Wyeth officials say their hormone replacement therapy Prempro is not the cause of one Ohio woman's breast cancer. But two jury decisions prove otherwise.

The first jury, in October, awarded Jennie Nelson and her husband $1.5 million in compensatory damages, validating Nelson's claim that her breast cancer -- resulting in a double mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation -- was caused by the Prempro she took for six years. When this verdict was thrown out due to a mistrial, a retrial began.

The retrial concluded yesterday -- with a Philadelphia jury awarding the Nelsons this time with $3 million.

"Both times this case has been heard on terms established by Wyeth and still the juries have clearly found that Prempro causes breast cancer," says Nelson's attorney Tobias Millrood, adding that Wyeth puts sales ahead of patient safety.

Wyeth respectfully disagrees and argues that it acted responsibly in the promotion of its hormone replacement products and in disclosing with doctors and patients all therapy-associated health risks.

Millions of women have used Wyeth's hormone replacement therapies to control the effects of menopause, and the company, sanctioned in January to pay $1 million to an Arkansas breast cancer survivor, now faces more than 5,000 lawsuits of this same nature.

Despite a large-scale study revealing drugs like Prempro increase the risk of breast cancer if used for five years or more, the drug still remains on the market. And Wyeth is so sure their drug is not at fault for causing Nelson's breast cancer that they plan to appeal yesterday's verdict.

At the end of March, we told you about nine lawsuits filed in a California court against the makers of five of the most popular sunscreen brands in the U.S. -- Coppertone, Hawaiian Tropic, Banana Boat, Neutrogena and BullFrog -- accusing sunscreen makers of misleading consumers on how well their lotions block the sun's harmful rays, putting millions of people at risk of skin cancer.

Over the weekend, over 166 separate news stories have been filed about these lawsuits. At first I wondered why now, over two months after the news first came out about the lawsuits, suddenly the peaked interest. Are we short on new health news? Maybe.

However, with all the additional coverage, I was able to learn that the accusations might not be a matter of exaggerated claims alone, but a scurrilous attempt to skirt the laws in deliberately misrepresenting the value of sunscreen products for the purpose of profit at the expense of human lives in increased skin cancer risks. Have we just come to a time when we might as well assume that all companies deceive and that our government seems incompetent to protect its citizens? Maybe so.

Here's how this whole situation happened, and why there are now nine lawsuits filed against some of the biggest names in sunblock lotion products. Sunscreen makers claim their sunscreen lotion is waterproof and acts as a sunblock. Years ago, the FDA wanted the claims changed to read water resistant instead of waterproof and sunscreen instead of sunblock. Because the FDA has never imposed the changes, the big name sun lotion makers chose to go with the more descriptive wording that made the lotions sound more effective than they were in actual fact. To some, it might seem a matter of semantics but words have power. The change from sunblock to sunscreen and waterproof to the more accurate water resistant could mean a potential difference in profits. What's at stake? Years of consumer health.

Erin Brockovich-Ellis traveled to Ithaca to tell local homeowners she thinks they have a strong legal case against Emerson Power Transmission for damages resulting from the plant's contamination of the area with the industrial solvent, trichloroethylene, or TCE, a potentially potent carcinogen. It seeps into groundwater. According to Brockovich-Ellis, "the residents are not dealing with a rinky-dink amount of TCE," and went on to indicate that the TCE numbers are some of the highest she has ever seen. A spokesperson for Emerson is quoted as saying that the company was not aware of any lawsuit and had no comment. They might not have a comment but I seriously doubt they are unaware of the potential lawsuit or the arrival of Brockovich-Ellis.

Neither a lawyer or scientist, she has become legendary for her activism and work regarding environmental issues related to cancer incidence. What made her famous was the curious, relentless, tenacious, and fearlessness of her pursuit in exposing the truth of the incident involving Pacific Gas and Electric who had been knowingly exposing residents groundwater to the cancer-causing agent chromium 6 and the cancer deaths that followed. Like I said, because of who she is and the reputation that precedes her, I have difficulty believing the Emerson spokesperson when he states they are not even aware of the arrival of Brockovich-Ellis and the lawsuit her firm is interested in taking on against the company.

In an earlier post, TCE: groundwater contamination in toxic triangle of cancer, we shared a story about residents in Texas who plant small purple crosses in the front lawns of those who have been diagnosed with cancer. They believe they have been poisoned by the TCE that was dumped at a military base for decades and subsequently spread for miles through a shallow aquifer under the 22,000 nearby homes where they live. 

According to nine lawsuits filed in a California court against the makers of five of the most popular sunscreen brands in the U.S. -- Coppertone, Hawaiian Tropic, Banana Boat, Neutrogena and BullFrog -- sunscreen makers have been misleading consumers on how well their lotions block the sun's harmful rays, putting millions of people at risk of skin cancer. The sunscreen makers are accused of  exaggerating the effectiveness of sunscreens. One lawyer suggests that misleading labeling gives parents a false sense of safety when using suncreen to protect their children from the harmful rays of the sun. The SPF rating on a label only indicates a sunscreen lotion's ability to block UVB rays, not UVA rays. Damaging UVA rays can lead to skin cancer. Sunscreen manufacturers do not agree with the assertions made in the lawsuits. These lawsuits will certainly raise the level of awareness and discussion about the safety of sunscreens. In the meantime, there are other ways a parent can protect their children from the damaging rays of the sun.

In Pediatricians need to educate parents about sun exposure risks, some suggestions include: staying out of the sun during peak hours of 10a.m. to 4p.m., wearing a broad-brimmed hat and UV-blocking sunglasses, keeping newborns out of the sun, and teaching children good sun-protective practices.