DID WE MISS WARNING SIGNS THAT MAY HAVE PREVENTED THE PARKLAND, FLORIDA SHOOTING?
As a nation, we have been plagued as no other with an epidemic of gun violence that on an average day has taken 96 lives. Furthermore, for every gun violation death in the U.S., two more people are seriously injured. I am not here to debate the best solutions for reducing or eliminating this hazardous condition, especially as it affects our beloved children. Rather, I am here to suggest that had we as a country paid focused attention on early warning signs leading to a potential disaster, perhaps the disaster caused once again by gun violence, could have been avoided.
We all know by now the sometimes cliched expression, “if you see something, say something.” That’s fine (if we can agree on what we think we saw and who we should tell) but this slogan does not absolve us from paying attention to a myriad of other meaningful warning signs that, if noticed and followed, might have prevented many deaths or injuries from gun violence. So, what warning signs may we be missing?
First of all, 80% of school shooters told someone of their plans either directly or through the myriad social media platforms available to all of us. In fact, prior to the Parkland shootings, the shooter had literally advertised his plans through a variety of hateful, even illustrated postings including his own statement that he intended to bring guns to his former High School. One would hope that those who read his social media outbursts or heard from him directly, would warn local health officials and/or law enforcement agencies.
According to the anti-gun violence group, Sandy Hook Promise, some of the most important warnings signs of a pending gun violence disaster include:
- Being over aggressive and/or lacking self-control.
- Chronic social isolation or social rejection typically from bullying.
- Threatening behavior such as bringing a gun to school or bragging to friends about an upcoming attack.
- Mental illness and/or behavioral shifts, including a mental illness diagnosis or major changes in a person’s eating, sleeping or other daily activities.
- Anti-social behavior such as severe destruction of property or hostility toward law enforcement.
- A strong fascination or obsession with firearms (e.g., the Florida shooter actually had ten guns in addition to an AR-13, a weapon of war with capabilities of firing as many as 50 shots/minute (not exactly the kind of gun we need to hunt deer or protect our homes).
There is no guarantee that observing and reporting some or even all of these early warning signs would, with certainty, have prevented many of our nation’s horrific mass shootings in the last 20 years. But one thing we know for sure is that there will be many more mass shootings. While Congress and local governments either cynically or seriously debate potential solutions to this crisis, we the people have to take matters into our own hands by vigilantly looking out for the above and possibly other warning signs and immediately reporting them to health or law enforcement authorities. Our lives and those of our children demand our involvement in preventing such tragedies.
The FDA is delaying implementation of a rule that would require food companies to print nutritional information on the front labels of their products. The proposed rule was developed by President Biden’s Administration, with a comment period scheduled to close on May 16. The rule is designed to help consumers make better choices to avoid chronic health problems. Such problems—and consumer choices about nutrition—are things President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has repeatedly touted. Even though hundreds of comments have been filed about the proposed rule, Kennedy’s Food and Drug Administration is delaying the close of the comment period by 60 days. Most of the comments filed so far have come from food companies and food industry trade organizations. “ A 60-day comment period extension allows adequate time for interested parties to submit comments while also not significantly delaying rulemaking on the important issues in the proposed rule ,” according to the FDA’s announcement about the delay.
Car accidents are a leading cause of injury and death worldwide, yet the safety measures designed to protect occupants in these life-or-death situations have long ignored a critical reality: women are more likely to be severely injured or killed in crashes than men. This disparity isn't rooted in biology alone—it’s also a result of a troubling oversight in the automotive industry’s safety testing protocols. For decades, crash-test dummies, which serve as proxies for human passengers in simulated collisions, have been modeled after the average male physique, leaving women out of the equation entirely. The Alarming Data Gap The implications of this gender gap in safety testing are both staggering and infuriating. Women, on average, have different body compositions than men—they tend to be shorter, lighter, and have different muscle distributions and bone densities. These physiological differences mean that women’s bodies interact with car safety features—such as seat belts, airbags, and headrests—in distinct ways. When vehicles aren’t tested with dummies that accurately represent female anatomy, crucial data about how to better protect women in crashes is simply ignored. Studies have revealed the dire consequences of this exclusion. Research from the University of Virginia found that women are 47% more likely to sustain serious injuries in car accidents compared to men, even when accounting for variables like seatbelt usage and crash severity. Women are also significantly more likely to suffer whiplash injuries due to the positioning of headrests, which are often designed with men’s neck dimensions in mind. These statistics aren’t just numbers—they represent lives cut short, families broken, and untold suffering that could have been mitigated with equitable safety testing.
Recent budget cuts at the Health and Safety Science Services (HSSS) have sent shockwaves through the scientific and public health communities, threatening the very infrastructure designed to protect us from disease outbreaks, food contamination, and medical crises. These cuts have affected food inspectors, vaccine scientists, Alzheimer’s researchers, and experts studying bird flu, among others—positions that are essential to ensuring public safety and advancing critical medical research. The consequences of these decisions will be dire, potentially reversing years of progress and exposing society to increased health risks.
As Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) pushes for sweeping reforms and cost-cutting across federal agencies, concerns are mounting over the impact on critical public safety roles. Among the most alarming areas affected is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), where staff reductions may threaten the lives of millions of air travelers. The DGE, established with a mandate to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucratic waste, has come under fire for its aggressive downsizing tactics. Critics warn that essential safety personnel, including air traffic controllers, are being cut under the guise of efficiency, leaving the nation's airspace dangerously understaffed.
Biden Administration former Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, on his way out of office, issued a Surgeon General's Advisory calling for new warnings on alcoholic beverages related to the cancer risk from consuming alcoholic beverages. Given that most individuals are unaware of the connection that consumption of alcoholic beverages can increase the risk for at least seven types of cancer, Murthy said in his advisory: "Given the conclusive evidence on the cancer risk from alcohol consumption and the Office of the Surgeon General's responsibility to inform the American public of the best available scientific evidence, the Surgeon General recommends an update to the Surgeon General's warning label for alcohol-containing beverages to include a cancer risk warning."
In my best-selling book, Murder, Inc.: How Unregulated Industry Kills or Injures Thousands of Americans Every Year...And What You Can Do About It , I propose a safety triad consisting of three components: manufacturers, regulators and consumers. All three must function properly in order to keep us safe. Manufacturers must produce and market safe (or safe as possible) products and warn us about any potential hazards so that we can make informed choices about whether or not to purchase their product and/or how to use it safely. Regulators , by imposing and implementing necessary rules and regulations, should hold manufacturers accountable for the above stated actions and to endure that they engage in "principled disclosure" by warning us about any potential hazards and dangers associated with their products. And, finally, Consumers , especially in the absence of well-meaning manufacturers or competent, well-intentioned regulators, must be highly diligent by researching products and learning about potential hazards prior to buying and/or using them. All three, manufacturers, regulators and consumers, must perform their jobs or the safety triad may fail to protect us and our loved ones. Think of a three-legged stool that distributes the weight of a person sitting on the stool, equally among the three legs. But what would happen if we leaned heavily to one side of the stool, essentially spreading the weight that was once borne by three legs to the two legs remaining braced to the floor. Unfortunately the third leg is no longer contributing to the stability of the stool, which may actually collapse because the two remaining legs may not be able to handle the amount of weight that was intended to be equally distributed among all three legs.
If you or anyone in your family has used, uses or plans to use such over the counter (OTC) remedies for the flu or common cold as Theraflu, Robitussin, NyQuil, DayQuil, Mucinex, Sudafed or even some versions of Tylenol or Advil, you may want to read this newsletter very carefully.
In an unprecedented, but, according to many social scientists and parents, a long overdue action, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, in a June editorial in the New York Times, called for a warning label to be placed on all social media platforms. In the words of the Surgeon General:
If you are one of the millions of Americans who recently purchased one of several Boar's Head Deli Products, you may have bought a product containing deadly listeria bacteria. At least nine people have died and 57 have been hospitalized from a listeria outbreak linked to deli meat, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In late July, Boar’s Head, a deli meat and cheese company, expanded a previously announced recall to include at least 7 million pounds of deli products the company says may have been contaminated by listeria amid a nationwide outbreak. The recall spans 71 products and includes meat meant to be sliced at retail delis along with prepackaged meat and poultry products sold at retail locations, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In my best-selling book, Murder, Inc.: How Unregulated Industry Kills or Injures Thousands of Americans Every Year...And What You Can Do About It (Hartford, Ct.:PYP Press, 2020), I discuss the need for "principled disclosure" from corporations about potential hazards that could hurt or kill us. I also discuss the role we as consumers play by seeking information about those hazards and finally, the role various regulatory agencies must play to initiate and enforce meaningful regulations on industry so that they do, indeed, engage in "principled disclosure" (i.e., tell the truth). In order to carry out its mandate, any regulatory agency or department charged with the responsibility of protecting the general public or consumers or workers and so on, must be empowered to both set the safety and hazard warnings rules and take aggressive, impactful action when they are not followed. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark 6-3 vote last month, overturned a 60-year old decision, colloquially known as "Chevron", which has the potential to undermine our government's regulatory agencies' ability to hold corporations accountable. What is the Chevron Decision and how could it impact your safety and well-being? In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled against energy giant, Chevron, who challenged the Clean-Air Act, and instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear. The 40-year-old decision has been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state. In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes. But the current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. With a closely divided Congress, presidential administrations have increasingly turned to federal regulation to implement policy changes. Federal rules impact virtually every aspect of everyday life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe and homes we live in. For example, the Biden administration has issued a whole host of new regulations on the environment, including restrictions from emissions at power plants and from vehicle tailpipes. Those actions and others could be opened up to legal challenges if judges are allowed to discount or disregard the expertise of the executive-branch agencies that put them into place. When you consider who was advocating for the overturn of Chevron, it does not bode well for consumers and their safety: groups representing the gun industry and other businesses such as tobacco, agriculture, timber and homebuilding, were among those pressing the justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine and weaken government regulation. Can you imagine the FDA being defanged by Chevron-influenced lawsuits to the point where tobacco could sell their products to teens or resume advertising on television, a practice banned by Congress since 1970. Or imagine OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations being stripped away that protect worker safety? Or a CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) challenged on its stringent toy regulations that are aimed at infant choking hazards? Or a Department of Agriculture no longer able to inspect meat with the rigor that industry now faces? Or a NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) no longer able to regulate the safety of our automobiles, especially now as we address the feasibility and safety of self-driving vehicles?
