There has been a lawsuit against Fluoron, the primary ingredient in Fluoron antibiotics. This drug was granted FDA approval in 1982 and was supposed to treat everything from bronchitis to the strep throat to more complicated stomach ailments. However, according to the lawsuit filed by the Natural Products Association of America (NPA) and the Natural Products Association of Canada (NPAC), this drug was improperly approved due to a number of factors. First, it was found that the manufacturer’s primary intent for approving Fluoron was to get it approved quickly for all to use. Thus, the intended market for Fluoron was almost immediately increased when it became clear that this would be its only goal through this FDA approval process.
The lawsuit further states that Fluoron was packed with residues such as dioxins, an agent that is toxic when swallowed, and diazolidinyl urea, an antibiotic that can cause birth defects.
Also, the plaintiffs argue that there is no documented medical evidence to prove that the drug has any beneficial effect on humans. Moreover, the lawsuit says that many other drugs have similar residues that prove harmful when ingested. For instance, the case against GlaxoSmithKline was brought by the FDA itself. GlaxoSmithKline was the primary maker of Fluoron antibiotics. It was the primary manufacturer of Fluoron was its primary selling product.
The manufacturer, through its attorney, has denied all responsibility. Additionally, the drug maker asserts that the plaintiffs are attempting to sue the drug itself rather than addressing the issues within the company. Also, the drug manufacturer contends that the FDA did not approve Fluoron because it was safe.
These types of lawsuits are generally known as litigation financing.
Such lawsuits are generally initiated by the plaintiff’s physician, but can also be initiated by anyone who has a personal stake in the case. For example, if the plaintiff’s doctor believes that the use of the drugs is appropriate, they can file a lawsuit in a medical negligence court. The doctors, generally a team of surgeons and medical specialists, are seeking damages for negligence. This type of lawsuit involves a detailed and often technical analysis of the facts of the case.
After reviewing the complaint, the court will review it. If the court rules in the plaintiff’s favor, they will award monetary damages. However, if the court rules against the defendant, they can appeal the court’s ruling. It is in these appeals that the company may attempt to discredit the lawsuit, or attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out. In both instances, the results can be disastrous for the drug manufacturer.
To protect themselves, these manufacturers often resort to smear tactics and Dr. Cowen’s defense of Dr. Strauss.
He is a practicing chiropractic doctor. The company, on the other hand, points to statements made by medical experts who dispute the validity of the claims. One such expert is Dr. William Schau, a former assistant director of the FDA.
When it comes to standing up in court, it is important for plaintiffs to have a strong lawsuit to support them.
Such plaintiffs should have a good reason for challenging the validity of the drugs. They should have a real stake in the lawsuit. For example, a person with a serious health condition that is caused by taking Fluoroquinolone could bring a case against the manufacturer. This case could gain substantial damages.
Of course, a plaintiff’s attorney may try to discredit any lawsuit, even a legitimate one.
Thus, knowing what to expect during the discovery process and when your lawsuit will be decided is critical. In this way, you can prepare for the best possible outcome and obtain compensation for your injuries and suffering.