As a Nutrition/Pre-Pharmacy student at the University of Arizona, I am highly intrigued when medical studies performed there offer hope to trauma patients and survivors. Most recently, as featured on the University's home page (http://www.arizona.edu/), there has been progressive work in new therapies for cancer patients. The story discusses Laurence H. Hurley's prediction that groundbreaking chemicals to be used to kill cancer cells could be introduced to the public in as little as three or four years. The fascination progress being made at the impressive school provides hope for the cure for cancer and the entire field of medicine.
Read the full article below.
New Drug Therapies Can Turn Off Cancer Cells
After more than a decade of following a novel research path, a UA College of Pharmacy scientist is poised to see his work pay off with a new class of breakthrough drug therapies aimed at the elusive ability to kill cancer cells without harming healthy cells.
Laurence H. Hurley, the Howard Schaeffer Endowed Chair in Pharmaceutical Sciences, estimated that the development of chemical agents to control the growth of or kill cancer cells may well result in treatments that could reach the public in three to four years.
"For years, cancer patients have been pumped full of poisonous cytotoxins to kill cancer cells," Hurley says. "But this conventional treatment has also resulted in the death of the surrounding healthy cells."
Typically, chemotherapy drugs target proteins responsible for a cancer's growth. But Hurley's study of DNA has found new ways to attack the disease.
"My longtime objective was to find a way to target oncogene or cancer gene expression using small drug-like molecules," he says. "Oncogenes can help turn a healthy cell into a cancerous one. So the Holy Grail in cancer research has been to target the on/off switch mechanism that controls oncogenes."
Hurley's study of DNA quadruplexes is paving the way for a new class of cancer drugs. Quadruplexes are four-stranded structures found on the single-stranded ends of chromosome telomeres, where replication of DNA in cells takes place.
"Under certain circumstances, DNA's duplex strands open up to form single-stranded regions and result in quadruplexes," Hurley says. "Our research group began to make real progress in identifying a new molecular target when we began looking at DNA as not only a static molecule that has a defined structure, but thinking about DNA as an exceedingly dynamic molecule that can form many different structures as it writhes, twists and untwists."
Hurley's research team used a number of techniques, including molecular modeling, to come up with molecules that would target these new nuclear receptors very selectively.
"Our mission is to find a way, with small drug-like molecules, to be able to target the switch mechanism that controls the oncogenes that can turn off a cancer cell, Hurley said. "We've discovered a new way to target this on/off switch that came from a fresh understanding of the nucleic acid itself, like DNA, which, under certain dynamic stresses, forms unusual globular structures that look like ‘knots.'
"What we now know is that these knot-like structures are in areas of the DNA that control the switch mechanism. And with that understanding, we have been able to design molecules that selectively target these globular structures," he says.
"We figured that, if these structures were in the ends of chromosomes of cancer cells, we could target them and preferentially kill cancer cells over normal cells," he says. "So we've worked toward designing and making molecules that interact with these ‘knot-like' structures to disrupt the events that happen at the ends of chromosomes, which are critical for cell reproduction."
Hurley's research ideas initially were met with skepticism from the research community, funding entities and scientific journals, but they now have embraced his findings.
"In recent years, hundreds of other scientists have cited our work published in Journal of Medicinal Chemistry and Proceedings of the National Academy of Science," he says.
Found at: http://www.arizona.edu/features/new-drug-therapies-can-turn-cancer-cells
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Trauma and the Supreme Court
Trauma victims often affect major court decisions that will serve as the standard for court cases that may follow. Read below to see one attorney's opinions on the matter.
Here's the full article:
Will Michigan Accident Victims Be Treated More Fairly Due to Recent Supreme Court Ruling?
Mark Bello
Attorney
The much anticipated Michigan Supreme Court opinion in McCormick v Carrier has been issued. I have read the entire opinion and it seems to be well reasoned; it also seems to restore some fairness to the previous unfairness established by the case it overruled, Kreiner v Fischer, which was an opinion that "misinterpreted" the Michigan legislature's 1995 amendment to the liability threshold established in Michigan's historic 1973 "No-Fault" law, the only one of its kind in the United States.
Here is a little history: The Michigan No-Fault Statute was passed in 1973. The law provided insured accident victims with what I consider a fair trade. They had to trade their right to sue a party who caused a minor accident and minor injuries for the right to collect out-of pocket expenses, sooner, directly from their own, 1st party carrier. Thus, the victim of a "minor" auto accident would be entitled to collect medical expenses, wage loss, and vehicle repair costs from his own insurance company. The other interesting feature is that these benefits were made available to all accident victims, regardless of whether they were the victim of someone else's negligence or were the at-fault driver. Medical expenses under the law were and still are unlimited, for either the victim or the at-fault driver. And this is the main reason for the trade-off. If insurance companies were required to pay unlimited medical benefits, they needed relief from having to pay liability benefits in smaller cases; as I indicated, I considered this a fair trade at the time (I have been an attorney for almost the entire history of no-fault litigation) and I still consider this a fair trade. Thus, according to the 1973 version of the law, only someone who has suffered a "serious impairment of body function", "death" or "serious disfigurement" could sue the responsible party for tort liability damages.
Because a definition of "serious impairment of body function" was not supplied by the legislature, insurance companies started denying almost every claim, spawning significant litigation. Several important decisions were issued and lawyers on both sides of Michigan Automobile practice began to gain wisdom as to what level of injury constituted a "serious impairment of body function".
Along came Governor John Engler, trial lawyer hater, insurance company suck-up. Engler took office at the right time for insurance companies and the wrong time for accident victims. He passed anti-victim legislation; appointment anti-victim judges, several of whom now serve on Michigan's Supreme Court. In 1995, it was the Engler legislature that passed a stricter standard of "serious impairment"; it was the Engler Supreme Court that made "Kreiner" the law of the land. Kreiner took the 1995 amendment and created such an onerous standard of interpretation that almost no injury, short of death or serious disfigurement could qualify for recovery. And this standard remained until a sitting supreme court justice was defeated and replaced by a judge with a more sensible approach to victims' rights. This is the backdrop that leads us to McCormick.
The McCormick decision restores the rights of innocent victims to recover compensation for serious injuries caused by negligent and drunk drivers, by returning to the specific legal standards that were enacted by the 1995 amendments. Remember, this is not new law, but rather a return to the no-fault threshold passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1995. The decision recognizes that Kreiner was nothing more than judge-made law that constituted a
radical departure from the specific language and overall intent of the Michigan No-Fault Act. The Act required a seriousness standard; it did not seek to prevent the vast majority of accident victims from recovery.
It has been argued that returning to an appropriate standard of proof in serious impairment cases will result in an increase in Michigan automobile accident litigation. On the contrary, it is reasonable to expect that this decision will actually reduce the number of lawsuits filed in circuit court for the reason that under the Kreiner decision, victims were forced to file lawsuits by insurance companies intent on defeating legitimate claims in court by imposing
the draconian legal standards of the Kreiner case. Hopefully, this practice will end under McCormick, and insurance companies will recognize legitimate claims and deal with innocent victims in a fair and just manner. As to the appellate courts, McCormick should dramatically decrease the amount appeals, thus returning Michigan to the stable and less litigious environment that existed prior to the Kreiner decision. Prior to Kreiner, less than 10 Court of Appeals cases per year were filed in controversy over the tort threshold; in the nine years since Kreiner, there have been over 250 appellate decisions pertaining to this single issue. Obviously, less appeals amounts to considerable tax savings.
Insurance industry spokespeople are already indicating that rates will rise because of the opinion. Shame on them! As usual, these corporate interests are lying to the detriment of the public interest. Here's the truth:
1. Michigan auto insurance carriers have enjoyed low statutory minimum policy limits of $20,000-$40,000 for the entire time (33 years) that I have been a lawyer. The majority of citizens buy insurance coverage at the state minimum. Thus, under Kreiner, if you were catastrophically injured, you collected $20,000; if you were seriously hurt you collected nothing. Insurance companies have been laughing at (and substantially profiting from) Michigan citizens for years. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
2. Changes in the law regarding the coordination of no-fault benefits and health insurance benefits have significantly reduced the amount of medical benefits that these carriers have had to pay. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
3. Insurance companies employ doctors who's job it is to evaluate injured people and provide a reason to cut-off the plaintiff's no-fault benefits. They pay these cut-off doctors millions of dollars for defense medical examinations; the sole purpose of which is to stop the flow of needed benefits to seriously injured people. Aside from being a despicable practice that insurance companies use against their own customers, this practice saves them millions in benefit pay-outs and spawns needless litigation. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
A return to fairness and sanity should not raise insurance premiums, unless insurance companies decide to gouge the public in response to McCormick. Like any and all of the tort reform, lawsuit abuse nonsense, this is nothing more than sour grapes, the same sour grapes that was espoused by the dissent in McCormick. Hopefully, this decision will provide hope for thousands of injured Michigan citizens who were shut out of the legal system by Kreiner. I am cautiously optimistic for the first time in a long time.
Mark Bello has thirty-three years experience as a trial lawyer and twelve years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life funding is needed during litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado Associations for Justice, a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.
http://voices.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/michigan-automobile-accidents-victims-may-be-treated-more-fairly-because-of-recent-michigan-supreme-court-ruling.aspx?googleid=283464
Here's the full article:
Will Michigan Accident Victims Be Treated More Fairly Due to Recent Supreme Court Ruling?
Mark Bello
Attorney
The much anticipated Michigan Supreme Court opinion in McCormick v Carrier has been issued. I have read the entire opinion and it seems to be well reasoned; it also seems to restore some fairness to the previous unfairness established by the case it overruled, Kreiner v Fischer, which was an opinion that "misinterpreted" the Michigan legislature's 1995 amendment to the liability threshold established in Michigan's historic 1973 "No-Fault" law, the only one of its kind in the United States.
Here is a little history: The Michigan No-Fault Statute was passed in 1973. The law provided insured accident victims with what I consider a fair trade. They had to trade their right to sue a party who caused a minor accident and minor injuries for the right to collect out-of pocket expenses, sooner, directly from their own, 1st party carrier. Thus, the victim of a "minor" auto accident would be entitled to collect medical expenses, wage loss, and vehicle repair costs from his own insurance company. The other interesting feature is that these benefits were made available to all accident victims, regardless of whether they were the victim of someone else's negligence or were the at-fault driver. Medical expenses under the law were and still are unlimited, for either the victim or the at-fault driver. And this is the main reason for the trade-off. If insurance companies were required to pay unlimited medical benefits, they needed relief from having to pay liability benefits in smaller cases; as I indicated, I considered this a fair trade at the time (I have been an attorney for almost the entire history of no-fault litigation) and I still consider this a fair trade. Thus, according to the 1973 version of the law, only someone who has suffered a "serious impairment of body function", "death" or "serious disfigurement" could sue the responsible party for tort liability damages.
Because a definition of "serious impairment of body function" was not supplied by the legislature, insurance companies started denying almost every claim, spawning significant litigation. Several important decisions were issued and lawyers on both sides of Michigan Automobile practice began to gain wisdom as to what level of injury constituted a "serious impairment of body function".
Along came Governor John Engler, trial lawyer hater, insurance company suck-up. Engler took office at the right time for insurance companies and the wrong time for accident victims. He passed anti-victim legislation; appointment anti-victim judges, several of whom now serve on Michigan's Supreme Court. In 1995, it was the Engler legislature that passed a stricter standard of "serious impairment"; it was the Engler Supreme Court that made "Kreiner" the law of the land. Kreiner took the 1995 amendment and created such an onerous standard of interpretation that almost no injury, short of death or serious disfigurement could qualify for recovery. And this standard remained until a sitting supreme court justice was defeated and replaced by a judge with a more sensible approach to victims' rights. This is the backdrop that leads us to McCormick.
The McCormick decision restores the rights of innocent victims to recover compensation for serious injuries caused by negligent and drunk drivers, by returning to the specific legal standards that were enacted by the 1995 amendments. Remember, this is not new law, but rather a return to the no-fault threshold passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1995. The decision recognizes that Kreiner was nothing more than judge-made law that constituted a
radical departure from the specific language and overall intent of the Michigan No-Fault Act. The Act required a seriousness standard; it did not seek to prevent the vast majority of accident victims from recovery.
It has been argued that returning to an appropriate standard of proof in serious impairment cases will result in an increase in Michigan automobile accident litigation. On the contrary, it is reasonable to expect that this decision will actually reduce the number of lawsuits filed in circuit court for the reason that under the Kreiner decision, victims were forced to file lawsuits by insurance companies intent on defeating legitimate claims in court by imposing
the draconian legal standards of the Kreiner case. Hopefully, this practice will end under McCormick, and insurance companies will recognize legitimate claims and deal with innocent victims in a fair and just manner. As to the appellate courts, McCormick should dramatically decrease the amount appeals, thus returning Michigan to the stable and less litigious environment that existed prior to the Kreiner decision. Prior to Kreiner, less than 10 Court of Appeals cases per year were filed in controversy over the tort threshold; in the nine years since Kreiner, there have been over 250 appellate decisions pertaining to this single issue. Obviously, less appeals amounts to considerable tax savings.
Insurance industry spokespeople are already indicating that rates will rise because of the opinion. Shame on them! As usual, these corporate interests are lying to the detriment of the public interest. Here's the truth:
1. Michigan auto insurance carriers have enjoyed low statutory minimum policy limits of $20,000-$40,000 for the entire time (33 years) that I have been a lawyer. The majority of citizens buy insurance coverage at the state minimum. Thus, under Kreiner, if you were catastrophically injured, you collected $20,000; if you were seriously hurt you collected nothing. Insurance companies have been laughing at (and substantially profiting from) Michigan citizens for years. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
2. Changes in the law regarding the coordination of no-fault benefits and health insurance benefits have significantly reduced the amount of medical benefits that these carriers have had to pay. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
3. Insurance companies employ doctors who's job it is to evaluate injured people and provide a reason to cut-off the plaintiff's no-fault benefits. They pay these cut-off doctors millions of dollars for defense medical examinations; the sole purpose of which is to stop the flow of needed benefits to seriously injured people. Aside from being a despicable practice that insurance companies use against their own customers, this practice saves them millions in benefit pay-outs and spawns needless litigation. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
A return to fairness and sanity should not raise insurance premiums, unless insurance companies decide to gouge the public in response to McCormick. Like any and all of the tort reform, lawsuit abuse nonsense, this is nothing more than sour grapes, the same sour grapes that was espoused by the dissent in McCormick. Hopefully, this decision will provide hope for thousands of injured Michigan citizens who were shut out of the legal system by Kreiner. I am cautiously optimistic for the first time in a long time.
Mark Bello has thirty-three years experience as a trial lawyer and twelve years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life funding is needed during litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado Associations for Justice, a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.
http://voices.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/michigan-automobile-accidents-victims-may-be-treated-more-fairly-because-of-recent-michigan-supreme-court-ruling.aspx?googleid=283464
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Disaster Victims Share Story
Three years have passed since the shock of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse and the victims involved in the disaster still live with the trauma from the experience. This collapse caused the death of 13 people and injury to 145 others. Many of those survivors shared their intense experiences and memories in a documentary about the incident, made by Dan Kenney. The film, titled, "One Day in August", is still being worked on with the intent to accurately share the participants' personal stories.
The process of healing for trauma victims can be very slow and strenuous. It often helps for such people to talk about their suffering as a step to recovery. Being featured in a documentary such as "One Day in August" will hopefully help those bridge collapse survivors to come to peace with their pain and to help them mourn the losses of those who were taken by the incident.
Read the full story at:
http://wcco.com/local/bridge.collapse.survivors.2.1837175.html
The process of healing for trauma victims can be very slow and strenuous. It often helps for such people to talk about their suffering as a step to recovery. Being featured in a documentary such as "One Day in August" will hopefully help those bridge collapse survivors to come to peace with their pain and to help them mourn the losses of those who were taken by the incident.
Read the full story at:
http://wcco.com/local/bridge.collapse.survivors.2.1837175.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)