Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drug & Device News
Study: Testosterone Therapy Not As Innocuous As Previously Thought
A study published in the online journal PLOS One says that the dangers of testosterone boosters are being overlooked, just as their benefits are being oversold to doctors and men experiencing, perhaps, only the effects of normal aging. Finkle WD, Greenland S, Ridgeway GK, Adams JL, Frasco MA, et al. (2014) Increased Risk of Non-Fatal Myocardial Infarction Following Testosterone Therapy Prescription in Men. PLoS ONE 9(1): e85805. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085805. The article, which is available online without fee or subscription, states that in men over the age of 65 with no previous history of miocardial infarction (MI) the likelihood of experiencing MI in the 90 days following an initial prescription of testosterone therapy (TT) was double that of men who did not begin such therapy. In younger men with no previous history of MI, this increased risk was not observed. However, among the younger men who did have a history of cardiac disease (about 10% of these younger men), there was a two- to three-fold increase in the risk of MI during the 90 days following first prescription. These statistics, coupled with the fact that many men are prescribed TT even though they have not been medically tested to see if they actually do have low testosterone levels that warrant treatment, trouble the study's authors, who recommend that physicians discuss the increased risk of MI with their patients before prescribing testosterone therapy drugs.
Does Advertising Cancel Out Written Warnings?
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.