Parents and Caregivers take heed – another child “safety” device was recalled on Thursday, March 25, 2010.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Health Canada, in cooperation with the manufacturer, Evenflo, announced the recall of Evenflo’s Top-of-Stair wood gates after receiving 142 reports of the slats breaking or detaching from the gates.

Nearly 200,000 of these gates have been recalled, after reports of children gaining access to the stairs through the defective slats and children being injured by the slats themselves or from falls relating to the slats.

According to the CPSC, “The slats on the gate can break or detach, posing a fall hazard to children… Evenflo has received 142 reports of slats breaking and/or detaching from the gate.

Three children gained access to stairs. One of those children fell through the gate and down five steps; another fell down one step. Injuries included four children who sustained bumps and bruises to the head and seven children who sustained minor injuries including scratches, scrapes and bruises.”

The model numbers affected by the recall, produced between October 2007 and July 2009, include 10502 and 10512.  The model number is located on the bottom rail of the gate. The defective wooden gates were sold by Toys “R” Us, Burlington Baby Depot, Kmart and other juvenile product and wholesale retailers throughout the U.S. and Canada.

The CPSC urges parents and caretakers to cease use of the recalled gates and contact Evenflo toll-free at (800) 233-5921 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or online at safety.evenflo.com to receive a complimentary replacement Evenflo Top-of-Stair™ Plus Wood Gate.

Those Big Tobacco guys are at it again.

Do they not care for Florida juries, Florida judges, or the Florida Supreme Court? At the least, Big Tobacco does not like the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in the “Engle” cases. These cases stem from a class, which was decertified by the Florida Supreme Court.

Big Tobacco just suffered yet another loss in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; where a jury, after hearing evidence, was apparently so outraged by the past conduct of Big tobacco they rendered a $20 million verdict for punitive damages against the tobacco companies. This was a case involving a 50 year smoker who died of lung cancer. The jury awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and assessed one third responsibility for his death against Mr. Cohen himself.

The tobacco companies are on a losing streak with juries who are permitted to hear even a small capsule of their history of conduct in marketing, manipulating and chemically engineering cigarettes. After this verdict on behalf of Mr. Cohen, Phillip Morris issued statements, which now have become the “party line” mantra and could simply be tape recorded and played after every trial they lose:

“We will seek further review of this verdict because this jury was allowed to rely on findings by a prior jury that are totally unrelated to the individual smoker in this case in violation of Florida law and due process.”

Let’s take a look at these “findings by a prior jury” about which Big Tobacco is so worked up. The findings they do not like and apparently feel are unfair, were actually set forth by the Florida Supreme Court after review of trial transcripts and other records involved in the “Engle” trials that went on over two years:

(more…)

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Health Canada (HC) announced today that a free replacement program has begun for the “SlingRider” and “Wendy Bellissimo” infant slings, manufactured by Infantino LLC, of San Diego, California.  One million slings are being recalled in the United States and 15,000 are being recalled in Canada, in a cooperative effort with the manufacturer.

The CPSC has called for consumers to immediately stop using these slings for infants younger than four months of age due to a risk of suffocation.  The recall is announced following reports of three infant deaths that occurred in these slings last year involving 7-week-old infant, a 6-day-old infant and a 3-month-old infant.

The two slings involved in the recall are both soft fabric baby carriers with a strap which allows the parent or caregiver to have the baby lying against their chest.  The “SlingRider” model has “Infantino” is printed on the plastic slider located on the strap.  The “Wendy Bellissimo” carriers were sold only at Babies “R” Us and have a sewn-in label on the inside of the sling strap that says in part “Wendy Bellissimo Media, Inc.”

Consumers can contact Infantino toll-free at (866) 860-1361 between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company’s Web site to receive a free replacement product.

The way the numbers and facts are being reported is confusing.

The way some members of the community are responding to what is simply awful news is angering.

Some people are even calling the families “liars” who reported their concerns to the state.

Do such name-callers suppose that these families fabricated the number of brain tumors in the area?  The cancer cluster designation was based on the number of cases, not on the veracity of the families who dared to start the inquiry.

Let’s face it.  The Acreage has had some very bad news and there is little concrete information being provided. People are struggling with how to handle it because that’s a hard task.

The news is full of stories: an increased risk of cancer, childhood illnesses, childhood mortality, and yes, degraded home values.  None of these concerns are unimportant. It’s essentially the complete disintegration of what we call “home sweet home.”

But pretending that there is not a problem and calling those who are facing the staggering truth “liars” is an unproductive way to handle the news of the day.  It is a denial afforded by the lack of concrete information.

So let’s try a new perspective.

Yes, the newspapers and the state focus on the fives cases of female pediatric brain tumors diagnosed before 2007; this is a staggering number in particular because female brain tumors are rarer even than male pediatric brain tumors.

Let’s look at the time range that includes the first cases reported.  And let’s look at the environmental proximity, since that’s usually the focus of the inquiry into causation.    From 2005 to 2008, seven brain tumors were diagnosed within a 3.3 mile by 2.2 mile grid in the Acreage community. This is less than half the area described in the state study and includes only a portion of the population they are looking at.  The greatest distance between any two of these cases is 3749 yards.   The average case to case distance is 1894 yards.

This is how that time span breaks down:

There were 2 diagnosed tumors in 2005, separated by 1000 yards home to home.

Both of these cases are females.  (In other words, a very rare occurrence.)

In more important words, each of these cases is someone’s little girl.

There were 5 diagnosis occurring in late 2007 through 2008.

One of these was a male and all the others were females.  (In other words, still a very rare occurrence.)

In more important words, each of these cases is someone’s child.

It should be noted that  the closest of these homes is separated by a  distance of 1000 yards.

The diagnosis of the children was separated by 6 months.

Again, both of these very proximate cases were someone’s little girls.

Noone would expect to see four cases in three years, let alone 4 cases in 2008 alone.

Sure, you could broaden the geographic grid to the one as large as that on the state Department of Health web site.  After all, there were six more cases that I did not include in the numbers above, either because they fall outside the 2005-2008 time span or because they fall outside the smaller geographic grid I refer to.  4 of those were prior to 2008.  Two were after 2008.

So eleven cases of brain tumors in 2001-2008.  13 if you go to 2009… And none of these numbers considers the calls we are getting from families who have had a child diagnosed with a pediatric brain tumor within months of moving away from the Acreage.  (Not YEARS, months.)

And while each of the cases that I list so clinically above is someone’s child, and will always be someone’s child, not all of them are alive anymore.

So who is really lying to their community and who is simply lying to themselves?

Suppose that when a product malfunctions it was acceptable for the manufacturer to pay “experts”, recognized and notable professionals; to write articles, opinion letters, and studies, that spoke of the product’s safety. Articles that dispelled any notion that the product was really what was causing the problem.

Suppose that each of these “experts” was paid for their literary contributions, but did not disclose the payment.

Does not happen? Experienced, reputable “experts” would never agree to such a charade?

Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

I have been dealing with experts for many years and have often heard the trap of, “well, she teaches at ___________ School, she must know what she is talking about” or “he did clinical research at _______________ institution, he is certainly an expert”. These are constant traps people fall into. Where an expert teaches or was educated is a very small part of what does or does not make them an expert.

Experts are human. Experts can be influenced by money; by self interest, and by a really good “snow job” from a manufacturer.

This topic has once again raised its ugly head through discoveries made about the drug, Avandia. The Mayo Clinic did a retrospective study, in which they determined that many “experts” forgot to disclose financial ties they had with the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline.

Avandia is suspected of causing fluid retention, congestive heart failure, and heart attacks in diabetic patients.

It seems a good time for the pharmaceutical and medical device industry to adopt strict guidelines relating to disclosures of possibly prejudicing financial or other interests, which “experts” may have in connection with products or drugs.

If the industry will not do it voluntarily, perhaps it is overdue for the Food & Drug Administration to compel them.

A new study released by Harvard Medical School and published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology finds that “aspirin can significantly reduce the risk of cancer spread and death for women who have been treated for early stage breast cancer.”

These studies show that after successful treatments for breast cancer, women who take aspirin regularly have a drastically lower risk of dying from recurrent cancer. Aspirin may also cut their risk of having their cancer spread to other sites. The study was conducted on more than 4,000 nurses beginning in 1976, and concluded that those nurses who took aspirin, usually to prevent heart disease, had a 50 percent lower risk of dying from breast cancer and a 50 percent lower risk of the cancer spreading.

So what does this study mean for people treated for cancer? Some studies suggest that aspirin can cut the risk of breast cancer in women who do not have the disease. Other studies reach the opposite conclusion. Most doctors however will agree that taking aspirin every day for a long time carries risks, especially the risk of stomach or intestinal bleeding.

According to Louise Chang, MD for WebMD:

“Aspirin will only help prevent breast cancer recurrence, when combined with other cancer therapies. Most women do not get breast cancer and only those with a high risk of getting breast cancer would benefit from aspirin. Otherwise, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits it may have in preventing cancer.”

Like breast cancer, studies have also been conducted on treating those with colon cancer or those who are at a high risk of getting colon cancer with aspirin. The research strongly suggests that aspirin improves survival in patients treated for colon cancer. The same studies also state that aspirin decreases the risk of new polyps in patients who have had precancerous intestinal polyps removed and that people who took aspirin regularly had a lower colon cancer risk. Studies have also shown that aspirin may lower the risk of other cancers, such as prostate and esophageal cancers.

Even with all the promising and encouraging results from these recent studies, the U.S Preventive Services is continuing to recommend against the widespread use of aspirin to prevent certain cancers, citing that the risks outweigh the benefits for people at normal risk of colon , breast and other types of cancers. “There is no good evidence that this benefit (aspirin), even when combined with the benefit of low-dose aspirin in preventing heart disease, outweighs the risk for people at normal risk of cancer,” states Dr. Chang.

As thousands of Post-Engle cases wind their way through the Florida court system, Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds, Lorillard and Liggett & Myers are facing daily challenges.  After years of priding themselves on winning most of  the lawsuits filed against them through historic “scorched earth” tactics, it appears that those days are over (and perhaps it is time for Big Tobacco to rewrite that old playbook).

Here are just a few of the highlights for the past week:

(more…)

First, let me start with a disclaimer of sorts. I admire people who have professions I wish I had; writers, for example. I admire someone who can combine words on a page and make me think or help me escape.

I thought, though, that if you chose to write non-fiction it required you to know something about the subject.  If you were uninformed about the subject, I assumed you researched it. If the subject was something involving important social, political or medical issues, you certainly would research it.

Right?

Apparently, not all reporters feel that way. A Palm Beach Post reporter wrote in yesterday’s paper something about which he clearly knows little or nothing. The title was: “What part of ‘hazardous’ don’t smokers get?”

This is a story criticizing smokers and casting judgment on those smokers who have sued Big Tobacco; the “Engle” plaintiffs. It seems evident to me this reporter clearly spent no time researching and brought an entire collection of “baggage” into his article.

The only tangible piece of information the reporter provides is that his parents smoked and “…they were lifelong slaves to — and, ultimately, victims of — the habit.” This statement certainly demonstrates facts, but completely misses the mark on any shred of insight.

The reporter apologizes for knocking “a possibly dying woman as she struggles for her next breath”, but he clearly knows nothing about the case, trial, or facts of the lawsuit filed by Cindy Naugle. This reporter also must have no respect for the intelligence of jurors who after hearing weeks of evidence, must have been outraged by the conduct of Big Tobacco, causing them to render a $300 million verdict.

All of this demonstrates at least one central issue. Before “dashing off” this article, want of any facts, the reporter could not have done even a modicum of research. Before criticizing an entire class of people, perhaps he should try researching and reading, just a little.

I have read many, many documents produced by Big Tobacco and they are full of thoughts, plans, and schemes to hopelessly addict people; keep them addicted; lure young children to become smokers; and to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking.

For those who who want to know facts about Big Tobacco and not hyperbole, I recommend the following sites:

Tobacco Documents

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library

British American Tobacco Documents Archive

Tobacco Control Archives

Tobacco Archives

Philip Morris USA

The Legacy Tobacco Documents

The Honorable Judge Gladys Kessler’s Findings Against Big Tobacco

So, to the Palm Beach Post writer I can only recommend that perhaps you should read more than you write…at least for a while.

It is an insidious evil that quite often strikes children and young adults.

It is a disease that strikes one person every four minutes.

It kills someone every ten minutes.

It is a class of diseases called Leukemia and Lymphoma.

The treatment is grueling and tough. The journey through treatment is long and the patient and family members both share their own particular suffering. Patients suffer physically, emotionally and psychologically.

Long strides have been made in both treatment and survival in the last decade.

Below, I would like to introduce you to one of the attorneys in our firm, as he discusses his involvement with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. In this video, Pat Quinlan discusses his most recent participation in the upcoming “Team In Training”. Pat is preparing for an endurance event of a 26.2 mile run.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3N5l0ohCfA[/youtube]

I invite you; encourage you; plead with you to support this very worthwhile organization. Please show your support for the organization and for Pat Quinlan by visiting his Team In Training Marathon site and contributing to his efforts. Your contribution is tax deductible; it takes only a couple of minutes; and it may save a child’s life.

Two bills (Senate Bill No. 2120 and House Bill No. 1285) were introduced in March of 2010 by Senator Justice of the Tampa Bay area and Representative Thompson of Orlando. These bills seek to impose civil and criminal penalties for the sale of toys, jewelry and other products intended for children that contain excessive levels of cadmium.

These legislative efforts follow on the heels of a number of recalls of products that contained excessive cadmium levels, a known carcinogen, by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. As more and more products are imported into this country from China, all parents need to be alert and exercise caution. We work so hard to baby-proof our homes and do everything possible to shield our children from harm, so it is quite disconcerting to think that a cheap toy or piece of costume jewelry could place them at risk.

We all must ask ourselves whether the cost savings from purchasing cheap , foreign goods are really worth it, when foreign manufacturers, time and again, have shown a total lack of care about the safety of their products or a commitment to operating reputable businesses. Sadly, most of these manufacturers are able to currently operate with impunity, because it is very, very difficult to enforce our safety standards or hold a foreign manufacturer liable in our court system.

I applaud the efforts of our legislators to address this very serious problem. Even if we cannot police disreputable manufacturers beyond our borders, we can at least encourage retailers in Florida to ask tough questions before buying and selling these products. Which, ultimately, may protect all of us, and put these foreign manufacturers of defective goods out of business.