Sunday, October 24, 2010

Fwd: FDA MedWatch - Hyland's Teething Tablets: Recall - Risk of Harm to Children

Lindsey Swift

Begin forwarded message:

From: FDA MedWatch <>
Date: October 23, 2010 11:38:56 PM CDT
Subject: FDA MedWatch - Hyland's Teething Tablets: Recall - Risk of Harm to Children

MedWatch logo MedWatch - The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program

Hyland's Teething Tablets: Recall - Risk of Harm to Children

AUDIENCE: Consumers, Pediatrics

ISSUE: FDA notified consumers that Hyland's Teething Tablets is being recalled because the tablets may pose a risk to children. The tablets are manufactured to contain a small amount of belladonna, a substance that can cause serious harm at larger doses. For such a product, it is important that the amount of belladonna be carefully controlled. FDA laboratory analysis has found that Hyland's Teething Tablets contain inconsistent amounts of belladonna.

FDA has received reports of serious adverse events in children taking this product that are consistent with belladonna toxicity. The FDA has also received reports of children who consumed more tablets than recommended, because the containers do not have child resistant caps.

BACKGROUND: Hyland's Teething Tablets is a homeopathic product, intended to provide temporary relief of teething symptoms in children. It is sold over-the-counter (OTC) in retail outlets. The FDA has not evaluated Hyland's Teething Tablets for safety or efficacy, and is not aware of any proven clinical benefit offered by the product.

RECOMMENDATION: FDA recommends that consumers not use this product and dispose of any in their possession. FDA advises consumers to consult their health care professional if their child experiences symptoms such as seizures, difficulty breathing, lethargy, excessive sleepiness, muscle weakness, skin flushing, constipation, difficulty urinating, or agitation after using Hyland's Teething Tablets.

Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of this product to the FDA's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program:

  • Complete and submit the report Online:
  • Download form or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

Read the MedWatch safety alert, including a link to the FDA News Release, at:


Tell us how we are doing:[date]=10_24_2010_0022&cpp[type]=S

You are encouraged to report all serious adverse events and product quality problems to FDA MedWatch at

Update your subscriptions, modify your e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact

This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).


U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) · 10903 New Hampshire Ave · Silver Spring, MD 20993 · 800-439-1420

Thursday, October 21, 2010

@kate_sheppard, 10/21/10 7:53 PM

Kate Sheppard (@kate_sheppard)
10/21/10 7:53 PM
NOAA Arctic Report Card today says record temps have substantially melted sea ice; "return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely."

Lindsey Swift

Sunday, October 17, 2010

NYTimes: Will Apple’s Culture Hurt the iPhone?

From The New York Times:

Will Apple's Culture Hurt the iPhone?

Apple's PC-versus-Mac battle almost put it out of business. Is it creating a similar one in the smartphone field?

Get The New York Times on your iPhone for free by visiting

Lindsey Swift

Friday, October 15, 2010,8599,2025886,00.html

Lindsey Swift

Fwd: Money and Democracy Update

Money isn't free speech, it's the volume level. The marketplace is not the ideal forum for political ideas.

Lindsey Swift

Begin forwarded message:

From: Public Citizen <>
Date: October 15, 2010 2:54:18 PM PDT
Subject: Money and Democracy Update

Public Citizen's 'Money and Democracy Update'
an e-newsletter about the movement to curb corporate influence in politics and restore our democracy

Issue #34 • October 15, 2010

We hope you enjoy this issue of Public Citizen's e-newsletter about the intersection of money and politics. This is part of the campaign we developed following the disastrous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts supporting or attacking political candidates. We'll update you regularly with select news stories and blog posts, legislative developments and ways to get involved.

Stunning Statistics of the Week:

  • Amount the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent this week in new independent expenditures: $6.6 million
  • Amount the committee has spent to date: $19 million
  • The amount the committee is expected to spend before Election Day: $52 million
  • Amount that just two Republican groups, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, have raised to influence the elections: $56 million
FEC should investigate Crossroads GPS for campaign finance law violations, watchdogs say
Crossroads GPS, an organization created by Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie to influence the midterm elections with huge expenditures of money, appears to be violating federal campaign law, Public Citizen and Protect Our Elections told the Federal Election Commission in a complaint filed this week.

SuperPacs are debasing our democracy‎
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in January, Public Citizen predicted that corporations were sure to accept the court's invitation to overrun the political process. We were hardly alone in offering this prognostication. Nine months later, we concede: Things are much, much worse than we anticipated.

Latest tally of election spending by outside organizations: $153 million
Business associations, unions, ideological groups and other organizations have spent $153 million to influence elections this cycle, according to a new study by Center for Responsive Politics. That's more than double the tally in the 2006 cycle.

Most corporate boards don't oversee political spending
Less than a quarter of S&P 500 companies require their boards to oversee political spending, and nearly 60 percent of S&P 500 companies spend shareholder money from the corporate treasury on political campaigns. Meanwhile, only 20 percent of S&P 500 companies disclose how much they spend on politics. That's according to a new study, "How Companies Influence Elections: Political Campaign Spending Patterns and Oversight at America's Largest Companies," from the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute and the Sustainable Investments Institute.

Minnesota disclosure law becoming model for nation
After the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, Minnesota quickly enacted a law requiring disclosure of corporate donations. Now, it is becoming a national model.

Robert Reich offers guidelines to counter corporate money in elections
Concerned about the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, Robert Reich, secretary of labor under former President Bill Clinton, says people should read the dissent in the Citizens United ruling, talk to candidates, support public financing of elections and talk to their friends.

This Texas oil company doesn't want California climate change law to stand
Houston-based Marathon Oil gave a $500,000 check last week to help defeat Proposition 23, a measure on the California ballot designed to suspend California's landmark greenhouse gas law. Energy companies across the country have been pulling out the stops to pass the measure. Will more corporate money come?

Don't forget the NRA
With so much focus on nonprofit front groups using secret money to influence elections, an organization that is often highlighted for its ad buys is being virtually ignored. But it's still active. The National Rifle Association has said it plans to spend up to $20 million this election cycle. As of today, it was slated to have spent $6.7 million. So look for more NRA-sponsored ads in the next two weeks.

Visit to learn more!
To get regular e-alerts about opportunities for activism and other ways to help with Public Citizen's work, sign up for the Public Citizen Action Network. To unsubscribe, go to

Contribute | © 2010 Public Citizen | Take Action

International Pen: Resolution on the People's Republic of China >> 88591886-E0C4-ED84-0991CA118B3FDA54

Freedom of the mind is as important as freedom of the marketplace. China also has minimal protection, if any, of intellectual property rights.

Lindsey Swift

Big Mac index: Bun fight | The Economist
China imports much, if not most of it's beef. The U.S. produces most of it's own beef. Yet a burger costs less in China than in the U.S. Hmmmm, kind of makes you wonder ?

Lindsey Swift


Lindsey Swift

Financial Re-Regulation | Foreign Affairs

Lindsey Swift

Lindsey Swift

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Supreme Court declines Bush bumper sticker case -

Supreme Court declines Bush bumper sticker case -

This event was sponsored by the government, paid for by taxpayers, open to the public, but held on private property. The said reason why these individuals were ejected was because President Bush had a right, thru the First Admendment, to control his speech's message. However, these individuals were not disruptive nor was the vehicle in attendance at the speech. Additionally, part of the defense's arguement was that government officials are shielded from these kind of lawsuits.
I'm not a lawyer and am not knowledgeable about all the laws, court cases, and rulings about our First Admendment rights. But you can clearly see the basic issues--Individuals have a right, in a public forum, to be able to give an undisruptive message yet, in that same forum, others have that same right. How do you balance that conflict ? Can a President in a public forum, with his message paid for by public funds restrict a public message to only his message ? Without public funding what opportunity would others have to give a different message ? And that is the key---a public message in a public forum paid for with public funds but restricted to that message only and no opportunity for others, without the same access to public funding , to give an alternative message.
This ruling clearly benefits a limited group of people and does not benefit the general public.