The 2008 FDA warning specified two different Bayer television advertisements, known as "Balloons" and "Not Going To Take It." In these two ads, women were depicted bidding farewell to significant acne and symptoms of PMS, though the drug had not been indicated for these problems. In fact, Yaz had been approved in 2006 to treat symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PDD), which relates to psychological mood ailments and is not the same as PMS. In 2007, the FDA further approved Yaz to improve mild acne – but has never indicated Yaz to resolve cases of more severe acne. In addition to claiming more significant positive side effects, these two ads failed to note the quite serious negative health problems that can be a result of Yaz. The primary ingredient in Yaz is a diuretic called drospirenone, which is known to cause high levels of potassium in the blood in some patients. This condition, known as hyperkalemia, causes excessive blood clots to form and can lead to stroke, heart attack and deep vein thrombosis. Yaz attorneys and attorneys general nationwide have called into question the legality of these ads. The conclusion of the FDA's warning to Bayer insisted that the company not only retract these two ads and any similar to them in content, but that Bayer also submit their next ad campaign to the administration for approval before airing it.

In 2009, Bayer reached a settlement with the attorneys general in which the company committed to spending at least $20 million on a new and unusual ad campaign – one that clarified the indications for Yaz as well as its side effects. Bayer's new ads featured a woman actress stating, "You may have seen some Yaz commercials recently that were not clear. The F.D.A. wants us to correct a few points in those ads." Print ads also clarified the indications and risks of Yaz. The company furthermore committed to submitting Yaz ads for federal review before making them public until 2015. For a drug that in 2008 reached $616 million in sales, the costs of Yaz lawsuits and the $20 million corrective ad campaign amount to little more than a slap on the wrist. Yaz remains the most popular oral contraceptive on the market.

Successful St. Louis Avandia lawyers have reached settlements in at least 11,500 Avandia lawsuits by showing that the corporation (G.S.K) withheld evidence showing Avandia’s connection to heart disease and heart attack.  Three studies released in 2007 – one published in the New England Journal of Medicine, another released by G.S.K. which was actually conducted in 2004, and a third conducted by the F.D.A. – all indicated that Avandia raised the risk of myocardial ischemia (heart disease) in patients.  No clear evidence of heart failure was presented through those studies, which were only conducted over the short-term and therefore could not be hoped to detect serious side effects that result from long-term use.  Clear indication of heart disease should have led G.S.K. and the F.D.A. to further research the health risks at the time.  Instead, a long-term study conducted by independent researchers was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showing Avandia’s potential to increase the risk of heart attack. 

In 2005 and 2006, G.S.K also conducted a meta-analysis of existing studies of Avandia and found that the drug caused an increase in the risk of heart problems by one-third.  G.S.K.’s delay in releasing the outcomes of the 2004 study and the 2005-2006 meta-analysis, combined with the Senate Finance Committee’s full review of 250,000 internal company documents, revelas that the company was remiss to the release of vital information that linked Avandia to serious health risks as early as 2003, meanwhile continuing to market the drug internationally.

St. Louis Avandia lawyers and others also allege that G.S.K. suppressed critical remarks made of Avandia.  In one example, a professor at the medical school at the University of North Carolina, Dr. John Buse, was threatened by the company when he made public comments about his suspicions of Avandia’s health risks.  He later formally agreed not to share his worries about Avandia in public settings.  

Despite evidence that G.S.K. was aware of  and suppressed Avandia’s severe health risks for the better part of a decade, the G.S.K. drug is still legal in the U.S. market.   This reality calls into question the effectiveness of the F.D.A.’s regulatory arm.  Due to its failure to protect U.S. consumers from profit-seeking corporation, the F.D.A. should be examined for possible corruption.

Manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, Avandia is used to treat type 2 diabetics. It functions as an insulin sensitizer, boosting the body's ability to regulate glucose levels in the blood. Clinical studies and complaints filed to the FDA have revealed that the drug is likely to increase the risk of heart attack, heart failure and stroke in patients using the drug over the long-term. Affected individuals and their families have filed Avandia lawsuits for personal injury and wrongful death related to these health risks.

Reports of these claims have been met by widespread controversy. In fact, when the FDA released its September 2010 restriction on the drug, GlaxoSmithKline (the drug's manufacturer) responded with a 30-page rebuttal stating that the evidence cited by the FDA did not match the credibility of the extensive clinical trials conducted by the company. The FDA's restriction on the drug instructed that the drug was only to be administered in patients known to be free of the adverse health risks, patients who lack other means to effectively control their glucose levels and patients who have signed a release indicating they are aware of the potential health risks associated with the drug.

In the wake of so much controversy, and in light of a rash of consumers filing an Avandia lawsuit, type 2 diabetics are seeking clarity about the drug. Questions they are asking include: If I am already taking Avandia, should I continue taking it? Is there a way to know if it is truly safe for me? Are there other drugs on the market that serve the same purpose without the health risks associated with Avandia? What recourse can I take if I feel Avandia has harmed me?

If I am already taking Avandia, should I continue taking it? Is there a way to know if it is truly safe for me? Experts agree that until an alternative therapy is prescribed by a physician, patients currently taking Avandia should continue to use the drug. The risk of not regulating their glucose levels is more immediate and certain. If taking Avandia over the long term scares you, consult with your medical provider before ceasing use of the drug.

Are there other drugs on the market that serve the same purpose without the health risks associated with Avandia? Takeda Pharmaceutical's Actos is a drug in the same class as Avandia. While it may also increase the risk of congenital heart failure, it is not known to cause heart attack, angina or stroke.

What recourse can I take if I feel that Avandia has harmed me? The FDA requests that consumers file adverse drug reaction reports through the MedWatch program. You may also join the ranks of other diabetics filing Avandia lawsuits.

Advertisements for the new e-cig device apparently invite consumers not only to violate laws and regulations regarding cigarette smoking in public places but in addition laws and regulations against using marijuana itself. The marketing campaigns suggest the brand new product "lets you now smoke marijuana in public places without getting any unwanted attention". They've already become the hottest news within the cannabis  world as the most recent method to smoke marijuana. Suppliers claim by using the newest cannabis e cig, you can smoke the illegal substance anyplace without a a lighter, odor or even smoke. Prospective purchasers are lured by the marketers guarantee that you can obtain a marijuana high from the 3 (blank) varieties that you can buy. All three varieties are apparently obtained from powerful sativa and indica strains of marijuana.

There may also be hidden hazards as users of the device breathe out the by products in public locations. What must be considered will be the issue of exposing bystanders to the residue given off from the device. Persons most vulnerable from this exposure include small children, the elderly and those with medical complications that could be exacerbated by the residue given off by the user. This can be a real problem and will be used by the FDA to win their argument that e-cigs are drug delivery systems.

Even the internet websites and vendors who sell and tend to be supportive of e-cigarettes which administer nicotine admit the advertising of this product is certain to take the discussion over smokeless cigarettes to a completely new level. The Food and drug administration has ruled that e-cigarettes made to provide nicotine are drug-delivery products and are against the law as they haven't been licensed by the Food & Drug Administration for distribution. Although it is clear that the FDA has jurisdiction over these devices, there is doubt if the legal statute giving the Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction over cigarettes relates to nicotine e-cigarettes.

The e cigarette that administers marijuana, or compounds rather than nicotine, generally are not influenced by the government statute dealing with tobacco cigarettes and nicotine administration devices. The FDA's failure to immediately prohibit this completely new item and begin suitable enforcement proceedings is clearly a problem. Prolonged failure to take any productive actions in opposition to this sort of e-cig by the FDA will simply further undermine the organizations reputation and credibility. It's going to be very interesting to see the way this one finally ends.