Is the Atkins diet safe?

Organs Infected With Rabies Used In Transplants

New Study On Celebrex Cause For Concern

Reports are surfacing that question the safety of the Atkins diet. Researchers point to a 40 year old woman who developed life-threatening
ketoacidosis after following the low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet.

The woman was admitted into the ICU with a high-anion-gap metabolic acidosis after entering the ER with respiratory distress and it was determined that ketoacidosis related to the Atkins diet was responsible.

Given the side effects of ketosis, constipation or diarrhea, headache, and general fatigue, low carbohydrate diets such as The Atkins diet are perhaps not as healthy as one might think.

Currently, a Florida man has filed a lawsuit against Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. Jody Gorran alleges that he became ill after following the popular diet for about 2 years.

According to the lawsuit, blood test and a CT scan taken before Gorran went on the diet showed normal cholesterol levels and low coronary vascular disease risk. However, after following the Atkins diet for 2 years Gorran began experiencing chest pains in which doctors found partially restricted arteries.

Following the advice of his doctors, Gorran stopped following the Atkins diet and his cholesterol levels subsequently returned to normal.

The Atkins diet, like other diets, will have advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of the Atkins diet is to significantly reduce carbohydrates, while increasing proteins. However, protein-heavy foods, such as bacon, eggs, and red meat, are also higher in fat.

Once people consume these fatty foods over a longer period of time, you’re likely to see an increase in cholesterol, and in increase in cardiac risk.

Although individuals who are already at risk for heart disease should pay even closer attention, anyone thinking of making such a significant lifestyle change to their diet should consult a physician so that they don’t suffer the same fate as others who have made such changes.

The families of two pepople who received organs infected with rabies and died a month later are filing lawsuits against the hospitals and those involved in the transplants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to get enough information about the donor in order to obtain informed consent from the patients.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that the deaths were from Rabies transmission through solid organ transplantation.

Autopsy specimens tested after the deaths of the two organ recipients confirmed that the donor organs were infected with Rabies.

Currently, organs are screened for the AIDS virus, hepatitis B and C, and West Nile encephalitis.

Plaintiff’s attorney's feel that the defendants fell below the standard of care by failing to inform the organ recipients and their families about the donor's high-risk nature.

Allegations have been made that the donor of the organs transplanted in both patients had been incarcerated up until two weeks prior to a fatal illness from ingesting cocaine and was announced brain dead the day after he was admitted to the Christus St. Michael Health System.

Although some maintain it may not be unusual for an organ donor to have a history of jail time and drug abuse, there were several other factors that made the donor in this situation a high risk donor including evidence of bacteria growing in the donor's sputum and blood and a temperature of 106 degrees prior to his death indicating a serious infection.

Furthermore, several hospitals had previously rejected the organs due to the donor's high-risk history and overall poor donor quality.

Additionally, two more people who received organs from the same donor have also died.

In order to prevail on this type of lawsuit, the Plaintiff will need to demonstrate that the Defendants either knew, or should have known, that there was some potential problem with the organs. The jury will have to decide whether a duty existed to obtain this level of specific information from the donor, and whether additional testing would be necessary in order to ensure safe organ transplants.

Even before the jury hears from medical experts, the panel will likely ask themselves why further testing wasn’t conducted on the organs of someone who was alleged to be incarcerated and suffering from an infection, caused in part by an ingestion of cocaine.

Also, the jury is likely to question why other hospitals apparently rejected these organs, while the Defendant was willing to accept them.

A new study suggests that Celebrex, a painkiller manufactured by Pfizer, can potentially double a patient's risk of suffering a heart attack.

Concern as to the safety of Celebrex continues to grow as the popular painkiller belongs to the same drug family as Vioxx.

Even though Vioxx was pulled off the market for safety reasons, Celebrex (a COX-2 inhibitor like Vioxx) remains on the market.

Pfizer continues to market Celebrex with warnings attached that advise users of potential heart attack, stroke, and intestinal bleeding.

Additionally, the new study suggests that the risk for heart attacks caused by Celebrex is similar to the risk associated with Vioxx.

With all of the attention that Vioxx has received over the past few years, it is a bit surprising that the same level of scrutiny hasn’t been applied to Celebrex.

Although they are not the same drug, they belong to the same general family of medications, and there are stern warnings on the labeling for Celebrex.

Given the recent findings from this new study, it is likely just a matter of time before new lawsuits are brought against Pfizer regarding an alleged link between Celebrex and any potential poor cardiac outcome.

When and if any such lawsuit is brought, jurors will face questions as to what Pfizer knew about the risks of Celebrex and whether these risks were timely and appropriately communicated to users of the medication.