsuspecting >consumers, with absolutely no legal recourse for those harmed or >killed by such products. The American people will find themselves >chemically and financially enslaved to the drug companies, poisoned >by an evil conspiracy of greed between Big Pharma and the FDA while >being stripped of their right to justice thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. > >Listen to my podcast (#11) to learn what happens next: ><http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/Inde\ x-Podcasts.html > >Hint: The coming collapse of ><http://www.naturalnews.com/America.html>America is accelerating, >and the people running this country will not stop until every right >is stripped, every person is drugged, every dollar is stolen and >every wage earner is forever indebted to a system of disease >management that is intentionally designed to prevent health and keep >the population in a state of chronic disease (and mental weakness). > > > >The U.S. Supreme Traitors > > > >That the U.S. Supreme Court would take away the rights of consumers >to sue medical device manufacturers for the harm caused by their >dangerous devices is not even the issue here: It's the fact that the >U.S. Supreme Court is WILLING to take away such consumer rights! It >means the Constitution is deemed irrelevant, and its last-ditch >protectors have now sold out to the corporations. The U.S. Supreme >Court is now operating as a band of traitors who have surrendered >the future of this nation to the corporations. Today, it's with >medical device manufacturers, tomorrow it's with pharmaceuticals, >and in another year, it could be for any product or service that is > " approved " by a government regulator. > >Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced its intent to >enslave the U.S. population and grant total power to the >corporations and the corrupt, centralized regulators (like the FDA >and USDA) influenced by those corporations. > >You've just lost your country, folks. Good luck trying to get it >back. The corruption is now so deep that the U.S. Supreme Court no >longer protects the People. The very concept of " We the People " is >now history. The new message to the People is simple this: Take your >medicine. Don't ask questions. Pay your taxes. Do what you're told, >vote for who you're told, and don't demand any more rights. > >And if you're killed by a medical device, rest in peace with the >knowledge that someone else wasn't. > > >Looking for last minute shopping deals? ><http://us.rd./evt=51734/*http://tools.search./newsearch/cate\ gory.php?category=shopping>Find >them fast with Search. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 It's too late. It's a done deal. I believe the author has it right: " The coming collapse of America is accelerating, and the people running this country will not stop until every right is stripped, every person is drugged, every dollar is stolen and every wage earner is forever indebted to a system of disease management that is intentionally designed to prevent health and keep the population in a state of chronic disease (and mental weakness). " It doesn't matter who is in the White House. The trainwreck is already out of control, covering many layers and many levels of government. How is that going to be stopped? It's like trying to stop terrorists. You kill one and 10 step up to take their place. Patty > > >We're done for. This is just what these manufacturer's were hoping > >for. More than ever now, Buyer beware! I'm speechless, disgusted and angry. > > > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/022713.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/02 2713.html > > > >Supreme Court Shields Medical Device Manufacturers from Consumer Lawsuits > >by Mike > > > >(NaturalNews) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that medical device > >manufacturers cannot be sued for injuries caused by their products > >if those products were pre-approved for use by the FDA. > > > >The court ruled that Riegel, who was injured in 1996 when a > >balloon catheter made by Medtronic Inc. burst while being inserted > >into one of his coronary arteries during an angioplasty, could not > >sue the company for damages. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld a > >ruling by a U.S. appeals court and an earlier ruling by a trial > >court in New York. > > > >I discuss the disastrous consequences of this issue in great detail > >in a new <http://www.naturalnews.com/podcast.html>podcast (#11). > >Click here to listen: > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/Index- Podcasts.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html > > > > > > > >Hiding behind a legal technicality > > > > > > > >Medtronic, which no longer makes the balloon catheter in question, > >said that the fault was with the doctor, who used the device > >contrary to the operating instructions. The company also said that > >the doctor made an error in using that type of product for a patient > >in Riegel's condition. But rather than ruling in Medtronic's favor > >merely for the one specific instance, the court dismissed the case > >entirely, saying that > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/federal_law.html>federal law prohibits > >suing device manufacturers in state courts if the device was > >approved as safe by <http://www.naturalnews.com/the_FDA.html>the > >FDA. The decision is expected to have ramifications for a large > >number of pending <http://www.naturalnews.com/lawsuits.html>lawsuits > >against manufacturers of devices such as breast implants, > >defibrillators, artificial heart pumps and valves, drug-coated > >stents, spinal cord stimulators, and prosthetic hips and knees. > > > >Because there is no federal law that allows consumers to sue medical > >device manufacturers for damages, state courts have become a common > >venue for such suits. > > > >The legal reasoning behind the court's decision centered on the > >wording of the 1976 Medical Device Amendments law. The law, which > >set in place an FDA pre-approval process for > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/medical_devices.html>medical devices, > >explicitly prohibited states from putting in place " any requirement " > >that is " different from, or in addition to " FDA requirements. In an > >8-1 majority, the court ruled that allowing citizens to sue device > >companies in state courts amounts to " a requirement " that undermines > >the FDA approval process. > > > >Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the FDA > >may approve devices " that present great risks if they nonetheless > >offer great benefits in light of available alternatives. " In other > >words, there is no requirement that devices actually achieve any > >reasonable level of safety for all patients. To receive FDA approval > >and be immunized from lawsuits, medical devices merely have to keep > >alive slightly more people than they kill. > > > >It would be inappropriate to empower juries second-guess these FDA > >decisions without full access to data about the benefits of > >technologies, Scalia said. This is the Supreme Court's way of saying > >that medical device safety is define solely by the FDA, and if the > >FDA says something is safe, the fact that such devices actually kill > >people does not in any way disprove the device's safety. > > > >A jury " sees only the cost of a more dangerous design, and is not > >concerned with its benefits; the patient who reaped those benefits > >are not represented in court, " he wrote. This is a clever way of > >saying that products that kill some consumers -- but not all -- are > >safe enough to be granted blanket immunity because there are some > >survivors. It's a ridiculous position, of course, and it's never > >applied to natural remedies. > > > >Note that if an herb kills even ten people in the entire country, > >the FDA immediately leaps to the conclusion that the herb is " unsafe > >at any dose. " (Google the history of the FDA's ephedra ban for > >details.) But medical devices and pharmaceuticals are held to an > >entirely different standard: They must only avoid killing more > >people than they kill! The fact that some people survived the > >treatment is apparently sufficient to justify all those who died! > >This is precisely what Justice Scalia is saying in this decision. > > > > > >A whisper of sanity from Justice Ginsburg > > > > > > > >Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with the logic that > >the ability to sue companies constitutes an unfair " requirement. " > > > > " Congress, in my view, did not intend [for the 1976 law] to effect a > >radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation > >for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical > >devices, " she wrote. > > > >The purpose of the law, according to Ginsburg, was to prevent states > >from imposing confusing additional regulatory processes on top of > >the new federal standard. Prior to 1976, the absence of a federal > >regulatory process for medical devices had spurred many states to > >initiate their own. > > > >Senator Kennedy, one of the sponsors of the 1976 law and head > >of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, agreed with > >Ginsburg's analysis. " In enacting legislation on medical devices, > >Congress never intended that FDA approval would give blanket > >immunity to manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by > >faulty devices, " Kennedy said. " Congress obviously needs to correct > >the court's decision. Otherwise, FDA approval will become a green > >light for shoddy practices by manufacturers. " > > > >The <http://www.naturalnews.com/Supreme_Court.html>Supreme Court > >ruling applies only to medical devices pre-approved under the > >process set in place by the 1976 law, not to devices grandfathered > >in under a separate process, in which the FDA decides that a product > >is " substantially equivalent " to one that was already on the market > >prior to 1976. In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers > >of those devices can indeed be sued by states. > > > >Devices that undergo the FDA pre-approval process, and thus are > >exempted from lawsuits under the current ruling, tend to be more > >technologically advanced, expensive and risky than older devices. > > > >Under the new ruling, device manufacturers that fail to follow FDA > >specifications can still be sued in state courts. In addition, > >lawsuits or prosecutions can be brought against companies for > >violations of state laws that are the same as federal laws, just not > >state laws with different requirements. > > > > > >Supreme Court's decision will unleash a wave of shoddy medical > >devices that could kill tens of thousands > > > > > > > > Zieve, the lawyer who represented Riegel's family, said that > >the court's ruling will have a dangerous effect on the quality of > >medical devices. Because the threat of lawsuits is a primary > >incentive for manufacturers to make sure their products are as safe > >as possible, the removal of this threat will lead to more dangerous > >devices staying on the market. > > > > " By minimizing the incentive, the Supreme Court's decision poses a > >risk to the safety of medical devices, " she said. > > > >This is crucial to understand: When medical device manufacturers are > >granted blanket immunity that protects them from all lawsuits, they > >no longer have any reason to make their products safe. They only > >need to seek FDA approval, not genuine product safety, and FDA > >approval is a political process, not a scientific one, so achieving > >such approval for unsafe medical devices is simply a matter of > >paying off the right people, fudging the right scientific studies, > >and filling out the paperwork. The FDA grants its approval to deadly > >products on a regular basis. (Just look at Vioxx, Rezulin, and all > >the other deadly drugs approved by the FDA...) > > > >Remember: The FDA serves the interests of corporations, not the > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/American_people.html>American people. > >When it comes down to a question of public safety vs. corporate > >profits, the FDA favors the > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/corporations.html>corporations in nearly > >every case. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court handing medical device > >manufacturers blanket immunity, the American public has absolutely > >no legal recourse for the harm caused by dangerous medical devices, > >even if they are defective! > > > > > > > >What's next? Immunity for Big Pharma of course > > > > > > > >The Bush administration, which supported Medtronic in the current > >case, has announced its intentions to seek similar lawsuit immunity > >for <http://www.naturalnews.com/drug_companies.html>drug companies. > >This would make it impossible for consumers to sue drug companies > >for the harm caused by pharmaceutical side effects, unleashing a new > >era of blanket immunity for the very corporations that are now > >poisoning the American population with dangerous and deadly > >synthetic chemicals. > > > >Drugs are regulated under a different law than medical devices: the > >Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Unlike the 1976 medical device > >law, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not explicitly prohibit > >alternate state regulations. But according to the Bush > >administration, the ban is implicit. > > > >The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant this immunity to > >drug companies on Monday, in the case of Warner-Lambert Co. V. Kent. > >(See > ><http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06- 1498.html>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/0... > >) If the drug companies win this case, it will unleash a chemical > >holocaust on the American people, where the most dangerous chemicals > >imaginable are patented, marketed and sold to unsuspecting > >consumers, with absolutely no legal recourse for those harmed or > >killed by such products. The American people will find themselves > >chemically and financially enslaved to the drug companies, poisoned > >by an evil conspiracy of greed between Big Pharma and the FDA while > >being stripped of their right to justice thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. > > > >Listen to my podcast (#11) to learn what happens next: > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/Index- Podcasts.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html > > > >Hint: The coming collapse of > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/America.html>America is accelerating, > >and the people running this country will not stop until every right > >is stripped, every person is drugged, every dollar is stolen and > >every wage earner is forever indebted to a system of disease > >management that is intentionally designed to prevent health and keep > >the population in a state of chronic disease (and mental weakness). > > > > > > > >The U.S. Supreme Traitors > > > > > > > >That the U.S. Supreme Court would take away the rights of consumers > >to sue medical device manufacturers for the harm caused by their > >dangerous devices is not even the issue here: It's the fact that the > >U.S. Supreme Court is WILLING to take away such consumer rights! It > >means the Constitution is deemed irrelevant, and its last-ditch > >protectors have now sold out to the corporations. The U.S. Supreme > >Court is now operating as a band of traitors who have surrendered > >the future of this nation to the corporations. Today, it's with > >medical device manufacturers, tomorrow it's with pharmaceuticals, > >and in another year, it could be for any product or service that is > > " approved " by a government regulator. > > > >Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced its intent to > >enslave the U.S. population and grant total power to the > >corporations and the corrupt, centralized regulators (like the FDA > >and USDA) influenced by those corporations. > > > >You've just lost your country, folks. Good luck trying to get it > >back. The corruption is now so deep that the U.S. Supreme Court no > >longer protects the People. The very concept of " We the People " is > >now history. The new message to the People is simple this: Take your > >medicine. Don't ask questions. Pay your taxes. Do what you're told, > >vote for who you're told, and don't demand any more rights. > > > >And if you're killed by a medical device, rest in peace with the > >knowledge that someone else wasn't. > > > > > >Looking for last minute shopping deals? > ><http://us.rd./evt=51734/*http://tools.search./news earch/category.php?category=shopping>Find > >them fast with Search. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 It's too late. It's a done deal. I believe the author has it right: " The coming collapse of America is accelerating, and the people running this country will not stop until every right is stripped, every person is drugged, every dollar is stolen and every wage earner is forever indebted to a system of disease management that is intentionally designed to prevent health and keep the population in a state of chronic disease (and mental weakness). " It doesn't matter who is in the White House. The trainwreck is already out of control, covering many layers and many levels of government. How is that going to be stopped? It's like trying to stop terrorists. You kill one and 10 step up to take their place. Patty > > >We're done for. This is just what these manufacturer's were hoping > >for. More than ever now, Buyer beware! I'm speechless, disgusted and angry. > > > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/022713.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/02 2713.html > > > >Supreme Court Shields Medical Device Manufacturers from Consumer Lawsuits > >by Mike > > > >(NaturalNews) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that medical device > >manufacturers cannot be sued for injuries caused by their products > >if those products were pre-approved for use by the FDA. > > > >The court ruled that Riegel, who was injured in 1996 when a > >balloon catheter made by Medtronic Inc. burst while being inserted > >into one of his coronary arteries during an angioplasty, could not > >sue the company for damages. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld a > >ruling by a U.S. appeals court and an earlier ruling by a trial > >court in New York. > > > >I discuss the disastrous consequences of this issue in great detail > >in a new <http://www.naturalnews.com/podcast.html>podcast (#11). > >Click here to listen: > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/Index- Podcasts.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html > > > > > > > >Hiding behind a legal technicality > > > > > > > >Medtronic, which no longer makes the balloon catheter in question, > >said that the fault was with the doctor, who used the device > >contrary to the operating instructions. The company also said that > >the doctor made an error in using that type of product for a patient > >in Riegel's condition. But rather than ruling in Medtronic's favor > >merely for the one specific instance, the court dismissed the case > >entirely, saying that > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/federal_law.html>federal law prohibits > >suing device manufacturers in state courts if the device was > >approved as safe by <http://www.naturalnews.com/the_FDA.html>the > >FDA. The decision is expected to have ramifications for a large > >number of pending <http://www.naturalnews.com/lawsuits.html>lawsuits > >against manufacturers of devices such as breast implants, > >defibrillators, artificial heart pumps and valves, drug-coated > >stents, spinal cord stimulators, and prosthetic hips and knees. > > > >Because there is no federal law that allows consumers to sue medical > >device manufacturers for damages, state courts have become a common > >venue for such suits. > > > >The legal reasoning behind the court's decision centered on the > >wording of the 1976 Medical Device Amendments law. The law, which > >set in place an FDA pre-approval process for > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/medical_devices.html>medical devices, > >explicitly prohibited states from putting in place " any requirement " > >that is " different from, or in addition to " FDA requirements. In an > >8-1 majority, the court ruled that allowing citizens to sue device > >companies in state courts amounts to " a requirement " that undermines > >the FDA approval process. > > > >Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the FDA > >may approve devices " that present great risks if they nonetheless > >offer great benefits in light of available alternatives. " In other > >words, there is no requirement that devices actually achieve any > >reasonable level of safety for all patients. To receive FDA approval > >and be immunized from lawsuits, medical devices merely have to keep > >alive slightly more people than they kill. > > > >It would be inappropriate to empower juries second-guess these FDA > >decisions without full access to data about the benefits of > >technologies, Scalia said. This is the Supreme Court's way of saying > >that medical device safety is define solely by the FDA, and if the > >FDA says something is safe, the fact that such devices actually kill > >people does not in any way disprove the device's safety. > > > >A jury " sees only the cost of a more dangerous design, and is not > >concerned with its benefits; the patient who reaped those benefits > >are not represented in court, " he wrote. This is a clever way of > >saying that products that kill some consumers -- but not all -- are > >safe enough to be granted blanket immunity because there are some > >survivors. It's a ridiculous position, of course, and it's never > >applied to natural remedies. > > > >Note that if an herb kills even ten people in the entire country, > >the FDA immediately leaps to the conclusion that the herb is " unsafe > >at any dose. " (Google the history of the FDA's ephedra ban for > >details.) But medical devices and pharmaceuticals are held to an > >entirely different standard: They must only avoid killing more > >people than they kill! The fact that some people survived the > >treatment is apparently sufficient to justify all those who died! > >This is precisely what Justice Scalia is saying in this decision. > > > > > >A whisper of sanity from Justice Ginsburg > > > > > > > >Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with the logic that > >the ability to sue companies constitutes an unfair " requirement. " > > > > " Congress, in my view, did not intend [for the 1976 law] to effect a > >radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation > >for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical > >devices, " she wrote. > > > >The purpose of the law, according to Ginsburg, was to prevent states > >from imposing confusing additional regulatory processes on top of > >the new federal standard. Prior to 1976, the absence of a federal > >regulatory process for medical devices had spurred many states to > >initiate their own. > > > >Senator Kennedy, one of the sponsors of the 1976 law and head > >of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, agreed with > >Ginsburg's analysis. " In enacting legislation on medical devices, > >Congress never intended that FDA approval would give blanket > >immunity to manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by > >faulty devices, " Kennedy said. " Congress obviously needs to correct > >the court's decision. Otherwise, FDA approval will become a green > >light for shoddy practices by manufacturers. " > > > >The <http://www.naturalnews.com/Supreme_Court.html>Supreme Court > >ruling applies only to medical devices pre-approved under the > >process set in place by the 1976 law, not to devices grandfathered > >in under a separate process, in which the FDA decides that a product > >is " substantially equivalent " to one that was already on the market > >prior to 1976. In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers > >of those devices can indeed be sued by states. > > > >Devices that undergo the FDA pre-approval process, and thus are > >exempted from lawsuits under the current ruling, tend to be more > >technologically advanced, expensive and risky than older devices. > > > >Under the new ruling, device manufacturers that fail to follow FDA > >specifications can still be sued in state courts. In addition, > >lawsuits or prosecutions can be brought against companies for > >violations of state laws that are the same as federal laws, just not > >state laws with different requirements. > > > > > >Supreme Court's decision will unleash a wave of shoddy medical > >devices that could kill tens of thousands > > > > > > > > Zieve, the lawyer who represented Riegel's family, said that > >the court's ruling will have a dangerous effect on the quality of > >medical devices. Because the threat of lawsuits is a primary > >incentive for manufacturers to make sure their products are as safe > >as possible, the removal of this threat will lead to more dangerous > >devices staying on the market. > > > > " By minimizing the incentive, the Supreme Court's decision poses a > >risk to the safety of medical devices, " she said. > > > >This is crucial to understand: When medical device manufacturers are > >granted blanket immunity that protects them from all lawsuits, they > >no longer have any reason to make their products safe. They only > >need to seek FDA approval, not genuine product safety, and FDA > >approval is a political process, not a scientific one, so achieving > >such approval for unsafe medical devices is simply a matter of > >paying off the right people, fudging the right scientific studies, > >and filling out the paperwork. The FDA grants its approval to deadly > >products on a regular basis. (Just look at Vioxx, Rezulin, and all > >the other deadly drugs approved by the FDA...) > > > >Remember: The FDA serves the interests of corporations, not the > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/American_people.html>American people. > >When it comes down to a question of public safety vs. corporate > >profits, the FDA favors the > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/corporations.html>corporations in nearly > >every case. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court handing medical device > >manufacturers blanket immunity, the American public has absolutely > >no legal recourse for the harm caused by dangerous medical devices, > >even if they are defective! > > > > > > > >What's next? Immunity for Big Pharma of course > > > > > > > >The Bush administration, which supported Medtronic in the current > >case, has announced its intentions to seek similar lawsuit immunity > >for <http://www.naturalnews.com/drug_companies.html>drug companies. > >This would make it impossible for consumers to sue drug companies > >for the harm caused by pharmaceutical side effects, unleashing a new > >era of blanket immunity for the very corporations that are now > >poisoning the American population with dangerous and deadly > >synthetic chemicals. > > > >Drugs are regulated under a different law than medical devices: the > >Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Unlike the 1976 medical device > >law, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not explicitly prohibit > >alternate state regulations. But according to the Bush > >administration, the ban is implicit. > > > >The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant this immunity to > >drug companies on Monday, in the case of Warner-Lambert Co. V. Kent. > >(See > ><http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06- 1498.html>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/0... > >) If the drug companies win this case, it will unleash a chemical > >holocaust on the American people, where the most dangerous chemicals > >imaginable are patented, marketed and sold to unsuspecting > >consumers, with absolutely no legal recourse for those harmed or > >killed by such products. The American people will find themselves > >chemically and financially enslaved to the drug companies, poisoned > >by an evil conspiracy of greed between Big Pharma and the FDA while > >being stripped of their right to justice thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. > > > >Listen to my podcast (#11) to learn what happens next: > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/Index- Podcasts.html>http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html > > > >Hint: The coming collapse of > ><http://www.naturalnews.com/America.html>America is accelerating, > >and the people running this country will not stop until every right > >is stripped, every person is drugged, every dollar is stolen and > >every wage earner is forever indebted to a system of disease > >management that is intentionally designed to prevent health and keep > >the population in a state of chronic disease (and mental weakness). > > > > > > > >The U.S. Supreme Traitors > > > > > > > >That the U.S. Supreme Court would take away the rights of consumers > >to sue medical device manufacturers for the harm caused by their > >dangerous devices is not even the issue here: It's the fact that the > >U.S. Supreme Court is WILLING to take away such consumer rights! It > >means the Constitution is deemed irrelevant, and its last-ditch > >protectors have now sold out to the corporations. The U.S. Supreme > >Court is now operating as a band of traitors who have surrendered > >the future of this nation to the corporations. Today, it's with > >medical device manufacturers, tomorrow it's with pharmaceuticals, > >and in another year, it could be for any product or service that is > > " approved " by a government regulator. > > > >Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced its intent to > >enslave the U.S. population and grant total power to the > >corporations and the corrupt, centralized regulators (like the FDA > >and USDA) influenced by those corporations. > > > >You've just lost your country, folks. Good luck trying to get it > >back. The corruption is now so deep that the U.S. Supreme Court no > >longer protects the People. The very concept of " We the People " is > >now history. The new message to the People is simple this: Take your > >medicine. Don't ask questions. Pay your taxes. Do what you're told, > >vote for who you're told, and don't demand any more rights. > > > >And if you're killed by a medical device, rest in peace with the > >knowledge that someone else wasn't. > > > > > >Looking for last minute shopping deals? > ><http://us.rd./evt=51734/*http://tools.search./news earch/category.php?category=shopping>Find > >them fast with Search. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Patty,I prefer to think that it's not to late . . . But the handwriting is on the wall. The way we've failed, and will continue to fail is if "Good Men Do Nothing".We must demand accountability from our government . . . from the local level, all the way to the top.Every citizen must educate themselves on the issues and get involved. The future of this country hangs in the balance. Our children will live in a very different world if nothing is done, and soon. Citizens have been quiet too long. It's become socially unacceptable to speak out for the underdogs. That's wrong, wrong, wrong.You can shear a lamb many times . . . you can only cut off his head once. . . Right now heads are rolling all over the place. Huge price increases on everything - gas, energy, food, health care, consumer products, insurance, finance costs . . . are the driving force to push many middle class citizens down to the lower class.Lifting people out of poverty once they've lost their middle class position is going to be a huge job. Before I got involved in the breast implant debacle, I was completely oblivious to how the actions of the government affected our daily lives. . . Then I saw Congress (starting in 1994) enacting laws to protect those who would harm us . . . while taking rights away from those who have been harmed. It's ugly, ugly, ugly!Rogene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Patty,I prefer to think that it's not to late . . . But the handwriting is on the wall. The way we've failed, and will continue to fail is if "Good Men Do Nothing".We must demand accountability from our government . . . from the local level, all the way to the top.Every citizen must educate themselves on the issues and get involved. The future of this country hangs in the balance. Our children will live in a very different world if nothing is done, and soon. Citizens have been quiet too long. It's become socially unacceptable to speak out for the underdogs. That's wrong, wrong, wrong.You can shear a lamb many times . . . you can only cut off his head once. . . Right now heads are rolling all over the place. Huge price increases on everything - gas, energy, food, health care, consumer products, insurance, finance costs . . . are the driving force to push many middle class citizens down to the lower class.Lifting people out of poverty once they've lost their middle class position is going to be a huge job. Before I got involved in the breast implant debacle, I was completely oblivious to how the actions of the government affected our daily lives. . . Then I saw Congress (starting in 1994) enacting laws to protect those who would harm us . . . while taking rights away from those who have been harmed. It's ugly, ugly, ugly!Rogene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 You bet it's ugly, ugly, ugly. stated that our government would only work with a moral people. He was right. It's not working because we have people in government who are not moral. It could never work long term because " The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. " (Those aren't my words, those are God's... 17:9) It was only a matter of time until those in power in our government started using their power for selfish gain. Our government is collapsing now because of the age we live in....where " self " rules. (2 3, and 2 3. Check it out. Isn't the Bible awesome?) People are being taught that being concerned about Number One is okay. Put yourself first. It's okay not to care what others think. That organized religion is evil because it forces you to fit into a mold. (even if it's a good mold.) We live in the times where " what's good is called evil and what's evil is called good. " (Isaiah 5:20) Here's what I see. It's what's happened all over the world. The gap between the rich and the poor is only going to widen. If you took all the money in the world and distributed it equally to every man, woman and child alive so that all had the same amount of money to begin with, over time the money would end up distributed unevenly; that is, some people would become rich, while others became poor. It's just the way it works. Some--many--of those people that become wealthy will do it by evil methods. I believe the trainwreck we live with in our medical system and in our government has passed the point of redemption. The sad thing is that most people didn't even see it coming, because we weren't aware of the schemes that were going on behind the scenes. Edmund Burke is the one who said, " All that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. " I believe that is true, and I will continue to do what I can. But it will take a miracle in this country for good to overcome evil because I think too many people have been blinded...they can't see evil for what it is. The Bible says that evil can disguise itself as an angel. I believe it! I think people are just going to have to take back control of their lives and stop being brainwashed into believing that everything the government says is right or true. I think it is going to take grassroots efforts and small communities of brave people banding together to not buckle under the weight of a forceful government interfering in our lives. This means saying NO to vaccinations that are forced. Saying NO to dangerous medical treatments that are experimental (you are being a guinea pig!) NO to some things that look good, but are in the end messed up. Like drugs upon drugs upon drugs. Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now! You know me.... Patty > > Patty, > > I prefer to think that it's not to late . . . But the handwriting is on the wall. > > The way we've failed, and will continue to fail is if " Good Men Do Nothing " . > > We must demand accountability from our government . . . from the local level, all the way to the top. > > Every citizen must educate themselves on the issues and get involved. The future of this country hangs in the balance. Our children will live in a very different world if nothing is done, and soon. > > Citizens have been quiet too long. It's become socially unacceptable to speak out for the underdogs. That's wrong, wrong, wrong. > > You can shear a lamb many times . . . you can only cut off his head once. . . Right now heads are rolling all over the place. Huge price increases on everything - gas, energy, food, health care, consumer products, insurance, finance costs . . . are the driving force to push many middle class citizens down to the lower class. > > Lifting people out of poverty once they've lost their middle class position is going to be a huge job. > > Before I got involved in the breast implant debacle, I was completely oblivious to how the actions of the government affected our daily lives. . . Then I saw Congress (starting in 1994) enacting laws to protect those who would harm us . . . while taking rights away from those who have been harmed. It's ugly, ugly, ugly! > > Rogene > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 You bet it's ugly, ugly, ugly. stated that our government would only work with a moral people. He was right. It's not working because we have people in government who are not moral. It could never work long term because " The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. " (Those aren't my words, those are God's... 17:9) It was only a matter of time until those in power in our government started using their power for selfish gain. Our government is collapsing now because of the age we live in....where " self " rules. (2 3, and 2 3. Check it out. Isn't the Bible awesome?) People are being taught that being concerned about Number One is okay. Put yourself first. It's okay not to care what others think. That organized religion is evil because it forces you to fit into a mold. (even if it's a good mold.) We live in the times where " what's good is called evil and what's evil is called good. " (Isaiah 5:20) Here's what I see. It's what's happened all over the world. The gap between the rich and the poor is only going to widen. If you took all the money in the world and distributed it equally to every man, woman and child alive so that all had the same amount of money to begin with, over time the money would end up distributed unevenly; that is, some people would become rich, while others became poor. It's just the way it works. Some--many--of those people that become wealthy will do it by evil methods. I believe the trainwreck we live with in our medical system and in our government has passed the point of redemption. The sad thing is that most people didn't even see it coming, because we weren't aware of the schemes that were going on behind the scenes. Edmund Burke is the one who said, " All that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. " I believe that is true, and I will continue to do what I can. But it will take a miracle in this country for good to overcome evil because I think too many people have been blinded...they can't see evil for what it is. The Bible says that evil can disguise itself as an angel. I believe it! I think people are just going to have to take back control of their lives and stop being brainwashed into believing that everything the government says is right or true. I think it is going to take grassroots efforts and small communities of brave people banding together to not buckle under the weight of a forceful government interfering in our lives. This means saying NO to vaccinations that are forced. Saying NO to dangerous medical treatments that are experimental (you are being a guinea pig!) NO to some things that look good, but are in the end messed up. Like drugs upon drugs upon drugs. Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now! You know me.... Patty > > Patty, > > I prefer to think that it's not to late . . . But the handwriting is on the wall. > > The way we've failed, and will continue to fail is if " Good Men Do Nothing " . > > We must demand accountability from our government . . . from the local level, all the way to the top. > > Every citizen must educate themselves on the issues and get involved. The future of this country hangs in the balance. Our children will live in a very different world if nothing is done, and soon. > > Citizens have been quiet too long. It's become socially unacceptable to speak out for the underdogs. That's wrong, wrong, wrong. > > You can shear a lamb many times . . . you can only cut off his head once. . . Right now heads are rolling all over the place. Huge price increases on everything - gas, energy, food, health care, consumer products, insurance, finance costs . . . are the driving force to push many middle class citizens down to the lower class. > > Lifting people out of poverty once they've lost their middle class position is going to be a huge job. > > Before I got involved in the breast implant debacle, I was completely oblivious to how the actions of the government affected our daily lives. . . Then I saw Congress (starting in 1994) enacting laws to protect those who would harm us . . . while taking rights away from those who have been harmed. It's ugly, ugly, ugly! > > Rogene > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.