Mom Alert: Would you want a 68% Higher Risk of Miscarriage?

June 2nd, 2010. By LucyC

A new study out yesterday—June 1, 2010—has revealed a higher rate of miscarriages in women who were taking antidepressants during pregnancy. How much higher? Sixty-eight percent—yes —that’s 68%—higher. Frankly, that is nothing short of shocking.

Published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the study was done in Canada through the University of Montreal. FYI—This was no small study either—the investigators used data from 5,124 women who are part of a large, population-based study of pregnant women who had clinically verified miscarriages, and a large sample of women from the same registry who did not have a miscarriage. Among the women who miscarried, 284 or 5.5 percent, had taken antidepressants during their pregnancy.

In fact the findings are so robust that the physicians who did the study are suggesting that this is a class effect—in other words the effect could be attributed to all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—or SSRIs. Here’s what’s being reported in the press:

“These results, which suggest an overall class effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are highly robust given the large number of users studied,” the study’s senior author, Dr. Anick Berard, said in a statement. (UPI.com)

The antidepressants that showed a particular association with miscarriage in the study were paroxetine (trade names: Seroxat and Paxil) and venlafaxine (trade names: Effexor, Efexor, Alventa, Argofan, Trevilor). The investigators also found that the risk of miscarriage doubled with a combination of different antidepressants.

Just for the record, the antidepressants “investigated” in the University of Montreal study are serotonin reuptake inhibitors (citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxa-mine, paroxetine and sertraline); tricyclic antidepressants (ami-triptyline, clomipramine, desipramine, doxepin, imipramine, nortriptyline, trimipramine), Read the rest of this entry »

Who Says you can’t Trust Google Walking Man?

June 2nd, 2010. By AbiK

Did you catch the National Geographic Bee on tv? With Google’s Brian McClendon—VP of Engineering for Google Earth and Maps on stage afterward to hand out some of the awards? It was impressive. Just like Google Earth and Google Maps—c’mon, you know you’ve played astronaut and zoomed in from outer space to the speck on the map you call home…

But impressive as Google Earth and Maps are, they’re not perfect. Which is apparently Lauren Rosenberg’s beef in the lawsuit she filed against Google. Seems she did a little Google Maps search from 96 Daly Street, Park City, Utah, to 1710 Prospector Avenue, Park City, Utah. She opted for walking directions. And, she got ’em. She also got hit by a car when she tried to walk ’em.

Now, here’s the thing. Google’s directions—for walking—apparently included a trek down Deer Valley Drive, which is aka Utah State Route 224. Aka, a highway.

Reports (like the one from pcworld.com) indicate that Lauren was “walking down the middle of the highway”. Tuck that one away for now.

But I also offer up the visual above. Am I the only one who looks at the map and the satellite view and the little Google walking man view? Take a look at the picture–that’s the intersection of the aforementioned Deer Valley Drive and Bonanza Drive. The blue line being part of the route Lauren would be taking. Note the traffic light. Note the 3 lanes (2 for through traffic, 1 for turns). Note the lack of a sidewalk. Note that there are probably a few blind curves along Deer Valley Drive. Note to self: there might be some risk here.

So I got to thinking (never a good thing). And I’m thinking, hey, I’ve got a meeting coming up in Santa Cruz, CA–that’s where LawyersAndSettlements.com’s headquarters are. Why not walk to it? Ok, I’m based near NYC, but why not? So I Googled the walking directions. Here they are:

I’m pleased that Google took my request seriously—no, “Look, babe, maybe you ought to be heading over to Expedia for this one” warning message. Google thinks I can make it! We’re both delusional—cool! But I also noticed they didn’t give me notes about remembering to bring enough water, making sure I have places booked to spend the nights (all 39 of them!) and that I’ll need my passport as my walking route will take me into Canada for a bit. Hmm. Google also did not warn me of the dangers of hitchhiking or of wandering into dark places. And that would be because those are, uh, my responsibilities.

So back to Lauren. She got hit by a car—and I do feel badly for her. So she’s suing not only the driver of the car, but also Google, for her medical expenses of $100,000 and punitive damages. Part of her complaint states that Google provided “careless, reckless and negligent providing of unsafe directions”.

I’m curious why Blackberry isn’t involved here. Lauren—according to the filed complaint—Googled the directions on her Blackberry. Why not sue them, too—because the damn screen is too small to really see Google walking man strutting his stuff? Just asking.

And finally, back to that report that she had been walking in the middle of the highway. I hope the report is wrong—otherwise, perhaps the place Lauren should’ve been heading was Bear Hollow Psychotherapy—right near her intended destination of Park Regency Apartments—according to Google Maps (if you can trust that…)

Fosamax Femur Fractures in Media Spotlight

June 1st, 2010. By janem

I feel sorry for health officials and researchers whose warnings about adverse drug reactions fall on deaf ears; if only they could employ TV anchor Diane Sawyer to heighten public awareness. Case in point: the link between Fosamax and femur fractures.

Since 2008 researchers have suggested that patients-especially women–using Fosamax may be at risk for increased risk of bone fracture. Although the femur is the strongest and biggest bone in the body, a number of Fosamax patients have fractured their femurs simply from from walking. You can watch Diane Sawyer’s investigation and a follow-up report on ABC News here.

But not even Diane Sawyer and the media can budge the FDA. It says a warning to doctors at this point isn’t justified, but they will “seriously look into it”. That’s good news for Merck.  But if the agency sends a letter to doctors, it would allow them to get data they need to have Merck slap a femur fracture warning on the drug. Merck has likely banked heavily on Fosamax profits, especially given the age of baby boomers…

Back to those researchers. In 2008 Cornell University Medical School researchers showed that Fosamax patients are more than 125 times as likely to suffer non-traumatic femur fractures than patients who have not taken Fosamax. And there have been more studies to back-up Cornell.

At first, Fosamax prevents bone loss but loss over time it may also limit the bone’s natural ability to protect itself from stress. A rheumatologist at National Rehabilitation Hospital in Washington DC said that in up to 60 cases he looked at, most patients had been taking Fosamax or another type of bisphosphonate for more than five years.  Potentially, many women who have taken Fosamax for 5 years or more can be walking around with brittle bones that can fracture at any time.

Here’s the clincher: on its website, Merck, the Fosamax manufacturer, says that “…after you start taking Fosamax, even though you won’t see or feel a difference and that for fosamax to continue to work, you need to keep taking it. From what I could glean, none of Merck’s clinical trials lasted more than four years. So how long does Merck want you to take it for?

For that matter, should any drug be taken longer than indicated in clinical trials? After all, the drug was approved based on most trials from 1-2 years. When it was initially approved, Merck stated that “side effects observed in clinical trials were generally mild. The most commonly reported drug-related side effects in subjects taking Fosamax were abdominal and musculoskeletal.

Recent label changes made Merck add the following: bone, joint, and/or muscle pain, occasionally severe, and rarely incapacitating; joint swelling; low-energy femoral shaft and subtrochanteric fractures. But who reads that? Thanks, Ms. Sawyer.

Unemployed? Skip the Bath and Start Suing! (It’s Tortelicous)

June 1st, 2010. By LucyC

Welcome to Totally Tortelicious—a review of some of the more bizarre legal stories making news—and there’s certainly no shortage of them. 

This fellow’s taken ‘get a job’ to a whole new level. Apparently well known in certain legal circles, 61-year old Richard Kreimer—homeless in New York—has filed a lawsuit against Amtrak in Philadelphia, alleging they had the police forcibly remove him from their station. 

Now, 20 years ago he tasted the sweet smell of success when he was awarded $230,000 in his lawsuit against a library in Morristown, New Jersey, which had thrown him off their premises—because he smelled. Badly. (Added tidbit: he subsequently ran for mayor of Morristown. Didn’t win.) In total, he’s filed something like 18 lawsuits against various businesses—restaurants, drug stores, public places—because they have all had him removed due to his body odor, he claims. 

See, after that first smell of success (no pun meant there), he figured out that he could make a bit of a living by filing lawsuits. Think I’m joking? The NY Post reports he was dropped from Medicaid because “he made too much money from settlements.”

Yes, rather than hit the Duane Reade on the main level of Port Authority (south wing!) for a bar of soap and then hit the loo on the same level to take a little leave of his b.o. (not that that wouldn’t get him kicked out either, but I’ve seen others do it), Kreimer takes ’em to court.

Having ridden a subway line for many years I can attest that body odor—all sorts of body odor—is not—make that cannot—be taken lightly. Too many cocktails or vivacious Vindaloo the night before and everyone in your blast radius is going to know all about it on the ride into work the next morning…and FYI—adding tons of perfume or aftershave just makes it worse—you know who you are. 

Anyway, where was I… 

Oh yes, Kreimer—so he’s up to 18 lawsuits and counting based on allegations that his civil liberties have been violated. What about the civil liberties of people who don’t smell bad and don’t want to smell other people who smell bad? It’s one thing having to suffer it on the subway or elevator, but quite Read the rest of this entry »

Lawyer Needs a Date – Help!

May 28th, 2010. By AbiK

We hear a lot (A LOT) of tales of woe here at LawyersAndSettlements.com about love. Not unrequited love. Not long- lost love. But love that just never materialized. From sites like Match.com or eHarmony.com, and “placement firms” (my words) like Great Expectations.

Now, to be upfront here, I’m not a fan of such sites and services. I’m a believer in the “when it’s there, you’ll know it” kind of love-finding. Why? Well, here’s 3 examples from people I know who’ve found their love (or not) from such services—names are withheld, for obvious reasons.

Love Contestant #1: Meets lawyer on dating site (yes, a LAWYER). They fall in love in a matter of weeks. She gets pregnant. He skips town. It’s a few years later now and all told, he’s contributed $400 to his child’s support. For those of you wondering, that works out to $50 a year. Yup, there’s some dating material for you.

Love Contestant #2: Has joined just about every dating site known to man. Wonders why no one’s floating her boat when all she has to go on prior to meeting for coffee is a filled in questionnaire and a couple of email exchanges. No photo or headshot. Also wonders why no one she gets hooked up with seems to match her criteria for getting hooked up.

Love Contestant #3: Did meet her true love. In her mid-60’s. They’re married now. She teaches tapping classes. Oh—not that kind of tapping. As in Emotional Freedom Technique tapping therapy. Uh-huh. She’s on another wavelength from the rest of us, if you get my drift.

So enter another lawyer—John Friedland. He was lookin’ for love. Apparently at the wrong Read the rest of this entry »