Diabetes has become a widespread condition in the United States, with Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2014 reports stating that about 29 million Americans suffering from it. Diabetes is one of the 10 leading factors in deaths in the United States and around the world, as stated by the World Health Organization. Diabetes is also has a direct linked to heart disease and stroke, along with a factor in serious health complications such as kidney failure, loss of sight, amputation, and many others. People know that in order to avoid diabetes or prevent further complications that it might cause, it is important to eat healthy, exercise regularly, and take prescribed medications. However, one more simple way to avert or manage diabetes is through proper dental care.
Diabetes and dental care are interconnected. Diabetes increases the risk of gum disease, and this could lead to a number of complications. As explained by Dr. Sid K. Steadman D.D.S., diabetes increases people’s risks of gum disease because it makes is harder for the body to combat bacterial infection. Likewise, gum disease could influence the blood glucose levels that can make diabetes advance faster as compared to people who don’t have diabetes. Aside from gum disease, diabetes also increases the risk of dry mouth (a condition where there is little or not enough saliva in the mouth) and thrush (an infection of fungal origin and affects the tongue and mouth), although this is not exclusive to those who suffer from diabetes.
To make dental health a preventive measure against diabetes, you must practice proper dental hygiene. With people suffering from diabetes having two or three times more prone to having gum disease, proper dental hygiene and routine dental check-ups can lower their medical expenses and have a 40 percent lower hospitalization than those who neglected their dental appointments. Aside from protecting your health from complication brought about by diabetes and dental health, you can save yourself some expenses from medications and hospitalizations though simple but regular dental care regime.Read More
The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), a nonprofit organization that serves as a consumer watchdog for the safety of drugs and other medication, provides quarterly reports on whatever pharmaceutical products are currently in the spotlight in the medical community. In the first quarter of 2013, it reported on the apparent rising number of adverse events associated with Xarelto, also known generically as rivaroxaban. It stated that the number of adverse events reported in that quarter was 680, significantly higher than that for its older cousin Pradaxa, known generically as dabigatran, with 528.
The report went on to speculate that this higher incidence may be due to the fact that Xarelto, which was introduced to the market later than Pradaxa, has been rapidly gaining popularity, outstripping Pradaxa in terms of prescriptions 2 to 1. Because more people are using the product, the statistical possibility of an adverse event is correspondingly higher.
However, this does not mean that Xarelto is not more dangerous than Pradaxa. In fact, the first lawsuit brought against the drug’s manufacturer (Bayer Corp) and US distributor (Janssen Ortho LLC) alleged in its lawsuit filed with the Pennsylvania state court that Xarelto posed too high a risk to patients to have been sold in the first place. This is in the wake of a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that indicated drug makers or distributors who sold products they knew or should have known posed a significant risk to consumers may be held liable for any harm or injury that resulted from their use.
This is a precedent that effectively raises the bar on the duty of care these drug makers and distributors have towards the consumer, and has the potential to broaden the number of cases for past and present drug-related injuries that may still qualify for civil litigation. As pointed out on the website of Williams Kherkher, those seriously injured from using dangerous drugs should not have to bear the consequences on their own. At the very least, they should be able to get compensation for their medical expenses which can be great enough in the more serious cases to lead to bankruptcy.
If you have suffered serious injury that has been identified as having been caused by Xarelto or any other drug, you may be eligible to file a personal injury lawsuit. Find out more about by consulting with a Xarelto lawyer experienced in handling dangerous drug cases.Read More
Fancy cameras have numerous complicated settings to fiddle with on them. Even minor changes in some of these settings can have a huge impacts on the resulting photographs, so it is wise to have at least a small understanding of what’s happening when you change them.
One of the most important settings on nice cameras is the ability for the photographer to adjust the lens’s aperture. The aperture controls how large of a hole the camera is allowing light to pass through. Light is what makes photography possible, so changes in the area of light the camera is allowing into its sensors translate into changes in the photograph.
The aperture is designated by the letter f and a number, as in f/22. The larger the number below the f, the smaller the aperture. Most people will tell you this is counter-intuitive at first, but they are wrong as this notation is clearly fractional. When you look at it that way, it’s clear that an f/1.4 is larger than f/8.
Photos taken with larger apertures have less depth of field. This means that less of the photograph will be in focus. This can be useful when you really want to focus on a specific aspect of your subject. Smaller apertures create wider depths of field, meaning more of the image is in focus. Here is a picture to help illustrate the relationship between depth of field, aperture, and distance from the subject.
Paxil (paroxetine) is a brand-name antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class associated with a number of side effects. Paxil birth defects have been the focus of some concern following claims of causation as well as indications in a cohort study of 958 women who took the drug in their first trimester of pregnancy.
In the study, it is suggested that there is a 1 in 25 chance that women taking Paxil in early pregnancy will give birth to a child with a birth defect, and a 1 in 50 chance that the child will have a heart-related malformation. These numbers represent a significant increase in the risk for birth defects for women who are not on the antidepressant.
The most common heart defect observed in the study was a ventricular septal defect, which is a hole in the heart that may resolve on its own or corrected surgically. Cleft lip and cleft palate (malformation of the mouth) as well as digestive system malformations were also observed in the study group. An example of the digestive problems that developed is pyloric stenosis, the thickening of the pylorus (valve connecting the stomach to the small intestines) muscles, making it difficult for food to enter the small intestines.
It is also suggested that pregnant women who take Paxil in the latter stages of pregnancy give birth to babies that exhibit withdrawal syndrome symptoms such as irritability, difficulty in breathing, and incessant crying. Paxil may also be passed through in breast milk in small amounts.
While there are indications that Paxil may increase the risk of birth defect, it is not considered conclusive fact that there is a causative relationship. The risk of these birth defects is always present even if the mothers do not take any kind of medication. However, because manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline continues to deny any causation for Paxil birth defects, it is the focus of much controversy. The drug is currently under fire from many patients claiming compensation for the injury to their affected offspring.Read More
Legalese can be frustration to the average person because few people what the law is actually saying. Whether the use of obfuscating language is deliberate or not, when making a claim for medical malpractice in New Hampshire, for example, you will definitely need a New Hampshire medical malpractice attorney not only to help you understand the law, but also protect your rights under that law.
It may happen that upon assessment, the lawyer will tell you that there are two or more parties who may be held liable for the medical malpractice injury you or a family member sustained. Depending on the case, the lawyer may recommend that you file against all or just one of the possible defendants. This is because New Hampshire uses a modified form of the joint and several liability doctrine. That is a concept that is as complicated as it sounds.
In its pure form, joint and several liability means that in cases where there is more than one defendant, each and every one of those so named are liable for the entire amount of the damages awarded regardless of the degree of fault of each defendant. The plaintiff does not have to establish how much each defendant is to be blamed for the injury, or how the payment will be divided among the defendants. In general, solvent defendants become liable for the payments that should have accrued to insolvent defendants.
Under modified joint and several liability, a defendant is only liable for the entire amount awarded if they are found to be 50% or more at fault. Currently, there are 27 other states aside from New Hampshire which practice modified joint and several liability. This is embodied in New Hampshire law under the revised statutes under Section 507:7-e. If a case involves such a defendant, it would be easier although riskier to name only that majority defendant in a lawsuit because the amount of work involved can be narrowed to that one defendant, although if the court finds for the defendant, the plaintiff may end up with nothing.Read More
In all US 50 states any car driver caught with a 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level will be charged driving under the influence (DUI) offense; if the BAC level is more than the 0.08% limit, however, the charge will be driving while intoxicated (DWI) which, in some states, is a more serious offense.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reported drunk-driving to be one of the major causes of car accidents in the US, killing about 10,000 individuals and injuring about a hundred thousand more; thus its strict implementation of the anti-drunk-driving law. Every year traffic enforcers and police authorities make more than a million DWI or DUI arrests.
People charged with drunk driving are meted out with harsh punishments, like heavy fines, time behind bars, compulsory attendance in a DUI school, community service and suspension or revocation of their driver’s license. In some cases, a court would require that an Interlock Ignition Device (IID) be installed inside the vehicle of an offender to make sure that he/she will not be able to drive while intoxicated. An IDD is actually a devise designed to measure the driver’s BAC level. If the device detects a level higher than 0.08% (or whatever determined limit) it will automatically keep the vehicle from starting. Many people turn to the help of a San Jose criminal attorney to avoid as many of these penalties as they can. That’s because an attorney will be aware of the defensive strategies that can be used to fight these kinds of charges and can choose the ones that are most applicable to the case at hand.
Another unfavorable result of a DWI or DUI conviction is the need to apply for a Certificate of Financial Responsibility (CFR) form, more commonly known as the SR-22 form or FR-44 in some states. Besides serving as proof that a driver carries the state-required vehicle liability insurance, the SR-22 is also the only means that will allow a driver, who has been charged with DWI or DUI, to regain his/her driver’s license and enjoy driving privileges again.
An SR-22 requirement is usually imposed for three years; it also requires a convicted driver to pay higher car insurance rates. A state may only lift the SR-22 requirement if the concerned driver has had no traffic violations within the three-year period.Read More
When a particular medication or drug fails to provide the needed treatment for the illness it was intended for, and, instead, causes a severe side-effect that puts a patient under a more serious condition, then the patient is afforded the legal right to file a lawsuit against those responsible (could be the doctor who prescribed the drug or the manufacturer who failed to make sure that the drug is truly safe and effective).
It is a fact that dangerous pharmaceutical products continue to be made available in the market and be prescribed to patients, whose only wish is to find the remedy for their illness. This is despite the clinical tests that these medications have supposedly undergone and the probing of the US Food and Drug Administration regarding the truthfulness of manufacturers’ claims that their drugs are safe for use.
Many drugs, despite their having been linked to adverse effects, have actually been manufactured properly and have been subjected to tests. Now if this is the case, then how does one explain the adverse effects?
Well, one probability is, since pharmaceutical companies also fund the tests that will prove the safety and effectivity of their drugs, some resort to reporting to the FDA only the positive results of such tests. And despite holding on to claims that there is nothing wrong with the drug, the continues increase in the number of patients who get harmed or injured by its use will eventually make the manufacturer a guilty party and be required under the law to compensate their drug’s victims.
This was the case of a certain drug called Yaz, which even became the most commonly doctor-recommended oral contraceptive. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Yaz’s manufacturer, claimed that the birth control pill was totally safe to use and could effectively prevent pregnancy in women (14 years old and up) by keeping the female’s egg from evolving (without the egg the male spermatozoa will have nothing to inseminate). Besides preventing pregnancy, Yaz was also said to be an effective treatment to premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), bloating and acne.
Yaz and Yasmin, another Bayer product, were later linked to the sudden death of 23 Canadian women, who were using either of the contraceptives. Both pills were said to have caused heart attack, cerebral thrombosis (blood clot which prevented the blood from going to the brain) and pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs).
Yaz was linked to the development of so many other health problems. Despite this, Bayer kept its claim that the drug was safe and effective. Having been prescribed to millions of women all across the US, lawsuit against Bayer are expected to pile. And, with too strong evidences that will link the drug to the identified adverse effects, Bayer will eventually have to answer by compensating all these women for having been injured after taking Yaz. Those who have suffered from Yaz injuries are urged to speak with a Yasmin lawyer to learn more about this option.Read More