True-ish, but in medicine there is no such thing as taking something and it 100% always causing an effect. Phineas Gage comes to mind: people usually don't survive having a railroad spike blast through their cranium and take a teacup worth of gray matter with it.

That said, statins are linked to all sorts of mental illnesses. Schitzophrenia, paralysis, and general damage to the nervous system. Taking this stuff for extended periods of time is literally psychosis in a bottle, and heart attack survivors are supposed to take them indefinitely.

http://www.westonaprice.org/cardiovascular-disease/dangers-of-statin-drugs

Taking statins for one year raised the risk of nerve damage by about 15 percent--about one case for every 2,200 patients. For those who took statins for two or more years, the additional risk rose to 26 percent.

My mother is actually part of a lawsuit against a drug company. They gave her an osteoperosis drug which was known to cause necrosis of the jaw. Of course, they didn't tell her.

She also was almost given Alzheimers by her statin drugs.

This is terrible news. Not only do doctors receive money from the drug companies for prescribing their drugs, but they're now immune to legal action? This is terrible. It's a fantastic example of our government obeying the lobbyists and doing the thing least in our interest.

Pretty much.  It's a pretty funny case since it was a 5-4 vote where the conservatives won out, despite it being  a federalist vs states rights case.  The Conservatives were the federalists in this case, and the librerals the states right advocates.

Essentially the whole thing boils down to one simple thing.

State law requires that drug manufacturers post updated information about new sideffects in a timely matter and aren't unduly dangerous

Federal law requires that generic drug manufacturers must directly copy name brand warning labels, and their drugs must use the same kind of formula as the name brand drugs.

The company in this case could not update information on side effects in a timely matter because the federal law required them to directly copy the non-generic warning label.  Nor could they make the drug safer because they were forced to use the more unsafe namebrand version.

Due to Federal Primacy the state law is invalidated for all generic drugs.  (Aka 80%).

It's the correct ruling... and just another case of showing how the correct ruling isn't always the "best" one for the people.    People shouldn't be attacking the supreme court but instead pushing congress to ammend the federal law so that further state protections can function as intended.

Perhaps a happy middleground would of been to let generic users sue name brand companies for unsafe drug formulas if the results would of been the same on their drug.