home
RSS
Can meditation change your brain? Contemplative neuroscientists believe it can
October 26th, 2010
09:54 AM ET

Can meditation change your brain? Contemplative neuroscientists believe it can

This week The Chart and CNN's Belief blog take a closer look at meditation, its varied forms and its physical and emotional benefits.

Can people strengthen the brain circuits associated with happiness and positive behavior,  just as we’re able to strengthen muscles with exercise?

Richard Davidson, who for decades has practiced Buddhist-style meditation – a form of mental exercise, he says – insists that we can.

Read the complete post

Post by:
Filed under: Brain • Mind and body

soundoff (18 Responses)
  1. Dawn

    Bananas!
    B-A-N-A-N-A-S

    October 26, 2010 at 10:49 | Report abuse | Reply
  2. Gordon Laird

    Terrific article. Not one of the 3 sentences contained a single fact or piece of meaningful data.

    October 26, 2010 at 11:15 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jules

      You have to click to view the WHOLE article................

      October 26, 2010 at 12:42 | Report abuse |
    • Michelle

      LOL So you thought they just gave it to us in a nutshell?

      October 26, 2010 at 15:00 | Report abuse |
    • The_Mick

      Look again, there are 4 sentences, not three. The last is a link and says: "Read the complete post".

      October 26, 2010 at 17:45 | Report abuse |
  3. H.

    sorry for the monkey brain

    October 26, 2010 at 11:25 | Report abuse | Reply
  4. Gezus

    keep in mind that humans use only a fraction of the brains potential. Ignorance begets blind critisism more often than not. There are many studies in scientific research that lend creedence to these observations. Few would have the training necessary to experience this I'm afraid, since studies in these methods veer from judeochristian ideals and traverse outside closeminded beliefs in practice in meditation to find a state of being.

    October 26, 2010 at 13:00 | Report abuse | Reply
  5. JeramieH

    This was an article? A question, a name, and a link?

    October 26, 2010 at 13:15 | Report abuse | Reply
  6. Rohrer

    Meditation on its own merits is a slow method to negate the damage caused by the tree of knowledge, reading writing and math, linear tools that favor left hemisphere and in turn veil right hemisphere, the god image in man, intuition/ the soul.
    Because the aspect of the brain that is acting up after one gets the "curse", if you mindfully sense time it is bases your right brain traits are so veiled by the education you are hallucinating a little clock in your head, but its time is only relative to you, thus "a ticking time bomb". Left brain see's parts, and after you favored it so much as a child, now you see parts called seconds, and you mindfully perceive they are really seconds happening. The fountain of youth is just consciousness, that when you don't mindfully register time, so life seems like infinity. Thus the comment, "Until the end of time" which means when our species understands its own tool, the number "math" when taught to chidlren mentally harms them and then they have to apply this remedy, and the only problem is the remedy is fear not and a person in that state is abject fear.
    The full nine yards relative to the remedy, is to mediate during extreme mental action. Simply out "seek the shadow of death and when it arrives fear not" This is the only way to shock the hypothalmaus back into working order. Once that happens it will stop sending such abnormal fear signals, and your hunger will reduce to normal level so you wont be such a glutton, and you will lose your sense of time, shortly after, and perhaps you will even figure out where you are at.
    [Luke 17:33  ; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.] = [ Seek the shadow of death and when your mind says a shadow will kill you, you submit which means "pretend you are meek" and don't run, and this will train your mind to understand you call the shots not it.

    Since you like numbers becasue that's all left brain is good at here is a number you can ponder.

    Jesus spoke to 5000 and said "those who lose their life preserve it", the remedy
    Out of 5000 12 really followed him and at least attempted the remedy, of course Judas didnt make it through the 9th circle of hell, treason, which is what the remedy is.
    So 5000 / 12 = .0024%

    So your chance of just applying this remedy after you get the curse knowingly and consciously is zero. If someone applies this remedy and explain it to you, the fact you mindfully sense time proves your cognitive ability has been compromised, that is relative to ability to reason, so even if I tell you the answer to everything and explain, just get your mind scared and when it says "the dark will harm you" you say "no i ain't buying that advice", the chance you will accept that as just normal advice from a friend and apply it , is .0024%

    6 billion times .0024 = 14,400,000
    Guess what time it is.

    October 26, 2010 at 13:40 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sher

      Rohrer, all I can say is whoa......

      October 26, 2010 at 13:55 | Report abuse |
    • MBeezy

      If Meditation is the slow method ROHRER...what is the fast method?

      October 26, 2010 at 15:55 | Report abuse |
    • exacerbe

      5000/12 = 416.7

      12/5000 = 0.0024

      October 26, 2010 at 17:20 | Report abuse |
  7. MULTIRTRILLIONAIRE-TRILSEN--PART2

    ANGES TAMERING WITH MEDICARE MEDAID WILL NOT MAKE HEALTH AFFORDABLE YOU HAVE INSTITUTE “MICROECONOMIC PLANS AND ADAPTATIONS- “THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY BELONGS TO THE HEALTH PROFESSIONAL THEY HAVE BE OUTPSPOKEN IN NEW AND FLEXIBLE IN BUSINESS COST EFFICENCY MEASURE—IT IS ULTIMATELY UP TO THEM MAKE CHANGE AND ADHERE TO A NEW AVAILABILTY BY THE GOVERNMENTAL INSURANCE PROGRAM AND PREVENTATIVE HEALTHCARE MANGEMENT/EXPANSION FOR SCREEN PROGRAM I AM TALKING ABOUT - FOR LONGEVITY OF HEALTH CARE

    TO: DR. GUPTA
    FROM: TRILLIONAIRE-TRILSEN

    SUBJECT: GIMMIC (YESTERDAY ON THE BLOG)
    INSURANCE FOR CORPORATION--PHARMECEUTICAL LIABILITY INSURANCE-COVERAGE PROGRAM TAG ALONG - GOV. INNSURANCE

    DRGUPTA,
    I FOUND OUT THAT PRODUCT LIABILITY INSURANCE IS A HUGE ISSUE THAT ECONOMICIST ARE LOOKING AT AND ALSO IS HUGE TOPIC IN WASHINGTON- I KNOW ABOUT THE FDA—IT WORKS WE NEED IN CONJUNCTION CONTINUED

    I FOUND OUT TO UNDERWRITE A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY IS/WAS
    AT A COST 100- 500 MILLION DOLLARS. PRODUCT ABILITY INSURANCE IS VERY COSTLY. I FOUND IN TRENDS FACT FINDINGS IS THAT SOME PHARMCEUTICAL COMPANIES ARE NOT CARRYING THE INSURANCE AND “NAIL BITING” AGAINST CATASTROPHIC LITIGATION THEREFORE THEY ELEVATE THE PRICE ACROSS TO BAORD TO AGAINST POTIENTAL LAWSUITS.

    THEY HAVE A HAD TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF INCREASE OF TORTS LAWSUITS BY THIRD PARTY

    YES THIS ACTIVITY IS DRIVE UP MEDICATION COST IN ON WAY OF ANOTHER-

    STANDARD COVERAGE FOR COMPANIES AND PHYSHCIANS BY GOV. WILL DRIVE COST DOWN OF DRUGS AND GENERAL OVERALL COST
    MAKING LIABILITY COVERAGE AVAILABLE IS BIG HELP IN FUTURE OF MED COST

    DRUG COMPAINES EITHER GO THROUGH THE FDA AND/OR OUTSIDE AGENCIES TO GET APPROVAL OF USE IN THE MEDICAL MARKETS

    DUE TO LAWSUITS MALPRACTICE BY PHSYCIANS
    DUE TO NERVOUSNES BY LAWSUIT IN DRUG MANUFACTURING ISSUE / SIDE EFFECTS QUESTIONABLITY—THE TACK LAWSUIT REWARD PLUS FUTURE LAWSUIT REWARD TO COST OF MED TOTAL

    DRIVES UP COST SENIORS AT THE COUNTER
    DRIVES UP COST AT THE INDIVIDIUAL POLICY PREMIUM –THUS FAMILY AND CORPORATE INSURANCE PACKGES INFLATED

    GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TO CAUSE COMPETETION FOR DOCTORS AND PHARMACY INDUSTRIES IS THE ONLY HOLD DOWN COST STOP OR SLOW MEDICAL COST INFLATION

    THE SECOND AS PREVIOUSLY GO TO “BLUE BOOK” PRICING FOR SPECIALIZED DOCTORS FOR SPECIALIZED PROCEDURES – CHARGE OR COST DETERMINED BY A BOARD OF PHYSCIANS UNDER THE SURGEON GENERAL

    THIRD CREATE UNDER PANEL PHARMECUTICAL PEOPLE TO DEVELOP “BLUE BOOK” TO REVIEW OVERALL PRICES OF MEDS – AS ABOVE STATED DRUGS GET CHEAPER THE OLDER THEY ARE ON THE MARKET –THEY CHARGE MORE FOR NEW DRUGS DUE TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCT LIABILTIES LAWSUIT ISSUE--

    THIS BLUE BOOK USED FOR MEDICARE/MEDICAID AND PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE BILLINGS OFFICES—AND MARKET PHARMACIES-

    DONE SO TO MAKE WAY FOR A FAIR AFFORDABLE PRICE..IF THE DRUG IS ACROSS THE BOARDIS EXPENSIVE THE “BLUE BOOK BOARD” CAN/GIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT PRICE--“EXPLAINATION”

    Political lobbying
    Pfizer is a leading member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a Washington D.C.-based coalition of over 400 major companies and NGOs that advocates for a larger International Affairs Budget, which funds American diplomatic, humanitarian, and development efforts abroad.[32]
    Pfizer is one of the single largest lobbying interests in United States politics. For example in the first 9 months of 2009 Pfizer spent over $16.3 million on lobbying US congressional lawmakers, making them the sixth largest lobbying interest in the US (following Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which ranked fourth but also represents many of their interests). A spokeswoman for Pfizer said the company “wanted to make sure our voice is heard in this conversation” in regards to the companies expenditure of $25 million in 2010 to lobby health care reform.[33]
    Pfizer's primary interests are opposition of Congressional efforts to attach a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and opposition to generic drugs entering US markets.[34] Pfizer also purportedly proposed a ban on all lawsuits against manufacturers of body implant parts which was proposed in the United States Congress as part of tort reform legislation.
    [edit] Bextra settlement of off-label marketing investigation
    In September 2009, the United States Department of Justice announced that Pfizer had agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle civil and criminal allegations that it had illegally marketed four drugs: Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica "with the intent to defraud or mislead" by promoting the drugs for non-approved uses; this marks Pfizer's fourth such settlement in a decade.[5][6][27] Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Inc., a Pfizer subsidiary, agreed to plead guilty to mis-branded promotion of Bextra, a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The criminal fine accounts for $1.3 billion of the settlement, and is the largest criminal penalty ever imposed in American history.[40] Pfizer has entered an extensive corporate integrity agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General and will be required to make substantial structural reforms within the company, and maintain the Pfizer website (www.pfizer.com/pmc) to track the company's post marketing commitments. Pfizer must also put a searchable database of all payments to physicians the company has made on the Pfizer website by March 31, 2010.[41] In addition, two former employees were separately indicted and sentenced for their role in marketing of Bextra. A former District Sales manager was found guilty of obstruction of justice for destroying documents pertinent to the investigation, and a Regional Sales Manager pled guilty to the distribution of a mis-branded product.[42][43]
    The case is the largest civil settlement against a pharmaceutical company as well.[44] Pfizer paid a $1 billion civil fine to settle allegations it had illegally promoted the drugs for uses that were not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and caused false claims to be submitted to Federal and State programs including but not limited to Medicare and Medicaid. Under the False Claims Act, damages can be assessed for violations of the federal Anti-Kickback statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7b(b)[45] and the off-label marketing provision within the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. §§301-97.[46] Six whistle-blowers will receive $102 million for their participation in the civil investigation, and John Kopchinski, a former sales representative, will receive $51.5 million for his allegations involving the marketing of Bextra.[47]
    CNN reported that Pharmacia & Upjohn, not Pfizer itself, pleaded guilty because prosecutors thought Pfizer was "too big to nail." Companies convicted of major health care fraud are automatically barred from billing Medicare and Medicaid for their products. Prosecutors feared that Pfizer would collapse if it pleaded guilty, and felt that the risk of harm to patients was too great. A CNN investigation revealed that Pharmacia & Upjohn Company is little more than a shell corporation Pfizer uses to plead guilty; it was first created in 2007 as the defendant in a kickback case.[48]
    After Vioxx: the national focus on the Merck & Co. trials is calling attention to product liability insurance and its future with large drug manufacturers.
    While product liability results have been improving, they're still not very good, Hartwig said. "Pharmaceuticals is a very tough business in every respect. It can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and decades to bring a new drug to market. It's a very, very risky business. You get a blockbuster drug, which happens very rarely, and it winds up blowing up because of medical concerns. The loss of revenue simply can't be replaced by insurance."

    This continued assault on pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical manufacturers means that product liability rates will remain high, but by no means as high as they were three-to-four years ago, he added. Yet, he fears American drug companies could wind up like the U.S. vaccine business, which "has been sued out of existence," Hartwig said. "We can't produce vaccine for flu in this country. We have to get it from France or Canada or somewhere else."

    In 1967 there were 26 companies in the United States manufacturing vaccines until "a litigation crisis in the 1980s drove many companies away from the vaccine business," according to Congressional findings supporting the National Childhood Vaccine Compensation Act of 1986. Today, there are just four companies that make the vast majority of vaccines used in the United States.

    One of the bigger problems looming over the marketplace is that some large pharmaceuticals have decided they can live without coverage.

    "The phenomenon that we're faced with here is major pharmaceutical companies have basically stopped buying product liability insurance," Walters said. That's because insurers are telling pharmaceutical companies they must retain the first $300 million to $500 million or more of risk. "Upwards of eight of the top 10 [pharmaceutical manufacturers] have stopped buying conventional product liability insurance," Walters said. Major pharmaceutical companies are finding that paying $10 million to $20 million for $100 million of insurance coverage that excludes half their products is no longer a viable transaction, he added.

    If the current tort environment continues, "Major pharmaceuticals, the large companies, will continue to basically stop buying insurance," Walters said. "As we experienced with the insurance crisis of the mid-'80s, once companies get comfortable retaining more of their risk, they tend to never return to the insurance industry. I think that creates a big hole in their premium volumes that will probably never return. Whether that will ultimately hurt or benefit smaller companies remains to be seen."

    Merck said previously that it gave up seeking product liability insurance last year for certain products, after evaluating its risk and determining that the cost of obtaining insurance outweighs the likely benefits of the available coverage. Currently, the drug maker has product liability insurance for claims brought in the Vioxx lawsuits of up to approximately $630 million after deductibles and coinsurance, the company disclosed in regulatory filings

    Key Points

    * Underwriting for product liability insurance for pharmaceuticals and related products has changed due to the ongoing Vioxx litigation.

    * Insurers are making lists, some several pages long, of drugs and compounds they are unwilling to cover.

    * Major pharmaceutical companies have begun to forgo product liability coverage.
    Product Liability
    Combined Ratio

    The average combined ratio
    1995 to 2004 is 180.0.

    1995 189.5
    1996 179.1
    1997 131.9
    1998 138.8
    1999 156.4
    2000 133.3
    2001 215.4
    2002 355.2
    2003 167.2
    2004 159.8
    With the numbers of deaths in this country from the prescribed use of pharmaceutical drugs estimated at 227,000 per year, putting them as the third leading cause of death in the US, behind only heart disease and cancer, or "tobacco use and poor diet and physical inactivity." As the drugwarfacts website puts it, it is time to reassess how our country defines "health care."

    Insurance
    A bitter pill: big Pharma seems to be the target du jour of plaintiffs' attorneys. This product liability onslaught might not just be affecting the insurance market, but also the pharmaceutical companies' abilities to produce new, more effective drugs
    The global pharmaceutical companies with their deep pockets have been the target for damaging lawsuits and class actions. They've been accused of misleading labeling and the withholding of testing data of certain drugs, of failure to conduct adequate or appropriate clinical trials and exerting unethical pressure on intermediaries before and after the drugs were released to the public. These legal actions have resulted in billions of dollars being paid out to thousands of drug users, as well as millions to plaintiffs' lawyers.
    The most current and prominent drug product liability lawsuit has been litigation involving Vioxx, the cox-2 inhibitor painkiller manufactured by Merck & Co. Following reports that the drug could cause heart attacks and strokes, it was pulled from the market in September 2004. In one of the latest trials, a New Jersey jury awarded $9 million in punitive damages to a man who said Vioxx caused his heart attack. This is the first punitive damage award in New Jersey since the punitive law was changed in 1995, and is in addition to $4.5 million in compensatory damages. The plaintiff's lawyers charged that Merck's withholding vital data was deliberately meant to harm.
    In August 2005, Merck lost another trial in Texas that gave $253 million to the heirs of a man whose death was believed to be from taking Vioxx. Yet in July 2006, the drug company scored a victory when a jury found that the medication was not a major factor in the heart attack of a New Jersey woman.
    At last count, Merck faces more than 13,000 Vioxx-related lawsuits. It has vowed to fight them one by one, and plans to appeal those it has lost. But Vioxx is just one of a host of drugs and medical devices that are being hauled into court for causing harm rather than good.
    PRODUCT LIABILITY VACUUM
    The upsurge of lawsuits against the chief pharmaceutical companies has produced almost a vacuum of available product liability insurance for them.
    Starting in the late 1990s, the entire life-sciences products liability market changed dramatically. Self-insured retentions climbed significantly–especially for the major pharmaceutical companies where upward of $500 million or more for these retentions is not uncommon.
    In addition, insurers and reinsurers now start their negotiations with a long list of products they intend to exclude–everything from individual "problem" drugs such as FenPhen and Vioxx, to broad categories of drugs such as "Hormone Replacement Therapies" and "All Weight Management Drugs."
    On top of all this, market prices for product liability coverage can be as high as 10 percent to 20 percent of a limit, according to Jim Waiters, national managing director of Aon's life sciences and chemical group.
    "And available capacity has dropped from over $1 billion to as low as $200 million to $300 million," he says. "All this has led the larger pharmaceutical companies to question the value of the insurance product and, in many cases, they have stopped buying conventional risk transfer."
    As a result of heightened product liability litigation, some insurers have exited the life-sciences market, others have raised rates and reduced limits, and some have intensified the underwriting evaluations or adopted a combination of these various measures, according to Jill Wadlund, vice president, Chubb & Son, and casualty manager of life sciences, Chubb Commercial Insurance.
    "The largest pharmaceutical companies have seen the most dramatic changes in cost and availability," she says. "Many cannot find the limits previously available, and the cost and retentions are significantly higher. Some have chosen self-insurance."
    "Prudent insurers need to work very hard in the evaluation process," she continues. "Maintain disciplined pricing and work closely with insureds to enhance their risk management efforts by providing insight from lessons learned in litigation."
    Letha Heaton, senior vice president, Markel Corp., says, "Interestingly enough, product liability insurance is one of our fastest growth areas both in premium and number of policies. Granted, Markel is a very small player. We work with mid to small pharmaceutical companies that don't have FDA approval yet for a new drug. We do look at all the quality control and clinical tests, examine their financial position to determine if they can assume the risk of developing a new drug.
    "They have to have product liability before they can begin development and research for a unique product," she says. "This insurance provides protection through a whole chain of events right through to its introduction in the market, and beyond."
    Heaton adds that Markel provides a policy on a claims-made form. "Claims-made is becoming more popular with high-risk-factor products," she says, "not just drugs."
    MORE DRUGS WITHDRAWN
    The major reason for this product liability disaster is the increase in the much-publicized drug withdrawals and the resulting litigation. Between 1977 and 1997, there were just nine products withdrawn from the market, according to Aon Risk Services. From 1997 to 2005, only nine years, the number jumped to 15. Experts point to many factors causing this explosion in drug litigation that results from harmful reactions to certain drugs. Among the factors responsible for this unfavorable environment are the direct-to-consumer advertising and other sales efforts. They mean bigger launches and less "ramp-up time" to identify and warn about potential problems.

    FDA CONTROVERSY-THIS A PARTIAL ATRICLE ABOUT FDA VS. “NEW WAY INSURANCE AND SEALS OF APPROVAL –0
    Medical experts – the same ones who testify on behalf of and against manufacturers in various product liability lawsuits – would also become involved as independent private review consultants. Most likely, such experts would become affiliated with independent private review institutes – similar in operational philosophy and techniques to the famous Underwriters Laboratories – which would levy a charge for a review of a new drug or medical device. Currently, the FDA takes in about $250 million annually in fees (really taxes) it charges manufacturers for seeking approval of a drug or medical device. Manufacturers have thus demonstrated the willingness and ability to pay for product reviews.
    If given a seal(s) of approval by accepted review institutes, the new drug or device would be brought to market with that seal(s) publicly displayed. Physicians, who often have to spend a fortune for malpractice insurance coverage, would have the strongest incentive to prescribe, in most cases, only those drugs or those devices that have some seal(s) of approval. Their malpractice insurer would demand that. However, physicians would be free to seek an exemption from their insurer and the consumer in cases where application of a new, but not-yet mass marketed or reviewed drug or device, might make the difference between life and permanent disability or death.

    Manufacturers would also be given an extra incentive to seek such expert seals of approval for their new drug and medical device products by their insurance companies, mainly in the form of lower premiums for liability insurance if they get a seal(s) of approval. Those not getting recognized approval would face higher liability insurance premiums, possibly suspension of coverage for those particular products, and likely lower demand for such products. Getting a number of seals of approval, from these strictly independent private review institutes, would further enhance the marketability of a product and help insulate the manufacturer from lawsuits.
    Under the free market, insurers would also have the incentive to offer consumers no-fault liability insurance for medical malpractice, including the use of drugs and devices that have not gotten a major seal or seals of approval by generally accepted review institutes. And consumers would have a strong incentive to purchase such insurance.
    With such a private market system of insurance and risk reduction, there would be fewer lawsuits and lower settlements. This would be the case because of the extensive and competitive review of products, seals of approval, and also review by various insurers. It would be difficult for even the best trial lawyers to counter numerous expert opinions rendered in such an unbiased manner prior to the sale of a specific drug or medical device
    Drug Safety: FDA Approval vs. Product Liability
    February 22, 2010 in Pharmaceuticals, Regulation, Vaccinations | 1 comment
    Before a drug can come to market, it must receive FDA approval. This involves 3 phases of testing with Phase I having 20-80 volunteers and Phase III often testing more than 1,000 people. Despite the FDA approval, patients can sue drug companies if they are injured by a drug. Patients can generally sue manufacturers under one of three theories of legal liability:
    • defective design (design of a drug or device was inherently unsafe)
    • defective manufacturing
    • defective warnings, the firm failed to provide sufficient warning of the possibility of an adverse event if it knew or shown have known about the risks.

    THE FORM 10- Q IS WHAT COMPANY USES IN TRACKING AND DOCUMENTATION PRODUCT LIABILITY ISSE AND COST ANALYSIS- USED TO ASSUMING TO ACCQUIRE INSURANCE’-THE FORM I ASSUME IS AN EXTENSION OF A COMPANIES “SAFETY RECORD”
    22) risks that the Company may not ultimately prevail in litigation, including product liability lawsuits and challenges to its intellectual property rights by actual or potential competitors or to its ability to market generic products due to brand company patents and challenges to other companies' introduction or potential introduction of generic or competing products by third parties against products sold by the Company or its subsidiaries including without limitation the litigation and claims referred to in Note 18 – "Commitments and Contingencies" of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Form 10-Q, and that any adverse judgments or settlements of such litigation, including product liability lawsuits, may be material to the Company;

    (27) the series of putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and certain individuals, as more fully described in Note 18 – "Commitments and Contingencies – Litigation and Governmental Inquiries" of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Form 10-Q;
    (28) the possibility that insurance proceeds are insufficient to cover potential losses that may arise from litigation, including with respect to product liability, failure to supply or securities litigation;
    (29) the informal inquiry initiated by the SEC and any related or additional government investigation or enforcement proceedings as more fully described in Note 18 – "Commitments and Contingencies – Litigation and Government Inquiries, of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements" in the Form 10-Q;

    DRUG COMPANIES HAVE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
    IN LOBBYING TO FIX LAWSUIT LITITGATION ISSUE IN WASHINGTON DUE TO ENORMOUS ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THEIR COMPANY AND CUSTOMER
    YES THESE COMPANIES DO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY THEY COST A LOT TO RUN THEY HIGH TRAINED CHEMIST AND LAB PERSONEL TAXING THEM ADDITIONALLY WAS NOT THE ANSWER THE ADDITIONAL 10 BILLION TAX TO DRUG COMPANIES ONLY GOT ADDED TO THE COST OF DRUGS TO THE CUSTMER AT THE COUNTER- AND GAVE A REASON TO
    INFLATE INSURANCE PREMIUM TO THE “FAMILY MAN POLICYHOLDER”-ADDITIONAL INCREASED OUT POCKET WKLY. DEDUCTION

    TRILSEN

    October 26, 2010 at 15:06 | Report abuse | Reply
  8. oriondiamond

    Great article

    October 26, 2010 at 15:29 | Report abuse | Reply
  9. skp

    Try sahaja yoga, learn how to be in mditation... it is so simple, useful and above all for no monetary value...

    October 26, 2010 at 16:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  10. ShellnClaude

    I believe the mind is a powerful tool. I believe that positive thinking, and meditation both change the chemistry of the brain. I believe this, because it has certainly worked for me.

    October 26, 2010 at 19:36 | Report abuse | Reply
  11. Constantine

    This is great for anyone looking for how to improve concentration

    October 28, 2010 at 00:19 | Report abuse | Reply
  12. Компрессор

    Доброго времени суток!
    Админ. Хотелось бы поговорить насчёт рекламы в вашем блоге. Если вы согласны, отпишите ваши условия на e-mail. Благодарю.

    November 3, 2010 at 06:05 | Report abuse | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.