Monthly Archives: April 2008

Oregon cop battles 12-foot python to save pet store owner

Oregon cop battles 12-foot python to save pet store owner

A pet store owner is calling a police sergeant a hero for saving her from the coils of a 12-foot Burmese python doing its best to turn her into a meal.

Teresa Rossiter had reached into a cage Thursday to show the huge snake to a customer when it bit her right hand and coiled around her left arm to throw her to the floor.

A friend who happened to be at the store kept the snake off her neck and body while police were called. And when Sgt. Ryan Nelson rushed into the store, he was ready to kill the snake with his knife.

But Rossiter asked him to spare the expensive python, so Nelson put on gloves and pried open the snake’s mouth to free Rossiter’s hand.

Two responders from the Eugene Fire Department helped unwrap the snake, which was eventually returned to its cage.

Rossiter called Nelson a hero.

“He was the bravest guy ever. He went way above and beyond the call of duty,” she told The Oregonian.

Rossiter suffered dozens of puncture wounds, but she, the sergeant and the python were fine

Vioxx Study Used Ghostwriters paid by Merck?

So you thought all those Vioxx studies in medical journals were independent, hands-off affairs? Not necesssarily. An examination of medical journal articles about Vioxx and court documents from Vioxx lawsuits found that Merck employees or ghostwriters were frequently involved in various articles, but the primary authors were often academics who actually had little to do with the studies or didn’t always disclose financial ties to Merck.

That’s the finding of an article in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association by four academics who acknowledged they have served as expert witnesses for plaintiffs’ attorneys that have filed lawsuits against Merck.

Among 96 relevant published articles, they found that 22 of 24 clinical trial articles published a disclosure of Merck’s financial support, but only 36 of 72 of review articles published either a disclosure of Merck sponsorship or a disclosure of whether the author had received any financial compensation from the drugmaker……. Read Rest Of Story

JAMA questions Vioxx publishing practices

This seriously challenges the relationship between physicians and drug companies. This again reinforces the need for physicians to rely more on generic medications in place of name brand medicines not only to keep healthcare costs down but for also for patient safety.

 

JAMA lambastes Vioxx publishing practices

The Journal of the American Medical Association called into question published clinical data and authorship surrounding Merck’s Vioxx (rofecoxib) in a scathing editorial. 
The hubbub stems from two articles printed in the April 16 issue, which offer a microscopic look at documents obtained during Vioxx lawsuits and litigation.
JAMA asserts that the articles “illustrate that clinical trial articles and review articles related to rofecoxib frequently were written by unacknowledged authors who were employees of for-profit information industries, and often attributed first (or primary) authorship to academically affiliated investigators who either had little to do with the study or review or who did not disclose financial support from the company.”
Merck refuted the charges in a statement claiming that the JAMA reports related to Vioxx “are false, misleading or lack context.”
“The articles are based on analyses of documents conducted by consultants hired by trial lawyers as part of their work in the Vioxx product liability litigation, and make allegations similar to those previously advanced by these consultants and related attorneys at trial,” the Merck statement read. 

Republican Congress OKs DNA Samples of All Americans Arrested.

Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest

By EILEEN SULLIVAN,

The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency — a move intended to prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the privacy of innocent people.

Using authority granted by Congress, the government also plans to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained, whether they have been charged or not. The DNA would be collected through a cheek swab, Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Wednesday. That would be a departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to convicted felons.

Expanding the DNA database, known as CODIS, raises civil liberties questions about the potential for misuse of such personal information, such as family ties and genetic conditions.

Ablin said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders.

Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006.

There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates it makes about 140,000 arrests each year.

Justice officials estimate the new collecting requirements would add DNA from an additional 1.2 million people to the database each year.

Those who support the expanded collection believe that DNA sampling could get violent criminals off the streets and prevent them from committing more crimes.

A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.

“Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s when the technology to do so first became available,” Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. Kyl sponsored the 2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority.

Thirteen states have similar laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

The new regulation would mean that the federal government could store DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Now innocent people’s DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database, and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not charged or convicted of a crime,” McCurdy said.

If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the Justice Department to destroy the sample.

The Homeland Security Department — the federal agency charged with policing immigration — supports the new rule.

“DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool,” DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said.

The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being processed for admission, unless the person was arrested.

The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will be followed by a 30-day comment period.

___

On the Net:

State Laws on DNA Data Banks:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/dnadatabanks.htm

http://www.dnaresource.com/documents/2008DNAExpansionLegislation.pdf

Cod Liver Oil Can Cut PainKiller Use In Patients

If you are not taking cod liver oil this is a great reason to begin. Even if you don’t have rheumatoid, anyone with chronic pain or even occasional joint pain can benefit. Cod Liver Oil, of Fish Oil, also has numerous heart and brain benefits-

A daily dose of cod liver oil can cut painkiller use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a study suggests.

Taking 10g of cod liver oil a day reduced the need for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by 30%, Dundee University researchers say.

Concerns about side-effects of NSAIDs has prompted research into alternative.

Rheumatologists said the study, in Rheumatology journal, funded by Seven Seas, was small but showed fish oil could benefit some patients.

Patients in the trial were either given cod liver oil or placebo and after 12 weeks asked to gradually reduce their use of NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen.

Anything that can help to reduce NSAID use is going to be safer for patients
Dr Andrew Bamji, British Society for Rheumatology

Almost 60 patients completed the nine-month trial which found 39% taking cod liver oil reduced their daily dose of NSAIDs compared with 10% taking a placebo.

The reduction in drug use was not associated with any worsening of pain or the disease, the researchers reported.

The research team at the University of Dundee, aided by colleagues at the University of Edinburgh, have now completed three studies which have all shown patients are able to cut down their NSAID use when taking cod liver oil.

It is thought fatty acids in the fish oil have anti-inflammatory properties.

Side-effects

Some side-effects of NSAIDs, such as an increased risk of stomach bleeding have been known for a long time.

But more recently, concerns have been raised about an apparent increased risk of heart attacks and strokes in those taking the drugs.

Study leader Professor Jill Belch said the study offered hope to many rheumatoid arthritis patients who wanted to reduce the amount of pain medication they take.

“Every change in medication should be discussed with a GP but I would advise people to give cod liver oil a try for 12 weeks alongside their NSAIDs and then try to cut it down if they can manage it but if they don’t manage it, that’s fine.

“If you can get off NSAIDs it will be much safer.”

National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society chief executive Ailsa Bosworth said: “People with rheumatoid arthritis still rely heavily on NSAIDs, even though the safety of these drugs is under scrutiny.

“We look forward to more research in this area.”

British Society for Rheumatology president Dr Andrew Bamji said it was a small study so difficult to draw firm conclusions.

But he added: “Anything that can help to reduce NSAID use is going to be safer for patients.

“It does look as if the results are positive and that is quite interesting.

“I would say to patients by all means take cod liver oil and when you feel ready start to reduce your NSAID dose.”

But he stressed that patients must discuss plans with their doctor because it was important that physicians were aware of all medications and supplements the patient was taking.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7307298.stm

Published: 2008/03/25 01:35:44 GMT

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers