@Cameron Rentch, good morning. What is your timeline on wanting us to start forever chemicals / ETO in MediLens? Wanting to have CC do a brief on them from a subject matter expert perspective to help educate James, myself and others on how to tackle these feature.
@Ryan areas we want to explore, in this order:
• Natural disasters ◦ hurricanes ◦ fires ◦ storm damage (wind and rain) ** no flooding • chemicals ◦ forever chemicals ◦ ETO ◦ pollution from chemical plants (ie see the MI Pollution campaign River Rouge that we ran) • Medical devices
@Ryan @James Scott @Cameron Rentch Given that there are already Dupixent lawsuits, it would be safe to assume other law firms knew something we didn't. I spent the last hour trying to figure out where else, aside from published research & FDA Adverse Events, these law firms would get wind of something like this.
Turns out... Quarterly, the FDA releases Newly Identified Safety Signals (NISS). That links to the Oct-Dec 2024 report with Dupixent. These are NOT label changes, it is a formal administrative step that happens when the FDA's own internal review of adverse event data found a signal of "sufficient strength to warrant further investigation".
NISS may be what lawyers are also watching, which we should strongly consider incorporating into Medilens. Also, NISS serve as evidence that the manufacturers were formally put on notice of some serious risk; very helpful for failure to warn claims!
Oh!! That is fascinating
@James Scott @CC Kitanovski can we scrape that source? How is their information published? Great find.
Here are reports dating back to 2015. Here are archived reports back to 2008.
@James Scott , let’s definitely incorporate this into the tool. Thoughts ?