Zicam Gets Rid of More than Colds!
June 19, 2009
Zicam, the cold remedy marketed by Matrixx Initiatives, is the subject of a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Several Zicam products have been associated with loss of sense of smell, or anosmia.
The warning advises that the product can no longer be marketed without FDA approval.
If you or a loved one has suffered lost sense of smell from Zicam use call your doctor immediately. Then, contact The S.E. Farris Law Firm for a Free consultation. You may reach us at 314-A-LAWYER or by clicking here.
Doctors Question Avandia Safety
June 10, 2009
Some doctors don’t agree that a recent safety study which claims Avandia (rosiglitazone) is safe, is as conclusive as presented at the American Diabetes Association meeting. Some physicians are calling the study “flawed.” Avandia is used used with a proper diet and exercise program to control high blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes (non-insulin-dependent diabetes).
In an editorial in the Lancet–where the research was published–two doctors wrote that the study’s limitations prevent any “definitive conclusions” about Avandia’s effects on cardiac safety. Avandia has been haunted by safety concerns for two years, ever since an analysis found that patients using the diabetes med were more likely to suffer a heart attack than people taking other diabetes remedies were.
A GlaxoSmithKline (the makers of Avandia) funded study, called the Record, found that Avandia does not boost overall cardiovascular risk, though it does increase the risk of heart failure. “Record provides important and reassuring information about Avandia for physicians fighting diabetes,” said Dr. Ellen Strahlman, GSK’s chief medical officer,said in a statement on the study’s release. “Clinical outcomes trials like this offer the highest standard of evidence when considering the benefits and risks of medicines.”
Some doctors beg to differ. They told the Wall Street Journal that the overall rate of cardiovascular problems among patients in the trial was abnormally low. A significant number of Avandia patients took statins–10 percent more than the non-Avandia users, Forbes reports—and those cholesterol-fighters are known to cut heart attack risk. Plus, a relatively high level of patients dropped out of the trial entirely, which could have compromised the results, they said. (Glaxo said about 45 percent of participants dropped out at some point, but that dropout rate didn’t affect the primary aim of the study.)
Meanwhile, another physician told the WSJ that the Record trial may have been too small to be sure Avandia is clear of increased heart attack risk. And Forbes is questioning the fact that Glaxo didn’t make clear that so many patients had dropped out of the Record study. Steve Nissen, the cardiologist who launched the Avandia controversy with his meta-analysis, went so far as to call the trial “worthless” because of the dropouts and the statin-drug use.
James Stein of the University of Wisconsin-Madison told Forbes that Record patients and doctors knew which drugs they were on, weakening the result. Plus, in a subset of Avandia patients who had established heart disease, the risk of heart attack increased by nearly 26 percent, he said.
So it appears the debate over Avandia is far from over.
If you or a loved one has suffered a heart attack which you believe may be related to Avandia use, contact The S.E. Farris Law Firm for a Free consultation. You may reach us at 314-A-LAWYER or by clicking here.
Missouri Judicial Selections get a Boost from Supreme Court
June 9, 2009
Missouri selects appellate and some circuit judges in a unique way, copied by many states. The “non-Partisan Court Plan” or “Missouri Plan” allows a committee of lawyers and lay people to select a panel of candidates, with the sitting Governor to select a judge from the panel. Since the committee has overlapping terms, the group picking the panel is unlikely to be from the same political party as the sitting governor, so that neither party can completely control judicial selection.
Without understanding the process, folks in the Missouri Legislature like Jim Lembke have attempted to destroy this system and give more power to the sitting governor. Initially, this was a partisan move, as Lembke and other republicans wanted then republican governor Matt Blunt to make partisan selections. In a rare exercise of intellectual honesty, however, Lembke has continued to push for scrapping the Missouri Plan and giving politicians more influence in the process.
Any significant change in the Missouri Plan has been opposed by the Missouri Bar , which is made up of lawyers and judges in court every day, as opposed to politicians who only want control of the courts. The fear is that a change in the non-Partisan plan would inject more politics into the selection process. (Many Missouri judges are elected to office outside of the Missouri Plan, but even these are not political appointees but elected officials.)
Enter the US Supreme Court. Yesterday, in Caperton v. Massey Coal, the Supreme Court disqualified a West Virginia Supreme court justice from hearing a case after one of the parties, Harman Mining, spent about $3 million to get him elected to the court. Harman Mining spent the money only after losing a $50 million verdict that was destined for review by the West Virginia supreme court, raising the appearance that the justice was pushed to the court so he could return a favor. Even if this didn’t motivate the judge, the mere appearance of impropriety is enough to cause most judges to recuse themselves from a case. Justice Benjamin in West Virginia, however, refused to do so. The US Supreme Court said he should have.
Missourians enjoy a judicial selection system where all appellate judges and many circuit judges are outside the reach of political money. Shouldn’t we protect this system, rather than expose our citizens to store bought justice?