books with useful info; U.S. Supreme Court re Wyeth Corp,: web sites with free useful info

books with useful information:
Mayo Clinic Guide to Self-Care
The Urban Survival Handbook
Wash Your Hands!
Help Me Heal
What You Don't Know Can Kill You
Health Smart Hospital Handbook
What's In This Stuff?

U.S. Supreme Court re Wyeth Corporation
The following was obtained from what was identified as the website of the U.S. Supreme Court:

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
WYETH v. LEVINE
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1249.pdf

No. 06–1249. Argued November 3, 2008—Decided March 4, 2009
Petitioner Wyeth manufactures the antinausea drug Phenergan. After a clinician injected respondent Levine with Phenergan by the “IV-push” method, whereby a drug is injected directly into a patient’s vein, the drug entered Levine’s artery, she developed gangrene, and doctors amputated her forearm. Levine brought a state-law damages action, alleging, inter alia, that Wyeth had failed to provide an ade-quate warning about the significant risks of administering Phener-gan by the IV-push method. The Vermont jury determined that Le-vine’s injury would not have occurred if Phenergan’s label included an adequate warning, and it awarded damages for her pain and suf-fering, substantial medical expenses, and loss of her livelihood as aprofessional musician. Declining to overturn the verdict, the trial court rejected Wyeth’s argument that Levine’s failure-to-warn claims were pre-empted by federal law because Phenergan’s labeling had been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: Federal law does not pre-empt Levine’s claim that Phenergan’slabel did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration. Pp. 6–25.
(a) The argument that Levine’s state-law claims are pre-empted because it is impossible for Wyeth to comply with both the state-lawduties underlying those claims and its federal labeling duties is re-jected. Although a manufacturer generally may change a drug labelonly after the FDA approves a supplemental application, the agency’s“changes being effected” (CBE) regulation permits certain preap-proval labeling changes that add or strengthen a warning to improve drug safety. Pursuant to the CBE regulation, Wyeth could have uni-laterally added a stronger warning about IV-push administration, and there is no evidence that the FDA would ultimately have rejected."


web sites with useful free information:

ABC news wellness center
http://abcnews.go.com/health/wellness

Audubon web site
http://www.audubon.org/

doctorpundit web site
http://www.doctorpundit.com/

Modis web site
http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/index.php