House hearings going on Right Now
http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Causation Link Provided in Heparin Deaths and Allergic Reactions
As indicated in the title, this research establishes that the contaminants identified by the FDA in the tainted lots of Heparin, could in fact cause the anaphylactic shock and severe hypotensive events. To understand the full scope of this poisoning, it is important to understand what is described in highly technical terms in this article. Therefore, we have provided a glossary to help the concerned reader to understand the basic terms used therein. While this is far from a primer in organic chemistry, this glossary has been useful for us, in grasping the technical aspects of these findings. Go to http://heparin-law.com/glossary.html
As said in such paper:
“The OSCS found in contaminated lots of unfractionated heparin, as well as a synthetically generated OSCS reference standard, directly activated the kinin–kallikrein pathway in human plasma, which can lead to the generation of bradykinin, a potent vasoactive mediator. In addition, OSCS induced generation of C3a and C5a, potent anaphylatoxins derived from complement proteins.”
What does this mean? It means that there is no question that the contaminant in Heparin has the potential to cause hypotension (a drop in blood pressure) and anaphylactic shock. Both can kill. The research essentially concluded that this contaminant, OSCS, is an anaphylatoxins – a chemical that can trigger anaphylactic shock and allergic reactions. In addition to testing the effect of this contaminant on blood in the laboratory, it was also tested it on pigs. Such findings included:
“Two of six animals treated with OSCS-contaminated heparin had at least a 30% drop in blood pressure over the first 30 minutes after infusion (Figure 5B). One animal remained in a hypotensive state for more than 15 minutes. In contrast, none of the four animals treated with control heparin showed any substantive changes in blood pressure. … Thus, intravenous infusion of OSCS is capable of recapitulating the hallmark cardiovascular features of the reaction in swine.”Most of those identified by the FDA as having died while on the contaminated Heparin died from some type of hypotensive or anaphylactoid event. The continuing mystery will now primarily focus on:
- How far back did this OSCS begin to show up in heparin;
- What are the keys to determining the precise mechanism of death in those suspected of having been killed by this poison; and
- What organ damage could have been done to the survivors as a result of the drop in blood pressure.
Clearly, this study is not the end of the line in terms of determining the potential toxic effects on the human body from this toxin. All it establishes is that the contaminant will cause a gross allergic reaction. But what other damage can it do? Is its chemical similarity to the Heparin which we use to reduce clotting, limit its adverse effects to blood reactive type events, or can the toxin actually do direct damage?
The FDA warning letter we detailed last week makes it clear that the Heparin purity issues at the Changzhou SPL China facility could involve considerably more problems than just apparent intentional dilution of Heparin with OSCS. We cannot stop this inquiry with the period of September 2007 to present. We can’t assume the only problem with this horrific breakdown in the supply of Heparin is limited allergic reactions.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
FDA censure of Changzhou SPL Company – Part IV
It cited four reasons for this warning:
- 1. That the processing steps were inadequate to assure removal of impurities:
- 2. Improper systems for evaluating the suppliers’ crude materials;
- 3. The test methods for testing the product were not sufficient and
- 4.The equipment being used was not adequate.
4. Equipment used to manufacture heparin sodium USP is unsuitable for its
intended use.
Our inspection team observed (Observation #7 of the FDA-483) that equipment tanksWhat could be more fundamental than conducting a sterile procedure in polished and fully appropriate equipment tanks? We all probably have some exposure to the type of stainless steel equipment restaurants are required to use. Well that is simply for preparation of food, which passes through all of the body’s defense systems designed to filter foodborne toxins. Would you eat at a restaurant where its kitchen was dirty and its equipment abused? But Baxter felt it was OK to buy its raw Heparin destined for the human blood stream, without such fundamental concerns?
used in the final _______________step were constructed of ___________.
These tanks were identified as clean. However, unidentified material was observed
adhering to the inside surfaces of tanks. It was also observed that surfaces of the tank were scratched, not smooth. We also note that volume markings on the outside of the ______ tanks had tape adhered to it with markings. In addition, the cleaning method used for cleaning these tanks was not qualified.
There should be written procedures for cleaning of equipment. Cleaning procedures should contain sufficient details to enable operators to clean each type of equipment in a reproducible and effective manner. Acceptance criteria should be established and cleaning procedures should be defined and evaluated.
In your response to observation #7, you stated that the ___________tanks
used in the final_______ step will be replaced with ________. This will be equipped with clean-in-place system and an automated level reader. Until the new tanks arrive, you state that you will replace the existing ______ tanks with new _____ tanks and conduct cleaning validation on the new tanks using the manual cleaning methods after each cleaning.
Please provide data that show how the ______ tanks are qualified and the cleaning procedures are validated.
Your corrective action to replace ______tanks with ___ tanks is
noted. However, it is your responsibility to ensure that equipment used to process
heparin sodium does not meaningfully alter quality of the API by being additive,
reactive or absorptive.
Once you have installed and qualified the _______ please provide
information on equipment qualification and cleaning validation for these tanks.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
FDA censure of Changzhou SPL Company – Part III
It cited four reasons for this warning:
- 1. That the processing steps were inadequate to assure removal of impurities:
- 2. Improper systems for evaluating the suppliers’ crude materials;
- 3. The test methods for testing the product were not sufficient and
- 4.The equipment being used was not adequate.
Today we will discuss the third reason, relating to the test methods. This issue is so critical because it was at this stage that the counterfeit Heparin by-product first slipped through the supply chain. Changzhou SPL apparently claimed to the FDA that they were not required to implement the important Protein test. The FDA is disagreeing with this assertion and demanding that “the suitability of all testing methods used should nonetheless be verified under actual conditions of use and documented.” Which of course is the crux of the problem – when getting drug-raw materials from China, there will be no way to practically determine the “actual conditions of use.” The full text of Part 3 is below:
3. The test methods performed for heparin sodium USP have not been verified to ensure suitability under actual conditions of use.
Our inspection found (Observation #4 of the FDA-483) that you have not ensured that certain USP compendial test methods were verified under actual conditions of use. Specifically, you have failed to conduct adequate verification of USP compendial test methods as applied to the production of your firm’s API. The data you provided in your March 17,2008, response did not include information about the suitability, accuracy, and detection limits of certain test methods for API, such as the protein test method, used by your firm. There was no indication from these data that your firm’s test methods could reliably detect and quantify the presence of proteins in the finished API.
In addition, your firm had not conducted suitability testing of the method to determine the limit of detection for the method. The suitability for use of the protein method for in-process testing was also not established.
In your March 17, 2008, response to the FDA-483, you state that the firm has conducted suitability tests. In addition, you state that the test method was not verified because it was a basic compendial test. You assert that USP <1226>, Verification of Compendial Procedures, states that verification is not required for basic compendial test procedures that are routinely performed unless there is an indication that the compendial procedure is not appropriate for the article under test. In your response, you also state that the laboratory performed basic suitability testing on the heparin sodium API analytical method in accordance with your standard operating procedures (SOPS).
We disagree with your assertions that verification is not required for those USP test methods used by your firm. In accordance with cGMP, analytical methods should be validated unless the methods used are included in a relevant pharmacopoeia or other recognized standard reference. If the method is a compendial method, verification of the methods should be conducted to determine that the method is suitable for its intended use under actual conditions. We acknowledge that the USP informational chapter <1226> suggests that there is a lesser need for verification for the simplest tests such as loss on drying, residue on ignition, and pH measurements. However, these do not include the test methods at issue, including the protein test method.
Further, the ICH Q7A guidance (Good Manufacturing Practices for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients) at section 12.8 “Validation of Analytical Methods” states clearly that “the suitability of all testing methods used should nonetheless be verified under actual conditions of use and documented.” Thus, although it is not necessary to validate USP test methods, it is necessary to verify that these USP methods are suitable for the specific conditions of use. Furthermore, the suitability tests you describe in your response do not verify that the USP tests are suitable for the specific conditions of use.
Please provide data that demonstrate that the compendia1 test method has been verified and determined to be suitable under actual conditions of use.
Delay, deny and defend. It is the play book for corporate cover-ups. Drug raw-material continues to come from China, while the FDA argues with SPL that they are not following proper procedures. Meanwhile, people are dying. Perhaps more important, the quality control issues that could account for these deaths and adverse reactions, may not be as simple as first feared and may in fact expand the time frame of this debacle years prior to the September of 2007 period initially identified by the CDC.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
FDA censure of Changzhou SPL Company – Part II
It cited four reasons for this warning:
- 1. That the processing steps were inadequate to assure removal of impurities:
- 2. Improper systems for evaluating the suppliers’ crude materials;
- 3. The test methods for testing the product were not sufficient and
- 4.The equipment being used was not adequate.
Today we will discuss the second reason, relating to suppliers. As detailed below, it appears that Changzhou SPL Company, Ltd actually went through a screening process, determined a supplier was unacceptable, and then went ahead and used raw material from that supplier anyway. How absurd. This is like a school system screening for sex offenders in its teachers, and then hiring a teacher who was a sex offender, anyway. Then when they determined they were getting bad product from an unacceptable supplier, they didn’t take any corrective action. This type of attitude goes way beyond negligence. It is pure reckless disregard of the safety of a product, intended to be put directly in the blood stream of vulnerable human beings.
2. You fail to have adequate systems for evaluating the suppliers of heparin crude materials, and the crude materials themselves, to ensure that these materials are acceptable for use.There is nothing in the FDA warning letter that an internal audit should not have demanded far more. Did no one at SPL and Baxter care, or was this strictly: “I hear nothing, I see nothing?”
Our inspection found (Observation #6 of the FDA-483) that you received lots of material from an unacceptable workshop vendor that were used in your API. In your March 17,2008, response to observation #6, your firm acknowledges inadequacies in the firm’s supplier qualification efforts. For example, you state that the firm received and used heparin crude materials from a workshop that had been designated by your firm in a “pre-audit” as “unacceptable” and that was ultimately not approved by your firm. Your firm used this crude material in the production of API lots that were shipped to the United States.
‘
Your system for evaluating suppliers of crude heparin material is ineffective to ensure that materials are acceptable for use. As described above, your firm accepted and used heparin crude material from a supplier that you had preliminarily determined was unacceptable. Your system failed to verify that the supplier was acceptable prior to the use of the crude material. Furthermore, after your firm determined that the supplier was not acceptable, your firm failed to take any corrective action with respect to the processed raw material.
All raw materials that are received and used in producing heparin sodium API should be qualified using a system to ensure that raw materials are of acceptable identity, quality and purity before use. It is important to establish appropriate specifications for these materials and to assure your suppliers provide materials meeting these specifications. These specifications should be approved by the quality unit. Your firm has failed to establish appropriate specifications for your incoming crude materials.
Your vendor qualification program should provide adequate evidence that the manufacturer can consistently provide reliable and safe materials. Suppliers should be monitored and regularly scrutinized to assure ongoing reliability. It is your responsibility to ensure that raw materials received are suitable and approved by the quality unit prior to use.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
FDA Censures Chinese Heparin Supplier
It cited four reasons for this warning:
- 1. That the processing steps were inadequate to assure removal of impurities:
- 2. Improper systems for evaluating the suppliers’ crude materials;
- 3. The test methods for testing the product were not sufficient and
- 4.The equipment being used was not adequate.
In the next few days, we will discuss each of these findings, one at a time. Today we will focus on point one. Of significant concern is that while the FDA has previously identified a period which began in September of 2007 in terms of impurity of Heparin, the inspections discussed below are not more recent than 2004. Further, Changzhou SPL Company, Ltd appears not to have established impurity standards, even to this date.
The full text of Part One is below.
1. There is no assurance that processing steps used to manufacture heparin sodium, USP are capable of effectively removing impurities.One wonders how the FDA and Baxter could have been so naive. Was the quality of a drug given to the very ill, so unimportant that they could have delegated it to foreigners, especially to foreigners to a country so alien to American standards and laws? Is the greed which causes American corporations so much grief so great that not even the very ill can rely on purity over profits?
Our inspection disclosed that your firm lacked an adequate evaluation of the effectiveness of critical processing steps designed to remove impurities, and critical process parameters were not well defined or controlled (observation #1 of the FDA- 483). The inspection also found that an impurity profile has not been established for the heparin sodium API (observation #2 of the FDA-483). In your March 17,2008, response to observation #1, you state that the firm has conducted two successful process validation studies, one in 2002 and one in 2004. However, the validation studies failed to determine whether the process was capable of adequately removing identified and unidentified impurities. Your response does not include data to demonstrate that your process will consistently remove impurities, and your firm continues to lack established impurity limits for the API. It is essential that your firm establish that controls are in place for assuring the consistent performance of the processing steps to remove impurities in order to ensure the identity, quality and purity of the drugs your firm produces.
In your response, your firm acknowledges certain deficiencies in providing evaluations of critical processing steps. Please provide data from validation studies that assess whether the process is capable of consistently removing impurities, and your evaluation of the reliability of the controls used to establish and monitor performance of the processing steps.
In your March 17,2008, response to observation #2, you state that the current testing regimen for heparin sodium is consistent with industry practice reflected in the ICH Q7A Guidance (Laboratory Controls, Testing of Intermediates and APIs) which states that “Impurity profiles are normally not necessary for APIs from herbal or animal tissue origin.” Although a full impurity profile may not be necessary as part of the batch-to- batch testing of certain APIs, it is necessary that specifications for impurities be established for the production of all API and that each API batch be tested for conformance to these specifications. The ICH Q7A guidance (Laboratory Controls, General Controls) states that appropriate specifications should be established for APIs, including for control of impurities. Your firm failed to establish appropriate specifications for identified and unidentified impurities for the heparin sodium API. Your firm also failed to perform adequate tests to detect impurities in this API.
In your March 17,2008, response to observation #2 your firm also states that the complexity of the investigation into the recent heparin product recalls demonstrates the difficulty of isolating and identifying impurities in heparin due to the nature of _____ the mixture _____. However, the mere fact that it is difficult to isolate and identify impurities is insufficient rationale for not establishing appropriate specifications for, and routinely monitoring, impurities during production. In fact, we note that you committed in your response to include an “impurity profile update” in each DMF annual report.
Please note that it is essential for your firm to establish appropriate specifications and adequate testing to ensure the consistent removal of undesirable impurities, including those that are potentially harmful to human health. It is your responsibility to ensure that your API meets the identity, quality and purity characteristics that it is represented to possess.
Tomorrow: Part Two of this letter.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Busy News Day for Heparin
See the stories abstracted and linked below.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://heparin-law.com
http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com
http://vestibulardisorder.com
http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
g@gordonjohnson.com
800-992-9447
FDA cites Chinese firm’s manufacturing processes for heparin
The Associated Press –
WASHINGTON (AP) — New tests indicate a solid link between a contaminant in the blood thinner heparin and severe allergic reactions that caused up to 81 … Click here for the story
Possible mechanism behind heparin adverse events identified
TheHeart.Org – New York,NY,USA
Woodcock further reported that the contaminant has so far been found in heparin supplies in 11 countries (Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, France, … Click here.
US, China trade blame on heparin
FiercePharma – Washington,DC,USA
The US FDA says it’s traced contaminated heparin back to 12 companies in China. Chinese officials, however, claim the problem started in the US–and they … Click here.
Baxter International (BAX) faces more heparin problems
BloggingStocks – USA
The blood thinner Heparin, used for surgery and dialysis has now killed 81 people in the US. According to The New York Times, “The FDA has identified 12 …Click here
FDA finds faults at China plant that makes heparin ingredient
TMCnet – USA
–Equipment used to manufacture the heparin ingredient was “unsuitable for its intended use.” Manufacturing tanks did not have properly documented cleaning …Click here
Congressional subcommittee takes FDA to task on inspection budget
Chicago Tribune – United States
Deerfield-based Baxter International supplied roughly half the heparin used in the US market at the time. Tainted heparin has been traced to a Chinese plant … Click here
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Heparin – Chinese Hogs versus American?
The unraveling of the Heparin conspiracy got a little clearer yesterday when the FDA announced that it is suspecting business fraud as the primary culprit behind the contamination of Baxter’s Heparin. Click here to see the story. The FDA’s theory is that somewhere in the China supply chain for the Heparin, some person or entity thought they could make a higher profit margin if they substituted counterfeit Heparin raw material, for the real thing. Woops if the substitute just happens to be toxic.
Assume the FDA is right. Should American drug companies be able to shift blame by finger-pointing at Chinese suppliers? Not in our book. A drug such as Heparin and its raw materials are ultra-hazardous substances, especially because they are to ultimately put right into the bloodstream of humans. And not just any humans, in the case of Heparin, very ill and vulnerable individuals. Who needs a toxin or hypotension (with resulting hypoxia) less than a kidney patient? See yesterday’s bog for a discussion of hypoxia.
Questions that must be answered:
- Why Chinese Pork?
- Is it just because they are more vulnerable that the kidney patients had the first reactions to contaminated Heparin that couldn’t be dismissed as something else?
We don’t yet know the specifics of the either the bean-counting that made the choice to go Chinese versus American on the pork. We may never know how that calculated profit was enhanced by a sophisticated counterfeiting process. What we can clearly presume, however, is that if Baxter had wanted to make sure that Heparin was pure, it could have used American pigs to produce it. The United States is the largest single exporter of pork in the world, trailing only the combined European Union for pork exports. While the Chinese produce more pork total than the U.S. its billion plus population consumes a much higher percentage than in other countries and they are actually fifth in exports.
So we know that since we are exporting pork from the U.S., Baxter could have bought it here. If they went overseas to get it, it must have been because pork bi-products had a lower value to them than to all than all those other American companies who make things from pork, such as pizza, bacon and countless bi-products.
Well, the safety and purity of things I put in my mouth is important to me. But a lot less so than the safety of what I put in my bloodstream. My mouth and stomach are made to filter out the contaminants, before the contaminants get into my blood stream. How could Baxter have valued the purity of their products less than those who make frozen pizza’s?
At some point we will learn that Baxter, by using Chinese pork, by some sort of bizarre bean-counter logic, saved up to 1 cent or maybe 5 cents a dose. But Baxter sold a lot of Heparin so the ultimate calculus was perhaps millions. Greed. For that incremental saving, we lost what will likely add up to hundreds of lives. We haven’t even remotely assessed the extent of permanently damaged human organs.
There exists a remedy in American jurisprudence for bean-counting gone haywire: it is called punitive damages. Usually it is reserved for the calculation to not fix a known defect. That application of punitive damages will likely apply here. But in this case we have more: we have homicide. Counterfeiting Heparin is murder by poison. Clear and simple. Only punishment, and severe punishment, can once again tell the corporate world that crime doesn’t pay.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Heparin Contamination Can do More than Kill
All organs are extremely susceptible to a disruption in what is supposed to be in the blood supply. That susceptibility applies not only to a poison that shouldn’t be there, but also if there isn’t enough of what should be there: i.e. fuel to make the body work (glucose) and oxygen to make the fuel burn. Further, if the blood isn’t circulating properly, the waste products from this biological fire will not be carried away. In a very similar way to how people will succumb to carbon monoxide poisoning, the body’s cells and organs will be injured or killed by failure to properly ventilate (via the veins) the waste products created by keeping the body running.
When you put contaminated heparin intravenously into a human body, you bypass all of the body’s filters. The blood stream directly circulates that contaminant to every cell and organ. So what happens when a toxin runs amuck in our bodies? Almost anything that can go wrong, could go wrong.
Today I will talk about just the articulated theory from the CDC and the FDA of “acute allergic-type reaction has been defined as an episode of anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction”. See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5705a4.htm What can happen with anaphylactic shock? The body goes into shock. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphylactic_shock and more specifically with respect to shock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_%28medical%29
Some highlights from Wikipedia:
Shock is a serious, life-threatening medical condition where insufficient blood flow reaches the body tissues. As the blood carries oxygen and nutrients around the body, reduced flow hinders the delivery of these components to the tissues, and can stop the tissues from functioning properly.And guess what can happen when the tissue stops functioning properly – brain damage and other organ damage, from a condition called hypoxia. See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxic_encephalopathy
We know that reduced blood flow is one of the common symptoms of the Heparin contamination cases, because of the hypotension (low blood pressure) reported in most of these cases. Some highlights from Wikipedia about the risk of brain damage from Hypoxia:
Cerebral hypoxia refers to deprivation of oxygen supply to brain tissue. … Extended periods of cerebral hypoxia can lead to brain death or permanent brain damage. … The effects of certain kinds of severe generalized hypoxias may take time to develop. For example, the long term effects of serious carbon monoxide poisoning usually may take several weeks to appear. Recent research suggests this may be due to an autoimmune response caused by CO induced changes in the myelin sheath surrounding neurons.
Symptoms of hypoxia? Cognitive problems similar to what might be expected with a concussion. Amnesia, confusion, difficulty doing complex tasks, responding to unexpected processing demands. While there is some controversy about how much hypoxia can occur without long term damage, we believe this is the most important issue to evaluate in any Heparin contamination case.
So far no one at the CDC or FDA has announced any inquiry into whether hypoxic damage to the brain or other organs has occurred. While the brain is the most susceptible to permanent damage in a healthy person, since the recipients of this contaminant were those with compromised organs (hemodialysis patients for example), other organ damage may have occurred before the evidence of cerebral hypoxia showed up. Further, as vital organs like the kidneys and liver started to malfunction, other toxins could have been circulated into the blood stream.
It is time to insist the inquiry in this matter is no longer ruled by the presumption that those who survived the allergic reaction will have no long term damage. It is unimaginable that something toxic enough to have killed 62 people while affecting as many as 5,000 others, didn’t leave some permanent damage behind.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
And What of those who Survive Heparin Contamination?
That is a lot of sick people. With any event such as this, the attention, the publicity is going to focus on the deaths. But with 2,000 people having serious adverse reactions, shouldn’t the FDA and the CDC, telling the public more? By now there must be some monitoring so that doctors know what to look for, what ongoing health risks these survivors have?
We have maintained from the beginning that the FDA announcements have severely understated this catastrophe. It wasn’t just that the contamination was more widespread. It was primarily because doctors in diagnosing their patients, didn’t know that the Heparin was dangerous. If you don’t give the doctors the information that the Heparin is contaminated, they won’t put that in the differential.
OK, by now, everyone (we hope) should know that if someone dies which receiving Heparin, that contaminated Heparin should be ruled out. But, if the FDA isn’t going to research and educated about the nature of the health risk to those who survive, then how are the doctors who have patients with contamination reactions or symptoms, going to know Heparin has to be put into the differential diagnosis for those problems? More importantly, if the FDA and the CDC isn’t going to advise doctors how to diagnose and treat the contamination, how is the impact of this crisis going to be slowed and finally stopped?
Tomorrow: the growing concern that the FDA and the drug manufacturers and distributors did not react quickly and comprehensively enough to stop this catastrophe with the greatest care.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney