Cancer Treatments are not all the Same

Categories:

Careful when helping your loved one finding treatments for cancer

While you are supporting your loved one with cancer it is important to be aware when searching for a cure. Not all treatments you find on the internet are FDA approved or even effective. In worst case scenarios you or a loved one could fall victim of health fraud. You are and your loved ones are understandably desperate for a cancer cure. At Phillips Law Firm we understand your concern so we have a few tips to avoid cancer treatment scams during this difficult time.

If the medication or treatment claims to do any of the following, you may want to consider whether the treatment is effective based upon scientific proof:

  • Shrinks your tumors
  • Non-toxic
  • Does not make you sick or nauseous
  • Treats safely and easily
  • Better than radiotherapy, chemotherapy or other conventional treatments
  • Alternative to invasive surgery
  • Treats ALL forms of cancer
  • Makes cancer disappear
  • Any terminology: “Scientific breakthrough”, “miraculous cure,” “secret ingredient,” or “ancient remedy”
  • No-risk, money-back guarantees
  • Undocumented case histories of outstandingly positive results and testimonials
  • No hair loss

The unfortunate fact is that sometimes companies try to take advantage of cancer patients. Companies often exaggerate any positive results from using their products to better market it to those desperate for a cure. Tonics, pills, and creams are all products that have been marketed with suspect cancer treatment claims. While depending on the stage of the cancer, you may have considered trying anything. It is important to remember that some products may interfere with proven, beneficial treatments. As a result you may accidentally worsen your condition from trying these products. While fringe cancer treatments have been around for many years, it just recently that advertisements have spiked. The internet is a growing outlet for fraudulent companies to post information. It may be illegal to market unapproved FDA salves as cancer treatment but unfortunately they are readily available online. Cancer causes fear and desperation and it is tempting to jump at the chance to partake in using a product offering a chance for a cure. Remember that the FDA has to approval all treatments before they are marketed. Cancer treatment products that have approved by the FDA are considered to be safe and effective. A popular unproven cancer treatment is an herbal regimen known as the Hoxsey Cancer Treatment. The FDA stated that there is no scientific evidence that the Hoxsey Cancer Treatment, available since the 1950s, has any value to treat cancer.

Beware of suspect testimonials:

  • Make sure all testimonials are verified.
  • Do an independent search for verified testimonials.
  • Search the treatment on YouTube. You may find blogs of others who have tried the treatment you are curious about.

Suspect drug products vs. “investigational drugs”:

Investigational drugs are clinically tested to determine if they are safe and effective for consumers. Suspect products are unapproved and may have never undergone testing in the first place and in addition have not been reviewed by the FDA. Marketing a false cancer treatment is serious offense as it may violate federal law.

What if I am desperate to try anything because of the severity of my cancer?

Patients can partake in clinical trials for investigational drugs if they so desire, but each trial has independent health risks associated and should be considered with your health care professional.

Consult with your doctor:

Make sure to always consult a health care professional about your intentions of partaking in experimental investigational drugs. Some products many have a negative reaction to your current medications and it is important to be aware of all risks involved before making a difficult personal decision.

What is being done?

The FDA and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have sent approximately 135 warning letters and two advisory letters to firms marketing questionable products online.

by

Januvia Sales Slow after Links to Cancer

Categories:

Merck & Company, manufacturer of Januvia, has reported a drop in quarterly sales. The company’s first quarter statement showed sales of Januvia fell by four percent to $884 million. This is compared to an increase in sales of approximately fifteen percent in the previous quarter. Many legal experts believe that this decrease in sales is related to recent concerns about Januvia’s side effects. Approved in 2006, Januvia is one of Merck’s bestselling drugs. It is a type II diabetes medication in a class of drugs called incretin mimetics. Incretin mimetics mimic the action of incretin hormones found in the gastrointestinal tract that stimulate the release of insulin after a person consumes a meal. Some research, however, suggests a link between the development of pancreatic cancer and the use of these types of incretin mimetics. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced recently that it was examining data that suggests a link between Januvia use and pancreatic cancer and an increased risk of pancreatitis. The concern about Januvia and other incretin mimetic drugs is disputed. In the May 6, 2013 issue ofDiabetes Care, a point-counterpoint set of articles was published, discussing both sides of the debate. Some experts, such as Michael Nauck, MD, argue that the benefits of incretin mimetics outweigh the risks. “Obviously more needs to be learned regarding the open questions, but based on today’s available knowledge, incretin-based medications can be considered effective and safe.” However, Peter Butler, MD, argues against the use of incretin mimetics, saying, “A new class of anti-diabetic agents is rushed to market and widely promoted in the absence of any evidence of long-term beneficial outcomes. Evidence of harm accumulates, but it is vigorously discounted.” Now, a wrongful death lawsuit has been filed by the family of a women who died of pancreatic cancer after using a combination of incretin mimetic drugs, including Januvia. The lawsuit alleges that the drug manufacturers did not adequately warn patients of the risks associated with these medications. So far, fifty-five Januvia lawsuits have already been filed across the United States and more are expected. Plaintiffs have requested that the lawsuits be consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL). A decision on the request for an MDL is expected this month. Patients who have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer after using the diabetic Januvia may be able to file a lawsuit. To learn more about your rights and legal options, call the Phillips Law Firm today. Our experienced Januvia lawsuit lawyers have represented families across the country in their quest for justice. For a free consultation visit the Phillips Law Firm website http://www.justiceforyou.com or call 1-800-708-6000.

by

Medtronic’s Infuse Independent Reviews Published

Categories:

The analyses of two long-awaited independent reviews of Medtronic Inc.’s Infuse bone growth product were published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The reports indicate that the product was associated with a small, increased risk of cancer, and that early published data on the trials highlighted favorable results while downplaying side effects. Infuse was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2002 to stimulate spinal bone growth as an alternative to traditional, and potentially painful and dangerous, bone harvesting. Once hailed as a major advance in spine surgery, Infuse came under scrutiny in 2011 after some spine experts and U.S. lawmakers raised questions about the safety of the product. The U.S. Senate and Department of Justice launched an investigation over concerns of off-label use and omissions of safety problems from its clinical trial data after the June 2011 issue of the Spine Journal,claimed that surgeons, who were paid tens of millions of dollars by Medtronic, failed to report serious complications, such as male sterility, increased risk of cancer, infections and worsened back and leg pain. In 2011, Medtronic agreed to two independent reviews of its trial data. Researchers at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland and Britain’s University of York were selected to carry out the reviews as part of the Yale University Open Data Access project. Researchers from the University of York determined that after two years, Infuse offered no significant reduction in pain and was associated with a low overall increased risk of cancer. The Oregon team concluded that Infuse worked no better in spinal fusion than bone harvested from a patient’s own body. They also found that, after two years, Infuse was associated with a low overall increased risk of cancer and that published trial data had underreported side effects while emphasizing the benefits. Medtronic sees its cooperation with the Infuse reviews as part of an industry trend moving toward open access to medical trial data and has funded an analysis of real-world usage of Infuse to determine its correlation to cancer risk. Those results will be presented at a meeting in the fall. In March 2012, Medtronic agreed to pay $85 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit alleging it of not revealing that as much as 82.5% of Infuse sales depend on supposed “off-label” uses. Since 2011, the company has reported a $272 million drop in product sales.

National Medtronic Lawsuit Attorneys

If you or someone you love has suffered a major medical complication because of Medtronic’s off-label use of Infuse bone graft, it is important to know that you are not alone. The litigation process will require a competent and aggressive attorney to secure your rights and get you the compensation you deserve. To learn more about filing a Medtronic lawsuit call the experienced Medtronic lawsuit lawyers at Phillips Law Firm today. Call us at 1-800-708-6000. Our national Medtronic lawsuit attorneys are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation.

by

Seattle Trucking Accidents & Liability

Categories:

Washington State Patrol claims the number of roadway accidents involving semi-trucks has been steadily on the climb: from 1,191 in 2010 to 1,294 in 2012. Most recently, a number of accidents in the Seattle area involving trucks have occurred with such alarming frequency that it has commanded attention. On June 4, Washington State Troopers cited a semi-truck driver for negligent driving after causing an accident that blocked all southbound lanes of Interstate 405 during the morning commute. Troopers say the driver became distracted and swiped the passenger side of an SUV, then bounced off the Jersey barrier before flipping. In the May 23, Skagit Bridge collapse, a truck driver is also being blamed. His oversize load hit the bridge, and along with another passing semi, triggered the collapse. In a Seattle trucking accident, there are often multiple parties who are potentially liable. Other parties besides the driver can be sued if a big rig side swipes your vehicle. Because a commercial trucking business usually involves the driver, the company that employs the driver, the company that was hired to haul the goods, and the owner of the truck, there are a number of different parties that could bear some of the responsibility. In the past, trucking companies argued that liability for accidents caused by drivers stopped with the driver if they owned their own trucks as independent owner-operators. The federal government banned this kind of defense by establishing liability of permitted truck companies for all aspects of their trucking operation, even if their drivers are independent. Federal and state laws require that any commercial truck involved in an accident be inspected by a certified truck inspector before it is removed from the scene. Many commercial trucks are outfitted with dashboard computers that can record important information such as, vehicle speed at any point, rest stops taken by the driver and the number of times the driver hit the brakes. Last year, of all crashes involving semi-trucks, more than half were caused by truckers- 667, compared to 627 caused by cars. However, when fatalities were involved in collisions with semis, cars were more often to blame. Federal and state safety standards strictly regulate every aspect of commercial trucking, from driver licensing to vehicle inspections, but only common sense and attentiveness can reduce human error. Drivers of both car and trucks must work together to safely share the road.

Seattle Truck Accident Injury Lawyers that Fight for You

At Phillips Law Firm, our Seattle truck accident injury attorneys know that truck accidents are often devastating. If you or someone you love is injured in an accident in Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma, or throughout the State of Washington, our experienced Seattle injury lawyers can help. Call us at the Phillips Law Firm today for a free consultation and review of your case. Call us at 1-800-708-6000 today.

by

Pool Safety and Liabilities in Summertime

Categories:

Each year, thousands of people are seriously injured or killed in swimming pool accidents. The majority of accidents involve diving mishaps or falls, drowning, and near-fatal submersions. Less common, but just as tragic, are drain entrapments. Children and adults—even strong swimmers—can become trapped by a pool drain and held under water until they drown. Tragically, most of these accidents can be prevented by following pool safety guidelines and being attentive around water.

Recreational Water Illness

A recreational water illness (RWI) is spread by swallowing, breathing, or being in contact with spa or swimming pool water that has not been treated properly. RWI outbreaks can occur in residential pools, but are most often found in public pools which have not been properly maintained. Pool owners must make sure that proper pH and chlorine levels are maintained. But, just as chlorine is needed to prevent an RWI, proper handling of the chemicals is needed to prevent inhalation or chemical burns.

Pool Fencing

As every parent knows, a toddler can be gone from your sight in an instant and by the time their absence is noticed, it could already be too late. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), seventy-five percent of children killed or injured in submersion accidents are between the ages of one and three. The best way to prevent drowning and submersion accidents in residential pools is to install and maintain proper fencing that prohibits children from entering the pool area.

The Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act

Named for the granddaughter of former Secretary of State James Baker, this is the major federal pool safety law. James Baker’s granddaughter was killed in 2002 when she became trapped by the drain in a hot tub. The law was passed in 2007 in response to numerous drowning and serious injuries caused by broken, missing or faulty drain covers. Unfortunately, the law is not working as well as it should. Experts agree that more education and better administration of funds is necessary to successfully implement the law. The law was supposed to award over $4 million in grants for states to bring their pool safety codes up to federal standards, but so far not one state has done so. Pool ownership has a lot of responsibilities. Swimming clubs, recreational facilities, and residential owners have a responsibility to follow federal, state and local safety regulations. If an owner of a pool is negligent and does not maintain their pool adequately, they could be held liable for any injuries their negligence has caused.

Seattle Personal Injury Lawyers You Can Rely On

In summer, swimming accidents are unfortunately very common. If you or someone you love is injured through the negligence of another person, it is important to seek legal help immediately. At Phillips Law Firm, we have successfully represented swimming accident victims in Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma, and throughout the State of Washington. Call us today for a free case evaluation at 1-800-708-6000.

by

Pros and Cons of the Working Families Flexibility Act

Categories:

H.R. 1406, also known as the Working Families Flexibility Act, passed in the U.S. House of Representatives recently by a vote of 223-204. If enacted, the bill would amend a 75-year-old law, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), to allow private sector employees earning hourly wages, the option to take comp-time instead of time-and-a-half overtime pay. This is an option afforded to public sector employees after a 1985 amendment to the FLSA. Republicans and Democrats are divided, however, about whether it will help working families or cause them to miss out on valuable over-time pay. Representative Martha Roby (R-Ala.) sponsored the bill and applauded its passage. She says the bill will “help working Americans better balance their time by removing unnecessary federal restrictions on comp-time in the private sector.” An employee would be eligible after working 1,000 hours continuously for his or her employer in the one-year period before entering into the agreement. The employee cannot accrue more than 160 hours of comp time and will lose the right to earn over-time pay for each hour of time taken off from work. If the comp time afforded is not taken by the employee, the employer must provide monetary compensation for the hours worked. If the employee chooses to withdraw from the agreement, under the act, the employer must provide compensation within 30 days. Additionally, the bill provides safeguards against employer intimidation regarding an employee’s desire to request compensatory time off and against an employer requiring a worker to request time off instead of receiving pay. The House Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), staunchly opposes this legislation. He claims that employees who need the over-time pay will miss out because employers will first go to the employees who can afford to take the comp time, essentially working for free. “I understand its comp time, but they won’t get paid. Most workers at this level need the pay”, he says. The non-partisan organization, National Partnership for Women and Families is also opposed to H.R. 1406. Director of Work and Family Programs, Vicki Shabo, thinks there are more helpful measures that Congress should work toward. Raising the minimum wage, more fair pay for women and expanding on the 1993 Family Medical Leave Act might be of more help to working families, she says. It is unlikely that the Senate will ever take up the bill, and the White House has promised a veto if it were ever to reach the president’s desk. Employee rights are constantly in danger. If you or someone you love has experienced employee discrimination, wrongful termination, or any violation of their employee rights in Seattle, Bellevue, or anywhere in the State of Washington, call Phillips Law Firm at 1-800-708-6000. Our Washington employee rights lawyers are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation. Remember our no fee promise. If we do not recover anything for you, you do not owe us an attorney fee.

by

GranuFlo Lawsuits Still Rising Sharply

Categories:

GranuFlo lawsuits continue to rise amid the news that the manufacturer, Fresenius, did not inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the general public of serious health risks associated with its use. GranuFlo use has been shown to increase a kidney dialysis patient’s risk of cardiac death by six times. The issue in the GranuFlo lawsuits is when Fresenius knew that it was unsafe. Studies to monitor the safety of GranuFlo were performed by both Fresenius and the FDA and initially the drug was approved. However, after receiving an anonymous tip about a Fresenius internal memo, the FDA issued a Class 1 recall of the drug in March 2012. The internal memo, dated November 4, 2011, alerted Fresenius clinics about a study which examined the high risk of cardiac arrest in patients taking GranuFlo. The study found that 941 patients had died from cardiopulmonary arrest and although these deaths had been observed as early as 2010, Fresenius did not conclude the study until November 2011. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the two page memo was filled with scientifically vague terms and failed to adequately warn of risks to patients. The memo did not convey the seriousness with which the problem needed to be addressed and subsequently put hundreds of thousands of dialysis patients at risk. And, while the memo was sent to doctors at their Fresenius Medical Care clinics, no warning was issued to doctors outside the network or to the general public.

Risks of Taking GranuFlo

During dialysis, a build-up of acid in the blood called lactic acidosis, takes place. This build-up can cause nausea, vomiting, lethargy, anxiety and other health problems. An acid neutralizer, such as GranuFlo is taken by most dialysis patients to relieve this problem. Use of GranuFlo has been shown to increase bicarbonate levels in patients. Elevated bicarbonate levels have been linked with a six-fold increased risk of heart problems, including cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary death. Even after a patient has stopped taking the drug, the elevated bicarbonate levels may continue, putting them at a higher risk of health problems including, heart disease, stroke and low blood pressure. There are currently over 400,000 patients on kidney dialysis and many of these have taken GranuFlo. If a patient has taken GranuFlo, they are urged to talk to their doctor about monitoring for any of these potential health problems.

GranuFlo Lawsuit Attorneys

If you or someone you love has been injured by Fresenius Medical Care’s GranuFlo or NaturaLyte dialysis products, please contact one of our skilled national GranuFlo lawsuit lawyers today to protect your rights. To learn more about your rights and legal options, call the Phillips Law Firm today. Our experienced GranuFlo lawsuit lawyers have represented families across the country in their quest for justice. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. For a free consultation visit the Phillips Law Firm websitehttp://www.justiceforyou.com or call 1-800-708-6000.

by

Medtronic Accused of Editing Studies

Categories:

In a special issue of the medical publication, The Spine Journal, nine different spine specialists publicly denied the validity of the studies performed by the Medtronic-financed researchers in that report. The specialists claimed that the serious adverse side effects associated with Infuse had been grossly understated in those studies. The release of the publication spurred a Senate Finance Committee inquiry into Medtronic’s Infuse. Infuse is a spinal treatment sold by Medtronic generally used to reduce back pain. It uses bio-engineered proteins to fuse spinal vertebrae. According to the Committee’s report, officials at Medtronic edited studies about Infuse by outside researchers. During their investigation, the Committee reviewed internal Medtronic documents and found that the company paid almost $210 million between 1996 and 2010 in royalties, consulting fees and other payments to physicians involved in conducting outside research on Infuse. Company officials are also accused of adding to the studies’ claims that their product was superior to a competitor’s product. Internal documents obtained from Medtronic seem to indicate that company officials had inserted language into some reports that claimed Infuse was superior to a bone graft. The company released a statement saying, “Medtronic does not agree with many of the findings” in the report. Medtronic stated that the payments to researchers had largely been royalty fees that were in line with industry practice. The company also said that the studies in question accurately portray the risks involved in the treatment process and deny that its employees had improperly influenced or added to any of the medical journal reports.

Risks Associated with Infuse

Medtronic has long been accused by critics of downplaying the risks of Infuse by embellishing the benefits. Infuse is associated with many serious side effects, including infection, male sterility, bone and nerve injury, urinary problems and possibly an increased risk of cancer.

National Medtronic Lawsuit Attorneys

If you or someone you love has suffered a major medical complication because of Medtronic’s off-label use of Infuse bone graft, it is important to know that you are not alone. The litigation process will require a competent and aggressive attorney to secure your rights and get you the compensation you deserve. To learn more about filing a Medtronic lawsuit call the experienced Medtronic lawsuit lawyers at Phillips Law Firm today. Call us at 1-800-708-6000. Our national Medtronic lawsuit attorneys are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation.

by

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Failure Could be Detected by MRI

Categories:

Since the August 2010 recall of DePuy’s ASR hip implant, metal-on-metal hip implants have been the subject of numerous safety concerns and lawsuits. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration began to review the safety of all-metal hip implants due to numerous concerns that metal ions could leach into the blood stream and cause serious health complications and early device failure. Just last week, Johnson & Johnson announced that it was ceasing the sales of all metal-on-metal hip implants, including their popular Pinnacle hip implant. Now, a new study has indicated that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could be used to predict if a metal-on-metal hip implant is about to fail—even before patients experience any serious symptoms or side effects. In the study, MRI detected tissue damage in 68% of asymptomatic patients and 78% of patients who were experiencing unexplained pain. This study is encouraging for thousands of hip implant patients who are left wondering about the safety of their implants. Early detection of hip implant failure may spare some of these patients from experiencing gruesome and painful side effects. Metal-on-metal hip implant patients who have already begun to experience side effects have reported metallosis, hip implant failure, soft tissue damage, extreme pain, damage to surrounding bone, nerve damage, cardiomyopathy, renal impairment, thyroid dysfunction, and more. Patients who have received a metal-on-metal hip implant should discuss their medical options with a qualified physician even if they are asymptomatic. An MRI may be needed to determine if your hip implant is close to failure. In addition, your doctor may need to monitor your blood for signs of metallosis.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Recall Lawsuit Attorneys

At Phillips Law Firm, our national defective device attorneys understand the complexities surrounding multi-district litigation cases and defective medical products. We also know the pain and suffering that these devices have caused and will fight aggressively to ensure that all of our clients receive the compensation to which they are entitled. If you have been injured by a metal-on-metal hip implant, contact our offices to see if you qualify to file a lawsuit. Call us today at 1-800-708-6000.  

by

Januvia to Consolidate Lawsuits in Federal Court

Categories:

Due to a rising number of patients filing Januvia lawsuits alleging serious side effects such as cancer, lawyers have requested that the cases be consolidated to a special federal multidistrict court in San Diego, California. (In Re: Incretins Products Liability, Sales and Marketing Litigation, MDL 2452, United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation) Merck, the maker of Januvia, has recently agreed to allow the growing number of injury claims to be moved to federal court. This will help expedite the legal process for the company and the injured patients. Januvia is one of a new type of diabetic medications called incretin mimetics. These medications work by simulating the action of incretin hormones, which are normally found in the gastrointestinal tract and stimulate the release of insulin after consuming a meal.

Risks Associated With Januvia Use

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA; 4/8/13) found that treatment with Januvia was associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Furthermore, there is a link between pancreatitis and the development of pancreatic cancer. A study from UCLA suggests that use of this drug could also increase a patients’ risk of developing thyroid cancer by 48%. Both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have launched serious investigations into the reported Januvia side effects. To date, nearly one hundred cases have been filed nationwide; however, the litigation is still in its early stages and experts anticipate the potential for thousands of claims. With sales of over $5 billion last year, Januvia and Janumet, another pill-form diabetes medication, were Merck’s best-selling drugs. These drugs are being used as first-line therapies and with over 100 million patients suffering from type II diabetes, or a predisposition to it, the population at risk is staggering.

National Januvia Lawsuit Lawyers

Patients who have been diagnosed with pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or thyroid cancer after using the diabetic drugs Byetta and Januvia may be able to file a lawsuit. To learn more about your rights and legal options, call the Phillips Law Firm today. Our experienced national dangerous drug lawsuit lawyers have represented families across the country in their quest for justice. For a free consultation fill out our Free Case Review Form on the right or call 1-800-708-6000.

by