Ahad, 18 Mac 2012

Syarikat Ubat disaman Kerana Sebabkan Kanser

Syarikat Ubat disaman Kerana Ubat Sebabkan Kanser
On September 9th of 2011, an Actos bladder cancer lawsuit was filed by an Actos lawyer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Louisiana husband and wife.  The husband developed bladder cancer after using Actos for a number of years.  The Actos lawsuit discusses some of the history of Actos and its link to bladder cancer:
On April 20, 2006, Takeda Limited announced the conclusion of its collaboration
in the United States between Takeda North America and Lilly to promote and market Actos, a partnership Takeda Limited described as “a great success” and “mutually beneficial to both companies.”The fact that Eli Lilly helped with the development, promotion, and marketing of Actos means that they can also be held liable in an Actos lawsuit.Actos is sold as a single ingredient product under the brand name Actos, and it is also sold in combination with metformin (Actoplus Met, Actoplus Met XR) and in combination with glimepiride (Duetact).

Most Actos lawyers (including me) will accept cases from individuals who were taking Actos or any of the drugs listed above. Prior to Actos being approved by the FDA, a two-year carcinogenicity study was conducted on male and female rats. Drug-induced tumors were observed in male rats receiving doses of Actos that produced blood drug levels equivalent to those resulting from a clinical dose.
This is one of several pieces of evidence that indicates men are at a higher risk of developing bladder cancer while taking Actos than women are.
In 2005, the results of the PROactive (PROspective PioglitAzone Clinical Trial In MacroVascular Events) three-year study were published. PROactive prospectively looked at the impact in total mortality and macrovascular morbidity using Actos. Dormandy J.A., et al. Secondary Prevention of Macrovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective PioglitAzone Clinical Trial In MacroVascular Events): a Randomised Controlled Trial, Lancet, 266:1279-1289 (2005).
The PROactive study was looking at cardiovascular events and outcomes. However, the study demonstrated a higher percentage of bladder cancer cases in patients receiving Actos versus comparators. This information was not included in the published Dormandy paper.
One issue that I’m sure will come up in any Actos lawsuit that goes to trial is the reason why this information was excluded from the Dormandy paper.  Whenever negative information about a drug is concealed, juries tend to get angry.
A three-year liver safety study was also performed, and according to the FDA, that study also demonstrated a higher percentage of bladder cancer cases in patients receiving Actos versus comparators.
On September 17, 2010, the FDA issued a Safety Announcement stating it was undertaking a review of the data from an ongoing, ten-year epidemiological study being conducted by Kaiser Permanente to evaluate the association between Actos and bladder cancer.  The planned five-year interim analysis demonstrated that the risk of bladder cancer increases with increasing dose and duration of Actos use, reaching statistical significance after 24 months.
Despite this finding by the FDA, Robert Spanheimer, Vice President of Medical and Scientific Affairs for Takeda, claimed to Reuters that the Kaiser Permanente study has not shown a risk to patients of bladder cancer or other cancers from Actos. No surprise that a VP for the manufacturer of Takeda denied that there is a risk of developing bladder cancer from taking Actos.  At least one Actos lawyer will attempt to take this man’s deposition to ask him more about the risks of Actos and bladder cancer.
In early 2011, the American Diabetes Association published Assessing the Association of Pioglitazone Use and Bladder Cancer Through Drug Adverse Event Reporting, Piccinni, et al. Diabetes Care, 34:1369-1371 (June 2011), published ahead of print April 22, 2011. This study looked at adverse events reports made to the FDA between 2004 and 2009. The conclusion of that study was that “[i]n agreement with preclinical and clinical studies, AERS analysis is consistent with an association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer. This issue needs constant epidemiologic surveillance and urgent definition by more specific studies.”
By June of 2011, the evidence was mounting against Actos.  By that time there had been several credible studies of different types that all concluded there is a link between Actos and bladder cancer.
On June 9, 2011, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) announced that it had been informed by the French Medicines Agency (“Afssaps”) of its decision to suspend the use of pioglitazone-containing medicines (Actos, Competact) in France while awaiting the outcome of the ongoing European review.
France’s decision was based upon a retrospective cohort study in France using the French National Health Insurance Plan which demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the risk for bladder cancer in males exposed to Actos for more than a year. The French cohort included 1.5 million patients with diabetes that were followed for 4 years (2006-2009).
On June 10, 2011, Reuters published that Germany had joined France in suspending the use of Actos after Germany’s Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (“BfArM”) reviewed the results of the French study. BfArM recommended that doctors should not put new patients on pioglitazone.
It is always bad news for a drug company when one or more countries bans or suspends the sale of a drug.  I’m skeptical that Actos will be taken off the market here in the U.S., but that has more to do with my cynicism about the FDA than my opinion of the drug’s safety.  The FDA looks at drug companies as its customers, not patients.  The agency receives a substantial percentage of its funding from drug companies in the form of “user fees” and I think that causes the agency to be too cozy with manufacturers.
On June 15, 2011, the FDA issued another Safety Announcement stating that “use of the diabetes medication Actos (pioglitazone) for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.” The FDA ordered information about this risk to be added to the Warnings and Precautions section of the label for pioglitazone-containing medicines.
The FDA reported that the risk of bladder cancer increased with increasing dose and duration of pioglitazone use. When compared to persons never exposed to pioglitazone, exposed to pioglitazone therapy for longer than 12 months was associated with a 40% increase in risk. Based on this data, the FDA calculated that therapy with Actos for longer than 12 months was associated with 27.5 excess cases of bladder cancer per 100,000 person-years follow-up, compared to those who never used pioglitazone.
June 15th is an important day because it will probably trigger the statute of limitations for Actos lawsuits.  What that means is that people who took Actos and got diagnosed with bladder cancer on or before June 15th of 2011 will lose their ability to file a lawsuit on June 15th of another year.  Whether that year is 2012, 2013, or another year depends upon the law of the state the person resides in.  If you’d like to know how long you have to file an Actos lawsuit, give me a call or e-mail me and I’ll be glad to discuss your situation with you.
If you’d like to read the entire 32-page Actos lawsuit, you may download it here.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

I’m Now Able to Help Individuals Who Developed Bladder Cancer While Taking Actos

September 10, 2011 | Author: Justinian
About a year ago I wrote a quick blog post about whether Actos causes bladder cancer.  At the time, I wasn’t certain whether there was enough evidence to support filing an Actos bladder cancer lawsuit. 
I’m now convinced that there is credible medical evidence that shows that Actos causes bladder cancer.  I’m therefore accepting cases from individuals who developed bladder cancer while they were taking the drug Actos.
If you have any questions about whether your bladder cancer was caused by Actos, I’d be happy to chat with you.  You can call me toll-free at 888-315-3997, or email me at justinian@justinian.us.  Either way, you’ll talk to me directly and we can figure out what your legal options are.  More importantly, we can discuss whether an Actos lawsuit might help you pay for bladder cancer treatments you might otherwise not be able to afford.
If you are concerned that you might have bladder cancer, but aren’t sure, you should consult with your doctor.  I understand that some signs of bladder cancer are blood in the urine, painful urination, and difficulty urinating.  If you’re taking Actos and have any of these symptoms, you should talk to your doctor.
You should definitely NOT stop taking Actos unless you first talk to your doctor about doing so.  Abruptly stopping taking a medication can cause serious health problems.  So if you’re concerned about the risk of developing bladder cancer from Actos, please talk to your doctor before you stop taking it.
Here is some more information about the link between Actos and bladder cancer.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Actos | 1 Comment

Another Journal Links Actos to Bladder Cancer

September 2, 2011 | Author: Justinian
European medical authorities have been closely examining the link between Actos and Bladder Cancer for a number of years.  An editor for the Irish Medical Times summarized the findings of several studies and concluded that there is an increased risk between the use of Actos and Bladder Cancer:
 There is a small increased risk of bladder cancer with the use of pioglitazone [Actos]; epidemiological data suggest a relative risk of around 1.2 (ranging from 1.15 to 1.33 for ever use across studies).  Source: Pioglitazone – New contra-indications and warnings — Irish Medical Times
Once again, the people with the highest risk of developing bladder cancer while taking Actos appear to be those who are taking the highest doses for the longest period of time.  People who have been taking Actos for one year or longer seem to be at the highest risk of developing bladder cancer.
Scientists at the FDA and at the European equivalents of the FDA are still examining data and looking at the link between Actos and bladder cancer.  However, the link at this time is strong enough that I’m currently accepting Actos cases.  Not sure if an Actos lawyer can help you?  Call or e-mail me and I’ll be happy to talk about your situation.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Actos, Drugs | Leave a Comment

Diabetes Expert Sees Clear Link Between Actos and Bladder Cancer

June 18, 2011 | Author: Justinian
Dr. V. Mohan, a diabetes expert in India recently weighed in on the link between Actos and bladder cancer:
Dr. Mohan says the pioglitazone group was matched against diabetics who were not on the drug. “We learn that there was a slightly increased risk of bladder cancer. Not any other form of cancer, the narrowing down to the bladder shows the clear link to the drug,” Dr. Mohan adds. Longer exposure and higher dosages lent to the increased risk of bladder cancer.   Source: The Hindu : States / Tamil Nadu : Another diabetes drug mired in controversy
Dr. Mohan based his opinion upon several European studies.  Each of the studies showed some degree of risk of developing bladder cancer while taking the drug Actos.  Although none of the studies by themselves show a “clear link,” Dr. Mohan apparently believes that taken together all of the studies show a clear link between Actos and bladder cancer.
Even so, Dr. Mohan cautions patients who are taking Actos not to suddenly stop taking it.  “Do not stop or start drugs without medical advice,” said Dr. Mohan.  And that’s excellent advice.  Please do not stop taking Actos because you’re afraid of getting bladder cancer, or because of anything you read here.  This blog is written by an Actos lawyer, not by a doctor.  If you have medical question, please consult with your doctor.
But if you have legal questions, such as whether you may qualify for an Actos lawsuit, please e-mail or call me at your convenience.  I’ll be happy to discuss your specific situation and tell you what your legal options are.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Actos, Drugs | Leave a Comment

Someone at Merck suspects GSK is hiding info from the FDA

May 13, 2011 | Author: Justinian
I checked my web stats today to and saw something that made me laugh.  Someone from Merck’s office in Germany found an article on this site by using Google to search for “GSK hides safety information – FDA.”

If the person at Merck finds evidence that GSK is in fact hiding safety information from the FDA, I hope he or she will share it with me so I can publish it here.  Until then, I’ll just wonder how much industrial espionage goes on between drug makers.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Zoloft Birth Defect Lawyer – I’m now reviewing potential cases

March 20, 2011 | Author: Justinian
It’s been known for quite some time that Paxil can lead to terrible birth defects, particularly in an infant’s heart. Doctors are now recognizing that other antidepressants, such as Zoloft, can also cause birth defects. I’m currently reviewing potential cases of children who were born with birth defects after their mother took Zoloft during pregnancy.
SSRI drugs like Zoloft are strongly associated with heart defects, skull defects, low birth weight and premature babies, PPH, and other serious illnesses. If you took Zoloft during your pregnancy and your child has a birth defect, I’d be happy to talk to you to see if Zoloft may be to blame. You can use the contact form on my website, or just e-mail me directly at justinian@justinian.us
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Zoloft | 1 Comment

Topamax Birth Defect Lawyer – I Am Now Reviewing Cases

March 15, 2011 | Author: Justinian
Evidence is mounting that Topamax causes certain types of birth defects, such as cleft palates and cleft lips. The FDA recently updated the Topamax label to reflect the now-recognized risk that Topamax can cause birth defects. As I wrote at another Topamax lawyer blog,
The FDA classifies drugs according to whether or not they pose a risk of causing birth defects. Topamax was initially in Category C, meaning that studies showed a risk of birth defects in animals, but there was insufficient evidence in humans. The FDA has now moved Topamax to Category D, which means there is positive evidence of risk of birth defects in humans.
It’s still too early to tell whether or not parents of injured children will win Topamax lawsuits, but I’m reviewing cases for evidence that Topamax was linked to a child’s birth defects. Contact me if you’d like me to take a free look at your potential Topamax case.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Topamax | Leave a Comment

Big pharma takes pages out of asbestos playbook.

January 14, 2011 | Author: Justinian
Can you trust your advocacy organization to disclose their ties to big pharma? Looks like there’s only a one-in-four chance that you can.
The study analyzed data from Eli Lilly & Co. from the first half of 2007 and found that only 25 percent of 161 organizations disclosed funding from the drug giant on their Web sites. Just 18 percent acknowledged Lilly’s grants in their annual reports, and 1 percent listed Lilly on a corporate sponsors page.
Source: Advocacy groups fail to disclose drug company funding, a new study finds – chicagotribune.com
I see disturbing parallels between modern-day pharmaceutical practices regarding sponsorships and what asbestos companies used to do.  For decades, asbestos companies doled out funding to organizations that would produce scientific research that was in line with the interests of asbestos companies.  They then used this secretly corporate-funded research to defend themselves in court.
I’m glad more pharmaceutical companies are starting to disclose who they give money to, but I’m saddened that so many advocacy groups don’t want their members to know whose money the organizations take.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Pengangkutan Awam di Malaysia Sangat Teruk

Pengangkutan Awam di Malaysia Sangat Teruk
Lembah Kelang penuh dengan kenderaan. Kenderaan yang banyak akan menyebabkan pencemaran. Australia, New Zealand, Amerika, Eropah, Jepun mengamalkan undang undang ketat alam sekitar. Setiap kenderaan wajib periksa emission setiap 6 bulan bagi meminimakan pencemaran alam sekitar. Tiada lori , bas, feri yang keluarkan asap kepul kepul di Negara ini. Asap disumbang juga dari industry sawit, pembakaran terbuka/landfil dsbnya. Pencemaran asap pembakaran juga boleh menyumbang kepada penyakit kanser terutamanya kanser paru paru, kulit, leukemia, pharynx dan tekak. Cuba anda googlekan dioxin... Australia juga tiada Lynas yang menabur sisa radioaktif ke dalam tanah!!!

SELEPAS kerap menaiki pengangkutan awam seperti bas ekspres dan kereta api aliran ringan pada waktu pagi untuk ke tempat kerja, suatu hari teringin pula saya beralih angin dengan memandu sendiri. Perjalanan sepanjang lebuh raya dari selatan lancar, namun sebaik saja melepasi Plaza Tol Sungai Besi, kelihatan ribuan kenderaan berasak-asak ke ibu kota. Pejalan kaki nampaknya lebih laju daripada kenderaan yang bergerak-berhenti itu.

Tidak sanggup mengharungi perjalanan dalam lautan kenderaan itu, lagi pun menyedari kereta saya sudah agak uzur, saya memasuki sebuah stesen minyak berhampiran plaza tol itu, mencari tempat meletakkan kenderaan, seterusnya merehatkan diri. Fikir saya dalam masa sejam tentulah keadaan kembali reda tetapi jangkaan saya salah. Keadaan bersesak-sesak itu berterusan berjam-jam lamanya, membuatkan saya hilang sabar, lantas menghidupkan enjin kereta seterusnya mengharungi perjalanan ‘mencabar’ ke pejabat. Sudah pasti saya tiba terlalu lewat di pejabat, tetapi apa yang dapat saya lakukan?

Sebelum berlepas, ketika termenung-menung di stesen minyak itu, saya perhatikan hampir semua kereta bermuatkan pemandunya saja. Ertinya setiap orang memandu tanpa penumpang dan saya percaya hampir semuanya dalam perjalanan ke pejabat masing-masing untuk memulakan tugas. Keadaan ‘seorang sebuah kereta’ inilah antara faktor yang menyumbangkan kepada kesesakan jalan-jalan raya di ibu kota.

Sebelum menyalahkan orang lain, saya terpaksa mengaku saya juga penyumbang kepada kesesakan itu kerana menaiki kereta seorang diri sedangkan ada empat lagi tempat duduk kosong. Namun hanya pada hari itu saya berkenderaan sendiri sedangkan pada kebanyakan hari saya menaiki pengangkutan awam.

Satu pertanyaan timbul; mengapa orang suka bersesak-sesak dengan setiap orang memandu kenderaan sendiri sedangkan antara penanda aras kemajuan sesebuah kota adalah kemudahan pengangkutan awamnya yang canggih dan selesa.

Kunjungilah kota hebat dunia seperti London dan Tokyo, pengangkutan awamnya begitu efisyen. Jaringan laluan ‘tube’ (kereta api bawah tanah) kota London berselirat diumpamakan sarang labah-labah.

Jika pada tahun 70-an dan 80-an pengangkutan awam di KL sinonim dengan bas mini tetapi hari ini perkhidmatan kereta api ringan iaitu RapidKL (dulunya Star), Putra (RapidKL) dan Monorail menjadikan Kuala Lumpur setanding malah jika tidak, adalah lebih baik daripada kota-kota besar dunia dari segi pengangkutan awam.

Namun jika ditinjau dari segi perkhidmatan kenderaan awam lain seperti bas, Kuala Lumpur seolah-olah masih tidur dengan mimpinya yang panjang. Kepada pengguna pengangkutan awam ini, perkhidmatan masih di takuk lama dengan masalah seperti kesesakan dan ketidak-tepatan jadual masih tidak dapat diatasi.

Disebabkan perkhidmatan bas yang tidak memuaskan ini dan kurangnya sistem bas penyambung (feeder bus) di kebanyakan stesen LRT menjadikan arus pergerakan kenderaan awam tidak berkesan dalam memenuhi kehendak warga kota yang perlu bergerak cepat.

Bayangkan seorang penumpang RapidKL atau Monorail yang serba canggih selepas tiba di sebuah stesen akan terpaksa termenung lama memikirkan bagaimana dia hendak ke destinasinya sedangkan di sesetengah stesen tiada pengangkutan awam seperti bas. Mungkin yang ada hanyalah teksi dengan sesetengah pemandunya adalah orang yang suka 'cekik darah'.

Ketidakberkesanan sistem pengangkutan awam menyebabkan ramai warga kota memilih untuk memandu sendiri ke pejabat atau urusan lain. Dalam kesesakan pagi di jalan-jalan sesak ibu kota dalam sesebuah kereta ada seorang (pemandu) dalam kereta itu. Jika setiap orang mahu memandu sendiri ke pejabat sudah tentu jalan ibu kota akan sesak sekali gus berlaku pelbagai pembaziran.

Kita tidak perlu meniru Jakarta dalam memperkenalkan peraturan kenderaan dengan sejumlah penumpang tertentu saja dibenarkan memasuki ibu kota, tetapi memadailah dengan segera membaiki sistem pengangkutan awam kita.

Kita juga tidak perlu stesen pengangkutan awam begitu hebat dan canggih seperti Terminal Bersepadu Selatan (TBS) Bandar Tasik Selatan tetapi hal-hal kordinasi dan peningkatan kos (kepada pengusaha dan penumpang) tidak dapat diselesaikan sehingga kini walaupun hub itu sudah mula beroperasi 1 Januari lalu.

Rakyat marhaen hanya perlukan pengangkutan awam yang murah dan efisyen bagi membolehkan mereka bergerak dengan pantas dan selesa. Semoga pengurusan kota raya KL termasuk datuk bandar dan menteri bertanggungjawab dapat memenuhi permintaan mudah rakyat ini pada ketika Wilayah Persekutuan meraikan ulang tahun ke-37, 1 Februari lalu.

Lolipop pendaflour sebabkan kanser

Lolipop pendaflour sebabkan kanser
[KUALA LUMPUR – Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang (CAP) menggesa Kementerian Kesihatan mengharamkan segera penjualan lolipop pendafluor (fluorescent lollipops) kerana didakwa mengandungi bahan-bahan bertoksik.
Presidennya, S.M. Mohamed Idris mendakwa, batang pendafluor itu mengandungi bahan-bahan kimia bertoksik yang boleh ditelan oleh kanak-kanak jika kimia cecair dalam batang itu merembes keluar. “Ujian Institut Kebangsaan bagi Menguji Kebersihan dan Keselamatan Makanan di bawah Kementerian Kesihatan Vietnam menunjukkan batang plastik lolipop berkenaan mengandungi ftalat dan Poly aromatic carbon (PAH).
“Ftalat ini bertindak sebagai pelarut untuk PAH dan gabungan kedua-dua bahan kimia tersebut menimbulkan tindak balas oksigenan dan menghasilkan sinaran cahaya yang menarik pada batang tersebut.“PAH merupakan sejenis bahan kimia yang amat toksik yang biasanya digunakan hanya untuk tujuan industri seperti mencairkan cat dan ia boleh menyebabkan kanser atau mutasi gen dalam manusia,” dakwanya melalui satu kenyataan media hari ini.S.M. Mohamed Idris seterus mendakwa, CAP berasa bimbang kerana tinjauan pihaknya mendapati lolipop pendafluor amat digemari oleh kanak-kanak masa kini dan lebih membimbangkan ia turut dijual oleh vendor di hadapan sekolah.

Lolipop pendafluor (fluorescent lollipops) dilarang … salam…sememangnye jika kita mempunyai anak kecil pastinya cukup sukakan gula-gula kan…tak kira gegula aper nampak jer mesti nak…itulah yang berlaku pada anak saya jugak…kalo nangis cara mudah nak pujuk mesti bagi gula-gula tambah yang warna-warni ditambah pulak dengan eksosori misalnyer ader angry birdla, keta la…macam-macam lagi mesti anak-anak duk diam lepastu ….Baru jer artikel mengenai Kerajaan mengenakan larangan bagi kemasukan sejenis gula-gula lolipop yang mempunyai batang bercahaya yang  dipercayai mengandungi bahan kimia berbahaya , sila rujuk Kosmo 12 Mac ms2….
Info Lolipop pendafluor (fluorescent lollipops)
  • Bahan dalam lolipop pendafluor itu kini diletakkan pada tahap 5 iaitu pengimportannya diletakkan di bawah syarat kebenaran sebelum diletakkan pada tahap 6, iaitu gula-gula lollipop berkenaan langsung tidak dibenarkan dibawa masuk.
  • Lolipop pendafluor dipercayai  dibawa masuk dari luar negara kerana serbuan pihak penguat kuasa kementerian berdasarkan alamat pada pembungkus gula-gula itu, didapati alamat yang digunakan palsu.
  • Baru-baru ini, Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang (CAP) menggesa kerajaan mengharamkan penjualan gula-gula lolipop pendafluor kerana didakwa mengandungi bahan kimia berbahaya.
  • Bahan kimia yang terkandung pada batang pendafluor itu sangat berbahaya dan menjadi kegilaan kanak-kanak.  berdasarkan ujian oleh Institut Kebangsaan bagi Menguji Kebersihan dan Keselamatan Makanan di bawah Kementerian Kesihatan Vietnam, batang plastik lolipop itu mengandungi bahan seperti phtalate dan Poly Aromatic Carbon (PAH).
  • “PAH adalah sejenis bahan kimia yang bertoksik dan hanya digunakan untuk tujuan industri seperti mencairkan cat. Ia boleh menyebabkan kanser atau mutasi gen dalam manusia.
  • Lepas ini perlu lebih berhati-hati dan fikirkan kaedah lain pulak untuk pujuk anak-anak.

Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang menggesa Kementerian Kesihatan supaya mengharamkan segera penjualan lolipop pendafluor (fluorescent lollipops) memandangkan ia mengandungi bahan-bahan bertoksik.

Dalam satu tinjauan yang dijalankan, CAP mendapati lolipop pendafluor amat digemari oleh kanak-kanak. Lolipop ini menarik perhatian kanak-kanak kerana ia terlekat pada batang plastik yang bersinar. Beberapa orang kanak-kanak yang ditemui berkata kadangkala mereka menyimpan batang tersebut dan menggunakannya untuk tujuan lain. Batang pendafluor itu mengandungi bahan-bahan kimia bertoksik yang boleh ditelan oleh kanak-kanak jika kimia cecair dalam batang itu merembes keluar.

Lolipop pendafluor boleh dibeli dalam kotak berisi 24 batang dengan pelbagai warna pada harga RM6.00 sekotak. Vendor menjualnya kepada kanak-kanak dengan harga 40 sen sebatang. Walaupun tidak diketahui negara asalnya, seorang pemborong memberitahu kami lolipop itu datang dari China. Pada kotaknya terpampang logo Halal yang tidak diluluskan dan mempunyai nama sebuah syarikat.

Selain terdapat di pasar raya mini, lolipop tersebut turut dijual oleh vendor di hadapan sekolah. Kami percaya ia dijual di seluruh negara.

Ujian-ujian yang dijalankan oleh Institut Kebangsaan bagi Menguji Kebersihan dan Keselamatan Makanan di bawah Kementerian Kesihatan Vietnam menunjukkan batang plastik lolipop berkenaan mengandungi ftalat dan Poly aromatic carbon (PAH), di mana ftalat bertindak sebagai pelarut untuk PAH. Gabungan kedua-dua bahan kimia tersebut menimbulkan tindak balas oksigenan, menghasilkan sinaran cahaya yang menarik pada batang tersebut.
PAH pada hakikatnya merupakan sejenis bahan kimia yang amat toksik, biasanya digunakan hanya untuk tujuan industri seperti mencairkan cat. Ia boleh menyebabkan kanser atau mutasi gen dalam manusia.

Sehubungan dengan keracunan lolipop pendafluor, Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang menggesa Kementerian Kesihatan supaya mengharamkan segera penjualan dan pengedaran kandi seumpamanya. Kerajaan juga perlu menyita produk yang sudah berada di pasaran ini.

S.M. Mohamed Idris; Presiden CAP

Mereka Yang Berjaya Melawan Kanser

Mereka Yang Berjaya Melawan Kanser
Sedikit saja antara pesakit kanser yang berjaya melawan kanser atau sekurang-kurangnya dapat menikmati kualiti kehidupan yang baik atau memuaskan selepas didiagnosa oleh Doktor. Antara mereka yang sedikit itu termasuklah :
  1. Seniwati Dato Sarimah Ahmad : Beliau didiagnosa kanser tekak tahap 4 dan Doktor beritau bahawa beliau tak dapat hidup lama melainkan buat radikal operation. Dato Sarimah enggan dan memilih rawatan herba. Dato Sarimah hidup sampai ke hari ini serta tahap tenaga, keyakinan diri dan kualiti hidup beliau bertambah baik. Malangnya Dato Sarimah belum lagi sedia berkongsi rahsia mengenai perincian rawatan yang diambilnya bagi manfaat insan lain. Cuba baca cacatan ini: Seniwati Datuk Sarimah Ahmad tidak menyangka dapat menyambut hari lahirnya ke 69 pada 28 April lalu ketika disahkan menghidap kanser otak, hidung dan lidah sejak setahun lalu. Menurut Sarimah, dia berjuang untuk hidup selepas diberitahu hanya mampu bertahan selama tiga bulan sahaja.“Penderitaan tersebut bermula pada 2008 sehinggalah pada 20 April tahun lalu doktor mengesahkan saya menghidap kanser dan hanya mampu bertahan selama tiga bulan.“Saya reda dan percaya dengan ketentuan Allah SWT dan dalam pada itu saya berusaha juga untuk berubat,”  katanya ketika ditemui pada sambutan ulang tahunnya, di Restoran Warisan, di sini, Jumaat lalu. Katanya, dia juga merahsiakan perkara tersebut daripada pengetahuan ahli keluarga kecuali anak bongsunya, Yusarima Puteri. “Bukan niat saya untuk merahsiakan perkara ini tapi saya tidak mahu anak-anak saya turut berasa sedih dengan keadaan tersebut. “Hanya anak kelima saya sahaja yang tahu tentang perkara ini kerana hanya dia yang ada berada bersama saya. “Ketika itu juga saya banyak menolak permintaan fotografi media dan undangan ceramah kerana tidak mahu mereka lihat keadaan saya yang ketika itu hanya tinggal kulit dan tulang sahaja,” ujarnya. Tambah Sarimah, dia tidak pernah mengalah melawan penyakit tersebut. Biarpun menolak untuk melakukan sebarang pembedahan pada tubuhnya, beliau memilih untuk mendekati Allah dengan bacaan ayat-ayat suci al-Quran dan memastikan amalan solat sunat digandakan. “Saya tidak mahu melakukan sebarang pembedahan, saya mahu kembali kepada-Nya dalam keadaan tanpa cacat seperti mana saya dilahirkan. “Saya memilih untuk melakukan rawatan alternatif dan mengamalkan ayat-ayat suci al-Quran serta air Zam Zam sebagai penawar,” katanya. Bagaimanapun, Sarimah mengakui mengambil makanan tambahan B17 diimport dari Mexico yang diperkenalkan oleh seorang doktor. “Doktor tersebut yang mengesahkan saya mengidap kanser tersebut berada di tahap empat. Beliau juga menyarankan agar saya mengambil pil tambahan ini. “Alhamdulillah ia bagaikan serasi dengan saya tapi berbalik kepada ketentuan Allah SWT, jika niat kita untuk berubat air kosong pun boleh jadi penawar,” katanya. Ketika ditanya tahap kesihatannya kini, Sarimah memberitahu dia semakin pulih daripada penyakit tersebut. “Saya tidak tahu ia pulih sepenuhnya atau tidak, jika Allah ingin mengambil nyawa saya bila-bila masa sahaja.“Tapi Alhamdulillah derita yang saya alami sejak beberapa tahun lalu semakin kurang,” katanya. Mudah-mudahan Seniwati Datuk Sarimah segera sembuh.. ( Rujuk Majalah Info Sihat Bil 44 Julai 2011 ms 17 - 23 ).
  2. Seniman Zainal Abidin. Beliau berumur 53 tahun dan didiagnosa Doktor menghidapi kanser kolon tahap 3 dua tahun yang lalu. Pada saat itu juga dia sedang menjalani rawatan bagi penyakit jantung, buah pinggang dan darah tinggi. Penyanyi ini terkenal dengan lagu Hijau pada satu masa lalu. Ironinya sayuran Hijau adalah makanan bersifat alkali yang boleh menjauhkan penyakit kanser. Seniman Zainal Abidin berubat herba di Kelang dengan disiplin tinggi disamping mendapat sokongan dan perhatian keluarga yang kuat. Buah pinggang yang rosak juga telah berfungsi kembali sedangkan ubat tahan sakit NSAIDs (cth Ponstan, Ibuprofen, Ketotifen, diclofenac Sodium/Voltaren mefenamic acid, aspirin dsbnya), ubat darah tinggi seperti Captopril, Lisinopril, Enalapril dan ubat Kolesterol Lovastatin/Simvastatin boleh merosakkan buah pinggang. Namun FDA dan doktor banyak yang tutup mata, pekakkan telinga pasal hal kesan sampingan ubat. Tahukah anda sedikit saja doktor amanah yang sanggup pantau siasatan Renal Profile bagi melihat buah pinggang anda masih elok atau beransur rosak semasa anda pergi follow up rawatan kencing manis dan darah tinggi! Malangnya Seniman Zainal Abidin belum lagi bersedia berkongsi rahsia mengenai perincian rawatan yang diambilnya bagi manfaat insan lain. (Rujukan Kosmo H2 9 Mac 2012)

3.   Datin Rahmah Mahmood -  Adik Ipar kepada Mantan Perdana Menteri Dato Seri Abdullah Hj Ahmad Badawi. Beliau seperti dua orang kakak kembarnya (Datin Endon dan Datin Noraini) menghidapi kanser payudara. Pembedahan dilakukan bagi membuang ketulan tumor di Amerika Syarikat. Kedua-dua kakak kembar kesayangannya menghembus nafas terakhir selepas kimoterapi. Datin Rahmah Mahmood memilih herba NuvaPine A yang mengandungi bioeffective dan nekad berkeras menolak rawatan kimoterapi yang ditawarkan doktor pakar ( Rujuk Majalah Info Sihat Bil 45 Ogos 2011 ms 26-28 ).
4.   Professor Susumu Sekine – seorang professor Jepun menghidapi kanser lower 1/3 esophagus (Sila rujuk buku : Panjangkan Usia Pesakit Kanser – Sekine Susumu 2010 – Tombo Enterprise Sdn Bhd, 8.05 Wisma Zelan, No 1, Jln Tasik Permaisuri 2, Bandar Tun Razak, Cheras, 56000 Kuala Lumpur – boleh beli buku ini di SDMC PJ) .
5.   patoppoi.com
6.   mylongkang.com  
10.               selfprescription.blogspot.com
11.               onebreastbouncing.blogspot.com