Honolulu Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Obama Will Not Support Caps On Damages When A Doctor Or Hospital Negligently Injures A Patient

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:11:02 GMT

Everyone knows that medical malpractice limitations supported by the insurance industry and doctors won't affect health insurance premiums at all. The California legislature passed a cap on damages when a doctor or hospital negligently injures a patient over 20 years ago (MICRA) and today the insurance company MIEC charges more for malpractice insurance to California doctors than it charges to Hawaii doctors. Hawaii has no caps on malpractice damages for avoidable medical errors. Texas also caved in to the lobbying pressure of doctors and insurance companies and they are now seeing that this bailout of insurance companies has no benefit to the health care system and only leaves housewives and children who are injured by avoidable medical errors to suffer without compensation while insurance executives and doctors sip champagne and stay in $1,500 hotel rooms with their undeserved spoils.

Obama says that he will not support any caps on damages for those are injured by negligent doctors. This is a huge victory for women and children who are most often punished by caps on damages and, I might say, it is a victory for both truth and common sense.

Good reading on the failure of tort reform in Texas to produce any of the results promised by doctors and insurance companies - and in fact to make things worse - is found in an article written by Mike Ferrara from Cherry Hill, NJ:

Texas Tort Reform is NOT a Model for Nationwide Health Care Reform by Mike Ferrara | September 07, 2009 8:24 PM

Another good article is: Obama's Medical Malpractice Solution by Jane Akre | September 11, 2009 7:24 PM

In the "Political Hotsheet" Blog at CBS News (9/14), Stephanie Condon wrote, "In his speech before Congress last week, President Obama attempted to win Republican support for his health care overhaul by agreeing to consider including medical malpractice reform in his plan. In an interview that aired on CBS' '60 Minutes' on Sunday the president shed some more light on what he meant -- and in which form he will not accept tort reform." Obama "clarified that he is so far not willing to consider capping malpractice judgments, a reform proposal consistently put forward by Republicans."

Fox News' Special Report reported that President Obama "is suggesting that something very important to his political opponents, malpractice law reform, might be on the table. ... The President favors some dry runs first, which Republicans say are unnecessary." Texas and California "have already taken action at the state level and it worked." Rep. Lamar Smith: "Texas passed tort reform in 2003, and premiums went down 30%. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40%." According to Fox, "Tort reform...does not limit compensation for actual damages or loss of income, but often puts a cap of $250,000 on what are called non-economic damages, punitive payments lawyers seek for pain and suffering. ... President Obama concedes defensive medicine is a problem but said last night he does not support limits on liability. Instead, officials are looking at a certificate of merit program in which a panel of experts decides whether a case has merit before it goes to the court. Interesting idea, but a disappointment to those who thought the President had seen the light on liability reform."

My articles also are worth referring to for Hawaii residents. In Hawaii there are almost no medical malpractice cases filed and we have no tort reform. Last year less than 30 cases were filed against doctors in Hawaii. Still the doctors and insurance companies complain and seek legislative changes like those in Texas and California. Its all shibai as is the outlandish editorial in the Honolulu Star Bulletin on Monday, September 14, 2009. I wonder what kind of cool aide the folks at the Star Bulletin are drinking. They should be doing some serious reading. They can start with my article "The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People", May 2, 2009 and also read THE CALA FILES: THE SECRET CAMPAIGN BY BIG TOBACCO AND OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRIES TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS - By Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow

The Washington Times (9/15) editorializes, "Reformers in both parties want to curb abusive lawsuits that drive medical costs through the roof. Yet Mr. Obama could not even bring himself to say that any suits are abusive, but merely that doctors are for some reason practicing "defensive medicine [that] may be contributing to unnecessary costs." To help pacify them, the best he could offer was to 'direct' Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen [Sebelius] to 'authorize demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues.' This is a mere placebo." But "as part of permanent federal law rather than a vague presidential directive, [such projects] could help improve affordable health care delivery without subjecting the nation's entire health care system to major and dangerous surgery."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (9/14) editorialized, "Plenty of reasons exist to support medical malpractice reform. Doing it to slow the dizzying growth in health care spending isn't among them." "Few economists believe tort reform by itself - even the most radical tort reform - would significantly reduce what Americans spend on health care. Most experts say the big reasons for high U.S. health spending are chronic illness, expensive new medical technology and an aging population. Lawsuits are far down the list."

The Jackson (TN) Sun (9/14) editorialized, "When it comes to reforming health care in America, there should be no sacred cows that [are not] subject to review and reform. It makes sense for Obama to put malpractice reform on the table for review. This has been a long-standing thorn in the side of conservatives, and they are right to demand it be reviewed and changed if their case can be made."

So where is the Honolulu Star Bulletin in terms of the facts? Do they care? Maybe in the past they felt that you can always put down lawyers and lawsuits because the public is brainwashed on the subject but those days are no more. The truth is out and the public is beginning to see that closing the courthouse doors to legitimate claims by seriously injured women and children is the work of the rich and powerful against the people. Doctors and insurance companies.

As my friend Steve Lombardi writes in his Des Moines, Iowa Injury Board Blog:

We've been covering Interstate travel safety for the past two-weeks on the Injuryboard and a few of my fellow members have jawed about it nonstop. I know that Wayne Parsons, my friend Devon Glass from Michigan, Mike Bryant from Minnesota, Pierce Egerton from North Carolina and Rick Shapiro from Virginia will all join in with my sentiments about being frustrated. Parents frustrate us when they talk all about tort reform and then turn a blind eye to what their children do. Tort reform isn't about the other guy, it's about us and the decisions we make. Tort reform is actually a distraction from the root cause of injuries and accidents. Taking away the rights of people to receive compensation isn't going to stop the accidents that cause injury and death. All tort reform will do is make those injured or the families of those killed miserable. So stop distracting everyone with taking away the right to receive compensation and ignoring the root causes of injury and death on the highways of America.

Well said, Mr. Lombardi!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Is Obama Caving In To Insurance Companies on Tort Reforn In Health Care Negotiation?

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:36:53 GMT

The AP (9/14) reports, "President Barack Obama began a week that will dwell heavily on overhauling the health care system, declaring himself confident Congress will pass 'a good health care bill' even though some Republican opponents were trying to kill the measure for political gain." In his Wednesday speech and again in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," the President "signaled he was open to so-called tort reform. Under current practice, doctors and hospitals must pay huge amounts to insure themselves against malpractice lawsuits by patients seeking large court-ordered settlements for poor treatment." Reuters (9/13, Bohan) noted that in the "60 Minutes" interview, Obama remained skeptical about medical malpractice caps.

Public increasingly backing malpractice caps. The Washington Post (9/14, Cohen, Balz) reports, "President Obama continues to face significant public resistance to his drive to initiate far-reaching changes to the country's health-care system...to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll," but opposition "has eased somewhat." The poll also found that "GOP insistence on placing new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits finds significant public backing: Nearly two-thirds support caps on the amount of money that can be collected as a result of medical errors, with support increasing since June."

Cost of malpractice awards questioned. McClatchy (9/13, Margolies) reported, "Despite the perception that 'jackpot justice' has fueled soaring costs, hard data yield a different picture." In fact, "it's not clear that malpractice awards have risen anywhere near as dramatically as tort-reform proponents insist. Nor is it clear that jackpot justice, as opposed to declines in insurers' investment income, is to blame for rising malpractice premiums." Tom Baker, "a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth, theorized that having 'a common enemy' - trial lawyers - keeps insurance and pharmaceutical companies - the real culprits behind rising costs, he said - from fighting among themselves."

Republicans "underwhelmed" by promise of demonstration projects. The Salt Lake Tribune (9/13, Canham) reported, "While they appreciated the mention, which was met with hearty applause, many Republicans in Washington were underwhelmed by his promise of 'demonstration projects.' The president has authorized the Health and Human Services Department to set up a grant program for states that would focus on ways to reduce costs stemming from patients' lawsuits against medical professionals. But these projects would fall far short of the Republican goal to place a federal cap on damages for pain and suffering."

Commentary backs pilot programs. The Boston Globe (9/13) editorializes, "President Obama was on target in his speech to Congress Wednesday when he called for pilot projects to reform medical malpractice." But "simply capping malpractice awards is not a panacea in reducing health costs." The Obama administration "should give priority to malpractice reform pilot programs that make dispute resolution part of the health delivery system."

In a blog at The Atlantic (9/13), Philip Howard wrote, "A range of malpractice reform proposals will probably be considered over the next few weeks, and it's probably useful to catalog them, and identify the advantages of each. All of these reforms have significant merit, but special health courts are by far the most important in reducing defensive medicine. Each of the reforms can be combined with others, and it would be preferable to combine the best features of each." Howard summarizes some possible proposals.

With 200,000 Americans dying each year due to preventable medical errors and medical malpractice lawsuits shrinking to low levels, it is shocking to see the President selling out the sick and injured. See my earlier story on this subject:

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums

Twelve Tips To Prevent Avoidable, Fatal Medical Errors and Infections in Hospitals

by Wayne Parsons | September 02, 2009 3:47 AM

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama opens door to tort reform in healthcare speech.

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:17 GMT

The AP (9/10) reports that in his speech before a joint session of Congress last night pushing his ideas for healthcare reform, President Obama said "that he wants to look at a 'range of ideas' to 'put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.' Obama says some in Congress believe medical malpractice reform can help bring down health care costs. He says he doesn't think it's a 'silver bullet,' but that he knows that doctors practicing 'defensive medicine' can lead to unnecessary costs. He says he's telling Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to move ahead with demonstration projects to see what changes would work best."

If you want the truth President Obama is showing that his lofty promises - and our hopes - were sorely misplaced. Read my other articles on this subject and you will see that you have been sold out by President Obama.

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums

The History Of Tort Reform - A Story of Corporate Greed And A Conspiracy Against Justice For The People

Public Plan, Public Plan, Public Plan!

Jim Dean and Democracy For America Identify Democrats in Congress Who are Cutting Deals With The Insurance Industry

The President only cares about declaring a win. He is confident that he can lie to the public about what he will agree to as he bows to the demands of the mighty insurance industry and the public will believe him. The arrogance of power has led him _ quickly _ to a sad end as a progressive leader. This health care situation is as bad as politics gets. With the control of both houses Obama has cut corrupt deals with the insurance industry because he can't do what he promised.

Count me out. I gave Obama the maximum amount that could be given in his Presidential run. I will not support him again and I will also not support other democrats that are selling out the country on health care reform. I love Neil Abercrombie but if he supports the sellout on tort deform in the President's negotiation I will not support Abercrombie for governor in Hawaii. I am a democrat and a progressive and they are neither if they support this sellout to Big Insurance.

The Washington Post (9/10, A1, Connolly, Shear) reports that Obama's plan would "begin pilot projects aimed at reducing medical malpractice lawsuits." Most of the article focuses on the broader issues in his speech. Deep within its analysis of the speech, the New York Times (9/10, A27, Nagourney) notes that Obama "did offer gestures across the aisle, embracing an idea from Senator John McCain of Arizona that would insure the poor against catastrophic medical expenses and endorsing some sort of medical malpractice limits that Republicans have long championed.

CNN (9/9) added, on its website, that Obama "directed his administration to set up demonstration projects in several states to move toward medical malpractice reform, throwing a bone to Republicans who have long called for tort reform to bring down health care costs. 'I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs,' the president said to a joint session of Congress. ... Mention of the issue prompted applause from the Republican side of the chamber."

The AP (9/10) runs a feature listing the "key points" in Obama's speech, including a mandate for individual healthcare coverage and pressure on businesses to cover their workers, adding, "Medical malpractice reform is not a 'silver bullet,' but practicing 'defensive medicine' can lead to unnecessary costs; demonstration projects will be reviewed to see what changes to medical malpractice insurance would work best."

Tort reform may not dampen health costs much, McClatchy analysis finds. McClatchy (9/10, Margolies) notes, "Few causes in the healthcare debate draw more support than tort reform -- the idea of reining in frivolous lawsuits that lead to unjust cash awards, soaring malpractice premiums and "defensive medicine," the unnecessary tests ordered by doctors to avoid being sued." However, according to a McClatchy analysis, "despite the perception that 'jackpot justice' has fueled soaring costs, hard data yield a much different picture." McClatchy reports that the "most reliable estimates peg the costs of malpractice litigation at 2 percent of overall healthcare costs. And while tort reform measures have helped tamp down malpractice premiums, national health spending continues to rise." Moreover, it is not "clear that jackpot justice, as opposed to declines in insurers' investment income, is to blame for rising malpractice premiums." This "suggests that a tort system run amok is, at best, only a small contributor to the nation's healthcare costs."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Heart Attack Slide Show

Wayne Parsons — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:44:25 GMT

Its Saturday and I am thinking about which of my weekend chores to take on first. Then I started thinking about people out in their yards and around the house doing the weekend chores and the fact that some will die of a heart attack today came to mind. Sorry, but I have spent 30 years representing people who get hurt or are sick and I have seen too many situations where a person died who didn't need to die.

Injury and death prevention is important to the entire family at Injury Board. Here in Honolulu it is 7:45 AM. I hope someone will watch the slide show I have put here and avoid a tragedy.

HEART ATTACK SLIDE SHOW WORTH 45 SECONDS OF YOUR LIFE - NOT A JOKE!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Doctors Starting Salaries - Do We Really Feel Sorry For People Who Make This Much?

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:43:26 GMT

In the “Physician Placement Starting Salary Survey: 2007 Report Based on 2006 Data,” conducted in collaboration with the National Association of Physician Recruiters, found that physician-owned practices offered comparable salaries to hospital/IDS salaries for family practice without obstetrics ($130,000 versus $135,000), general internal medicine ($150,000 vs. $145,000) and noninvasive diagnostic radiology ($350,000 vs. $345,000). The pay-scales are high. Doctors can easily make over $1 million per year. I am not complaining about their salaries. I am complaining about their whining about lawsuit abuse. It does not exist and yet these rich doctors are using it to trick the public on tort reform.

Do we feel so sorry for doctors who make this much, to say its okay to injure your patients and pay nothing for their suffering? That is what the AMA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say that doctors want. There are almost no lawsuits against doctors. In Hawaii there were less than 30 last year. The doctors are making a lot of money. Why does everyone feel sorry for them?

Or maybe you don't feel sorry for them. I am looking for a sense of what patients feel about doctors' salaries and doctors injuring patients. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Billy May and TBI: Another Closed Head Injury Death?

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:48:36 GMT

Doctors are looking at a traumatic brain injury (TBI) as the possible cause of the tragic death of TV actor Billy May as Mike Bryant of Minnesota has reported recently in:

Doctors Will Be Looking At Potential Head Injury With Billy May's Death.

Everyone should be on alert that a blow to the head can start a small bleeding process in the brain that is unknown to the person whose head was hit - and can lead to death. Often the person is either unconscious for a period of time, or dazed. After a few moments the person goes through what doctors call a lucid interval where they seem OK.

This article is about the medical sign. For the Cephalic Carnage album, see Lucid Interval.
In emergency medicine, a lucid interval is a temporary improvement in a patient's condition after a traumatic brain injury, after which the condition deteriorates. A lucid interval is especially indicative of an epidural hematoma. An estimated 20 to 50% of patients with epidural hematoma experience such a lucid interval.^[1]^[2] The lucid interval occurs after the patient is knocked out by the initial concussive force of the trauma, then lapses into unconsciousness again after recovery when bleeding causes the hematoma to expand past the point at which the body can no longer compensate.^[3] After the injury, the patient is momentarily dazed or knocked out, and then becomes relatively lucid for a period of time which can last minutes or hours.^[3] Thereafter there is rapid decline as the blood collects within the skull, causing a rise in intracranial pressure, which damages brain tissue. In addition, some patients may develop "pseudoaneurysms" after trauma which can eventually burst and bleed, a factor which might account for the delay in loss of consciousness.^[4]

Because a patient may have a lucid interval, any head trauma is regarded as a medical emergency and receives emergency medical treatment even if the patient is conscious.

Delayed cerebral edema, a very serious and potentially fatal condition in which the brain swells dramatically, may follow a lucid interval that occurs after a minor head trauma.^[5]

Lucid intervals may also occur in conditions other than traumatic brain injury, such as heat stroke^[6] and the postictal phase after a seizure in epileptic patients.^[7]

The skull is solid and the brain is soft. Increasing the pressure with an internal bleeding process is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

I handled a TBI case years ago that I will never forget. A man hit is head when he fell off a ladder in his yard while trimming a tree. His wife was with him and got to him immediately. His eyes were open but when she asked if he was hurt he did not respond. He never was "unconscious" as we usually think of it. That was at 9 o'clock in the morning. By 5 PM he was dead. He went to his family doctor who asked him some questions that he answered correctly. The doctor did not order a CT Scan.

The 20th century has seen critical developments in diagnosis and treatment which have decreased death rates and improved outcome. These include imaging techniques such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Depending on the injury, treatment required may be minimal or may include interventions such as medications and emergency surgery. Physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy may be employed for rehabilitation.

During the afternoon the man slept at home and his headache worsened. He was unresponsive at 5 PM at home. Tragic. A CT scan might have shown the insidious bleed and treatment would have been available.

These head injuries are a leading cause of death in the United States from trauma:

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability among persons in the United States. Each year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans sustain a TBI. As a result of these injuries, 50,000 people die, 230,000 people are hospitalized and survive, and an estimated 80,000-90,000 people experience the onset of long-term disability. Rates of TBI-related hospitalization have declined nearly 50% since 1980, a phenomenon that may be attributed, in part, to successes in injury prevention and also to changes in hospital admission practices that shift the care of persons with less severe TBI from inpatient to outpatient settings. The magnitude of TBI in the United States requires public health measures to prevent these injuries and to improve their consequences. State surveillance systems can provide reliable data on injury causes and risk factors, identify trends in TBI incidence, enable the development of cause-specific prevention strategies focused on populations at greatest risk, and monitor the effectiveness of such programs. State follow-up registries, built on surveillance systems, can provide more information regarding the frequency and nature of disabilities associated with TBI. This information can help states and communities to design, implement, and evaluate cost-effective programs for people living with TBI and for their families, addressing acute care, rehabilitation, and vocational, school, and community support.

Billy May was far too young to die. The first lesson is to get to a doctor or hospital immediately. The second is to look for the subtle signs and symptoms of an internal bleed in the head.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama makes case for healthcare reform in speech to doctors.

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:59:15 GMT

President Obama yesterday outlined his healthcare reform plans in a speech to the AMA in Chicago. The story was covered by all three network newscasts, though it took second billing to reports on unrest in Iran. While giving the President credit for opening a dialogue, stories last night and this morning tended to cast a skeptical eye on the President's plans for funding his reforms. Moreover, some media accounts – particularly on network television – described the AMA crowd's reaction to the President's speech as negative, and concluded that doctors' opposition to the so-called "public option" underscores the potential difficulties ahead for Obama's reform efforts. USA Today (6/16, Wolf), for example, reports, "The mood was upbeat in early March when scores of powerful lawmakers and lobbyists joined...Obama in the East Room of the White House to talk about fixing the nation's health care system. ... Three months later, disagreement has turned to discord over a key element of Obama's health care prescription: his insistence on a 'public plan' to compete with private insurers." USA Today adds, "America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, is joined by the American Medical Association, US Chamber of Commerce and others that have expressed misgivings about greater government involvement."" Many other sources covered this topic including: NBC Nightly News (6/15, story 3, 3:15, Williams), the AP (6/16, Alonso-Zaldivar), The CBS Evening News (6/15, story 4, 2:20, Glor), among others.

Two great resources on this subject can be found at:

Debunking the Myth on Defensive Medicine By Cecelia Prewett

Please Mr. President, Don't Sacrifice the 7th Amendment To Get Health Care Reform - That Is The Old Way Of Washington Politics That You Told Us You Were Going To Change - By Wayne Parsons

Malpractice award caps seen as issue of contention. FOX News (6/15) reported, "Obama has never endorsed capping malpractice awards, but has sought to shield doctors who follow standard and established procedures from lawsuits." If protections were created "for doctors who follow procedures from lawsuits" it "would move the debate" about "creating ways for doctors and hospitals to share such information as a means of improving care and reducing unnecessary costs" forward. Many other sources covered this story including: Dow Jones (6/16, Brin), the Chicago Tribune (6/16, Mccormick, Japsen), the Wall Street Journal (6/16, Adamy, Meckler), the AP (6/16, Alonso-Zaldivar), NBC Nightly News (6/15, story 3, 3:15, Williams), The CBS Evening News (6/15, story 4, 2:20, Glor), ABC World News (6/15, story 2, 2:55, Stephanopoulos) and in the Health Blog at the Wall Street Journal (6/15) Shirley Wang also covered the story.

Daschle says Obama is open to malpractice reform. Following up on a story in Monday's New York Times, CBS News (6/16) reports, "As if taking his case to the most powerful physicians group in the United States to push his controversial health care proposals wasn't a big enough headline, a New York Times report says President Obama has been working behind the scenes to protect doctors from malpractice lawsuits." Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle told the Early Show on Monday that "Tort reform is going to be on the table," adding that there is "a clear understanding" that health costs are out of control.

Wall Street Journal criticizes Obama's views on medical malpractice liability. The Wall Street Journal (6/16) editorialized, "President Obama mentioned the medical liability problem yesterday, and it says something about health-care orthodoxies that even this political gesture sent his usual allies into a fluster." The Journal says, "The trial bar and its Democratic allies say that the threat of lawsuits promotes better care and assures accountability" however, "they've fought even modest changes that would offer liability protection if doctors adhere to evidence-based guidelines." Concluding, the paper says that while the Obama administration has billed his "views on medical liability as a 'credibility builder,'" the "only 'bargain' that seems likely to emerge is another major step toward total government control of the health markets."

Washington Times says Obama's health policies will hurt physicians, patients and hospitals. The Washington Times (6/16) editorializes, "Boos and awkward silences marked President Obama's speech at Monday's American Medical Association meeting in Chicago, and for good reason. Not only did he refuse to support caps for malpractice suits, but he said his administration would undercut how much doctors make." The Times notes, "The government is good at 'saving' money by simply reimbursing Medicare and Medicaid providers for less than their cost. It is essentially a tax that the government imposes -- a tax that doctors and hospitals pay for staying in business." Yet, "this tax raises doctors' and hospitals' costs, forcing them to charge private patients more to compensate for the lost Medicare and Medicaid revenue." Therefore, "in the short run, these higher costs will force more people out of private insurance and into Mr. Obama's proposed government-provided insurance," and eventually, "that means less health care to go around."

Columnist lauds Obama proposal. In his column in the Chicago Tribune (6/16) David Greising writes, "The question President Barack Obama placed before a skeptical American Medical Association conference in Chicago on Monday was whether American doctors wish to be part of the ongoing health-care crisis or help find a cure." He said in reference to the contested issue of medical malpractice caps that "instead of a cap, Obama is looking at evidence-based guidelines for treatment. This approach would protect doctors who follow agreed guidelines from costly malpractice lawsuits, yet leave open the courthouse door for people who have legitimate medical claims." Concluding, Greising writes that Obama's proposal "is a flexible, comprehensive start to a debate that, at long last, might finally yield meaningful results."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

H1N1 Swine Flu Question: What is Lou to do?

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:31:12 GMT

In response to an article I wrote on the H1N1 Swine Flu situation I got a Comment from Lou. He needs help. Can someone tell him what he should do .... about the Flu? Here is Lou's situation:

I returned from Honolulu last month and I was told that I had the virus....swine flu...however, my sister-in-law had this virus. She gave me a hug and that was the beginning of this illness..I flew back to CA and tried not coughing...so now, I am at my home in CA and I would like a suggestion to take medicine over the counter remedies ...the doctor that I usually visit, will not see me...until I am feeling better...and without a fever...what can I do for now?

He read my article Swine Flu Crisis Involves Huge Health Controversy and Probably Another Cover-up

I hope that someone out there can give Lou some suggestions. He is in California.

Thanks.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Drug Company Has Enough Tamiflu Anti-Flu Treatment Stored To Treat 5 Million H1N1 Influenza Patients

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:43:12 GMT

The Associated Press reports from Geneva, Switzerland on Apr. 27, 2009 that "drug company Roche Holding AG said Monday the World Health Organization has enough of the anti-flu treatment Tamiflu stockpiled to treat up to 5 million people who come down with the new strain of swine flu that broke out in Mexico."

"That is on 24 hours standby," said Roche spokeswoman Martina Rupp.

The Roche stockpile is held on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO). Millions of additional doses are held 85 to 90 governments, Rupp told The Associated Press.

Three-fifths of the WHO stockpiles are held at Roche facilities in the United States and Switzerland and the remaining amount is stored by WHO at different locations around the world, Rupp said.

The stockpiles held at Roche have been donated to WHO and they can be shipped as soon as WHO gives the word, Rupp said.

"They are actually for those countries that are not so well prepared yet," Rupp said.

The firm based in Basel, Switzerland, also can ramp up production to make 400 million treatments a year, and already has key ingredients ready, she said. Roche has agreements with drug makers in South Africa, India and China that allow for more production, but she said she was unable to give figures for production under sublicense agreements.

Britain and Japan are doubling their Tamiflu stores and have placed new orders with Roche, Rupp said.

Tamiflu has been regarded as a first defense against an influenza pandemic since it was shown to be effective against the bird flu outbreak in Asia in recent years. WHO has said it also is effective against the new strain of swine flu - H1N1.

Treatment with Tamiflu takes five days -- 10 capsules taken two a day starting within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms.

Countries are rushing to develop contingency plans in case the suspected swine flu being blamed for over 1,600 infections and suspected in up to 103 deaths in Mexico spreads rapidly around the world.

Roche began increasing production of Tamiflu in 2005 after the outbreak of bird flu in Asia, but Rupp said it began cutting back in 2007 as government stockpiles filled up.

The company built up the capacity to make 4 billion capsules a year, or 400 million treatments, Rupp said.

"It was a capacity that was never used because demand was just not that high," she said. "It's obvious. You cannot keep that up and not use it. So we announced that we are going to scale it down."

At the same time Roche said it would keep enough ingredients on hand to expedite the ramp up of manufacturing if needed, said Rupp.

She noted that WHO said in 2005 that stockpiling in advance is the only way to ensure sufficient supplies are available at the start of a pandemic and that anti-viral medicine is just part of the overall plan that countries have to have in place.

Roche shares rose 4.3 percent to 145.60 Swiss francs ($127.88) on the Zurich exchange Monday.

See other articles on the Swine Flu Outbreak and H1NI:

Health Alert For Hawaii: Is The New Swine Flu A Threat To The Islands? by Wayne Parsons

http://honolulu.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/swine-flu.aspx?googleid=261662

Swine Flu Crisis Involves Huge Health Controversy and Probably Another Cover-up - by Wayne Parsons

http://honolulu.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/swine-flu-crisis-involves-huge-health-controversy-and-probably-another-coverup.aspx?googleid=261844

Are MRSA and VRE More Serious Threats Than Swine Flu? by Frank Bailey

http://mountainhome.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/are-mrsa-and-vre-more-serious-threats-than-swine-flu.aspx?googleid=261926

See also some very informative websites that elaborate on health aspects of this crisis and that give you the history that is not being reported by major television media outlets. Dr Kadiyali M Srivatsa:

http://www.medifix.co.uk/

http://www.medifix.org/files/U-Cannula%20Article%20in%20Medical%20Journal.pdf

And also Pat Gardiner, another expert in the U.K. who has been involved for many years and knows about the history and cover-ups.

Ever hear of The GARDINER HYPOTHESIS?

Mutated Circovirus in pigs, the consequences of being treated with heavy use of antibiotics, is followed by MRSA in pigs and then MRSA and C.Diff epidemics take off in humans. A circovirus mutation in Britain in 1999 was covered up. The resulting epidemics spread first around the UK, then to Canada and from there, most recently, to the United States.

Mr. Gardiner is a crusader for truth in this complex health issue:

The people most likely to be handling animals other than their owners are likely to be the vets treating them, often for routine procedures.

The people most likely to be giving the pets and their owners MRSA are veterinarians.

Several series of tests have been taken at veterinary conferences. The results?

Vets, especially livestock vets, carry MRSA in disproportionate numbers. The vets, themselves creditably, although not in Britain,have provided the evidence.

Which is why the Dutch and other Continental European countries target veterinarians for special testing and decontamination at the hospital door. They want to stop them spreading it to other patients under their "Search and Destroy" regime, lately adopted by one private hospital in Dublin.

Alas, that bright bit of spin that pets are the problem has hit the floor at great speed. And worse for the vets, the full consequences are yet to be played out.

There is lot going on here. A knowledgeable source who has been in the middle of this for many years writes:

So, what is the truth? We should find out in the next few days. American officials are reported to be in Mexico and in the pig farms. Vets true, but they can hardly hide up sick pigs in large numbers in such a serious situation, so we should, get reliable reports on the health status of Mexican pigs. The big question is just what do we do if the pigs are sick with Swine Fever. Neither hospitals or pig farms worldwide can face another onslaught of zoonotic disease and the inevitable mutations.

Let's hope the news is hopeful, but more importantly that it is truthful and factual.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Swine Flu Crisis Involves Huge Health Controversy and Probably Another Cover-up

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:11:28 GMT

In my first article on the new Swine Flu scare I didn't realize that this connection with pigs, Swine Flu, MRSA and C.Diff has been raging among corporate interests, their cadre of hired-gun veterinarians and those concerned about public health (as opposed to greed and profits). My article Health Alert For Hawaii: Is The New Swine Flu A Threat To The Islands? was just the beginning. Now I learn that an international cover-up is in progress over this issue and that veterinarians have been bribed to give false health certificates for pigs. I also have learned that an American pig farmer was infected with Swine Fever when his pig herd was culled in 2000 - he is still suffering - and it turned out that his pigs were not sick. Bizarre? You bet. John Grisham kind of stuff. Too crazy to believe. But now the world shudders in the shadow of a pandemic. Wash your hands and read on.

So what is Swine Fever, and is it different from Swine Flu? What are Zoonotic diseases and what is MRSA and C.Diff?

Swine Flu: "Swine Influenza (swine flu) is a respiratory disease of pigs caused by type A influenza viruses that causes regular outbreaks in pigs. People do not normally get swine flu, but human infections can and do happen. Swine flu viruses have been reported to spread from person-to-person, but in the past, this transmission was limited and not sustained beyond three people."

Swine Fever: Classical swine fever (CSF) or hog cholera (also sometimes called pig plague based on the German word Schweinepest) is a highly contagious disease of pigs and wild boar. Swine fever causes fever, skin lesions, conclusions and usually (particularly in young animals) death within 15 days. The symptoms are indistinguishable from those of African swine fever.

MRSA: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is caused by Staphylococcus aureus bacteria — often called "staph." It's a strain of staph that's resistant to the broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used to treat it. MRSA can be fatal. Most MRSA infections occur in hospitals or other health care settings, such as nursing homes and dialysis centers. It's known as health care-associated MRSA, or HA-MRSA. Older adults and people with weakened immune systems are at most risk of HA-MRSA. More recently, another type of MRSA has occurred among otherwise healthy people in the wider community. This form, community-associated MRSA, or CA-MRSA, is responsible for serious skin and soft tissue infections and for a serious form of pneumonia.

C.Diff: Clostridium difficile, often called C. difficile or "C. diff," is a bacterium that can cause symptoms ranging from diarrhea to life-threatening inflammation of the colon. Illness from C. difficile most commonly affects older adults in hospitals or in long term care facilities and typically occurs after use of antibiotic medications. In recent years, C. difficile infections have become more frequent, more severe and more difficult to treat. Each year, tens of thousands of people in the United States get sick from C. difficile, including some otherwise healthy people who aren't hospitalized or taking antibiotics.

So what's the connection to food safety and our health with C. Diff? According to an MSNBC Report:

A potentially deadly intestinal germ increasingly found in hospitals is also showing up in a more unsavory setting: grocery store meats.

More than 40 percent of packaged meats sampled from three Arizona chain stores tested positive for Clostridium difficile, a gut bug known as C. diff., according to newly complete analysis of 2006 data collected by a University of Arizona scientist.

Nearly 30 percent of the contaminated samples of ground beef, pork and turkey and ready-to-eat meats like summer sausage were identical or closely related to a super-toxic strain of C. diff blamed for growing rates of illness and death in the U.S. — raising the possibility that the bacterial infections may be transmitted through food.

Oh, yes and then there is the term "Zoonotic Disease".

Zoonotic diseases are those diseases caused by infectious agents that can be transmitted between (or are shared by) animals and humans.

You'll find a lot about Zoonotic disease at veterinary websites.

And finally "Circovirus": Circoviruses are very small non-enveloped icosahedral viruses with a single stranded circular DNA genome. They have been described in pigs (porcine circovirus, PCV), chickens (chicken anemia virua, ChAV), psittacines (psittacine beak and feather disease virus, PBFD) and pigeons. The virus targets the lymphoid tissue and causes immunosuppression in the host.Circoviruses are the smallest pathogenic DNA viruses that have been identified and characterized in animals.

Ever hear of The GARDINER HYPOTHESIS?

Mutated Circovirus in pigs, the consequences of being treated with heavy use of antibiotics, is followed by MRSA in pigs and then MRSA and C.Diff epidemics take off in humans. A circovirus mutation in Britain in 1999 was covered up. The resulting epidemics spread first around the UK, then to Canada and from there, most recently, to the United States.

Mr. Gardiner is a crusader for truth in this complex health issue:

The people most likely to be handling animals other than their owners are likely to be the vets treating them, often for routine procedures.

The people most likely to be giving the pets and their owners MRSA are veterinarians.

Several series of tests have been taken at veterinary conferences. The results?

Vets, especially livestock vets, carry MRSA in disproportionate numbers. The vets, themselves creditably, although not in Britain,have provided the evidence.

Which is why the Dutch and other Continental European countries target veterinarians for special testing and decontamination at the hospital door. They want to stop them spreading it to other patients under their "Search and Destroy" regime, lately adopted by one private hospital in Dublin.

Alas, that bright bit of spin that pets are the problem has hit the floor at great speed. And worse for the vets, the full consequences are yet to be played out.

There is lot going on here. A knowledgeable source who has been in the middle of this for many years writes:

So, what is the truth? We should find out in the next few days. American officials are reported to be in Mexico and in the pig farms. Vets true, but they can hardly hide up sick pigs in large numbers in such a serious situation, so we should, get reliable reports on the health status of Mexican pigs. The big question is just what do we do if the pigs are sick with Swine Fever. Neither hospitals or pig farms worldwide can face another onslaught of zoonotic disease and the inevitable mutations.

Let's hope the news is hopeful, but more importantly that it is truthful and factual.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons