I tried to post a comment on this page, but was told that "you are not
authorized to view this page".
http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/06/should-a-nigerian-lawsuit-against-pfizer-pr
oceed/
Should a Nigerian Lawsuit Against Pfizer Proceed?
By Ed Silverman // June 2nd, 2010 // 12:24 pm
In a closely watched matter, the US Solicitor General has filed a brief
suggesting to the US Supreme Court that a lawsuit filed against Pfizer by
several Nigerians over the 1996 Trovan scandal should proceed. Essentially,
this means the Solicitor General disagrees with Pfizer's interpretation of a
law that has been relied upon to claim US companies committed eggregious
behavior overseas, and that the Supreme Court should not bother to hear the
case (see the brief).
The law involved is known as the Alien Tort Statute and it was cited by
several Nigerian families who accuse Pfizer of violating international
humans rights law - various provisions from the Nuremberg Code; the World
Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki; the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights; guidelines from the Council for International
Organizations of Medical Services; the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; and a United Nations General Assembly Resolution.
The 1996 Trovan study was conducted on about 200 children and took place
during a meningitis epidemic that killed 12,000 children, but Pfizer was
accused of failing to obtain proper regulatory approval and for misleading
parents. The study allegedly left 11 children dead and the others were
deformed. Pfizer denied the charges and settled the bulk of litigation this
summer by agreeing to pay $75 million to settle civil and criminal charges
brought by the Kano State government in Nigeria. There is currently a
dispute over DNA testing (see this).
The Solicitor General didn't comment specifically on the merits of the case.
And of course, the Supreme Court may still decide to grant Pfizer's request.
"The court is very interested in this particular, because they took the
trouble to request that the Solicitor General file a brief," Richard Samp,
chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, tells us. "That by itself
means there is a reasonably good chance the court will grant review." The
WLF, by the way, filed a friend of the court brief in support of Pfizer's
position.
The case is being closely watched, in part, because it raises some points
near and dear to multi-national corporations - whether such a company can be
sued under the Alien Tort Statute and whether violations of this statute
encompass activities conducted overseas. "This is an abuse of the American
court system and not what Congress ever intended," says Samp, "and people
are trying to make political points about what they see as important conduct
of overseas corporations."
Lovely man, this Mr. Samp, I wonder how much Pfizer paid him for his amicus
brief in defense of their human guinea pig trials in Nigeria with an
unregistered drug that had not even obtained FDA approval (not that this
mean anything!) for the use in treating children and was banned by European
regulators.
See companion piece
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/162/29/
Ingrid Blank/South Africa
--
To subscribe: MedicalConspiracies-subscribe@googlegroups.com
DETOX WITH All NATURAL PURE GREEN CALCIUM BENTONITE CLAY USED INTERNAL/EXTERNAL http://clayadvantage.com/
Information here in is for educational purpose only; it may be news related, purely
speculation or SOMEONE'S OPINION. Consult with a qualified MD before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.
By becoming a member of this group you AGREE to hold this group its members, list owners, moderators and affiliates harmless of any liability for any direct, or indirect consequential, incidental, damage incurred.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE
0 comments:
Post a Comment