Simmons Firm Secures $2.86 Million Jury Verdict Against RT Vanderbilt for Family of Mesothelioma Victim

NEW CASTLE, Del. – A Delaware jury awarded a $2.86 million verdict today to the family of Michael Galliher, who died from mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. Simmons Firm attorneys Randy Cohn, Conard Metcalf and Bill Kohlburn represented Galliher’s family, including his wife, sons and four grandchildren, against RT Vanderbilt In re Asbestos Litigation Michael Galliher, No. 10C-10-315 (Del. Super. Ct., New Castle City.). It is the largest asbestos verdict against a single defendant in Delaware in over a decade.

Michael Galliher, of Mansfield, Ohio, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in August 2010. He died months later on Feb. 3, 2011 at the age of 62. While working at Crane Plumbing Fixtures Factory for nearly 40 years, Galliher used a talc powder contaminated with asbestos fibers to dust large molds of sinks, bathtubs and other ceramic fixtures. The asbestos fibers came from a mine in Gouverneur, N.Y., owned and operated by RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc.

Expert testimony during the trial linked Galliher’s exposure to talc dust containing asbestos fibers. RT Vanderbilt did not list the proper safety warning on the talc powder, Simmons Firm attorney Randy Cohn said.

“The magnitude of Mr. Galliher’s exposure is immeasurable,” said Cohn. “Like many Americans, he worked hard his entire life so he could enjoy retirement with his grandchildren. Instead, it caused him to be exposed to asbestos and develop a deadly cancer.”

Six years before his death, Galliher retired to spend more time with his grandchildren, family members said. His three local grandchildren would visit him and his wife almost daily. He taught them how to garden and play baseball. He would also take them on regular trips to a local lake or mushroom hunting. He passed away just two weeks shy of his 33rd wedding anniversary.

“This outcome is not about the money,” said Galliher’s wife, Darcel. “This is about the fact that a jury has held RT Vanderbilt responsible for its actions. We just hope no other family has to go through the pain and loss we have experienced.”

Founded in 1916, RT Vanderbilt is a mining and manufacturing company that sells more than sixty categories of minerals and chemicals used in over 800 products in industries including the rubber, plastic, petroleum, ceramic, cosmetic, and household products industries. 

The verdict applies 100 percent liability to the company. Cohn said the decision reinforces that companies will be held responsible for knowingly using substances containing carcinogens like asbestos fibers without adequate safety warnings.

“No amount of money can replace these kids’ grandfather. However, his family can rest assured that the ones responsible have been held accountable,” he said.

About Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC:
The Simmons Firm, headquartered in Alton, Ill., is one of the country’s leading asbestos and mesothelioma litigation firms. With additional offices in St. Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, the firm has represented thousands of patients and families affected by mesothelioma throughout the country. The Simmons Firm has pledged nearly $20 million to cancer research and proudly supports mesothelioma research. For more information about the Simmons Firm, visit http://www.simmonsfirm.com.

## #

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Simmons Firm Secures $3 Million Asbestos Jury Verdict Against Crane Co. For Family of Mesothelioma Victim

BUFFALO, N.Y., Oct. 25, 2012 – Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC, a nationwide leader in asbestos litigation, announced today that a New York jury has awarded a $3 million verdict to the family of Gerald Suttner, a pipefitter who died from mesothelioma, an incurable cancer caused by asbestos exposure. For more than a decade, Suttner was exposed to asbestos used in valves manufactured by the defendant, Crane Co.

Simmons Firm attorneys Myles Epperson and Perry Browder, along with co-counsel Michael Ponterio and Joseph Kremer of Lipsitz and Ponterio of Buffalo, N.Y., represented the wife and dependent adult daughter of Suttner in Suttner v. Crane Co., (No. I2010-12499, N.Y. Supreme Ct., County of Erie). 

Suttner, formerly of Tonawanda, N.Y., was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in October 2010. He died twelve months later at the age of 77. Suttner worked as a pipefitter at the GM Powertrain Facility in Tonawanda for 36 years. From 1964 to 1979, his work included repairing valves manufactured by Crane with asbestos gaskets and packing materials.

Expert testimony during the trial established there is no safe level of asbestos exposure, and Suttner’s exposure to the asbestos in the valves led to his mesothelioma diagnosis.

The dangers of asbestos have been known since the early 1900s. Crane knew of the hazards of asbestos as early as the 1930s, but the company continued to use asbestos well into the late 1980s without placing warnings on its products.

“The defendant’s use of asbestos and failure to warn workers and consumers of its dangers is inexcusable,” said Browder. “On behalf of Mr. Suttner’s family, we are proud to have won and held Crane responsible for its decision to use this lethal material in its products.”

Suttner retired from the GM Tonawanda plant in 1997. He and his wife, Joanne, also cared for their adult daughter who is disabled.

“Mr. Suttner worked hard in order to provide for his family, and he always played by the rules. Born out of wedlock and raised by his grandparents, he was determined throughout his life to help other people struggling under difficult circumstances. It appears that this jury sent a strong message to defendant Crane Co., that it, too, should have played by the rules that govern honorable behavior by warning Mr. Suttner about the dangers of handlings its products,” said Michael A. Ponterio, a partner at Lipsitz & Ponterio.

As a national officer in the Shriners organization, Mr. Suttner was an active volunteer for the Shriners Hospital in Erie, Pa. He drove children back and forth to the hospital, often traveling multiple hours each way.  He also wrote articles for the organization’s national magazine and played in a band that traveled around the country to raise money for the hospital.

“Jerry was a good man who worked hard his entire life to take care of his family and make his community a better place. He gave selflessly to people whom he had never met, because that’s the kind of man he was,” Epperson said. “His death, which could have been prevented, was a significant loss both to his family and to so many others whose lives he touched.”

The trial lasted nearly three weeks. The jury deliberated for two days and held Crane liable for Suttner’s mesothelioma, as well as 17 other asbestos manufacturers.

Crane, founded in 1855 in Chicago, manufactures industrial engineered products and employs 10,000 employees worldwide. In 2011, the company reported net sales of $2.545 billion.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

NCLR Supports DOJ Lawsuit Against Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

May 10 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             

Contact:
Joseph Rendeiro
(202) 776-1566
jrendeiro@nclr.org

Washington—Today, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a federal lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office over a number of alleged civil rights violations, including discriminatory practices targeting Latinos.  NCLR (National Council of La Raza) firmly stands behind the DOJ’s decision to file suit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and, once again, calls on Sheriff Arpaio to resign.

“DOJ’s findings corroborated what has been a long-standing pattern and practice of unwarranted, unequal, and unconstitutional treatment of Latinos by Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” said Janet Murguía, President and CEO of NCLR.  “We welcome DOJ’s lawsuit, in light of the sheriff’s refusal to put in place the necessary mechanisms to prevent abuses of power that have hurt Latino immigrants and U.S. citizens alike.”

As a result of the findings from its investigation, DOJ proposed a settlement that would have required the MCSO to train officers to make constitutional traffic stops, collect data on people arrested in traffic stops, and begin outreach to the Latino community, and it would have required a court-appointed monitor to oversee these changes.  However, Arpaio refused a court monitor, thereby putting an end to negotiations and resulting in the lawsuit.

“We have a high regard for the work that law enforcement officers do every day, as well as their efforts to put in place community policing strategies that uphold the constitution and public safety,” added Murguía.  “Sheriff Arpaio’s practices, however, are a black eye on the law enforcement community.  ‘To serve and protect’ should not be determined by the color of your skin.  We hope that our elected leaders heed this lesson and the dangers of having law enforcement prioritize immigration status over criminal behavior.”

NCLR—the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States—works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans.  For more information on NCLR, please visit www.nclr.org or follow along on Facebook and Twitter.

###

Issues:
Geography:California, Far West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Texas

View the original article here

NCLR Supports DOJ Lawsuit Against Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

May 10 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             

Contact:
Joseph Rendeiro
(202) 776-1566
jrendeiro@nclr.org

Washington—Today, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a federal lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office over a number of alleged civil rights violations, including discriminatory practices targeting Latinos.  NCLR (National Council of La Raza) firmly stands behind the DOJ’s decision to file suit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and, once again, calls on Sheriff Arpaio to resign.

“DOJ’s findings corroborated what has been a long-standing pattern and practice of unwarranted, unequal, and unconstitutional treatment of Latinos by Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” said Janet Murguía, President and CEO of NCLR.  “We welcome DOJ’s lawsuit, in light of the sheriff’s refusal to put in place the necessary mechanisms to prevent abuses of power that have hurt Latino immigrants and U.S. citizens alike.”

As a result of the findings from its investigation, DOJ proposed a settlement that would have required the MCSO to train officers to make constitutional traffic stops, collect data on people arrested in traffic stops, and begin outreach to the Latino community, and it would have required a court-appointed monitor to oversee these changes.  However, Arpaio refused a court monitor, thereby putting an end to negotiations and resulting in the lawsuit.

“We have a high regard for the work that law enforcement officers do every day, as well as their efforts to put in place community policing strategies that uphold the constitution and public safety,” added Murguía.  “Sheriff Arpaio’s practices, however, are a black eye on the law enforcement community.  ‘To serve and protect’ should not be determined by the color of your skin.  We hope that our elected leaders heed this lesson and the dangers of having law enforcement prioritize immigration status over criminal behavior.”

NCLR—the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States—works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans.  For more information on NCLR, please visit www.nclr.org or follow along on Facebook and Twitter.

###

Issues:
Geography:California, Far West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Texas

View the original article here

The Violence Against Women Act Must Protect All Victims

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

May 14 2012

By Laura Vazquez, Legislative Analyst, Immigration Policy Project

The NCLR Affiliate Network includes organizations that provide critical services to victims of domestic violence and abuse. When the House Judiciary Committee debated H.R. 4970, the “Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012” (VAWA), I was thinking of them. I was thinking of the survivors of domestic violence who have come through their doors. It is these clients that Congress has sought to protect in its history of reauthorizing VAWA. However, H.R. 4970 eradicates protections desperately needed for immigrant survivors of domestic violence. The Latin American Community Center’s Domestic Violence Program, an NCLR Affiliate in Delaware, said, “we witness firsthand how immigrant victims are already at a disadvantage when getting victim protections.” It is because of these stories and because of the fact that far too many immigrants are victims of domestic violence that NCLR strongly opposes H.R. 4970.

In 1994, VAWA was enacted to protect victims of domestic violence. Recognizing that abusers often exploit a victim’s immigration status, Congress created tools to assist survivors in coming forward to report the crime and assist law enforcement in prosecuting the abusers. Community-based organizations, including some NCLR Affiliates, have taken these tools not only to protect immigrant women, but to assist in the prosecutions of the abusers. According to the Department of Justice, since the passage of VAWA, incidences of domestic violence have decreased by more than 50%.

H.R. 4970 seeks to take those tools away, putting victims at risk and giving power to perpetrators of domestic violence, stalking, sex crimes, and human trafficking. H.R. 4970 would effectively prevent immigrant victims from applying for protection from their abusers. It radically changes the current application process for immigrant women and puts steep new hurdles to eligibility in the path of immigrant survivors seeking protection under VAWA. We urge the House of Representatives to reject H.R. 4970 because it denies victims protection and deters victims of crime from cooperating with law enforcement. We hope that Congress can return to the long-standing intent of VAWA and pass a bill that protects all victims of domestic violence.

Issues:
Geography:California, Far West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Texas

View the original article here

The Violence Against Women Act Must Protect All Victims

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

May 14 2012

By Laura Vazquez, Legislative Analyst, Immigration Policy Project

The NCLR Affiliate Network includes organizations that provide critical services to victims of domestic violence and abuse. When the House Judiciary Committee debated H.R. 4970, the “Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012” (VAWA), I was thinking of them. I was thinking of the survivors of domestic violence who have come through their doors. It is these clients that Congress has sought to protect in its history of reauthorizing VAWA. However, H.R. 4970 eradicates protections desperately needed for immigrant survivors of domestic violence. The Latin American Community Center’s Domestic Violence Program, an NCLR Affiliate in Delaware, said, “we witness firsthand how immigrant victims are already at a disadvantage when getting victim protections.” It is because of these stories and because of the fact that far too many immigrants are victims of domestic violence that NCLR strongly opposes H.R. 4970.

In 1994, VAWA was enacted to protect victims of domestic violence. Recognizing that abusers often exploit a victim’s immigration status, Congress created tools to assist survivors in coming forward to report the crime and assist law enforcement in prosecuting the abusers. Community-based organizations, including some NCLR Affiliates, have taken these tools not only to protect immigrant women, but to assist in the prosecutions of the abusers. According to the Department of Justice, since the passage of VAWA, incidences of domestic violence have decreased by more than 50%.

H.R. 4970 seeks to take those tools away, putting victims at risk and giving power to perpetrators of domestic violence, stalking, sex crimes, and human trafficking. H.R. 4970 would effectively prevent immigrant victims from applying for protection from their abusers. It radically changes the current application process for immigrant women and puts steep new hurdles to eligibility in the path of immigrant survivors seeking protection under VAWA. We urge the House of Representatives to reject H.R. 4970 because it denies victims protection and deters victims of crime from cooperating with law enforcement. We hope that Congress can return to the long-standing intent of VAWA and pass a bill that protects all victims of domestic violence.

Issues:
Geography:California, Far West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Texas

View the original article here

Vigorous Exercise Might Protect Against Psoriasis

Click Here!
Women who engage in vigorous activities like running or aerobic exercise may have reduced risk of psoriasis


May 23, 2012 -- Here's yet another reason to exercise: A new study suggests that vigorous physical activity could reduce the risk of psoriasis.
The findings come out of the long-running Nurses' Health Study, which includes only women, but previous research suggests that exercise may also protect men against the chronic skin condition, characterized mostly by inflamed, scaly patches.
As many as 7.5 million Americans have psoriasis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, which says it's the most common autoimmune disease. Men and women are equally affected. Previous research has linked higher body mass index, or BMI, family history of psoriasis, alcohol use, and smoking to the risk of psoriasis.
In the new study, scientists followed nearly 87,000 female nurses for 14 years. None of them had been diagnosed with psoriasis at the beginning of the study. Over the course of the study, the nurses completed three detailed questionnaires about physical activity and were asked to report whether they were ever diagnosed with psoriasis. A total of 1,026 women said they were diagnosed during the study period and provided survey information about their physical activity.

Compared with no vigorous physical activity, vigorous exercise -- the equivalent of 105 minutes of running at a 6-mile-per-hour pace every week -- was associated with a 25% to 30% lower risk of psoriasis. The association remained significant after accounting for BMI, age, smoking, and alcohol use. The researchers say theirs is the first study to investigate the independent association between physical activity and psoriasis.
"The intensity of the exercise is the key," says researcher Abrar Qureshi, MD, MPH, vice chair of dermatology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.
Only running and performing aerobic exercise or calisthenics were associated with a reduced risk of psoriasis. Other vigorous activities, such as jogging, playing tennis, swimming, and bicycling, were not. The researchers speculate that the highly variable intensity of the latter group of activities might account for the lack of an association with a lower psoriasis risk.
More than a decade ago, Siba Raychaudhuri, MD, reported that male and female psoriasis patients who exercised were likely to have less severe disease. "Walking was protective also," says Raychaudhuri, a rheumatologist at the University of California, Davis. He says he was "a little bit surprised" that Qureshi did not find that to be the case but added that "this study is more elegant than ours" because it collected more detailed information about exercise intensity.
Qureshi's team speculates that the lower risk of psoriasis in women who exercised vigorously might be due to a reduction in system-wide inflammation. Vigorous exercise also might be protective against psoriasis because it decreases anxiety and stress, which are tied to new cases and exacerbations of the disease, the researchers say.
"A good amount of data show that emotional stress reduction is good for psoriasis reduction," Raychaudhuri says.
Exposure to ultraviolet light is a psoriasis treatment, so time spent outdoors exercising, and not the exercise itself, might have explained the lowered risk of the disease, Qureshi says. But his study found that women who ran for only an hour a week had a significantly reduced risk of developing psoriasis than women who spent at least four hours walking outside at an average pace.
Chris Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a University of Rochester rheumatologist, calls Qureshi's findings "very interesting." Still, Ritchlin says, while exercise is known to be associated with reduced inflammation, "is there something about people who are really athletically inclined that we're not thinking about that would prevent them from getting psoriasis?"
Qureshi says that could be the case, which is why his study needs to be replicated. "You have to interpret the results cautiously because it is a single study," he says. "It is certainly possible that the women who exercise more are just more health-conscious. There could be other factors that could protect them from developing psoriasis."
Qureshi's study appears online in the Archives of Dermatology.
SOURCES: Qureshi, A. Archives of Dermatology, published online May 2012.Abrar Qureshi, MD, MPH, vice chair of dermatology at Brigham and Women's Hospital; assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.Siba Raychaudhuri, MD, University of California, Davis.Chris Ritchlin, MD, MPH, University of Rochester, New York.

Vigorous Exercise Might Protect Against Psoriasis

Click Here!
Women who engage in vigorous activities like running or aerobic exercise may have reduced risk of psoriasis


May 23, 2012 -- Here's yet another reason to exercise: A new study suggests that vigorous physical activity could reduce the risk of psoriasis.
The findings come out of the long-running Nurses' Health Study, which includes only women, but previous research suggests that exercise may also protect men against the chronic skin condition, characterized mostly by inflamed, scaly patches.
As many as 7.5 million Americans have psoriasis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, which says it's the most common autoimmune disease. Men and women are equally affected. Previous research has linked higher body mass index, or BMI, family history of psoriasis, alcohol use, and smoking to the risk of psoriasis.
In the new study, scientists followed nearly 87,000 female nurses for 14 years. None of them had been diagnosed with psoriasis at the beginning of the study. Over the course of the study, the nurses completed three detailed questionnaires about physical activity and were asked to report whether they were ever diagnosed with psoriasis. A total of 1,026 women said they were diagnosed during the study period and provided survey information about their physical activity.

Compared with no vigorous physical activity, vigorous exercise -- the equivalent of 105 minutes of running at a 6-mile-per-hour pace every week -- was associated with a 25% to 30% lower risk of psoriasis. The association remained significant after accounting for BMI, age, smoking, and alcohol use. The researchers say theirs is the first study to investigate the independent association between physical activity and psoriasis.
"The intensity of the exercise is the key," says researcher Abrar Qureshi, MD, MPH, vice chair of dermatology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.
Only running and performing aerobic exercise or calisthenics were associated with a reduced risk of psoriasis. Other vigorous activities, such as jogging, playing tennis, swimming, and bicycling, were not. The researchers speculate that the highly variable intensity of the latter group of activities might account for the lack of an association with a lower psoriasis risk.
More than a decade ago, Siba Raychaudhuri, MD, reported that male and female psoriasis patients who exercised were likely to have less severe disease. "Walking was protective also," says Raychaudhuri, a rheumatologist at the University of California, Davis. He says he was "a little bit surprised" that Qureshi did not find that to be the case but added that "this study is more elegant than ours" because it collected more detailed information about exercise intensity.
Qureshi's team speculates that the lower risk of psoriasis in women who exercised vigorously might be due to a reduction in system-wide inflammation. Vigorous exercise also might be protective against psoriasis because it decreases anxiety and stress, which are tied to new cases and exacerbations of the disease, the researchers say.
"A good amount of data show that emotional stress reduction is good for psoriasis reduction," Raychaudhuri says.
Exposure to ultraviolet light is a psoriasis treatment, so time spent outdoors exercising, and not the exercise itself, might have explained the lowered risk of the disease, Qureshi says. But his study found that women who ran for only an hour a week had a significantly reduced risk of developing psoriasis than women who spent at least four hours walking outside at an average pace.
Chris Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a University of Rochester rheumatologist, calls Qureshi's findings "very interesting." Still, Ritchlin says, while exercise is known to be associated with reduced inflammation, "is there something about people who are really athletically inclined that we're not thinking about that would prevent them from getting psoriasis?"
Qureshi says that could be the case, which is why his study needs to be replicated. "You have to interpret the results cautiously because it is a single study," he says. "It is certainly possible that the women who exercise more are just more health-conscious. There could be other factors that could protect them from developing psoriasis."
Qureshi's study appears online in the Archives of Dermatology.
SOURCES: Qureshi, A. Archives of Dermatology, published online May 2012.Abrar Qureshi, MD, MPH, vice chair of dermatology at Brigham and Women's Hospital; assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.Siba Raychaudhuri, MD, University of California, Davis.Chris Ritchlin, MD, MPH, University of Rochester, New York.

Vigorous Exercise Might Protect Against Psoriasis

Click Here!
Women who engage in vigorous activities like running or aerobic exercise may have reduced risk of psoriasis


May 23, 2012 -- Here's yet another reason to exercise: A new study suggests that vigorous physical activity could reduce the risk of psoriasis.
The findings come out of the long-running Nurses' Health Study, which includes only women, but previous research suggests that exercise may also protect men against the chronic skin condition, characterized mostly by inflamed, scaly patches.
As many as 7.5 million Americans have psoriasis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, which says it's the most common autoimmune disease. Men and women are equally affected. Previous research has linked higher body mass index, or BMI, family history of psoriasis, alcohol use, and smoking to the risk of psoriasis.
In the new study, scientists followed nearly 87,000 female nurses for 14 years. None of them had been diagnosed with psoriasis at the beginning of the study. Over the course of the study, the nurses completed three detailed questionnaires about physical activity and were asked to report whether they were ever diagnosed with psoriasis. A total of 1,026 women said they were diagnosed during the study period and provided survey information about their physical activity.

Compared with no vigorous physical activity, vigorous exercise -- the equivalent of 105 minutes of running at a 6-mile-per-hour pace every week -- was associated with a 25% to 30% lower risk of psoriasis. The association remained significant after accounting for BMI, age, smoking, and alcohol use. The researchers say theirs is the first study to investigate the independent association between physical activity and psoriasis.
"The intensity of the exercise is the key," says researcher Abrar Qureshi, MD, MPH, vice chair of dermatology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.
Only running and performing aerobic exercise or calisthenics were associated with a reduced risk of psoriasis. Other vigorous activities, such as jogging, playing tennis, swimming, and bicycling, were not. The researchers speculate that the highly variable intensity of the latter group of activities might account for the lack of an association with a lower psoriasis risk.
More than a decade ago, Siba Raychaudhuri, MD, reported that male and female psoriasis patients who exercised were likely to have less severe disease. "Walking was protective also," says Raychaudhuri, a rheumatologist at the University of California, Davis. He says he was "a little bit surprised" that Qureshi did not find that to be the case but added that "this study is more elegant than ours" because it collected more detailed information about exercise intensity.
Qureshi's team speculates that the lower risk of psoriasis in women who exercised vigorously might be due to a reduction in system-wide inflammation. Vigorous exercise also might be protective against psoriasis because it decreases anxiety and stress, which are tied to new cases and exacerbations of the disease, the researchers say.
"A good amount of data show that emotional stress reduction is good for psoriasis reduction," Raychaudhuri says.
Exposure to ultraviolet light is a psoriasis treatment, so time spent outdoors exercising, and not the exercise itself, might have explained the lowered risk of the disease, Qureshi says. But his study found that women who ran for only an hour a week had a significantly reduced risk of developing psoriasis than women who spent at least four hours walking outside at an average pace.
Chris Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a University of Rochester rheumatologist, calls Qureshi's findings "very interesting." Still, Ritchlin says, while exercise is known to be associated with reduced inflammation, "is there something about people who are really athletically inclined that we're not thinking about that would prevent them from getting psoriasis?"
Qureshi says that could be the case, which is why his study needs to be replicated. "You have to interpret the results cautiously because it is a single study," he says. "It is certainly possible that the women who exercise more are just more health-conscious. There could be other factors that could protect them from developing psoriasis."
Qureshi's study appears online in the Archives of Dermatology.
SOURCES: Qureshi, A. Archives of Dermatology, published online May 2012.Abrar Qureshi, MD, MPH, vice chair of dermatology at Brigham and Women's Hospital; assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.Siba Raychaudhuri, MD, University of California, Davis.Chris Ritchlin, MD, MPH, University of Rochester, New York.

'Battleship' Poster Parody: Taylor Kitsch Faces Off Against Rich Uncle Pennybags

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota

If you think a movie based on the game "Battleship" is silly, you're not alone. The folks at Screen Crush have just re-imagined "Battleship"-- a film about an alien invasion -- as a fight against classic board-game characters. (Enter Rich Uncle Pennybags from Monopoly and the King of Candy Land.)

The spoof posters even come with catchy tag lines: Monopoly: "The Battle for Earth Begins at Go" and Jenga: "Attack the Block."

If the current Rotten Tomatoes score for the movie is any indication, a giant Pennybags or angry Operation patient wreaking havoc in the ocean might be more entertaining than the real movie.

Granted, fans shouldn't be laughing too hard: several of these games acutally have movies in the works, including Monopoly from director Ridley Scott and a Candy Land flick starring Adam Sandler.

You can check out a few of the posters below. For the entire collection, head to Screen Crush.

"Battleship" hits theaters nationwide this Friday.

[via Screen Crush]

'Battleship' Poster Parody: Taylor Kitsch Faces Off Against Rich Uncle Pennybags

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota
If you think a movie based on the game "Battleship" is silly, you're not alone. The folks at Screen Crush have just re-imagined "Battleship"-- a film about an alien invasion -- as a fight against classic board-game characters. (Enter Rich Uncle Pennybags from Monopoly and the King of Candy Land.)
The spoof posters even come with catchy tag lines: Monopoly: "The Battle for Earth Begins at Go" and Jenga: "Attack the Block."
If the current Rotten Tomatoes score for the movie is any indication, a giant Pennybags or angry Operation patient wreaking havoc in the ocean might be more entertaining than the real movie.
Granted, fans shouldn't be laughing too hard: several of these games acutally have movies in the works, including Monopoly from director Ridley Scott and a Candy Land flick starring Adam Sandler.
You can check out a few of the posters below. For the entire collection, head to Screen Crush.
"Battleship" hits theaters nationwide this Friday.
[via Screen Crush]

Click Here!

Offitt on the offense against National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine budget

The Los Angeles Times wrote about an essay in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, stating:

“…many studies funded by NCCAM lack a sound biological underpinning, which should be an important requirement for funding. For example, NCCAM officials have spent $374 000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750 000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390 000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control type 2 diabetes; $700 000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406 000 to find that coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer. Additionally, NCCAM has funded studies of acupuncture and therapeutic touch. Using rigorously controlled studies, none of these therapies have been shown to work better than placebo. Some complementary and alternative practitioners argue reasonably that although their therapies might not work better than placebos, placebos may still work for some conditions.

…

Although evaluating the research portfolio of any institute at the NIH is difficult, social and political pressures may influence area-of-interest funding, and decisions should be based on science. For complementary and alternative medicine, it seems that some people believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show; they know what works for them. Because negative studies do not appear to change behavior and because studies performed without a sound biological basis have little to no chance of success, it would make sense for NCCAM to either refrain from funding studies of therapies that border on mysticism such as distance healing, purgings, and prayer; redefine its mission to include a better understanding of the physiology of the placebo response; or shift its resources to other NIH institutes.”

View the original article here

Offitt on the offense against National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine budget

The Los Angeles Times wrote about an essay in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, stating:

“…many studies funded by NCCAM lack a sound biological underpinning, which should be an important requirement for funding. For example, NCCAM officials have spent $374 000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750 000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390 000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control type 2 diabetes; $700 000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406 000 to find that coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer. Additionally, NCCAM has funded studies of acupuncture and therapeutic touch. Using rigorously controlled studies, none of these therapies have been shown to work better than placebo. Some complementary and alternative practitioners argue reasonably that although their therapies might not work better than placebos, placebos may still work for some conditions.

…

Although evaluating the research portfolio of any institute at the NIH is difficult, social and political pressures may influence area-of-interest funding, and decisions should be based on science. For complementary and alternative medicine, it seems that some people believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show; they know what works for them. Because negative studies do not appear to change behavior and because studies performed without a sound biological basis have little to no chance of success, it would make sense for NCCAM to either refrain from funding studies of therapies that border on mysticism such as distance healing, purgings, and prayer; redefine its mission to include a better understanding of the physiology of the placebo response; or shift its resources to other NIH institutes.”

View the original article here

Offitt on the offense against National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine budget

The Los Angeles Times wrote about an essay in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, stating:

“…many studies funded by NCCAM lack a sound biological underpinning, which should be an important requirement for funding. For example, NCCAM officials have spent $374 000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750 000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390 000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control type 2 diabetes; $700 000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406 000 to find that coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer. Additionally, NCCAM has funded studies of acupuncture and therapeutic touch. Using rigorously controlled studies, none of these therapies have been shown to work better than placebo. Some complementary and alternative practitioners argue reasonably that although their therapies might not work better than placebos, placebos may still work for some conditions.

…

Although evaluating the research portfolio of any institute at the NIH is difficult, social and political pressures may influence area-of-interest funding, and decisions should be based on science. For complementary and alternative medicine, it seems that some people believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show; they know what works for them. Because negative studies do not appear to change behavior and because studies performed without a sound biological basis have little to no chance of success, it would make sense for NCCAM to either refrain from funding studies of therapies that border on mysticism such as distance healing, purgings, and prayer; redefine its mission to include a better understanding of the physiology of the placebo response; or shift its resources to other NIH institutes.”

View the original article here

The last line of defense against medication errors: you need to know to keep your family safe

This is a true story.

Yesterday, I picked up a new recipe of antibiotic for my daughter in my local pharmacy.

(We recently adopted my daughter of the India where he had recurrent ear infections resulting in severe hearing loss). (And she is about to undergo the second of several planned surgeries in an attempt to repair the damage.)

Before put to sleep, he left the new drug of the bag, he looked at the instructions and prepared to give the medication according to the instructions on the label.

Just before doing so, I had a quick double-take.

Something seems wrong. I looked at the instructions again and slowly, thought * it * s happening... This * t think right.* then, hit me the dose seemed terribly high for her.

It took me a minute or two to put the pieces together (it had been unusually heavy fighting him preparing for bed, I was tired, I trusted my daughter * s medical and I was thinking perhaps less critically that I have). And then I noticed. The label had a stranger * name s.

After another moment or two, I saw what had really happened.

Medication entered into a table. Each side of the box had a different label... a label was for my daughter and a label for a stranger. And the stranger * s dose was more than twice as much as my daughter * s surgeon had recommended.

(This error * t happens in a homemade pharmacy.) (It happened in a pharmacy in modern new chain whose name would recognize ad on TV.)

I * m not a surgeon... and I * m not a paediatrician... but I'm a doctor trained in internal medicine and I have spent most of the last twelve years writing about speaking and development of systems to reduce the frequency of medication errors and improve the safety of the practice of pharmacy.

This pharmacy error brought the issue of the safety of drugs home for me... literally.

What I can tell you is that this type of error occurs all too often in the United States (and worldwide). And you can have devastating consequences for the people involved.

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that 25% of patients taking one or more prescription medications will experience an adverse event within three months--and 39% of these are preventable or avoidable.

The Harvard Medical practice study found reported in JAMA in 2001 that 30% of patients with drug-related injuries died or were disabled for more than 6 months.

And what almost everyone who studies accepts this problem is that current systems to select drugs, them, communicating a prescription at a pharmacy, drug dispensing, dosing teaching patients about their safe use are woefully inadequate.

In this series, let's take a close look at the processes that cause medication errors (some things your doctor and pharmacist may not even want you to know) and what measures can be taken specifically to make sure that you and your love are protected from this threat.

Ten years ago, your ability to get current, objective, accurate information about their drugs's fast and easy way was practically non-existent. It would have probably involved a trip to the library and requires considerable knowledge of Pharmacology for the answers.

Today, that * s is not the case. There are a lot of tools online, databases and resources to obtain information about medicines that even your doctor and pharmacist may not know.

We * re going to talk about them, show off to go tell them the key things you need to know about drugs, exposing some myths and let you know the questions you should ask. It * s not as difficult as it may seem.

In fact, it needs to become the last line of defense in the battle against medication errors.

Throughout, we will give you some basic rules that should guide their defense.

Thus rule number 1. Trust, but verify. Never assume that the medication is dosed correctly for you or it has received the right medication for you. Specifically, you should check:

the name of the patient in the bottle;

the name of the doctor in the bottle;

the name of the medicinal product (and cross check to make sure that is a problem or a disease actually have... There are many names of drugs look alike/sound alike out there);

dose (an independent source... to make sure that it is a plausible dose for you);

the * path * (to ensure, for example, be prescribed eyedrops for eye and no mouth or ear... amazingly drug loss injuries occur all the time);

the expiration date.

We * ll talk about some specific resources that will help with each of them throughout this series.

The result, hopefully, will be the piece of knowledge that you and your family are receiving their 7 rights:

drugs right;

correct patient;

correct dosage;

right time;

correct path;

right reason;

correct documentation.

In!

© 2004 Timothy McNamara, MD, MPH

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The last line of defense against medication errors: you need to know to keep your family safe

This is a true story.

Yesterday, I picked up a new recipe of antibiotic for my daughter in my local pharmacy.

(We recently adopted my daughter of the India where he had recurrent ear infections resulting in severe hearing loss). (And she is about to undergo the second of several planned surgeries in an attempt to repair the damage.)

Before put to sleep, he left the new drug of the bag, he looked at the instructions and prepared to give the medication according to the instructions on the label.

Just before doing so, I had a quick double-take.

Something seems wrong. I looked at the instructions again and slowly, thought * it * s happening... This * t think right.* then, hit me the dose seemed terribly high for her.

It took me a minute or two to put the pieces together (it had been unusually heavy fighting him preparing for bed, I was tired, I trusted my daughter * s medical and I was thinking perhaps less critically that I have). And then I noticed. The label had a stranger * name s.

After another moment or two, I saw what had really happened.

Medication entered into a table. Each side of the box had a different label... a label was for my daughter and a label for a stranger. And the stranger * s dose was more than twice as much as my daughter * s surgeon had recommended.

(This error * t happens in a homemade pharmacy.) (It happened in a pharmacy in modern new chain whose name would recognize ad on TV.)

I * m not a surgeon... and I * m not a paediatrician... but I'm a doctor trained in internal medicine and I have spent most of the last twelve years writing about speaking and development of systems to reduce the frequency of medication errors and improve the safety of the practice of pharmacy.

This pharmacy error brought the issue of the safety of drugs home for me... literally.

What I can tell you is that this type of error occurs all too often in the United States (and worldwide). And you can have devastating consequences for the people involved.

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that 25% of patients taking one or more prescription medications will experience an adverse event within three months--and 39% of these are preventable or avoidable.

The Harvard Medical practice study found reported in JAMA in 2001 that 30% of patients with drug-related injuries died or were disabled for more than 6 months.

And what almost everyone who studies accepts this problem is that current systems to select drugs, them, communicating a prescription at a pharmacy, drug dispensing, dosing teaching patients about their safe use are woefully inadequate.

In this series, let's take a close look at the processes that cause medication errors (some things your doctor and pharmacist may not even want you to know) and what measures can be taken specifically to make sure that you and your love are protected from this threat.

Ten years ago, your ability to get current, objective, accurate information about their drugs's fast and easy way was practically non-existent. It would have probably involved a trip to the library and requires considerable knowledge of Pharmacology for the answers.

Today, that * s is not the case. There are a lot of tools online, databases and resources to obtain information about medicines that even your doctor and pharmacist may not know.

We * re going to talk about them, show off to go tell them the key things you need to know about drugs, exposing some myths and let you know the questions you should ask. It * s not as difficult as it may seem.

In fact, it needs to become the last line of defense in the battle against medication errors.

Throughout, we will give you some basic rules that should guide their defense.

Thus rule number 1. Trust, but verify. Never assume that the medication is dosed correctly for you or it has received the right medication for you. Specifically, you should check:

the name of the patient in the bottle;

the name of the doctor in the bottle;

the name of the medicinal product (and cross check to make sure that is a problem or a disease actually have... There are many names of drugs look alike/sound alike out there);

dose (an independent source... to make sure that it is a plausible dose for you);

the * path * (to ensure, for example, be prescribed eyedrops for eye and no mouth or ear... amazingly drug loss injuries occur all the time);

the expiration date.

We * ll talk about some specific resources that will help with each of them throughout this series.

The result, hopefully, will be the piece of knowledge that you and your family are receiving their 7 rights:

drugs right;

correct patient;

correct dosage;

right time;

correct path;

right reason;

correct documentation.

In!

© 2004 Timothy McNamara, MD, MPH

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The last line of defense against medication errors: you need to know to keep your family safe

This is a true story.

Yesterday, I picked up a new recipe of antibiotic for my daughter in my local pharmacy.

(We recently adopted my daughter of the India where he had recurrent ear infections resulting in severe hearing loss). (And she is about to undergo the second of several planned surgeries in an attempt to repair the damage.)

Before put to sleep, he left the new drug of the bag, he looked at the instructions and prepared to give the medication according to the instructions on the label.

Just before doing so, I had a quick double-take.

Something seems wrong. I looked at the instructions again and slowly, thought * it * s happening... This * t think right.* then, hit me the dose seemed terribly high for her.

It took me a minute or two to put the pieces together (it had been unusually heavy fighting him preparing for bed, I was tired, I trusted my daughter * s medical and I was thinking perhaps less critically that I have). And then I noticed. The label had a stranger * name s.

After another moment or two, I saw what had really happened.

Medication entered into a table. Each side of the box had a different label... a label was for my daughter and a label for a stranger. And the stranger * s dose was more than twice as much as my daughter * s surgeon had recommended.

(This error * t happens in a homemade pharmacy.) (It happened in a pharmacy in modern new chain whose name would recognize ad on TV.)

I * m not a surgeon... and I * m not a paediatrician... but I'm a doctor trained in internal medicine and I have spent most of the last twelve years writing about speaking and development of systems to reduce the frequency of medication errors and improve the safety of the practice of pharmacy.

This pharmacy error brought the issue of the safety of drugs home for me... literally.

What I can tell you is that this type of error occurs all too often in the United States (and worldwide). And you can have devastating consequences for the people involved.

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that 25% of patients taking one or more prescription medications will experience an adverse event within three months--and 39% of these are preventable or avoidable.

The Harvard Medical practice study found reported in JAMA in 2001 that 30% of patients with drug-related injuries died or were disabled for more than 6 months.

And what almost everyone who studies accepts this problem is that current systems to select drugs, them, communicating a prescription at a pharmacy, drug dispensing, dosing teaching patients about their safe use are woefully inadequate.

In this series, let's take a close look at the processes that cause medication errors (some things your doctor and pharmacist may not even want you to know) and what measures can be taken specifically to make sure that you and your love are protected from this threat.

Ten years ago, your ability to get current, objective, accurate information about their drugs's fast and easy way was practically non-existent. It would have probably involved a trip to the library and requires considerable knowledge of Pharmacology for the answers.

Today, that * s is not the case. There are a lot of tools online, databases and resources to obtain information about medicines that even your doctor and pharmacist may not know.

We * re going to talk about them, show off to go tell them the key things you need to know about drugs, exposing some myths and let you know the questions you should ask. It * s not as difficult as it may seem.

In fact, it needs to become the last line of defense in the battle against medication errors.

Throughout, we will give you some basic rules that should guide their defense.

Thus rule number 1. Trust, but verify. Never assume that the medication is dosed correctly for you or it has received the right medication for you. Specifically, you should check:

the name of the patient in the bottle;

the name of the doctor in the bottle;

the name of the medicinal product (and cross check to make sure that is a problem or a disease actually have... There are many names of drugs look alike/sound alike out there);

dose (an independent source... to make sure that it is a plausible dose for you);

the * path * (to ensure, for example, be prescribed eyedrops for eye and no mouth or ear... amazingly drug loss injuries occur all the time);

the expiration date.

We * ll talk about some specific resources that will help with each of them throughout this series.

The result, hopefully, will be the piece of knowledge that you and your family are receiving their 7 rights:

drugs right;

correct patient;

correct dosage;

right time;

correct path;

right reason;

correct documentation.

In!

© 2004 Timothy McNamara, MD, MPH

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.