Court to Decide if Vaccine Makers can be Sued
March 10, 2010
Google News
By Associated Press
The Supreme Court will decide whether drug makers can be sued by parents who claim their children suffered serious health problems from vaccines.
The justices on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from parents in Pittsburgh who want to sue Wyeth over the serious side effects their daughter, six months old at the time, allegedly suffered as a result of the company’s diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled against Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz, saying a 1986 federal law bars their claims.
That law set up a special vaccine court to handle disputes as part of its aim of insuring a stable vaccine supply by shielding companies from most lawsuits.
Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer, Inc., prevailed at the appeals court but also joined in asking the court to hear the case, saying it presents an important and recurring legal issue that should be resolved.
The Obama administration joined the parties in calling for high court review, although the government takes the side of the manufacturers.
Only one state appeals court, the Georgia Supreme Court, has ruled that families can sue in a vaccine case. The vaccine industry has fiercely opposed the Georgia ruling in the case of Marcelo and Carolyn Ferrari. They claim their son suffered neurological damage after receiving vaccine booster shots made by pharmaceutical companies Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline that contained the preservative thimerosal.
The family has since withdrawn its lawsuit, possibly in an effort to avoid an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, although the Georgia court’s opinion allowing similar lawsuits remains in force.
The court did not act on the companies’ appeal Monday, but the decision in the other case almost certainly will apply to the Georgia case.
According to the lawsuit, Hannah Bruesewitz was a healthy infant until she received the vaccine in April 1992. Within hours of getting the DPT shot, the third in a series of five, the baby suffered a series of debilitating seizures. Now a teenager, Hannah suffers from residual seizure disorder, the suit says.
The vaccine court earlier rejected the family’s claims.
Wyeth lost another high court fight last year over whether federal law barred lawsuits against drug makers. That case, involving a botched injection, asked whether federal law included an implicit prohibition on the lawsuits. The court said it did not.
In this appeal, however, Congress clearly laid out how claims over vaccines were to be made, and the court has repeatedly ruled against plaintiffs when Congress has explicitly sought to bar lawsuits.
Other than the Georgia court, state and federal courts have uniformly invoked a provision of the 1986 federal law, which seems to bar most lawsuits against vaccine makers.
The idea behind the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was to ensure a stable supply of childhood vaccines by shielding drug makers from most lawsuits, and setting up a federal vaccine court to handle disputes. The law would serve to block state laws that otherwise would give families the ability to sue the manufacturers.
In recent years, the legal fight has frequently come from families of autistic children claiming that mercury-based thimerosal is linked to autism. Numerous studies have addressed vaccines and autism and found no link, including with the preservative.
Thimerosal has been removed in recent years from standard childhood vaccines, except flu vaccines that are not packaged in single doses.
Last year, special masters appointed by the vaccine court concluded that vaccines aren’t to blame for autism, disappointing thousands of families hoping to win compensation and others who remain convinced of a connection.
But the vaccine court still must rule on additional cases that argue that vaccines with thimerosal are to blame, if the mercury reached and damaged brain cells.
Click here for the full report.
Court To Hear About Vaccine Side Effects
March 10, 2010
Associated Press
The Supreme Court will decide whether drug makers can be sued by parents who claim their children suffered serious health problems from vaccines.
The justices on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from parents in Pittsburgh who want to sue Wyeth over the serious side effects their daughter, six months old at the time, allegedly suffered as a result of the company’s diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled against Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz, saying a 1986 federal law bars their claims.
That law set up a special vaccine court to handle disputes as part of its aim of insuring a stable vaccine supply by shielding companies from most lawsuits.
Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer, Inc., prevailed at the appeals court but also joined in asking the court to hear the case, saying it presents an important and recurring legal issue that should be resolved.
The Obama administration joined the parties in calling for high court review, although the government takes the side of the manufacturers.
Only one state appeals court, the Georgia Supreme Court, has ruled that families can sue in a vaccine case. The vaccine industry has fiercely opposed the Georgia ruling in the case of Marcelo and Carolyn Ferrari. They claim their son suffered neurological damage after receiving vaccine booster shots made by pharmaceutical companies Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline that contained the preservative thimerosal.
The family has since withdrawn its lawsuit, possibly in an effort to avoid an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, although the Georgia court’s opinion allowing similar lawsuits remains in force.
The court did not act on the companies’ appeal Monday, but the decision in the other case almost certainly will apply to the Georgia case.
According to the lawsuit, Hannah Bruesewitz was a healthy infant until she received the vaccine in April 1992. Within hours of getting the DPT shot, the third in a series of five, the baby suffered a series of debilitating seizures. Now a teenager, Hannah suffers from residual seizure disorder, the suit says.
The vaccine court earlier rejected the family’s claims.
Wyeth lost another high court fight last year over whether federal law barred lawsuits against drug makers. That case, involving a botched injection, asked whether federal law included an implicit prohibition on the lawsuits. The court said it did not.
In this appeal, however, Congress clearly laid out how claims over vaccines were to be made, and the court has repeatedly ruled against plaintiffs when Congress has explicitly sought to bar lawsuits.
Other than the Georgia court, state and federal courts have uniformly invoked a provision of the 1986 federal law, which seems to bar most lawsuits against vaccine makers.
The idea behind the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was to ensure a stable supply of childhood vaccines by shielding drug makers from most lawsuits, and setting up a federal vaccine court to handle disputes. The law would serve to block state laws that otherwise would give families the ability to sue the manufacturers.
In recent years, the legal fight has frequently come from families of autistic children claiming that mercury-based thimerosal is linked to autism. Numerous studies have addressed vaccines and autism and found no link, including with the preservative.
Thimerosal has been removed in recent years from standard childhood vaccines, except flu vaccines that are not packaged in single doses.
Last year, special masters appointed by the vaccine court concluded that vaccines aren’t to blame for autism, disappointing thousands of families hoping to win compensation and others who remain convinced of a connection.
But the vaccine court still must rule on additional cases that argue that vaccines with thimerosal are to blame, if the mercury reached and damaged brain cells.
The case, to be argued in the fall, is Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 09-152.
Click here for the full report.
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 3-3-10
Today, Kevin explains how Congressmen are able to exempt themselves from the laws they pass and why America & Russia have spent so much time in Afghanistan. Plus, find out how food companies can get away with working with the drug companies to hurt your health and what needs to happen to eliminate virtual every disease and illness.
Charlie Rangel Steps Down
Anti-Depressant Scam
How to Create a Perpetual Moneymaking Machine
Also, as a special treat, the tables are turned and Kevin gets hit with the tough questions by Corrine Furnari of Take Charge of Your Health. You won’t want to miss this interview!
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to hear The Kevin Trudeau Show RIGHT NOW!!!
Study Shows ADHD can be Linked to Lead Poisoning
February 16th, 2010
Natural News
By S. L. Baker
What causes the frequently diagnosed behavioral problem in children known as attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) that leads to countless youngsters being given side-effect laden stimulant drugs? Research has focused on genes and, more recently, on the idea that multiple environmental triggers could be the cause. For example, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a recent British study indicates that certain food additives like artificial colors or preservatives could cause ADHD symptoms in some children.
Now two studies — one published in the January issue of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and the other published in the February issue of the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science — provide the best evidence yet that lead could be one of the biggest culprits behind ADHD.
At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, coma, and even kill. But it is chronic, long term exposure that is the more common health threat, especially for children. Researchers have previously linked elevated blood levels of lead in kids to problems ranging from mental retardation to learning disabilities. In a statement the media, Oregon Health and Science University researcher Joel Nigg, who co-authored both of the new studies, pointed out that almost all Americans have a low-level exposure to lead, a well-known neurotoxin, making the metal an ideal candidate for causing ADHD.
Although government regulations drastically reduced environmental exposure to lead a generation ago by regulating automobile fuel and paint ingredients, lead is still found in everything from children’s costume jewelry and toys to soil and some imported candies. In fact, Dr. Nigg stated that virtually all U.S. children have measurable levels of lead in their bodies.
Click here for the full report
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 1-26-10
Today, Kevin gives you the inside story behind America’s involvement in the Haiti earthquake and behind the most famous conspiracy theories in our history.
Permanent Latisse Side Effects Cause for Alarm
Non-Stick Pans Linked to Thyroid Disease
Plus, Dr. R. Geoffrey Broderick of Cornucopia Express explains why store-bought pet food is hurting your animals and what you can do to keep your beloved friend living longer and healthier! Click here to purchase his Super-Food/Phyto-Food combo for your pet today!
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to hear The Kevin Trudeau Show RIGHT NOW!!!
Latisse’s Side Effects Have Some Folks On The Fringe
January 25, 2010
Stylelist.com
By Julie Redfern Davis
It seems too good to be true: small, skimpy lashes grow into thick, lush fringe in a matter of weeks. That’s the promise of Latisse, an FDA-approved prescription treatment that helps the eyelashes grow thicker, longer and darker in as little as 12 to 16 weeks.
In recent weeks, Consumer Reports reviewed the product (watch the video, below) and called it risky given its possible side effects. Among the most alarming: increased brown pigmentation of the colored part of the eye, which is likely to be permanent.
According to Eric Schweiger, a New York City-based dermatologist who has prescribed Latisse, the active ingredient, bimatoprost ophthalmic solution, is also used to treat glaucoma. The difference between the usage for eyelash growth and glaucoma, he notes, is that when treating the latter you place it directly into the eye. In some cases with direct interior eye contact, increased iris pigmentation was reported, however, with Latisse, the product is applied to the lash lines and not directly into the eye.
But with every prescription drug there are potential side effects (just read the fine print and listen carefully to commercials) and the naysayers that question its safety. So then, should we avoid Latisse completely?
Clearly some say yes while others say no (several users have reported successful results with no ill effects). And as Schweiger reminds us, it’s important for doctors to inform patients of all the pros and cons before prescribing any drug treatment, and for patients to understand and accept the potential side effects and risks.
Side effects and controversy aside, Latisse does have a high price tag (an out of pocket expense of approximately $100 a month) and the results are temporary-as soon as you stop using it, your lashes revert back to normal. “You have to remember this is a cosmetic treatment, and most cosmetic procedures are not permanent,” says Schweiger. “A lot of my Latisse users decrease their frequency of use after three months and change to using it every other day. This mostly maintains the results the patients have already achieved, and using it every other day literally cuts the cost in half,” he adds.
A daily dose of mascara is likely to create the same full, thick eyelash effect for a fraction of the price, which has many asking if Latisse is worth it given the risks, price and temporary results.
The same question was posed when Botox was introduced, along with a glut of “wrinkle relaxing” skincare creams to compete with it. Given the demand of that procedure and many other cosmetic treatments, it seems there may be no price or risk too high when it comes to beauty.
Click here for the full report.
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 1-19-10
Today, Kevin is back LIVE!!! Find out why Kindles might possibly be the scariest things he’s ever seen and why people are starting to get violent over a lack of fast food.
Get the news you won’t hear from the mainstream media!
FDA Warns Drug Companies for Misleading Public
FDA Will Not Regulate BPA
7 Foods You Should Never Eat
This is What Schools Are Serving Your Children
Putin Bans U.S. Imported Chickens
Popular Drugs Recalled For Mold
Side-Effects of Pfizer’s Quit-Smoking Drug
Psychiatrist Wrote 1,000 Prescriptions Per Week
Plus, Dr. Bob Marshall of Quantum Nutrition Center stopped by to explain why vitamins and mineral supplements from health stores are so toxic to your body.
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to hear The Kevin Trudeau Show RIGHT NOW!!!
FDA Warns Bayer, Eli Lilly For Misleading Drug Ads
January 13, 2010
Boston.com
By Associated Press
The Food and Drug Administration has issued enforcement letters to four drug makers for making inaccurate or incomplete statements in drug promotions.
The letter to Eli Lilly cites an ad for the antidepressant Cymbalta. According to the FDA, the ad did not adequately display information about side effects. The company said it is working to remove the materials from marketing circulation.
Cephalon faces similar complaints about missing risk information in promotional cards for Treanda, a lymphoma treatment. A spokeswoman said the company has instructed sales people to stop using the card.
Regulators took issue with statements made by Amylin Pharmaceuticals about its diabetes drug Byetta.
Amylin and partner Lilly said they “will take action as needed.’’
Also, the FDA said Bayer’s script for a presentation on its birth control implant Mirena “overstates the efficacy.’’
The company has ended the promotion.
Click here for the full report.
European Governments Cancel Vaccine Orders
January 13, 2010 by Andrew
Filed under Government
January 13, 2010
Wall Street Journal
By Jeanna Whalen and David Gauthier-Villars
Just months after rushing to order enough swine-flu vaccine to protect their citizens, European governments are cancelling orders and trying to sell or give away extra doses as they sit on a glut of the vaccine.
The main reason: European health officials decided that only one shot per person was needed, instead of the two originally planned. Low demand is also to blame. Many Europeans believe the pandemic has turned out to be fairly mild, and don’t see a reason to get vaccinated. Some are also concerned that they will suffer side effects from the shots, despite assurances otherwise from global health officials.
“The population is not running to get the vaccination,” says Roland Jopp, a spokesman for Germany’s health ministry.
Declining interest in the shots could be bad news for vaccine makers, particularly if countries demand their money back for supplies already delivered. Companies may be able to sell the shots elsewhere, however. Most vaccine makers, including GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Sanofi-Aventis SA, Novartis AG and Baxter International Inc., have been expecting a large sales bump from H1N1 vaccine.
In October, analysts estimated that Glaxo would ring up an extra £1 billion ($1.62 billion) of fourth-quarter sales thanks to the vaccine. Novartis has forecast H1N1 sales of $400 million to $700 million for that period.
But some countries are now canceling orders. Germany on Tuesday said it canceled 30% of the 50 million doses it had ordered from Glaxo, which it said would save the country €133.3 million ($194 million). Mr. Jopp of the German health ministry said the main reason for the cancellation is that only one shot is needed per person.
France, which had ordered 94 million doses from four companies, is seeking to cancel 50 million of those doses, according to its health ministry. The U.K., Switzerland, the Netherlands and Spain also say they are seeking to trim their orders, or to sell already delivered doses to other countries.
In the U.S., where vaccine supplies are now ample after an earlier shortage, a top health official last week said the country is focused on vaccinating as many people as possible, and has made no decision about canceling vaccine orders or selling supplies.
Mr. Jopp said Germany still aims to vaccinate one-third of its population, which would cover all groups who are at greater risk for suffering bad infections—including pregnant women, young children and people with asthma. So far, though, only about 10% of the population has stepped forward to be vaccinated, he said.
Some health officials say the public’s lack of interest reflects the thought that the outbreak is milder than many people expected. Last week, the World Health Organization said that rates of “influenza-like illness” have declined substantially in Western Europe in recent weeks, though it added that there was still “intense virus circulation” in parts of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe.
When France began vaccinating people in November, the government opened makeshift vaccination centers in basketball arenas and meeting halls. People at first rushed to get vaccinated, even lining up in the cold. After a few weeks, however, the public’s concern ebbed, leaving most vaccination centers idle and the government facing criticism that it overreacted to the threat.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday defended the government’s planning. “I will always prefer to be too prudent when it comes to people’s health than not enough,” he said in a speech to doctors and nurses.
France initially focused on vaccinating high-risk groups, but has since made vaccine available to the entire population. Still, as of Jan. 10, only about 8% of France’s population of 65 million had been vaccinated, according to health officials.
Swiss authorities have run television and Internet ads to promote vaccination, helping convince about 15% to 20% of the population to get vaccinated— about the same number that would during the regular flu season most years, a spokesman for the Swiss health ministry said.
In an emailed reply to questions, a WHO spokeswoman declined to comment on countries’ attempts to cancel their vaccine orders. She said: “It is premature to consider the pandemic as completed, and there is still immense value in the H1N1 immunization.”
Glaxo said it is “working closely with governments to respond to their changing needs.” Novartis said it “will evaluate government requests on a case-by-case basis within the framework of the contractual agreements, which are considered binding.”
A Baxter spokeswoman said its “have always included provisions allowing the contract holder to adjust its vaccine supply requirements based on its evolving pandemic needs.” All three companies declined to comment on how cancellations might affect sales.
A Sanofi spokesman said the company doesn’t yet anticipate any significant changes in revenue due to vaccine cancellations.
Click here for the full report. f
Too Many Drugs in Americans – More Evidence
January 13, 2010
Natural News
By S. L. Baker
As NaturalNews has previously reported, the U.S. is a nation seemingly hooked on mind-altering drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/027054_d…). A study released last fall in the Archives of General Psychiatry documented a dramatic increase in the use of antidepressant drugs like Prozac since l996. In fact, these medications are now the most widely prescribed drugs in the U.S.
Think Americans are maxed out on the number of psychiatric meds that huge numbers of them are taking? Think again. A new report says U.S. adults are increasingly being prescribed combinations of antidepressants, anti-anxiety and antipsychotic medications — and they could be experiencing serious side effects as a result.
The study, published in the January edition of Archives of General Psychiatry, investigated patterns and trends in what is known as psychotropic polypharmacy, meaning the prescribing of two or more psychiatric drugs. Ramin Mojtabai, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and Mark Olfson, M.D., M.P.H., of Columbia University Medical Center and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, examined data gathered from a national sample of office-based psychiatry practices. In all, the researchers looked at the medications prescribed between 1996 and 2006 during more than 13,000 office visits to psychiatrists by adults.
The results showed a significant increase in the number of mind impacting drugs prescribed over these years. The percentage of doctor visits which resulted in two or more medications being prescribed increased from 42.6 percent to 59.8 percent. What’s more, the percentage of visits at which three or more drugs were prescribed soared from 16.9 percent to 33.2 percent. And the median number of medications prescribed at each appointment with a psychiatrist increased on average by of 40.1 percent.
The combinations of drugs being prescribed with increasing frequency include antidepressants with sedative-hypnotics (the most prescribed combination), antidepressants given along with antipsychotics and combinations of several kinds of antidepressants. But at least the doctors prescribing these mixed drugs are only doing so based on solid research showing the combos are safe and effective, right? Wrong.
“Because scant data exist to support the efficacy of some of the most common medication combinations, such as antipsychotic combinations or combinations of antidepressants and antipsychotics, prudence suggests that renewed clinical efforts should be made to limit the use of these combinations to clearly justifiable circumstances,” the authors wrote in their paper. “At the same time, a new generation of research is needed to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of common concomitant medication regimens, especially in patients with multiple disorders or monotherapy-refractory conditions.”
In other words, drugs are being given to patients in all sorts of combinations without sound science showing they even work well together — much less that these drug cocktails are safe to take. In fact, the researchers point out specific dangers of taking multiple psychiatric drugs.
“While the evidence for added benefit of antipsychotic polypharmacy is limited, there is growing evidence regarding the increased adverse effects associated with such combinations,” they concluded. A case in point: some combinations cause increases in body weight and total cholesterol level. Others have been associated with an increase in fasting blood glucose level.
Click here for the full report.
