Are the threats of today’s travel starkly different from those that existed 20, 30, or 50 years ago? Do we live in a new world?

I think the answer is an unequivocal…yes.

I still remember my first airline flight as an adult. It was 35 years ago. We checked baggage and I walked to the terminal with my girlfriend. No searches. No boarding pass required to get to the gate. No bomb residue tests at the gate.

The good ol’ days. Bye-bye to those days forever I am afraid. I do not like it, but, it is what it is.

Today is the day of shoe bombers, car bombers, and box cutters. The threat has landed on American soil and we have lost our innocence.

So, this lover of the constitution; this guy who believes we must guard our freedoms doggedly; has caved. Being searched and having my bags searched is an inconvenience and an invasion. Having myself searched is an outrage. Being put through a full-body scanner is, well, annoying and, I suppose, somewhat worrisome.

Sorry to all my constitution loving friends, I think the current regulations are necessary in the interest of the safest possible traveling. I do not have to love it to understand the need for it.

Did the framers of the constitution see this happening? In some respects they probably imagined the concept, although not the specifics.

So, it is with mixed feelings that I read about Robert Dean’s attempt at a temporary injunction, filed in the US District Court for Eastern Arkansas, against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Mr. Dean seeks to suspend the TSA’s use of full-body “pat-down” searches and “back-scatter full-body imaging systems.” Mr. Dean correctly, in my opinion, asserts that both efforts violate our Fourth Amendment rights under the constitution.

I think the question is: Are we willing to accept these new procedures in this instance, but resist similar efforts in other instances? The real fear, I suggest, is not these specific procedures, but the government gaining a “foothold” in asserting other controls, which violate the constitution. I think allowing this invasion is clearly a slippery slope, but what are the alternatives?

What do you think?

 Loading ...

What lawsuits consume the very most resources in our court system?

Lawsuits filed by injured people? Nope.

Lawsuits filed by corporations suing corporations? Yep! By far, excluding divorce, we tax payers pay out more to support the court system’s time in handling one corporation suing another than any other type of case.

So, it was with some interest that I read about the latest lawsuit news involving SAP AG and Oracle. SAP is a German company; a global leader in technology systems and solutions; with income of over 13 billion dollars. Oracle is also a tech leader in software and hardware with an income of over 15 billion dollars.

The battle between the two giants arose from allegations that SAP had stolen billions in intellectual property from Oracle. Apparently not until years of litigation and only finally at trial, SAP confessed they were guilty of stealing some of Oracle’s intellectual property, but argued that:

“SAP posited that (SAP)…actually wasn’t that good at stealing customers from Oracle, and that SAP should not pay money it made from 358 customers it gained with the stolen data.”

The jury disagreed with SAP AG and awarded $1.3 billion in favor of Oracle. I guess the jury felt SAP was “good at stealing customers” from Oracle.

So, years of attorneys’ fees; countless court time; and (3) weeks of trial for two corporate giants to resolve a dispute in which apparently one was guilty all along. Not a battle by an injured person against a mega-corporation; in which the hurt person is simply trying to recover for pieces of their lost life, livelihood, and permanent physical injuries.

This is actually where our judicial resources are going: corporate super powers fighting amongst themselves. Bottom line: our constitution quite wisely provides for disputes to be settled in this way.

Many who have led blessed lives are quick to want to cap damages awarded to injured people, but should we cap damages which mega-corps can recover? Do these poor, victimized corporate behemoths deserve our attention and protection? Wouldn’t capping the damages corporations can recover from each other conserve resources of our court system? Not fair? You think that corporations should be allowed access to our court system in order to fight the “good fight”?

Can we really trust “average Joe or Jill” jurors to be able to listen to evidence in these corporate fights and be smart enough to reach the “right” decision? Should we jurors be told what to do in court cases? All we citizens exercise one of the most important responsibilities of running this country: the responsibility for voting. Whether I ultimately do or do not agree with what the majority of voters decide, this is a job we all take on without significant government regulation or intervention, right?

When voters overwhelmingly deliver a win to a particular candidate, we call it a landslide, a clear message from the electorate. We may quietly argue about the wisdom of the majority, but we do not legislate away part of the votes; we do not move numbers of votes amongst the candidates in order to “level the playing field”.

Trust me; neither jurors nor voters need crayons and “stay in the lines” instruction to accomplish their jobs.  A 1.3 billion dollar verdict will do more to curb overzealous corporations than any government board of ex-big business lackeys. Truth be told its good old fashion economics; when the cost of malfeasance is greater that the gain by wrongdoing then, and only then, will you have a chance to sustain the equilibrium for proper behavior and to curb abusive power. Civil litigators in the private sector are the most efficient means at targeting bad seeds and at the least expense to tax payers.

So, when you think about “runaway juries”, think about the possibility that it has nothing to do with jurors not being smart enough to see the truth. What if, jurors are smart people, just like voters. What if had you been in a courtroom and actually heard the evidence supporting egregious conduct, that you, too would award $1.3 billion against a corporation.

Imagine you are the one who has been wronged or injured in some way. Imagine you have lost everything important to you or have suffered a loss of a piece of your life that you will never be able to get back. Imagine jurors hear your evidence. Imagine those smart jurors want to award you the full measure of your damages. Imagine the legislature has passed laws that limit the amount of damages you can recover; regardless of what the jury has decided.

Imagine you are told that justice in your case is what the legislature decided and not what was decided by your peers? Not fair? Think about that the next time someone talks about a “runaway verdict”. Think about: what if? What if it is me who is harmed?

It has been almost 50 years since a drug to treat lupus has been approved by the FDA. This week the FDA voted in favor of the new drug Benlysta 13-2 to treat lupus. A final decision to approve the new drug will be made by December 9 and it could be available to consumers by early next year, 2011.

Lupus is a poorly understood disease leading to chronic inflammatory disease that occurs when the body’s immune system attacks its own tissues and organs. More than 90 percent of those afflicted with lupus tend to be women in their 30’s and 40’s. Symptoms can include fatigue, fever, joint pain, stiffness and swelling, rashes, skin lesions, mouth sores, hair loss and chest pain. Symptoms are extreme and severe in many patients. The disease will continue to attack the internal organs and eventually lead to death.

To date only three drugs have been approved for treating lupus including aspirin, the steroid prednisone, and Plaquenil. However all of these drugs can have serious side effects including stomach bleeding, weight gain, bruising, high blood pressure and diabetes, vision problems and muscle weakness. Chemotherapy drugs are also used to treat the disease and can cause hair loss, anemia, and diarrhea. New studies released by drug manufacturer Human Genome Sciences and GlaxoSmithKline show that, “The experimental drug Benlysta significantly reduced lupus symptoms in a randomized trial of more than 850 patients, reducing their need for debilitating steroids and chemo treatments and improving quality of life.”

Opponents of the drug said that Benylsta did not show patients faring any better than those taking older therapies and the therapies did not work on certain races, such as African-Americans. According to the Human Genome Sciences study, “Only 30 percent of patients studied responded to the drug and the drug did not help African-Americans- who are three times more likely to have lupus than Caucasians.”  However, patients who did perform well with Benylsta strongly encouraged the FDA approval of the medication because the drugs side effects are relatively mild compared with that of current treatments which can be debilitating.

Dr. Daniel Wallace of UCLA’s Geffen School of Medicine, is hopeful about the new drug for lupus. He has treated patients over the past four years with Benylsta and has seen them get better and better. “The fact that they could taper off steroids in the drug group really speaks well for the drug,” says Wallace. “This is going to be a major breakthrough, no question about it.”

Margaret G. Dowd, president of the Lupus Research Institute, is also excited about the new breakthrough for lupus patients. “We have had many disappointments, so for a drug to make it through the door with a very significant success rate is an extraordinary accomplishment,” said Dowd. “Not only does the trial offer lupus patients the hope of a new treatment with fewer side effects, but it should also offer encouragement to other companies with lupus drugs in the pipeline.”

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is on the rise for U.S. children according to a recent government study on ADHD. The new Center for Disease Control and Prevention study cites that 1 in 10 children have ADHD, almost a 25 percent increase in the past four years. The CDC interviewed parents of children ages 4 though 17 and found a dramatic increase in ADHD diagnosis since the last study was taken in 2003.

ADHD is defined as children who have a hard time paying attention and controlling impulsive behavior. The condition is treated with drugs, behavioral therapy, and/or nutritional changes. Two-thirds of children who have ADHD take prescribed medications for treatment of the condition.

Some experts believe that we are seeing an increase in the disorder because we have a greater identification and understanding of ADHD. Doctors are able to better identify the conditions and diagnose the problem along with teachers and parents who are better trained and more experienced to recognize the condition.

Others say that our video game and TV obsessed society is conditioning children to have shorter attention spans and classroom techniques are not able to keep the child’s attention. In other words, real life becomes dull and boring.

Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a pediatric researcher at Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, says, “The onslaught of children’s programming along with DVD players and portable TVs that make viewing possible anywhere anytime, may very well be linked with ADHD.” Christakis is a leading researcher in the study of ADHD and says that, “TV viewing in very young children contributes to attention problems later in life. The study revealed that each hour of television watched per day at ages 1 -3 increases the risk of attention problems by almost 10 percent at age 7,” says Christakis.

Educational psychologist, Jane Healy, agrees with Christakis and says that overstimulation from rapid scene changes also throws the body’s balance off. “Rapid scene changes and other programming tactics may throw off the balance of the body’s catecholamine system, which is responsible for carrying communications between nerves,” says Healy. “We think that with continued exposure to high intensity, unrealistic action, you’re conditioning the mind to expect that level of input,” adds Healy. “When the child doesn’t get the fast-paced input that television provides, he or she becomes bored and inattentive. It used to be that as educators we talked about the two-minute mind. Now it’s the 30-second mind.”

Other experts believe that children are being diagnosed with ADHD unfairly and that the diagnosis of ADHD is a matter of opinion. Howard Abikoff, a psychologist who is director of the Institute for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity and Behavior Disorders at New York University’s Child Study Center says the CDC’s study results, “Sounds a little high.” “There is no blood test or brain-imaging exam for the condition,” says Abikoff. “Sometimes reading disabilities or other problems in the classroom cause a teacher or others to mistakenly think a child has ADHD,” he says.

While there is no proven link between excessive television watching and ADHD, parents should try and limit the amount of TV their child is exposed to, encourage their children to learn through their hands and bodies, rather than a video or TV screen, and communicate to their children directly without the use of the television or computer screen so they can learn important language and interpersonal skills. “If you skip over early language or shortchange it because you’re watching television so much, you may never get it back,” warns Healy.

Interestingly, the folks at NASA take a completely different approach to their discussion of ADHD:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S26Kk-ueWjQ[/youtube]

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a new rule, which includes changes to the warnings on cigarette packaging; warnings that have remained largely the same for decades.

These proposed new warnings are obviously intended to be graphic motivation for smokers to quit and for those who have not yet tried cigarettes, to never take that step into addiction.

For decades, the tobacco industry has withheld information about the dangers of smoking; lied about the dangers of smoking; and engaged in advertising campaigns designed to hide the dangers of smoking from the public.

Big Tobacco also, to the present, continues to maintain that cigarettes are not addictive; that smokers can quit anytime they want to do so. Given the extensive manipulation of the chemicals in tobacco by the industry, hooking the American public on cigarettes has been a multi-billion dollar adventure for them. Big Tobacco knows and, in fact, designed a product that begins to addict the smoker when he or she lights up that first cigarette.

We can only hope that these new warnings on the packaging of cigarettes will prove to be a big step in deterring people from smoking or make them think about the consequences when they hold that pack of cigarettes in their hand. Perhaps if smokers view these graphic images enough times, who knows, maybe miracles do happen.

It’s a shame that it took so many years to implement these new, graphic and sobering warnings on tobacco products.

It is shameful that the tobacco industry refused to put even the most benign warnings on their products until they were forced to do so by the government. It is similarly shameful that the tobacco industry persists in trying to sell its canards and propaganda to the public.

To view more information relating to the FDA action and the new warning labels: Proposed Cigarette Product Warning Labels or the Proposed Rule.

On December 3, 2007, 59-year-old Niven Anderson was on his way to West Palm Beach to connect with some of his business customers and had stopped his car at a traffic light in Belle Glade, Florida. Without any warning, the flatbed trailer of a passing commercial vehicle swerved from its lane and smashed its left rear tire into Mr. Anderson’s car. The truck driver did not stop. Fortunately, a local law enforcement officer was at the intersection when the collision occurred, and the truck driver was stopped and apprehended some distance down the highway. In spite of the obvious physical evidence, and eyewitness accounts of the accident, the truck driver denied having anything to do with the accident.

In March 2007, just nine months prior to this accident, Mr. Anderson had suffered severe injuries when, as a pedestrian, he was struck by a passing motorist. He spent 24 days in a hospital undergoing treatment for a badly broken right leg and a cervical fracture. Through outstanding medical treatment and his own hard work, Mr. Anderson was able to slowly put his life back together. Unfortunately, the injuries caused by this accident made Mr. Anderson’s neck and spine more susceptible to further injury should he be involved in another accident. Following the accident caused by the inattentive truck driver in Belle Glade, Mr. Anderson was set back to square one in his physical condition. Because of the damage done by the second accident, he eventually had to endure a four-level cervical fusion of his spine.

The trucking company, Gypsum Express Limited, not only refused to accept responsibility for the injuries caused by their negligent truck driver, and but even refused to acknowledge that the crash had happened. Niven Anderson and his wife, Betty, were forced to file suit in Palm Beach County and sought representation by SDSBS attorneys Jack Hill and Brian Denney. Following two years of pretrial litigation, they were able to present their case to a jury. The attorneys spent eight days fighting the truck company’s many attempts to explain why it was not responsible for Mr. Anderson’s injuries. The trucking company argued that its driver did not hit Mr. Anderson’s car, and that, even if the truck had hit the car, Mr. Anderson’s problems were the result of a combination of degenerative changes and the March 2007 injuries. The trucking company even blamed the driver of a vehicle behind Mr. Anderson’s car, who, in the face of the sudden and unexpected emergency caused by the truck slamming into the Anderson car, had rear-ended the Anderson vehicle. Ultimately, the jury rejected each of the trucking company’s excuses. The jury found the company 100% responsible for Niven Anderson’s injuries and awarded the Andersons over $720,000.

“Through their verdict, it is apparent that the jury was able to see through all of the trucking company’s laundry list of excuses, right to the heart of the case,” said Mr. Hill. Because the defendants had failed to accept the Andersons’ offer to settle the case for $425,000, attorneys Hill and Denney will now seek to recover attorney fees as well.

As if we needed another reason to hate setting our clocks back this year, but now a new study by the British Medical Journal says daylight savings time may be bad for our health.

Setting our clocks back one hour in the winter changes the amount of daylight we receive at night, making it darker earlier in the evening and lighter in the morning hours. The British Medical Journal cites that losing an extra hour of daylight makes it less likely that people will engage in outdoor activities at the end of the day because it is darker sooner.

One of the researchers of the study, Mayer Hillman, says that getting rid of daylight savings time would improve public health. “The cost for this extra evening daylight is extra morning darkness, but that’s only a problem during the winter,” says Hillman. “On average over the year only one or two of our waking hours in the morning are spent in darkness whereas nearly half of the 10-11 waking hours after midday are in darkness.”  This is even more so in Northern regions of the country and across Europe where darkness falls earlier than other parts of the country.

The report states that “keeping the same time would increase the number of accessible daylight hours, boosting vitamin D levels as well as encouraging people to exercise more.  Vitamin D deficiency is known for causing rickets and increasing the chances of autoimmune diseases. The British Medical Journal also reported that daylight savings time contributes to more pollution and wasted energy. They even go as far as saying that it might contribute to obesity due to a lack of exercise in the winter months.

(more…)

The FDA recently approved Botox, a wrinkle-smoothing injection, for the treatment of migraine headaches. Drug maker Allergan has now been given the go ahead to market its drug to patients with a serious history of migraines. This announcement comes just one month after Allergan agreed to pay more than $600 million to settle claims that they had been illegally marketing the drug for years through the promotion of off-label use.

However, the use of Botox injections isn’t for the occasional migraine sufferer. The FDA has only approved the drug for patients who experience 15 or more migraine headaches a month. Migraines are crippling to most sufferers, and the effects are more than just a headache. Chronic migraine sufferers also have nausea, vomiting, dizziness, sensitivity to light and noise, and severe pain. According to Allergan, more than 3.2 million Americans have chronic migraines.

“This condition can greatly affect family, work, and social life, so it is important to have a variety of effective treatment options available,” said FDA’s Dr. Russell Katz, director of neurology products.

Dr. Scott M. Whitcup, Allergan’s executive vice president for research and development, has said that the company is studying the use of Botox for other medical conditions such as overactive bladder. “For the business, Botox has been an incredible medication,” says Whitcup. “We call it our pipeline in a vial. People still think about Botox as a cosmetic product, but the therapeutic indications in the next five years will far surpass its cosmetic use.”

Whitcup says that one theory on why the drug works on migraines is that it “blocks pain signals from reaching nerve endings.” Since Botox is a form of botulinum toxin, injections of the drug can numb nerve signals which send pain signals to muscles and glands. Researchers suggest that injections should be given every three months to treat the migraines and patients are usually given 31 injections in seven areas of the body including the forehead, temples, back of the head, neck and shoulders to help relieve migraine pain.

However, costs may prevent many from being able to afford the injections. Makers of Allergen estimate that the treatment would cost between $1,000 – $2000 and although most insurance companies may cover the procedure because of the new FDA approval, the co-pays may be heftier than most can manage.

“The cost is prohibitive for some,” says Randall Stanicky, a vice president for global research at Goldman Sachs. “But given the debilitating challenges of having migraines more than 15 days a month, if Botox can cut down on that, it’s clearly going to be a big opportunity.”

Botox is currently also being used to treat spasms in the elbows, wrists and fingers, uncontrolled blinking, excessive underarm sweating, and its most well-known use, to reduce wrinkles. Botox was introduced in 1989 and is one of Allergan’s top drugs accounting for over 25% of sales; 1.3 billion of the company’s $4.4 billion sales in 2009.

It is important to also understand that Botox may present risks in patients including respiratory failure and death. The FDA’s safety reviews say “the reactions may be related to overdosing, but there is no evidence that reactions are caused by a defect in the product.”