Update: Link Between Autism and SSRI Antidepressants Requires Further Research
AppId is over the quota
Posted on Monday, October 24th, 2011 
Lawsuits against manufacturers of anti-depressants have been filed in all 50 states following a study that found children whose mothers took selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Paxil and Zoloft during pregnancy were twice as likely to have a diagnosis of autism or a related disorder.
However, the jury is still out on whether the medical evidence points to causation, meaning the drugs directly increase the likelihood of autism, or correlation, which would mean women who exhibit symptoms of depression, and are therefore prescribed SSRIs, are more likely to give birth to children with a disorder on the autism spectrum. Said one of the landmark study’s authors, Dr. Lisa Croen, “we can’t detect causality from one study.”
What we know is that SSRIs affect the level of serotonin in the brain, and abnormal levels of serotonin are an important symptom of children with autism.
While it is not entirely conclusive, the Kaiser Permanente study is just one of many that have pursued a link between pregnant women taking SSRIs and various birth defects. The authors of this particular study were interested in SSRIs and autism because of the role that serotonin appears to play in the disorder. The fact that children whose mothers took SSRIs during the first trimester of pregnancy were four times more likely to develop a disorder on the autism spectrum is consistent with the theory that taking SSRI’s while pregnant is responsible for higher autism rates.
Still, a variety of environmental factors, including the mother’s own natural serotonin levels, are believed by many to be the primary factor in the development of autism in children.
Even though not all the evidence is concrete, many lawsuits have been filed over the years alleging drug companies failed to warn doctors about the risks SSRIs pose to pregnant women and their children. GJEL has fielded and continues to field such suits for California residents whose pregnancies have been negatively impacted by taking SSRIs.
We welcome your inquiries, and will deliver more information about the link between autism and SSRIs like Paxil and Zoloft as it becomes available.
Photo Credit: Be.Futureproof
A further very sad traffic death at Christopher Newport University
Peter was a footballer Christopher Newport and Robinson secondary school, where he was a team captain.
This is the second very sad death for Christopher Newport, Robinson of secondary community last year. In November 2008, Cameron Schlifke was killed in a car accident.
Comment to "A further very sad traffic death at Christopher Newport University"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]
Further legal protection for defective automobile manufacturers
"It felt like we had hit by a basketball". That's what Bob McGee predicated on the impact and the subsequent fuel fed fire, which claimed the life of his son and almost killed his wife.
The jury General Motors to sell a car with a dangerous and defective fuel system held responsible. This ruling helped change car manufacturers design cars.
But now, once again try "tort reform" activists "the basketball responsible to make."
Big business from the State to take the crash theory. You want the driver responsible for all injuries in the crash, including those caused by a defect. This means increased protection for manufacturers to sell the dangerous and defective vehicles. And if large companies for the catastrophic medical bills, they cause that pay, taxpayers generally end with the invoice.
We should do it not to. They must be forced to make sure their products.
Do not let "the basketball guilt."
House Bill 201 increases for vote in the House of representatives soon. We ask you to e-Mail-your representative and you ask to vote 'No' in House Bill 201. Let's continue to blame us automakers for the provision of safe cars.
Should a vehicle manufacturer, that a defective product made that caused can move fault to the driver of the vehicle injuries in an accident?
Position: NR. The crash doctrine is rooted in the case of a long-held principle from the 1968 law requiring car manufacturers to have their products in a crash. Attempts to change this doctrine and allow automakers shift the blame for their defective products to someone else, as the driver who caused the accident is wrong and unfair to consumers. If in a frontal collision airbags don't provide a manufacturer could say that it is the driver's fault.
Car manufacturers, which bad products to avoid legal and financial penalties for their shifts the financial burden of caring for injured by faulty products on the taxpayers of the State of Florida, instead of the manufacturer. It provides no incentive for vehicle manufacturers of safer cars and the automotive industry, which already is the cost of liability claims in the price of the car will not harm.
History: 1968 The crash doctrine was invoked in a case Larsen vs. General Motors founded. The opinion said in this case, that car crashes are inevitable and car manufacturers are responsible for the production of their cars as safe as possible in a collision.
In the year 2001 in Florida, in d ' Amario vs. Ford Motor Company, a case of a motor-vehicle accident and subsequent vehicle detected fire, Florida Supreme Court, a clear distinction between obligation caused a car accident and liability of the producer of a defective product, which has caused injuries advanced beyond the first accident.
In d ' Amario, the Court has held that a manufacturer only for improved injury is responsible. Thus a jury may not divide error with the driver of the vehicle. The Supreme Court, said the jury focus should be on a fault if existed and whether the behavior of the driver caused or the first collision causing it injury, not what improves.
In the past, automakers have deep resistance to improvement of security, such as such as seat belts in the 1960s and airbags in the 1990's because of concerns about cost or marketing shown. It was only 10 years ago, that tire manufacturer Firestone had to remember which had caused at least 200 dead and 700 injured millions of defective tires. Since then, it has a national movement and accountability manufacturer, with Florida leading the way with its decision d ' Amario to make vehicles safer.
Car security
Vehicle manufacturers are not expected to design cars that are accident-proof. More than 30 years ago founded this vehicle, the manufacturer for the vehicles which will be subject to a "unreasonable risk of injury." occupant are not expected automakers know case law Florida receive vehicles in collisions and their responsibility to prevent injuries. Ford Motor Company, which says in the instructions for his 2005 Tour: "36,700 crashes come every day."
It is also the reason vehicle manufacturers behavior full crash, a key indicator of organisations such as consumer reports, whether a vehicle is used. This is an important factor to use the consumer when you buy a car. Consumers assume that services the vehicles such as the Honda Civic, developed thanks to published reports on crash test high for example in place to protect against injury.
Escaping debt
The Florida Supreme Court said in 2001 that juries, not in the position error between the automaker and the driver should share. But legislative proposals had undermined crash automakers blame for faulty products and the purpose of teaching to escape. Juries would have said, to consider, which led to the accident to determine the fault for an extended injury, such as such as a drunk driver. Supporters of this legislation claim without him will be negligent driver way off the hook. This is not true--negligent driver are still responsible for all injuries caused by their reckless behavior, but not the risk of injuries due to deficiencies of a car manufacturer.
Taxpayers foot the Bill
Another problem with reversal of the doctrine of the crash is the huge consequences for the citizens of Florida, because rehabilitation costs to the taxpayer. Just because the manufacturer to avoid responsibility for injuries that they cause, are given a free pass, this does not mean that the injuries go away. Instead victims refer to social assistance and the taxpayer at the end of the Bill for medical care. In addition the cost of the product have built liability suits in the price for cars product manufacturers for decades.
Completed: The Florida legislature should not have the safety of Floridians took over after Alabama's vehicle manufacturers prefer. Legislative proposals that allow vehicle manufacturers to avoid liability for defective products, and there is no incentive to make products safer, are bad for Floridians. A big step backwards would this legislation in the search for safer products and an injustice for consumers and taxpayers.
A further Tylenol recall of musty smell
In what should be a frighteningly regular event another callback has been announced by Tylenol. The maker of Tylenol, McNeil Consumer health care, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, has a recall of over 800,000 bottles of Tylenol, Benadryl, Sudafed PE and Sinutab.
This callback is just one of many over a period of months relating to quality control issues and contamination already existing security concerns about acetaminophen products like Tylenol worsen. The Tylenol recall appears with the 8 hour extended release caplets due to complaints by consumers of a strange moldy or musty smell was recalled have a problem to be triggered by the drug in the last year, 34,000 bottles of Tylenol to the previous callbacks from Tylenol manufacturer. It is believed that the smell is connected, a chemical on pallets on which the drugs transported stored or have been used.
This callback is above all over because it proposes again serious quality control and contamination issues. Identifies acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, became the most common cause of liver failure in the United States, especially at high doses. This quality control, most are worrying because they show that too much acetaminophen in a product Tylenol, was able to land that could represent serious risks of liver damage. A previous recall, quality control based concern on these very topics. This quality control problems with Tylenol products were so serious that a work of McNeil was shut down in Fort Washington.
The special bottles, subject to the recall include the lot number ADM074 with the UPC code 300450297181. The lot number on the page, find the the bottle label. Consumers who have the recalled painkillers should not be used. If you or someone you love has suffered serious liver damage or other serious side effects, which can be linked to your treatment with Tylenol, our experienced defective drug lawyers pursue diligently best interest of our customers. If you can have suffered serious side effects of taking acetaminophen, please contact our experienced Atlanta and Georgia defective drug lawyers for an initial case review.
Montlick and Associates is available to customers in all Georgia and in the Southeast, including but not limited to Albany, Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Gainesville, Macon, Marietta, Rome, Roswell, Savannah, Smyrna, Valdosta, Warner Robins and all the smaller towns and rural areas in the State. No matter where you are our lawyers are only a phone call away, and we come to you. Call the week us 24 hours a day/7 days for your free consultation at 1-800-LAW-NEED (1-800-529-6333). You can also visit us at www.montlick.com and use our free case evaluation form or 24-hour live online chat.
Further quality control and contamination problems associated with Tylenol recalls
The problems for Johnson and Johnson, pushing a McNeil Consumer Healthcare facility in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania led including callbacks from acetaminophen related to severe liver damage and contamination issues, the shutdown. According to a growing number of callbacks, Tylenol products were the food and drug a more frequently-seen and publicly accessible medical warning for infected versions of Tylenol last Administration ("FDA") month.
Before the alert was many consumers may be unaware that she had bought and taken contaminated Tylenol caplets. The recalls Tylenol products cover now hundreds of thousands of Tylenol products. What to much acetaminophen in versions of popular over-the-counter drug Tylenol concerns have ranged from reports of liver damage including liver failure due to acetaminophen, which is the active ingredient in Tylenol, quality control, and medicines reach consumers contaminated.
If you or someone, which has suffered you love serious Tylenol side effects such as liver damage or other serious side effects-related, you can claim for compensation for your injuries. Montlick and Associates, attorneys at law, accepted we work inquiries regarding defective medical products and dangerous drugs by those who have suffered serious side effects or injury in all Georgia and the United States hard for clients, because we want the best for them, and we want the best personal injury known law firm in Georgia.
The extensive recall was known, that in the last month includes an arthritis pain reliever produced in the last three years, with problems believed to by contamination by a chemical involved in breakdown of pallets caused be. The chemical contaminant 2,4,6-Tribromoanisole was bottles somehow in the empty drugs before they were filled with Tylenol caplets. The contamination led complaints of musty smell and symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. While these symptoms are relatively mild, they are alarming in the context of the previous McNeil quality control problems that have led to much acetaminophen veterans Tylenol products. According to the FDA, paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose is the most common of liver failure.
If you have suffered serious liver damage or other serious side effects, that a result of your use of Tylenol can be products or paracetamol, contact Montlick and Associates, attorneys at law. Defective drug lawyers are our experienced Georgia for customers in all Georgia and in the Southeast, including but not limited to Albany, Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Gainesville, Macon, Marietta, Rome, Roswell, Savannah, Smyrna, Valdosta help Warner Robins and all the smaller towns and rural areas in the State. No matter where you are our lawyers are only a phone call away, and we come to you. Call the week us 24 hours a day/7 days for your free consultation at 1-800-LAW-NEED (1-800-529-6333). You can also visit us at www.montlick.com and use our free case evaluation form or 24-hour live online chat.
A further very sad traffic death at Christopher Newport University
Peter was a footballer Christopher Newport and Robinson secondary school, where he was a team captain.
This is the second very sad death for Christopher Newport, Robinson of secondary community last year. In November 2008, Cameron Schlifke was killed in a car accident.
One comment to "A further very sad traffic death Christopher Newport University"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
For security purposes, you give the graphic text in the box below: [press F5 if you can't read the text]
Further legal protection for defective automobile manufacturers
"It felt like we had hit by a basketball". That's what predicated on the impact and subsequent fuel fire Fed Bob McGee, the the life of his son and almost claimed killed his wife.
The jury General Motors for sale a car with a dangerous and defective fuel system held responsible. This ruling helped change the nature and the way that design car manufacturer cars.
But now, once again try "tort reform" activists "the basketball responsible to make."
Big business from the State to take the crash theory. You want the driver responsible for all injuries in the crash, including those caused by a defect. This means increased protection for manufacturers to sell the dangerous and defective vehicles. And if large companies for the catastrophic medical bills, they cause numbers, taxpayer usually end with the Bill.
Let us do that. You must be forced to make sure their products.
Do not let "the basketball guilt."
House Bill 201 increases for vote in the House of representatives soon. We ask you to e-Mail-your representative and you ask to vote "No" on House Bill 201. Let's continue to blame us automobile manufacturers for providing safe cars.
Should a vehicle manufacturer, that a defective product made, which caused can move fault to the driver of the vehicle injuries in an accident?
Position: NR. The crash doctrine, a long-held principle is rooted in the case dating back to 1968, vehicle manufacturer obliges law to have their products in the case of a crash. Attempts to change this doctrine and vehicle manufacturers, move the blame for their defective products to someone else, how the driver that is causing the accident wrong and unfair, consumers. If in a frontal collision airbags don't provide a manufacturer might say, it's the driver's fault.
Vehicle manufacturers legal and financial penalties for their bad products to escape can shift the financial burden of caring for injured by faulty products on the taxpayers of the State of Florida, instead of the manufacturer. It provides no incentive for vehicle manufacturers of safer cars and the automotive industry, which already is the cost of liability claims in the price of the car will not harm.
History: 1968 The crash doctrine was invoked in a case Larsen vs. General Motors founded. The statement said in this case, that car crashes are inevitable and vehicle manufacturers responsible their cars as safe are a collision for the as possible.
In the year 2001 in Florida, in d ' Amario vs. detected a case of a motor vehicle accident and subsequent vehicle Ford Motor Company fire, Florida a clear distinction between error caused Supreme Court a car accident and a producer of a defective product liability, this has caused injuries advanced beyond the first accident.
In d ' Amario, the Court has held that a manufacturer only for improved injury is responsible. Thus a jury can not share error with the driver of the vehicle. The Supreme Court, said the jury focus should be on a defect if existed and whether the first collision causing it injury, not what or improves the behavior of the driver.
In the past, automakers have deep resistance to improve security, such as such as seat belts in the 1960s and airbags in the 1990's because of concerns about cost or marketing shown. It was only 10 years ago that tyre manufacturers had millions of defective tyres to recall Firestone, which had caused at least 200 deaths and 700 injuries. Since then, it has a national movement and accountability manufacturer, with Florida leading the way with its decision d ' Amario to make vehicles safer.
Car security
Vehicle manufacturers are not expected to design cars that are evidence of the accident. More than 30 years ago founded know case law that car not expected automobile manufacturers for the rolling stock which is subject to an "unreasonable risk of injury." occupant Florida receive vehicles in collisions and their responsibility to prevent injuries. Ford Motor Company says even in the user guide for your tour 2005: "36,700 crashes come every day."
It is also the reason vehicle manufacturers behavior exhaustive crash testing, a key indicator of organisations such as consumer reports, whether a vehicle is used. This is an important factor, with the consumer when buying a car. Consumers accept, were due to published reports on crash test performances, such as the developed vehicles such as the Honda Civic, high in place to protect against injury.
Escaping debt
The Florida Supreme Court established in the year 2001, that juries, not guilt between the automaker and the driver can share. Proposals for legislation but could undermine automakers blame for faulty products and the purpose of teaching to escape crash. Juries would be said, led to the accident to determine the fault for an extended injury, to consider such as such as a drunk driver. Supporters of this legislation claim without him will be negligent driver way off the hook. This is not true--negligent driver are still responsible for all injuries caused by their reckless behavior, but no injuries caused by defects from a car manufacturer.
Taxpayers foot the Bill
Another concern with reversal of the doctrine of the crash is the huge consequences for the citizens of Florida because rehabilitation costs to the taxpayer. Just because manufacturers are given responsibility for injuries to avoid a free pass, they cause does not mean that the injuries go away. Instead the victims consult the Bill for health care with public support and the taxpayers at the end. In addition the cost of the product built liability suits in the price for cars product manufacturers for decades.
Completed: The Florida legislature should not have the safety of Floridians took over after Alabama's vehicle manufacturers prefer. Legislative proposals that allow vehicle manufacturers to avoid liability for defective products, and there is no incentive to make products safer, are bad for Floridians. A big step backwards would this legislation in the search for safer products and an injustice for consumers and taxpayers.
