In a study funded by the National Institutes of Health and numerous vitamin manufacturers, it was found that vitamins C and E have no effect on heart disease. In fact, some researchers believe that not only does vitamin C not help prevent heart attacks, but the supplement may also promote cancer, which is a very scary thought considering that millions of Americans take these pills to reap their potential benefits. As for vitamin E, it was found that the risk of bleeding strokes was increased in people that take the pills, especially in males that smoke cigarette, on top of the fact that the supplement does not prevent heart disease.
The Physicians Health Study, which began in 1997, is one of the largest studies ever conducted on vitamins C and E. It utilized 14,641 male doctors that were age 50 or over, 5 percent of whom had previously had heart disease. Researchers divided the men into four separate groups, with one group taking vitamin C, one vitamin E, one taking both and one taking a dummy pill. At the conclusion of the study 8 years later, it was found that there were no difference between the four groups regarding heart-related deaths, heart attack or stroke rates. Surprisingly, the study did reveal that in the group of men taking the vitamin E supplement, there was a 74 percent greater risk for bleeding stroke. Although this new evidence suggests that these vitamins are not beneficial to the heart, and have several negative effects, an estimated 12 percent of Americans still take the supplements.
In a separate study involving over 12,000 heart attack survivors conducted at the University of Oxford in England, it was found that the B-12 and B-9 (folic acid) vitamins also had no positive effect on heart disease. The results of the original study can be found online at the Journal of the American Medical Association website.
The potential risks involved in taking these supplements are serious and may require medical care. If you or a loved one has medical malpractice questions in New York, please contact the medical malpractice attorneys at Silberstein, Awad & Miklos serving clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, Staten Island and Westchester County.
Call Toll-free 1- 877- ASK 4 SAM
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
More harm than good in prostate screening over 75
New evidence shows that routine prostate screening may do more damage than good for elderly men. Methods used to treat prostate cancer in this age group is known to cause other health issues such as erectile dysfunction and bowel and bladder control problems, while benefits of such treatments are minimal to none.
These recommendations were made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which concluded in 2002 that there is no substantial evidence suggesting men of any age should receive prostate screening. There has been much argumentation regarding the significance of these blood tests, which are often inaccurate, and require a biopsy for a positive confirmation. Also, there is no way of identifying how fast or slow a tumor is growing from these tests.
With this new information regarding prostate screening, doctors are encouraged to speak to their 50+ male patients (such tests should not be necessary before age 50) about the possible harms of the tests, as well as the potential benefits. Patients will then have the information needed to weigh their options and make a choice about prostate screening.
Although most prostate cancer tumors grow so sluggishly they are not considered life threatening, it is still the most common cancer among men in this country. After lung cancer, prostate cancer is the second leading cause of deaths in men.
Since there is a favorable chance that a man will survive prostate cancer, doctors will sometimes recommend a more passive approach, known as “watchful waiting”. In these cases, doctors will track the disease and only treat their patients only if the cancer worsens. One study also found that it is not a huge risk to leave early-stage prostate cancer untreated for a period of time in older men.
If you or a loved one has medical malpractice questions in New York, please contact the malpractice lawyers of Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, serving clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, Staten Island and Westchester County.
Fight for justice against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
This may be considered a legal advertisement.
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C.
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11530
Call Toll-free 1-877-ASK 4 SAM
www.ask4sam.net
These recommendations were made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which concluded in 2002 that there is no substantial evidence suggesting men of any age should receive prostate screening. There has been much argumentation regarding the significance of these blood tests, which are often inaccurate, and require a biopsy for a positive confirmation. Also, there is no way of identifying how fast or slow a tumor is growing from these tests.
With this new information regarding prostate screening, doctors are encouraged to speak to their 50+ male patients (such tests should not be necessary before age 50) about the possible harms of the tests, as well as the potential benefits. Patients will then have the information needed to weigh their options and make a choice about prostate screening.
Although most prostate cancer tumors grow so sluggishly they are not considered life threatening, it is still the most common cancer among men in this country. After lung cancer, prostate cancer is the second leading cause of deaths in men.
Since there is a favorable chance that a man will survive prostate cancer, doctors will sometimes recommend a more passive approach, known as “watchful waiting”. In these cases, doctors will track the disease and only treat their patients only if the cancer worsens. One study also found that it is not a huge risk to leave early-stage prostate cancer untreated for a period of time in older men.
If you or a loved one has medical malpractice questions in New York, please contact the malpractice lawyers of Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, serving clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, Staten Island and Westchester County.
Fight for justice against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
This may be considered a legal advertisement.
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C.
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11530
Call Toll-free 1-877-ASK 4 SAM
www.ask4sam.net
Monday, November 10, 2008
More Sleep Equals Lowered Risk of Heart Attack
In a recent study conducted by Dr. Imre Jansky of the Karolinska Institute, and other Swedish researchers, it was found that more sleep may lower the risk of a heart attack. The researchers analyzed heart attack records from the past two decades (1987 - 2006) and found that on the day after clocks are set back one hour in the fall, heart attack rates dropped. What’s more, in the few days following the clocks going forward an hour in the spring, heart attack rates increased. To make the comparison, researchers looked at heart attack rates for the few days following the changing of the clocks (either forward or back), and then at the rates on the same days of the week two weeks before and two weeks after the change. They found that when clocks are set forward, heart attack rates increase by 6% on the following Monday, 10% on Tuesday and 6% on Wednesday, with a 5% increase over the entire week. However, when clocks are set back, heart attack rates fell by 5% on the following Monday, although they remained the same through the rest of the week. The increased risk of a heart attack on a Monday was normally blamed on the resumed activity and stress that comes with the start of a new week. However, this study may hint that the real cause is the loss of sleep people get on Sunday nights as a result of getting to bed later and waking up earlier on Monday for work.
This study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reveals that losing or gaining sleep can increase or decrease the risk of a heart attack, which supports the fact that sleep affects our cardiovascular health. The amount of sleep a person gets each night can cause changes in blood pressure, blood clotting, blood sugar, inflammation, cholesterol, and blood vessels. Doctors suggest that people gradually adjust to the time change in the spring by going to bed earlier and waking up earlier, which will make it easier to deal with the hour loss.
In a separate study conducted by American researchers, it was found that the time change in the fall was to blame for an increase in pedestrian deaths during evening rush hour because drivers have trouble adjusting to earlier darkness. In the spring when daylight is extended with the change of the clocks, there was a lowered risk for pedestrian deaths.
Heart attacks require the immediate care of a doctor or hospital. If you or a loved one has questions about the quality of the medical care you received please call Silberstein, Awad & Miklos' medical malpractice attorneys for answers. Together we will continue our fight against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
Call Toll-free 1-877-ASK 4 SAM
This study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reveals that losing or gaining sleep can increase or decrease the risk of a heart attack, which supports the fact that sleep affects our cardiovascular health. The amount of sleep a person gets each night can cause changes in blood pressure, blood clotting, blood sugar, inflammation, cholesterol, and blood vessels. Doctors suggest that people gradually adjust to the time change in the spring by going to bed earlier and waking up earlier, which will make it easier to deal with the hour loss.
In a separate study conducted by American researchers, it was found that the time change in the fall was to blame for an increase in pedestrian deaths during evening rush hour because drivers have trouble adjusting to earlier darkness. In the spring when daylight is extended with the change of the clocks, there was a lowered risk for pedestrian deaths.
Heart attacks require the immediate care of a doctor or hospital. If you or a loved one has questions about the quality of the medical care you received please call Silberstein, Awad & Miklos' medical malpractice attorneys for answers. Together we will continue our fight against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
Call Toll-free 1-877-ASK 4 SAM
Friday, November 7, 2008
Treatment helpful up to 4 1/2 hours after stroke
In the third European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study, which was sponsored by German pharmaceutical giant Boehringer Ingelheim, it was found that tPA (tissue plasminogen activator) treatment may still be moderately beneficial when given three to four and a half hours after an acute ischemic stroke. When compared with the patients that were given the tPA drug within a three hour window, trial patients that received the drug up to four and half hours after an ischemic stroke were equally as likely to suffer symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages and had no increased risk of death. However, authors of the study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, still stress the importance of treating a stroke as soon as symptoms arise.
At this point in time, tPA is the only drug approved for treating ischemic strokes, though its use for treatment is currently only allowed within the three hour window. This new study, however, may expand that window to include up to four and a half hours, though more extensive research is still needed before approval. In another study published in The Lancet, conclusions from the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry provided additional evidence that there is no substantial difference between treating ischemic stroke before the three hour limit and treating within the three to four and a half hours window. If the approved window of time was increased from three hours to four and a half hours, doctors would be able to help a larger percentage of patients who have suffered a stroke.
The European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study 3 was a causal trial which used both the intravenous tPA drug and a placebo, a substance with no pharmacological effect. Researchers utilized 821 stroke patients that arrived for treatment three to four and half hours after stroke symptoms were first experienced. Ten percent of those patients were treated between three and three and a half hours, 50 percent between 3 and a half and four hours, and 40 percent between four and four and a half hours. The study concluded that a greater number of patients had a positive outcome after ninety days when treated with the tPA drug rather than the placebo. Further research is still required before doctors will be permitted to treat ischemic stroke patients with tPA beyond the three hour window, though the most recent study results point in that direction.
If you or a loved one has questions about the quality of the medical care you received please call Silberstein, Awad & Miklos' medical malpractice attorneys for answers. Together we will continue our fight against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
Call Toll-free 1- 877- ASK 4 SAM
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C.
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11530
www.ask4sam.net
At this point in time, tPA is the only drug approved for treating ischemic strokes, though its use for treatment is currently only allowed within the three hour window. This new study, however, may expand that window to include up to four and a half hours, though more extensive research is still needed before approval. In another study published in The Lancet, conclusions from the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry provided additional evidence that there is no substantial difference between treating ischemic stroke before the three hour limit and treating within the three to four and a half hours window. If the approved window of time was increased from three hours to four and a half hours, doctors would be able to help a larger percentage of patients who have suffered a stroke.
The European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study 3 was a causal trial which used both the intravenous tPA drug and a placebo, a substance with no pharmacological effect. Researchers utilized 821 stroke patients that arrived for treatment three to four and half hours after stroke symptoms were first experienced. Ten percent of those patients were treated between three and three and a half hours, 50 percent between 3 and a half and four hours, and 40 percent between four and four and a half hours. The study concluded that a greater number of patients had a positive outcome after ninety days when treated with the tPA drug rather than the placebo. Further research is still required before doctors will be permitted to treat ischemic stroke patients with tPA beyond the three hour window, though the most recent study results point in that direction.
If you or a loved one has questions about the quality of the medical care you received please call Silberstein, Awad & Miklos' medical malpractice attorneys for answers. Together we will continue our fight against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
Call Toll-free 1- 877- ASK 4 SAM
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C.
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11530
www.ask4sam.net
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Green Tea proven beneficial to your heart
Green Tea proven beneficial to your heart
A new green tea study conducted at the Athens Medical School in Greece has shown that the flavonoids in the tea, which act as antioxidants and reduce inflammation, keep blood vessels pliable. So what does this mean for your heart? Flexible, relaxed arteries (blood vessels) can more easily tolerate a person’s constantly changing blood pressure. The cells found within these blood vessels can now easily secrete the material needed to relax the vessels, allowing unrestricted blood flow. The antioxidants found in green tea may also prevent clots, which may ultimately lead to heart attacks.
In a study done in Greece, it was found that subjects who drank green tea had a greater dilation of arteries in the heart when compared to subjects who drank hot water or diluted caffeine. This proved that the results were not due to the small amounts of caffeine found in green tea, because those who drank the diluted caffeine beverage did not show any additional dilation of heart arteries. What is more interesting, those who consumed the green tea beverage still exhibited more dilated arteries after two weeks compared to when they began the study. This study demonstrates that drinking green tea is beneficial, even over time.
Some doctors are not completely convinced, however, that green tea is all it is cracked up to be, since other elements such as vitamins E and C can also aid heart function. One doctor, though he agrees that green tea does have its benefits, feels that people should not assume that by drinking the tea alone, they will be preventing a heart attack or stroke. However, it probably wouldn’t hurt to include it in your heart-healthy diet, along with the other dietary recommendations made by the American Heart Association .
A new green tea study conducted at the Athens Medical School in Greece has shown that the flavonoids in the tea, which act as antioxidants and reduce inflammation, keep blood vessels pliable. So what does this mean for your heart? Flexible, relaxed arteries (blood vessels) can more easily tolerate a person’s constantly changing blood pressure. The cells found within these blood vessels can now easily secrete the material needed to relax the vessels, allowing unrestricted blood flow. The antioxidants found in green tea may also prevent clots, which may ultimately lead to heart attacks.
In a study done in Greece, it was found that subjects who drank green tea had a greater dilation of arteries in the heart when compared to subjects who drank hot water or diluted caffeine. This proved that the results were not due to the small amounts of caffeine found in green tea, because those who drank the diluted caffeine beverage did not show any additional dilation of heart arteries. What is more interesting, those who consumed the green tea beverage still exhibited more dilated arteries after two weeks compared to when they began the study. This study demonstrates that drinking green tea is beneficial, even over time.
Some doctors are not completely convinced, however, that green tea is all it is cracked up to be, since other elements such as vitamins E and C can also aid heart function. One doctor, though he agrees that green tea does have its benefits, feels that people should not assume that by drinking the tea alone, they will be preventing a heart attack or stroke. However, it probably wouldn’t hurt to include it in your heart-healthy diet, along with the other dietary recommendations made by the American Heart Association .
If you or a loved one has medical malpractice questions in New York, please contact the medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, serving clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, Staten Island and Westchester County
This may be considered a legal advertisement.
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11523
phone 877 ask 4 sam
www. Ask4sam.com
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Drug companies in hot water
Drug companies in hot water
Pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. was recently accused of paying academic scientists to take credit for reports that were actually written by Merck employees. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx, which was pulled from the market in 2004 due to stroke and heart risks, is the subject of the two articles at hand. Merck is said to have downplayed the number of deaths in two studies involving Vioxx, and its failure to prevent and/or treat Alzheimer’s disease.
Merck & Co. stands by their statements that these accusations are deceiving and completely false. In addition to that, it was revealed that five of the six authors of the accusing articles were consultants paid by individuals that had sued Merck over problems concerning Vioxx. Merck claims that these reports are prejudiced because all authors were influenced by people who had previously challenged Merck in court, or testified about the risks of Vioxx before the Senate.
Although these accusations are aimed strongly at Merck, other pharmaceutical companies have been identified for claiming that academic scientists had more of a role in the writing of research articles about their drugs. All companies are urged to identify what function each member involved performed in writing such research articles.
When a drug study is initiated, it is necessary to perform the necessary research, evaluate the results, and finally, prepare these results so that they can be printed in a medical publication. If a pharmaceutical company does not want to be accused of releasing altered reports, it is also necessary for them to employ independent scientists for each of those steps, rather than utilizing their own.
One incident which has Merck in hot water involves the failure on their part to report data found after two studies in an accurate and timely manner. In the study, patients that took the drug Vioxx had a higher death rate than those who were given a dummy pill. Merck failed to report the number of deaths resulting from taking Vioxx accurately. Merck denies these claims, stating that the previously mentioned deaths were not a result of the patient taking Vioxx.
In an Alzheimer study published by Merck, the list of authors included several academic scientists who were never before mentioned during the study, when in fact the principal contributors to the study were scientists employed by Merck. Once again, however, Merck denied the claims, stating that all parties listed were personally involved in the studies. Merck did state that they sometimes have external companies brought in to write up studies, but only scientists who read and edit the documents are listed as authors. In an attempt to correct these problems, medical journals are creating stricter rules and policies regarding the articles they publish.
If you or a loved one has medical malpractice questions in New York, please contact the Malpractice Law Offices of Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, serving clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, Staten Island and Westchester County.
Fight for justice against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
This may be considered a legal advertisement.
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11523
Call Toll-free 1– 877- ASK 4 SAM
www. Ask4sam.com
Pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. was recently accused of paying academic scientists to take credit for reports that were actually written by Merck employees. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx, which was pulled from the market in 2004 due to stroke and heart risks, is the subject of the two articles at hand. Merck is said to have downplayed the number of deaths in two studies involving Vioxx, and its failure to prevent and/or treat Alzheimer’s disease.
Merck & Co. stands by their statements that these accusations are deceiving and completely false. In addition to that, it was revealed that five of the six authors of the accusing articles were consultants paid by individuals that had sued Merck over problems concerning Vioxx. Merck claims that these reports are prejudiced because all authors were influenced by people who had previously challenged Merck in court, or testified about the risks of Vioxx before the Senate.
Although these accusations are aimed strongly at Merck, other pharmaceutical companies have been identified for claiming that academic scientists had more of a role in the writing of research articles about their drugs. All companies are urged to identify what function each member involved performed in writing such research articles.
When a drug study is initiated, it is necessary to perform the necessary research, evaluate the results, and finally, prepare these results so that they can be printed in a medical publication. If a pharmaceutical company does not want to be accused of releasing altered reports, it is also necessary for them to employ independent scientists for each of those steps, rather than utilizing their own.
One incident which has Merck in hot water involves the failure on their part to report data found after two studies in an accurate and timely manner. In the study, patients that took the drug Vioxx had a higher death rate than those who were given a dummy pill. Merck failed to report the number of deaths resulting from taking Vioxx accurately. Merck denies these claims, stating that the previously mentioned deaths were not a result of the patient taking Vioxx.
In an Alzheimer study published by Merck, the list of authors included several academic scientists who were never before mentioned during the study, when in fact the principal contributors to the study were scientists employed by Merck. Once again, however, Merck denied the claims, stating that all parties listed were personally involved in the studies. Merck did state that they sometimes have external companies brought in to write up studies, but only scientists who read and edit the documents are listed as authors. In an attempt to correct these problems, medical journals are creating stricter rules and policies regarding the articles they publish.
If you or a loved one has medical malpractice questions in New York, please contact the Malpractice Law Offices of Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, serving clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, Staten Island and Westchester County.
Fight for justice against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
This may be considered a legal advertisement.
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11523
Call Toll-free 1– 877- ASK 4 SAM
www. Ask4sam.com
Saturday, August 30, 2008
intraventricular hemorrhage
New treatment for intraventricular hemorrhage
Dramatic improvements in the rate of death and disability have been reported in the treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage with the use of a catheter-based clot lysis using low-dose tissue plasminogen activation (tpa).
At the 17th European stroke conference results were presented for the study of clot lysis: evaluating accelerated resolution of intracranial hemorrhage. Administration of 1 mg TPA every eight hours for a maximum of four days reduced expected mortality by approximately 70% and resulted in dramatic improvements and functional outcomes. The mortality rate was 15% at 30 days. Usually a 30 day mortality rate was about 80 to 85%. Over the long run of 180 days more than 40% of the patients recovered well enough to live independently and 10% were completely normal with no deficits.
The study required daily CAT scans and careful monitoring of the drug. While the results are encouraging further trials of the protocol are being planned. Hopefully this will become the new standard of care for intraventricular hemorrhage.
If you or a loved one has medical malpractice questions in New York, please contact the Malpractice Law Offices of Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, serving clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, Staten Island and Westchester County.
Fight for justice against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
This may be considered a legal advertisement.
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11523
Call Toll-free 1– 877- ASK 4 SAM
www. Ask4sam.com
Dramatic improvements in the rate of death and disability have been reported in the treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage with the use of a catheter-based clot lysis using low-dose tissue plasminogen activation (tpa).
At the 17th European stroke conference results were presented for the study of clot lysis: evaluating accelerated resolution of intracranial hemorrhage. Administration of 1 mg TPA every eight hours for a maximum of four days reduced expected mortality by approximately 70% and resulted in dramatic improvements and functional outcomes. The mortality rate was 15% at 30 days. Usually a 30 day mortality rate was about 80 to 85%. Over the long run of 180 days more than 40% of the patients recovered well enough to live independently and 10% were completely normal with no deficits.
The study required daily CAT scans and careful monitoring of the drug. While the results are encouraging further trials of the protocol are being planned. Hopefully this will become the new standard of care for intraventricular hemorrhage.
If you or a loved one has medical malpractice questions in New York, please contact the Malpractice Law Offices of Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, serving clients in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, Staten Island and Westchester County.
Fight for justice against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.
This may be considered a legal advertisement.
Joseph Miklos
Silberstein, Awad & Miklos
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11523
Call Toll-free 1– 877- ASK 4 SAM
www. Ask4sam.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
