Autism 0, Vaccine 2

So last time in the Vaccine v Autism court battles, the court found that mercury preservative plus MMR vaccine does not equal autism.

Just on March 12, the same court also declared that there was no proof that the children's autism was caused by the preservative alone.

So just as we thought we were getting closer to resolving this (first the retraction, then the first ruling, now this ruling...) apparently vaccine-autism believers are now saying that it's just that children are receiving so many vaccines, it causes autism.

Well. I don't know about that. If the vaccine doesn't cause autism, why would more together be evil? Likening vaccines to collateralized financial derivatives seems a bit desperate. But hey, I'm no toxicologist. So if anyone's an expert about vaccines, I'd love to know.

Philip Morris' $300 million verdict

Big Tobacco's high dividend payout strategy might not be working.

A Florida Circuit Court last week awarded a former smoker, 61-year old Lucinda Naugle, $300 million in her lawsuit against Philip Morris (NYSE:PM), finding wheelchair-bound Naugle, who now has emphysema after smoking from age 20 to 45, 10% guilty and the cigarette manufacturer 90% guilty for compensatory damages. Philip Morris shares dropped 1.2% $18.98 on Friday at the news and haven't been doing too well since.

This was actually a case that came out of the so-called "Engle Progeny lawsuits", when in 2006 the Florida Supreme Court vacated a 2000 verdict in a class action lawsuit (Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co). And while the $156 billion verdict was overturned (this lawsuit involved 700,000 smokers) the court allowed plaintiffs to file individual claims and use the liability findings from the trial.

So Naugle's verdict was the 10th Engle verdict this year and 8 out of 10 of these verdicts were against Big Tobacco, although Naugle's was the largest of all of them. And Philip Morris isn't done yet-there are about 8,000 more waiting for their day in court.

Obviously Philip Morris is crying foul, saying the decision is unconstitutional since it allowed the jury to look at previous jury findings and evidence unrelated to Naugles.

You might wonder how this sort of thing comes about. After all, I thought the MacDonald-made-me-fat lawsuits were far and wide decried as pointless. Haven't we had these cases before?

Actually we have: just in 2007 in Philip Morris v. Williams, the Supreme Court overturned an Oregon jury’s award of $79.5 million in punitive damages. This wasn't because the smoker should've known about the harmful effects of smoking though. Rather the Court ruled 5-4 that "the Constitution's Due Process Clause forbids a State to use a punitive damages award to punish a defendant for injury that it inflicts upon nonparties."

This meant that it's unfair for Philip Morris to be held responsible for harm to strangers since the charges would be limitless as well as arbitrary. Which would explain the Engles decision.

If Philip Morris loses the appeal, it'll obviously be a bad sign for Big Tobacco, even if $300 million could be considered small fries when you think about the $206 billion the seven largest tobacco companies agreed to pay in a 1998 nation-wide settlement.

Allergan's Free-Speech Suit Against FDA

For the first time a drug maker, Allergan (NYSE:AGN), filed suit Thursday against the FDA and US government for violating the First Amendment of the right to free speech.

Currently, drug companies are prohibited from communicating anything related to uses of a drug that is unapproved by the FDA. But once a drug is approved, doctors can prescribe the drugs for uses other than what the drug was approved for. In this way the Botox-manufacturer wants to legally share with doctors what it calls "truthful and relevant" information concerning off-label uses of Botox such as dosing, patient selection criteria, and injection technique.

Allergan contends that 1 out of 5 drugs in the US are prescribed for off-label uses, and although the company won't disclose what that statistic is for Botox, it does say that half of Botox prescriptions are for medical, rather than cosmetic, reasons.

Regulatory authorities have approved botox not just for wrinkles but for 21 indications in 80 countries, including eyelid spasms, excessive sweating, crossed eyes and neck contortions. But doctors still prescribe Botox for unapproved uses such as facial spasms and headaches.

Whatever the ruling will be (NYT cites analysts who believe Allergan won't really pursue the lawsuit and is just using it as leverage for wiggle-room in providing off-label information), there's no doubt other drug companies are watching closely. But I doubt Allergan can win this one. After all, if drug companies are able to share such information with doctors, the FDA will have to investigate whether that information is true, so what's the point? The FDA might as well just approve it for that use anyway. Or will it be that the FDA-approved uses are more thoroughly approved than the non-approved uses because approving everything will take too long? Or if companies are just allowed to say whatever they say is "truthful" who will have the time to monitor those claims? It just doesn't seem viable either way.

And Allergan's investors seem to know it too. The company's shares fell 1.77 percent when the market closed Friday at $54.96.