“Can one get addicted to medical marijuana? If so, what is good about it?”

“Can one get addicted to medical marijuana? If so, what is good about it?” What an odd question. You can get addicted to almost every drug your doctor prescribes, do you ask them “what good are they then doc” if your drugs are addictive? Emoticons, that’s what’s missing from Quora! So, cannabis isn’t addictive, it doesn’t even stimulate the reward centre of our brains, like chocolate or sugar or coffee even. Studies, no studies you say….! Not so Barb Kueber’s answer to Why are there still no conclusive studies on the long term effects of marijuana use? Barb Kueber’s answer … Continue reading “Can one get addicted to medical marijuana? If so, what is good about it?”

Your answer may need improvement!!

Well, here’s another collapsed answer, may as post it here, seems a shame wasting my effort and time, only to have my stuff hidden. https://www.quora.com/Do-you-smoke-marijuana-knowing-that-it-eventually-slows-down-your-brain-and-drive-Or-do-you-deny-that-that-happens/answer/Barb-Kueber?ch=10&share=34b54f95&srid=O4PS Sorry but, your bias is showing! Nope, using cannabis hasn’t slowed me down, not one … Continue reading Your answer may need improvement!!

Now Google Is Shadow Banning Entire Websites (Including This One!) — Patients for Medical Cannabis

This post is a re-blog from https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2018/10/28/now-google-is-shadow-banning-entire-websites-including-this-one/ Yesterday I noticed something strange. The post that put this blog on the map, so to speak, is “Marijuana versus cigarettes“, which went wildly viral years ago and has been the number one in search results on Google when searching the topic. Always this post gets the most views per day… until just a few […] via Now Google Is Shadow Banning Entire Websites (Including This One!) — Patients for Medical Cannabis This post is a re-blog from https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com Continue reading Now Google Is Shadow Banning Entire Websites (Including This One!) — Patients for Medical Cannabis

More Nurses refuse flu-shots

Republished article follows, from Wisemindhealthybody is powered by eatlocalgrown.com Source article – We Won’t Back Down: 22,000 Nurses Refuse “Mandatory” Vaccinations = by Nick Meyer Even though the effectiveness of vaccines for preventing transmission of disease to patients has been strongly questioned if not outright … Continue reading More Nurses refuse flu-shots

Quora Moderation sent you a message!

Well, it’s October 22, 2018, here’s a surprise, Quora Moderation sent you a message, actually, Quora Moderation sent you several messages, now that you snubbed our “partners program” even as you broke the million view mark.  This happened, oddly, directly after my answers were sent to a pack of shills, a herd of smarmy gang-stalkers, again, and my good real answers, were used to sell these ghost-written or bot-generated advertisements that are used a vehicle to disperse pure unfettered bullshit, Quora is much like silk-road, depending on how much you pay to control the content me-thinks. Check out the email I just received – This answer, btw, not … Continue reading Quora Moderation sent you a message!

ONCA – Doctor Billing info not private

Source – Ontario Medical Association v. Ontario (Information, 2018 ONCA 673 (CanLII) Excerpt follows, with emphasis added [1]         A reporter for the Toronto Star requested access to information from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (the “Ministry”) pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 (the “Act”). She sought access to the names of the top 100 physician billers to the Ontario Health Insurance Program (“OHIP”) for the 2008 to 2012 fiscal years and a breakdown of the physicians’ medical specialties and the dollar amounts billed. [2]         An adjudicator assigned by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “IPCO” and the … Continue reading ONCA – Doctor Billing info not private

Cannabis Annihilates Cancer

Original post censored *** Sooooo…..why not “ASK YOUR DOCTOR, ABOUT CANNABIS” Excerpt follows  – Thanks for the most excellent resource from  THE LIST | Granny Storm Crow’s List. CANCER-ADENOCARCINOMA CANCER–ADRENAL CORTICAL (See 2000-2009 List) CANCER-ANGIOSARCOMA (See News Articles 2010-2016) CANCER–BASAL CELL CARCINOMA (See CANCER-SKIN) CANCER-BLADDER/URETHRAL … Continue reading Cannabis Annihilates Cancer

Corporate Crime$ and Fine$

“Doctors and their organisations should consider carefully whether they find it ethically acceptable to receive money that may have been partly earned by crimes that have harmed those people whose interests doctors are expected to take care of. Many crimes would be impossible to carry out, if doctors weren’t willing to participate in them.” Continue reading Corporate Crime$ and Fine$

Several Physicians v. Information and Privacy Commissioner

Fair use – EDUCATION!   Emphasis added / republished citation follows CITATION: Several Physicians v. Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2016 ONSC 7386 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 306/16 DATE: 20161128   SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT RE:         … Continue reading Several Physicians v. Information and Privacy Commissioner

The Pill that Steals

“The purpose of an independent investigation is to discover what led to an adverse event and to audit the standard of care provided to the individual. An independent investigation may not identify root causes or find aspects of the provision of healthcare that directly caused an incident but it will often find things that could have been done better.” Continue reading The Pill that Steals

BRIEF – CETA: TTIP’s ugly brother

Source http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/resources/ceta-ttips-ugly-brother CETA: TTIP’s ugly brother August 2016 This is a guide to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada. Millions have signed a petition calling on the EU to stop negotiations on TTIP (the … Continue reading BRIEF – CETA: TTIP’s ugly brother

Former FDA Commissioner Charged in RICO Lawsuit

Republished in full // Image(s) added // Emphasis added Posted by Vera Sharav | Saturday, April 23, 2016 | Categorized Corrupt Practices, FDA Tainted Approval, Lawsuits Former FDA Commissioner Charged in RICO Lawsuit  A Federal Lawsuit charges Dr. Margaret Hamburg, former … Continue reading Former FDA Commissioner Charged in RICO Lawsuit

Still Digging for Dirt…

Keep up the great work!  Can’t wait for the story!


OVERVIEW:

[1]         A newspaper reporter made a request to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (the ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for “an up-to-date breakdown of the amount of money each pharmaceutical company has given the provincial government in rebates as part of agreements to have their products listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.”

[2]         In a July 22, 2014 letter to the requester, the ministry described the request as having been clarified as a request for the following information:

  1. An aggregate annual total payment for all drug manufacturers (by calendar year up to and [including] calendar 2013).
  1. A 2009 list of drug manufacturers that had an agreement in place with the ministry as well as a current (early 2014) list.

[3]         The ministry identified three responsive records. Record 1 is a listing of aggregate annual total payments from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2013. Record 2 is a list of drug manufacturers with product listing agreements with the ministry as of early 2014. Record 3 is a 2009 list of drug manufacturers with product listing agreements with the ministry.

[4]         Prior to making its decision on access, the ministry notified 120 drug companies whose interests may be affected by disclosure of the records, in accordance with section 28 of the Act. After considering the submissions received in response to these notices, the ministry advised all the parties of its decision to disclose the records, in their entirety, to the requester.

[5]         One of the notified parties appealed the ministry’s decision to disclose Record 2. As a result, it is the appellant in this appeal. In its submissions to the ministry, the appellant took the position that the mandatory exemptions at sections 17(1)(a) and (c) (third party information) of the Act apply to the information about it in the records.

[6]         During the mediation stage of the appeal process, the appellant confirmed it does not take issue with the disclosure of Records 1 and 3 to the requester. As a result, these records are not at issue in this appeal. The sole record at issue is the one described by the ministry as “a list of drug manufacturers with product listing agreements with the ministry as of early 2014.” The ministry also confirmed that none of the other notified parties has objected to disclosure of this record to the requester.

[7]         As no further mediation was possible, the appeal was transferred to the adjudication stage of the appeal process for an inquiry under the Act. I began my inquiry by seeking the representations of the appellant, as it is the only party objecting to disclosure of the sole record at issue.

[8]         In its initial representations to me, the appellant did not address the application of section 17 to the record. Instead, it took the position that the inclusion of its name in the record is in error, as the appellant is a distributor, and not a manufacturer, of a product listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. The appellant thus takes the position that its name is not responsive to the request as clarified by the ministry and set out in the ministry’s July 22, 2014 letter.

[9]         In light of this, I sought the ministry’s position on the new issue raised by the appellant — namely, the responsiveness of the information at issue (the name of the corporate appellant) in the record. I provided the ministry with a copy of the appellant’s representations and asked it to specify whether it agrees with the appellant’s position on the scope of the request giving rise to the appeal, and, if it does not agree, to provide representations on the responsiveness of the information at issue. Although I withheld the appellant’s representations from the requester for reasons of confidentiality,[1] I provided the requester with a summary of the appellant’s position, and also sought his views on this issue.

[10]      Both the ministry and the requester objected to the appellant’s characterization of the scope of the request. The ministry explained that it unilaterally proposed the language of the clarification (to “list of drug manufacturers…”), but submits that the clarified request ought to be read in conjunction with the original request in order to give effect to the requester’s intention about the scope of his request. The ministry also clarified that despite the title given to it, the record contains the names of both drug manufacturers and drug distributors, including drug distributors other than the appellant.

[11]      The requester confirmed he agrees with the ministry’s representations on this issue.

[12]      I determined that it was unnecessary to seek further representations from the parties on the issue of responsiveness. However, as section 17 is a mandatory exemption, I invited the appellant to make representations on the application of section 17 as an alternative to its main claim of non-responsiveness, which it did. The thrust of the appellant’s section 17 argument is that disclosure of its name in the record will lead to the disclosure, by inference, of the name of a drug product. The appellant claims that in the circumstances of this appeal, the name of the drug product is “product-specific information” of the sort that is protected by section 17(1)(a) and/or (b).

[13]      I provided the ministry and the requester with the opportunity to make responding representations on this issue. Only the requester provided brief submissions in response.

[14]      In this order, I find that the information at issue — the appellant’s name on a list of drug companies with product listing agreements with the ministry at a particular point in time — is responsive to the request, notwithstanding the language used by the ministry in its clarification of the request. I also find that neither section 17(1)(a) nor (b) applies to this information. I uphold the ministry’s decision to disclose the record, including the name of the appellant, in full. I dismiss the appeal.

INFORMATION AT ISSUE:

[15]      At issue is the inclusion of the appellant’s name in a three-page record that the ministry originally described, in its decision letter, as a list of “drug manufacturers that had [a product listing] agreement in place with the ministry” as of early 2014.

[16]      The ministry has since clarified that the list includes the names of both drug manufacturers and drug distributors.

ISSUES:

  1. What is the scope of the request? Is the information at issue responsive to the request?
  2. If the information at issue is responsive to the request, does the mandatory exemption at section 17(1)(a) and/or 17(1)(b) apply to it?

Continue reading “Still Digging for Dirt…”

Pharmacy Acquired Infections…Massive recall

Well, I guess we know why they’ve been floating those stories about how our poor drug companies have no quality control, don’t miss this massive list of infected medicines…


Announcement

PharmaTech, LLC of Davie, FL, is voluntarily recalling all liquid products from October 20, 2015 through July 15, 2016 as a precautionary measure due to a potential risk of product contamination with Burkholderia cepacia.

If a product contains B. cepacia, its use could result in infections in patients with compromised immune systems and in patients with chronic lung conditions such as cystic fibrosis. Some of these infections may be serious or even life-threatening in the at risk patient population.

As part of its commitment to patient safety, PharmaTech, LLC is working to notify customers who may be in possession of the affected products. PharmaTech-LLC has not received any complaints to date of contamination in the products and the associated lot numbers. Please see the attachment for affected products and lot numbers.

PharmaTech, LLC is notifying its distributors and customers by recall letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Consumers, pharmacies, and healthcare facilities that have product which is being recalled should stop using and dispensing them immediately.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall should contact Angelina Reyburn, Recall Coordinator at (754) 701-8320, Monday through Friday 8a – 5p EST. Consumers can contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have additional questions about these products.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of these products may be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax:

This recall is being conducted with the full knowledge of the U.S Food and Drug Administration.

About Pharmatech-LLC
PharmaTech-LLC is a leading provider of high-quality, Over the Counter, vitamin, and nutritional supplements products. PharmaTech-LLC is a full service GMP Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization offering services to clients worldwide. Services includes Research & Development for OTC & Rx products and Manufacturing services for Solid, Semi-Solids and Liquids.

Drug Products

Rugby:

  • Diocto Syrup, Docusate Sodium 60mg/15 mL, NDC 0536-1001-85, Lot#22941505, Exp. Date 10/2017
  • Diocto Syrup, Docusate Sodium 60mg/15 mL, NDC 0536-1001-85, Lot#22941601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • Diocto Syrup, Docusate Sodium 60mg/15 mL, NDC 0536-1001-85, Lot#22941602, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391515, Exp. Date 08/2017
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391516, Exp. Date 08/2017
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391517, Exp. Date 09/2017
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391518, Exp. Date 10/2017
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391520, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391521, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391603, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391604, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391606, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391607, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Senexion Liquid, 237mL, NDC 0536-1000-59, Lot#20391609, Exp. Date 06/2018

Major:

  • Senna Syrup, 237mL, NDC 0904-6289-09, Lot#20391517, Exp. Date 09/2017
  • Senna Syrup, 237mL, NDC 0904-6289-09, Lot#20391518, Exp. Date 10/2017
  • Senna Syrup, 237mL, NDC 0904-6289-09, Lot#20391519, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Senna Syrup, 237mL, NDC 0904-6289-09, Lot#20391601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • Senna Syrup, 237mL, NDC 0904-6289-09, Lot#20391602, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • Senna Syrup, 237mL, NDC 0904-6289-09, Lot#20391604, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Senna Syrup, 237mL, NDC 0904-6289-09, Lot#20391605, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Senna Syrup, 237mL, NDC 0904-6289-09, Lot#20391608, Exp. Date 06/2018

Bayshore:

  • Aller-chlor Antihistamine 120 mL, NDC 0536-1025-47, Lot# 23261501, Exp. Date 10/2017
  • Sennazon Syrup, 237mL, NDC 7651810008, Lot#20391519, Exp. Date 11/2017

Centurion:

  • Ninjacof, 473mL, NDC 23359-030-16, Lot#25291601, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Ninjacof A, 473mL, NDC 22359-033-16, Lot#25321601, Exp. Date 04/2018

Virtus:

  • Virtrate-2, Sodium Citrate-Citric Acid, 473mL, NDC 69543-367-16, Lot#28601502, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Virtrate-2, Sodium Citrate-Citric Acid, 473mL, NDC 69543-367-16, Lot#28601601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • Virtrate-2, Sodium Citrate-Citric Acid, 473mL, NDC 69543-367-16, Lot#28601602, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Virtrate-2, Sodium Citrate-Citric Acid, 473mL, NDC 69543-367-16, Lot#28601603, Exp. Date 06/2018
  • Virtrate-2, Sodium Citrate-Citric Acid, 473mL, NDC 69543-367-16, Lot#28601604, Exp. Date 06/2018
  • Virtrate-K, Potassium Citrate and Citric Acid, 473mL, NDC 69543-262-16, Lot#28891502, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Virtrate-K, Potassium Citrate and Citric Acid, 473mL, NDC 69543-262-16, Lot#28891503, Exp. Date 12/2017

DIETARY SUPPLEMENT PRODUCTS

Rugby:

  • Calcionate Syrup, Calcium Glubionate Syrup 473mL, UPC 005362770851, Lot#20341601, Exp. Date 06/2018
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471516, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471517, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471518, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471519, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471520, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471521, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471608, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471610, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471613, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Cerovite Liquid, 236mL, UPC 005362790590, Lot#20471614, Exp. Date 06/2018
  • D3 Vitamin Liquid, 50mL, UPC 005368400806, Lot#20691509, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • D3 Vitamin Liquid, 50mL, UPC 005368400806, Lot#20691601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • D3 Vitamin Liquid, 50mL, UPC 005368400806, Lot#20691602, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • D3 Vitamin Liquid, 50mL, UPC 005368400806, Lot#20691604, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461511, Exp. Date 10/2017
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461512, Exp. Date 10/2017
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461513, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461514, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461515, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461516, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461601, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461602, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461603, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461604, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461605, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Ferrous Sulfate Liquid, 473mL, UPC 005360650858, Lot#22461606, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Fer-iron Liquid, 50mL, UPC 005360710804, Lot#20901507, Exp. Date 07/2017
  • Fer-iron Liquid, 50mL, UPC 005360710804, Lot#20901508, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Fer-iron Liquid, 50mL, UPC 005360710804, Lot#20901603, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Polyvitamin liquid with Iron, 50mL, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021510, Exp. Date 07/2017
  • Polyvitamin liquid with Iron, 50mL, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • Polyvitamin liquid with Iron, 50mL, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021602, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • Polyvitamin liquid with Iron, 50mL, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021604, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Polyvitamin liquid, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701511, Exp. Date 09/2018
  • Polyvitamin liquid, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701514, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Polyvitamin liquid, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701605, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Polyvitamin liquid, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701606, Exp. Date 06/2018
  • Tri-Vitamin liquid, 50mL, UPC 005368501800, Lot#20731506, Exp. Date 08/2017
  • Tri-Vitamin liquid, 50mL, UPC 005368501800, Lot#20731603, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • Tri-Vitamin liquid, 50mL, UPC 005368501800, Lot#20731604, Exp. Date 06/2018
  • Liquid Vitamin C, 118 mL, UPC 005360160975, Lot#20331510, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Liquid Vitamin C, 118 mL, UPC 005360160975, Lot#20331511, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Liquid Vitamin C, 118 mL, UPC 005360160975, Lot#20331601, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Liquid Vitamin C, 118 mL, UPC 005360160975, Lot#20331602, Exp. Date 03/2018

Major:

  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471602, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471603, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471604, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471605, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471606, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471607, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471609, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471611, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • CertaVite with Antioxidants, 236mL, NDC 0904-5023-09, Lot#20471612, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Poly-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701509, Exp. Date 09/2017
  • Poly-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701511, Exp. Date 09/2017
  • Poly-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701513, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • Poly-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701601, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • Poly-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701602, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Poly-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701603, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Poly-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-5099-50, Lot#20701606, Exp. Date 06/2018
  • Poly-Vita Drops with Iron, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021510, Exp. Date 07/2017
  • Poly-Vita Drops with Iron, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • Poly-Vita Drops with Iron, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021602, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • Poly-Vita Drops with Iron, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021603, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Poly-Vita Drops with Iron, NDC 0904-5100-50, Lot#21021604, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • D-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6273-50, Lot#20691509, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • D-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6273-50, Lot#20691510, Exp. Date 12/2017
  • D-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6273-50, Lot#20691603, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • D-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6273-50, Lot#20691605, Exp. Date 04/2018
  • Ferrous Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6060-50, Lot#20901509, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Ferrous Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6060-50, Lot#20901510, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Ferrous Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6060-50, Lot#20901601, Exp. Date 02/2018
  • Ferrous Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6060-50, Lot#20901602, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Ferrous Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6060-50, Lot#20901603, Exp. Date 05/2018
  • Tri-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6274-50, Lot#20731506, Exp. Date 08/2017
  • Tri-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6274-50, Lot#20731507, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Tri-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6274-50, Lot#20731604, Exp. Date 06/2018
  • Tri-Vita Drops, 50mL, NDC 0904-6274-50, Lot#20731605, Exp. Date 06/2018

Bayshore:

  • Pedia Tri-Vite Drops, 50mL, NDC 76518-020-50, Lot#20731506, Exp. Date 08/2017
  • Pedia Tri-Vite Drops, 50mL, NDC 76518-020-50, Lot#20731508, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Pedia Tri-Vite Drops with Iron, 50mL, NDC 76518-040-50, Lot#21021511, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Pedia Poly-Vite Drops, 50mL, NDC 76518-030-50, Lot#20701512, Exp. Date 11/2017
  • Pedia D-Vite Drops, 50mL, NDC 76518-050-50, Lot#20691509, Exp. Date 11/2017

Metron:

  • Renew HC, Hydrolyzed Clinoptilolite, 30mL, Lot#30161601, Exp. Date 01/2018
  • Renew HC, Hydrolyzed Clinoptilolite, 30mL, Lot#30161602, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • Renew HC, Hydrolyzed Clinoptilolite, 30mL, Lot#30161603, Exp. Date 03/2018
  • CytoDetox, Hydrolyzed Clinoptiloolite Fragments, 30mL, UPC 632687615989, Lot#30661601, Exp. Date 05/2018

 

###

 

 

Continue reading “Pharmacy Acquired Infections…Massive recall”

Failure to file an adverse drug reaction report…say what!?

Our pets, living it large!!

Failure to inform of Convenia risks
  1.          The Committee noted that the manufacturer’s product insert for Convenia included a list of possible side effects that were very rare and did not include sudden death, although anaphylactic shock is possible to any drug without warning. The panel did not take action on this aspect of the complaint.
  2.          Given that the Committee found that sudden death was not a known risk of a Convenia injection, the Board finds it was reasonable for the Committee to take no action on the complaint that the Respondent failed to inform the Applicants of Convenia’s risks.

False claim of pancreatitis

  1.        In considering this aspect of the Applicants’ complaint, the Committee addressed Pudditat’s treatment with the anti-anxiety medication, fluoxetine. The Committee noted that fluoxetine may have caused urinary retention. The Committee had concerns that the medical records did not indicate that the Applicants were informed that the use of fluoxetine in cats is considered off label. The Committee reminded the Respondent, “he must discuss off label use of a medication, its potential side effects, and receive consent from the owner for the treatment prior to using an off label drug, such as the fluoxetine.”

False claim of pancreatitis

25.            In considering this aspect of the Applicants’ complaint, the Committee addressed Pudditat’s treatment with the anti-anxiety medication, fluoxetine. The Committee noted that fluoxetine may have caused urinary retention. The Committee had concerns that the medical records did not indicate that the Applicants were informed that the use of fluoxetine in cats is considered off label. The Committee reminded the Respondent, “he must discuss off label use of a medication, its potential side effects, and receive consent from the owner for the treatment prior to using an off label drug, such as the fluoxetine.”
  1.            At the Review, the Respondent submitted that the Committee had misapprehended the records because he was not the veterinarian who had prescribed fluoxetine to Pudditat. Therefore, if there was a failure to discuss the use of fluoxetine with the Applicants, it was not his failure. However, the Respondent did not object to the reminder because it also applied to the use of other off label medications and was a fair statement of his obligation.
  2.            With regard to the diagnosis of pancreatitis, the Committee noted that the diagnosis was presented to the Applicants after the Respondent received the histopathology report. The report indicated evidence of pancreatitis and suggested this might explain Pudditat’s death. The Panel was not of the opinion that the Respondent attempted to deceive the Applicants, but that he was providing the necroscopy results.

  3.            In reviewing the records, the Committee was of the opinion it was possible that Pudditat had suffered from a rare reaction to the cystocentesis. The Committee was of the opinion that performing a cystocentesis to obtain Pudditat’s urine was reasonable and did not believe that the Respondent could have predicted such a rare outcome. However, the Committee had concerns with the lack of evidence of informed consent regarding the cystocentesis. The Committee reminded the Respondent, “that obtaining written or verbal consent, and documenting this consent in the medical record is required before performing a medical procedure.”

  4.            The reminders issued by the Committee formed the basis for the advice it issued to the Respondent:

[The Respondent] is advised by the Complaints Committee panel of the panel’s concerns with regard to the importance of obtaining informed consent from pet owners prior to prescribing off-label medications and performing medical procedures on their pets (i.e. cystocentesis). [The Respondent] is advised to consider this advice carefully and to ensure that a similar situation does not recur in the future.

  1.            The Applicants submitted that the advice from the Committee to the Respondent was not enough of a warning to the Respondent and would not bring about changes to his practice.
  •            The Respondent submitted that the Committee’s decision was reasonable and that he accepted the Committee’s advice.

  •            In response to a question from the Board, the College representative stated that the Committee’s decision would remain on the Respondent’s record with the College and would be considered by the Committee in the case of any other complaint regarding the Respondent.

  •            The Board finds the Committee’s decision on this aspect of the complaint to be within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes and therefore to be reasonable. Providing advice to a veterinarian is among the array of educative, remedial options available to the Committee. The Committee’s disposition is designed to improve the Respondent’s practice and thereby protect patient safety.

  •  

    'I didn't say it was a miracle drug. I said it's a miracle if you could get him to take it!'


    Failure to file an adverse drug reaction report with the original drug that caused the blockage
    34.            The Respondent informed the Committee that he had filed an adverse report on Convenia, but had not filed a report on fluoxetine because he had no proof it had caused an adverse reaction. The Committee understood the complaint to mean that the Respondent had failed to file an adverse drug reaction report on fluoxetine and not on the Convenia injection. The Committee stated that as the use of fluoxetine in cats is considered off label, it would not be subject to filings of adverse reactions. The Committee took no action on this aspect of the Complaint. The Board finds this decision to be reasonable and supported by the information in the Record, in particular the record of prescription use and the Respondent’s clarification in his response regarding this issue.

     

    Failure to offer an autopsy…..

    Continue reading “Failure to file an adverse drug reaction report…say what!?”

    Everything You Learned About The Cause of Polio Is Wrong

    “DDT vs Polio (1945-1953) In the graph below, I provide confirmation of Biskind’s observations for 1945-1953, in terms of polio incidence and pesticide production. I have utilized pesticide data from Hayes and Laws which they had derived from US Tariff Commission data. Polio incidence data was gathered from US Vital Statistics.” Continue reading Everything You Learned About The Cause of Polio Is Wrong

    AllTrials – Videos – Webpage repost

    “The results of a 1980 clinical trial on heart drug Lorcainide were not published until a decade later. Doctors didn’t know that more people died in the trial who were given Lorcainide than who were taking the placebo. It has been estimated that over 100,000 people died avoidably because they were prescribed drugs in the same class. Read about how the researchers were able to get the results of the study published.” Continue reading AllTrials – Videos – Webpage repost

    FDA Alert: Fluoroquinolone Antibacterial Drugs: Yes, another one! What will it take?!

    “FDA is advising that the serious side effects associated with fluoroquinolone antibacterial drugs generally outweigh the benefits for patients with sinusitis, bronchitis, and uncomplicated urinary tract infections who have other treatment options. For patients with these conditions, fluoroquinolones should be reserved for those who do not have alternative treatment options” Continue reading FDA Alert: Fluoroquinolone Antibacterial Drugs: Yes, another one! What will it take?!

    What would the world be like had the drug war not been waged? – Quora

    “We’ve never heard of places like Ferguson, because the race wars there never happened and literally hundreds of thousands of families have fathers, instead of visiting hours.” Continue reading What would the world be like had the drug war not been waged? – Quora

    Is Your Doctor Trustworthy? Past Records Tough to Find, Experts Say – Drugs.com MedNews

    “You can find out more about the safety record of your toaster and whether or not it’s going to catch on fire than you can find about your physicians,” patient-safety advocate Robert Oshel, the former associate director for research and disputes at the NPDB, said in the news release.” Continue reading Is Your Doctor Trustworthy? Past Records Tough to Find, Experts Say – Drugs.com MedNews

    Inside Canada’s secret world of medical error: ‘There is a lot of lying, there’s a lot of cover-up’ | National Post

    “As long as the public doesn’t realize that one in 13 people coming into the hospital will experience some kind of adverse event — and that’s the conservative estimate — then there isn’t any pressure to say, ‘Listen, fix these damn things.’ Continue reading Inside Canada’s secret world of medical error: ‘There is a lot of lying, there’s a lot of cover-up’ | National Post

    Assisted Dying Canada: First Person In Ontario To Get Legal Permission Dies

    “”We are so very proud that he used his last limited energy to fight for something he believed in so fundamentally: the right to decide when he was ready to pass and the right to have the assistance to do so with comfort and dignity,” they said.” Continue reading Assisted Dying Canada: First Person In Ontario To Get Legal Permission Dies

    228,000 member AMA joins the AllTrials campaign!

    Publishing  – Email Communications from AllTrials Dear friend of AllTrials We are delighted to share two big announcements: 1. Yesterday, the American Medical Association (AMA) joined the AllTrials campaign. The AMA is the largest association of medical doctors and students in the United … Continue reading 228,000 member AMA joins the AllTrials campaign!

    Doctors Accused Of Battery Refuse To Release Patient | Seniors At Risk

    CHEX-TV removes Time to Die from their websiteCHEX-TV’s investigative series Time to Die chronicles the story of Arthur Hippe, a 69-year-old stroke patient, and his wife Marilyn Nelson’s efforts to have him released from Ajax Pickering Hospital. Seniors at Risk … Continue reading Doctors Accused Of Battery Refuse To Release Patient | Seniors At Risk