In March, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the extent of permissible federal interactions with private-party decision-making – namely, by social media platforms. The issue is portrayed as a clash between First Amendment rights and public health. This is not a new conundrum, but the involvement of social media is upping the ante. Further complicating the issue is the fact that the platforms acquiesced and voluntarily cooperated with governmental involvement, and while they are the object of the federal “incursions,” the social media platforms are not the aggrieved parties in the case.
Policy & Ethics
In a world grappling with the complexities of climate change, while a majority (85%) believe it exists, words – especially doom and gloom on social media – speak louder than actions. A study sheds light on the challenges of bridging the gap between what we believe and how we act.
The EPA recently announced stronger standards for fine particulate matter, described as reducing pollution by airborne "soot." However, an examination of its supporting documentation reveals a lack of focus on particulate composition, neglect of actual exposures – as well as no mention of any health effects of soot. Here we explore the implications of these shortcomings.
With rare exceptions, the right to free speech is exceptionally broad. Exceptions focus on imminent and irremediable harm, like shouting fire in a crowded theater or child pornography. You are even allowed to lie – as long as no one’s reputation is injured. But what if the feds want to constrain those attacking government actions because those attacks are dangerous and endanger public health? The Fifth Circuit said no go. The Supreme Court weighs in this March.
Oregonians are having second thoughts about their decision to decriminalize drugs three years ago. They blame it for the state’s recent rise in overdose deaths. But a closer look at the data shows that Oregon has fared no worse than other states did when the fentanyl wave breached its borders.
Drug development can be hazardous. Recently, a California court held that product users could sue the drug manufacturer, Gilead, for negligence in failing to commercialize a product different from the one they used. Two conditions are yet to be proven to sustain their claim: that Gilead had actual knowledge the new product was safer and that the decision was solely financially driven. But, even if those facts are proven, they are still not enough to sustain a lawsuit.
Lawmakers think they can stem the flow of illicit fentanyl and its analogs into our country by seizing the assets of organizations trafficking the drug and its precursors. If that approach worked, organized crime would be a relic of the past. What they don’t understand is that even worse, that approach may make the nitazene crisis arrive ahead of schedule.
Last week, a California court issued a ruling construed as being anti-industry. The decision defines a company's legal duty to its consumers when a competing and allegedly safer drug is in the development pipeline. Astonishingly, the judicial opinion also insinuates itself into corporate product-development strategies. But does this case really establish the broad anti-industry precedent that some fear?
Benjamin Franklin's adage linking health and wealth has persisted through time, suggesting that financial security correlates with better health and increased lifespan. A recent study delves into this relationship, specifically exploring the impact of wealth inequality on longevity in the U.S. and considering potential increases in lifespan associated with reduced wealth inequality.
With the EPA finding that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and the plaintiffs’ five-case winning streak against Bayer broken, things had been looking up on the Roundup event horizon. Alas, last week’s verdict dinged Roundup yet again. and some 40,000 cases are still pending. What can we expect next?
If Tylenol trials are off the table, what else tempts? How about the weed killer Roundup - the most popular and successful herbicide ever? Luckily for the plaintiff’s bar, there’s some evidence that it causes cancer. There’s also sound evidence that it doesn’t. Eighteen cases have gone to verdict. Bayer (which owns Monsanto, the product’s developer) won ten; the plaintiffs won eight. So, is the stuff human-harmful or not? Who decides in a court of law and how? And what’s next?
Prohibition of drugs simply doesn't work. Clamping down on Percocet and Vicodin resulted in a surge in heroin use. Fentanyl took care of that market and now even worse drugs called nitazenes are being found in fentanyl samples. Dr. Jeff Singer and I discuss this latest development in USA Today