Return to reality?(Scan)(adverse reactions of phenylpropanolamine)

When juries in California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania recently rejected claims that the cold medicine ingredient phenylpropanolamine, or PPA, had injured people, their unanimous verdicts were described by many reporters as victories for the pharmaceutical industry. It may be more accurate, though, to observe that these and other verdicts in high-profile liability cases suggest there may be a waning in the junk science lawsuits which John Edwards and his trial lawyer colleagues used to clog court dockets for much of the 1990s.

PPA was used in hundreds of over-the-counter and prescription medications, including diet pills. It was a mainstay of Alka-Seltzer Plus, Dimetapp, Tavist-D, and Robitussin because it helps open nasal air passages. But four years ago, after being on the market for almost a half century, the FDA requested that companies voluntarily withdraw products containing the ingredient for fear that it might increase the chance of a stroke in some people.

Despite the lack of evidence for claims that PPA had actually caused any harm, plaintiffs' lawyers lined up in droves. Jurors, however, ruled that the cold medicines were safe and had been labeled correctly. The verdicts surprised tort lawyers, and challenged press coverage that reflexively characterized PPA as harmful.

Even after these jury rulings, the Los Angeles Times published an 8,000-word article alleging ...