circumcision and health

There is a big debate online in certain mother forums about circumcision and "why would you want to operate on something that God created?" along with big icons "NO CIRC" and references to mutilation when it comes to the practice in the US. It's amazing to me that mothers become so heated in discussing something already proven to reduce the incidence of HIV infection in men and now, according to the New York Times, reduces the transmission of both herpes simplex virus Type 2 and human papilloma virus. The study was a randomized clinical trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine assigned more than 3,000 uncircumcised Ugandan men who were not infected with HSV-2 to undergo immediate circumcision or to be circumcised 24 months from the start of the investigation. A subgroup was similarly evaluated for HPV infection. The study showed a 25% reduced risk of infection. Of course, the results don't apply to their partners. For the types of HPV that cause genital cancer, the results were about 18 percent of circumcised men were infected at the end of two years, compared with almost 28 percent in the control group making a 35 percent reduced risk of infection. Unfortunately, when you are in the hospital or at home with a midwife giving birth to a baby boy, the full information isn't given to the parents (the ones making the decision) concerning the benefits or risks in either. In fact, in the US, the rates of circumcision are declining, especially among black and Hispanic patients, the same groups with high rates of HIV, herpes infection, and cervical cancer. Sixteen states don't allow Medicaid to pay for routine circumcision.

reglan and tardive dyskinesia

FDA notified healthcare professionals that a boxed warning had to be added to drug labels about the risk of long-term or high-dose use of metoclopramide (reglan) and the possibility of tardive dyskinesia.    There is no reversal of tardive dyskinesia and no treatment available. What is tardive dyskinesia?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_3bbpFjI68]

Arizona Academy of Family Physicians

Laura Hahn, the director of the Arizona Academy of Family Physicians is spearheading the argument against the Arizona Pharmacy Alliance's attempt to allow pharmacies to dispense vaccinations without the need of a prescription.  Unbelievably, the pharmacists won the first round.  Both sides are using public health as their argument.  The pharmacists are arguing that the rates of the public health actually getting the flu vaccine (among others) are lower than the CDC recommends due to the lack of health insurance.  Doctors are arguing that pharmacists would be putting people at risk. It's quite ironic to me that the very people preaching about vaccinations and compliance are the ones who just want to make an extra dollar.  It's not about public health.  One point:

Hahn said her doctors have no problem with pharmacists administering routine flu or pneumonia vaccines without a prescription.

“But certain vaccines, for the safety of the public, need to be given in a medical (or) home situation,” she said.

Some of that, she said, is because a doctor would be more familiar with a patient’s family history and the possibility of allergic reactions. And some of it, Hahn said, is that giving a vaccine involves more than just injecting it.

She specifically mentioned the HPV vaccine being marketed to teen girls designed to prevent a type of virus transmitted by sexual contact. Hahn said a doctor who might prescribe this would tell a patient that the vaccine prevents neither pregnancy nor other sexually transmitted diseases, “not things that would be discussed (with a patient) by a pharmacist.”

“Patient safety has to come first,” Hahn said.

Patient safety has to come first?  You are telling me that it is assumed a pharmacist cannot tell a patient that the HPV virus won't protect them from STDs?

What is coming first here is the Almighty Dollar yet again.  Doctors don't want to lose more money to pharmacists.

And YES.  We did take years of pharmacology vs. a semester by most physicians.  Do we claim that the patients' health is at risk because a doctor accidentally gives two drugs that interact with one another together because he/she didn't know?

Article here.

Aluminum Toxicity

Link Just curious why there is a new substance that Dr. Sears looks into now after mercury... aluminum.  Anyone have any insight into why the FDA puts a restriction yet many vaccine contain aluminum?

Is Aluminum the New Thimerosal? By Robert W. Sears Issue 146, January/February 2008

Vaccines have become the most controversial parenting topic of the decade. When parents are considering whether or not to vaccinate their children, one of the things that must be considered is aluminum toxicity.

Aluminum is added to a number of vaccines to help them work better. Normally, one wouldn't consider aluminum to be a problem. It's a naturally occurring element that is present everywhere in our environment—in food, water, air, and soil. It's also a main ingredient in over-the-counter antacids. And because the body doesn't absorb aluminum, it's harmless when swallowed.

I didn't think much about aluminum when, 13 years ago, I began researching vaccines. In fact, the early seminars on vaccine education that I offered to parents included a brief statement that aluminum was nothing to worry about. But as I read each product insert and saw the number of micrograms (mcg) of aluminum contained in several vaccines, I wondered, "Has anyone determined what a safe level of injected aluminum actually is?" I didn't have to wonder for long, because the answer is easy to find; go to www.fda.gov, search on "aluminum toxicity," and you'll find several documents about aluminum.

The first document I came across discusses the labeling of aluminum content in injected dextrose solutions (the sugar solutions added to intravenous fluids in hospitals): "Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration [i.e., injected into the body] if kidney function is impaired. Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates [i.e., babies], who received parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading [i.e., toxic buildup in certain body tissues] may occur at even lower rates of administration."¹ For a tiny newborn, this toxic dose would be 10 to 20 mcg; for an adult, it would be about 350 mcg.

The second document discusses aluminum content in IV feeding solutions, or Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) solutions. The FDA requires these solutions to contain no more than 25 mcg of aluminum per liter of solution. A typical adult in the hospital would get around 1 liter of TPN each day, thus about 25 mcg of aluminum. The FDA document also states, "Aluminum content in parenteral drug products could result in a toxic accumulation of aluminum in individuals receiving TPN therapy. Research indicates that neonates and patient populations with impaired kidney function may be at high risk of exposure to unsafe amounts of aluminum. Studies show that aluminum may accumulate in the bone, urine, and plasma of infants receiving TPN. Many drug products used routinely in parenteral therapy may contain levels of aluminum sufficiently high to cause clinical manifestations [i.e., symptoms]. . . Aluminum toxicity is difficult to identify in infants because few reliable techniques are available to evaluate bone metabolism in premature infants. . . Although aluminum toxicity is not commonly detected clinically, it can be serious in selected patient populations, such as neonates, and may be more common than is recognized."²

Elsewhere, I found a relevant 2004 statement by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), a group that monitors oral and injectable nutritional products for safety and side effects. It reiterated the cited FDA warnings to the letter, and recommended that doctors purchase IV products with the lowest aluminum content possible, "and should monitor changes in the pharmaceutical market that may affect aluminum concentrations."³

The source of the daily limit of 4 to 5 mcg of aluminum per kilogram of body weight quoted by the ASPEN statement seems to be a study that compared the neurologic development of about 100 premature babies who were fed a standard IV solution that contained aluminum, with the development of 100 premature babies who were fed the same solution with almost all aluminum filtered out. The study was prompted by a number of established facts: that injected aluminum can build up to toxic levels in the bloodstream, bones, and brain; that preemies have decreased kidney function and thus a higher risk of toxicity; that an autopsy performed on one preemie whose sudden death was otherwise unexplained revealed high aluminum concentrations in the brain; and that aluminum toxicity can cause progressive dementia. The infants who were given IV solutions containing aluminum showed impaired neurologic and mental development at 18 months, compared to the babies who were fed much lower amounts of aluminum. Those who got aluminum received an average of 500 mcg of the metal over a period of 10 days, or about 50 mcg per day. The other group received only about 10 mcg of aluminum daily—4 to 5 mcg per kilogram of body weight per day.⁴ This seems to be the source of this safety level.

However, none of these documents or studies mentions vaccines; they look only at IV solutions and injectable medications. Nor does the FDA require labels on vaccines warning about the dangers of aluminum toxicity, although such labels are required for all other injectable medications.

All of these studies and label warnings seem to apply mainly to premature babies and kidney patients. What about larger, full-term babies with healthy kidneys? Using the 5 mcg/kg/day criterion from the first document as a minimum amount we know a healthy baby could handle, a 12-pound, two-month-old baby could safely receive at least 30 mcg of aluminum per day. A 22-pound one-year-old could receive at least 50 mcg safely. Babies with healthy kidneys could probably handle much more than this, but we at least know that they can handle this much. However, these documents don't tell us what the maximum safe dose would be for a healthy baby or child, and I can't find such information anywhere. This is probably why the ASPEN group suggests, and the FDA requires, that all injectable solutions be limited to 25 mcg; we at least know that that level is safe.

Calculating Aluminum in Vaccines Here are the current levels of aluminum per shot of the following vaccines, as listed on each vaccine's packaging:

• DTaP (for Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis): 170-��625 mcg, depending on manufacturer
• Hepatitis A: 250 mcg
• Hepatitis B: 250 mcg
• HIB (for meningitis; PedVaxHib brand only): 225 mcg
• HPV: 225 mcg
• Pediarix (DTaP-��Hepatitis B-��Polio combination): 850 mcg
• Pentacel (DTaP-��HIB-��Polio combination): 330 mcg
• Pneumococcus: 125 mcg

In other words, a newborn who gets a Hepatitis B injection on day one of life would receive 250 mcg of aluminum. This would be repeated at one month with the next Hep B shot. When, at two months, a baby gets its first big round of shots, the total dose of aluminum could vary from 295 mcg (if a non-aluminum HIB and the lowest-aluminum brand of DTaP are used) to a whopping 1225 mcg (if the Hep B vaccine is given along with the brands with the highest aluminum contents). These doses are repeated at four and six months. With most subsequent rounds of shots, a child would continue to get some aluminum throughout the first two years. But the FDA recommends that premature babies, and anyone with impaired kidney function, receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at any one time.

As a medical doctor, my first instinct was to worry that these aluminum levels far exceed what may be safe for babies. My second instinct was to assume that the issue had been properly researched, and that studies had been done on healthy infants to determine their ability to rapidly excrete aluminum. My third instinct was to search for these studies. So far, I have found none. It's likely the FDA thinks that the kidneys of healthy infants work well enough to excrete aluminum before it can circulate through the body, accumulate in the brain, and cause toxic effects. However, I can find no references in FDA documents that show that using aluminum in vaccines has been tested and found to be safe.

So I did what any pediatrician would do. I turned to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), who in 1996 published a policy statement, "Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children," that made the following points:

• Aluminum can cause neurologic harm.
• A study from 30 years ago showed that human adults increase their urine excretion of aluminum when exposed to higher levels of the metal, which suggests that adults can clear out excess aluminum.
• Adults taking aluminum-containing antacids don't build up high levels of aluminum in their bodies.
• Reports of infants with healthy kidneys show elevated blood levels of aluminum from taking antacids.
• People with kidney disease who build up bloodstream levels of aluminum greater than 100 mcg per liter are at risk of toxicity.
• The toxic threshold of aluminum in the bloodstream may be lower than 100 mcg per liter.
• The buildup of aluminum in tissues has been seen even in patients with healthy kidneys who receive IV solutions containing aluminum over extended periods.⁵

However, nowhere in this paper was there any mention of aluminum in vaccines.

To put this in perspective: Because the body of the average adult contains about 5 liters of blood, receiving more than 500 mcg of aluminum in the bloodstream all at once will be toxic if the kidneys aren't working well. (Toxicity has also been seen in patients with healthy kidneys.) Because a newborn's body contains about a liter (300 milliliters) of blood, more than 30 mcg of aluminum floating around in the bloodstream could be toxic if the baby's kidneys aren't working well. The body of a toddler or preschool-age child contains about 1 liter of blood, so more than 100 mcg in his system could be toxic—and, as we've seen, babies can receive more than 1000 mcg of injected aluminum all at one time. Fortunately, this amount doesn't all go into the blood at once, but is slowly diffused into the bloodstream over a period of time from the muscle or skin where it was injected.

But that is the main point of this article. No one has measured the levels of aluminum absorption by the bloodstream when it is injected into the skin and muscle of infants, or the levels of excretion from the body via urination. All of the FDA and AAP documents that I've read state that aluminum might be a problem, but that they haven't studied it yet, so we should limit the amount of aluminum included in injectable solutions. But, again, no one is talking about the levels of aluminum in vaccines.

What I think may have happened is that because aluminum used to be found in only one vaccine—DTP, an older version of the current DTaP vaccine—no one thought much about it. Then, in the 1980s, the PedVaxHib brand of HIB meningitis vaccine was released, which also included aluminum; but other brands of HIB vaccine did not, so again, no one thought much about it. In the 1990s, the Hepatitis B vaccine began to be widely used; in the 2000s, the Pneumococcus vaccine; and, more recently, the Hepatitis A vaccine. Administering one aluminum-containing vaccine at a time involves only a small amount of the metal; administering four such vaccines simultaneously is a different story. It seems this issue has simply escaped everyone's attention. Or has it?

Limited Studies limit thinking Several years ago, some suspected cases of aluminum toxicity resulted in various neurologic and degenerative problems. The Cochrane Collaboration, a group that studies health-care issues around the world, wanted to look at a very large study group to see if there was a real correlation between neurologic problems and the aluminum in vaccines. They investigated all the reported side effects of one aluminum-containing vaccine, DTP (no longer used), and looked for any evidence that such vaccines caused more side effects than non-aluminum vaccines. Other than more redness, swelling, and pain at the injection site, they found no indication that an aluminum-containing vaccine caused any more problems, and concluded that no further research should be undertaken on this topic.⁶ That is a very bold statement. Most researchers will draw conclusions from the findings of their own research; it's unusual to say that no one else should do any more research into the matter.

This is especially surprising because of the limitations of the Cochrane Collaboration's study. They looked at the effects of only one standard aluminum-containing vaccine, rather than the effects of all four being administered at once. They didn't study aluminum metabolism itself. They didn't test aluminum levels in children after vaccination, nor did they explore whether or not the amount of aluminum in vaccines builds up in the brain or bone tissues. They looked only for evidence of external symptoms of aluminum toxicity, not internal effects. Nor did they do their own research; instead, they reviewed all available studies conducted by other investigators. Despite all this, the Cochrane Collaboration study essentially closed the book on investigating aluminum toxicity from vaccines, without really having opened it in the first place.

The most obvious way to study this matter would be to inject various amounts of aluminum into children and see what happens to them internally. We know from the FDA documents that aluminum toxicity does occur from other types of injectable treatments; that it accumulates in the brain and bones in toxic amounts; that this may occur more commonly than is recognized; and that aluminum toxicity is hard to detect by looking for external symptoms. The question remains: What happens when these amounts of aluminum are injected via vaccines? Vaccine manufacturers may have begun to wonder about the same thing; I found some interesting research in the product insert of the new HPV vaccine, Gardasil. In researching the safety of Gardasil, Merck & Co., Inc., the vaccine's developer and manufacturer, added a step to their testing procedure by injecting aluminum into a separate group of test subjects used as a safety control group. They then compared the side effects of the Gardasil vaccine with a saline placebo that contained neither Gardasil nor aluminum, as well as with the placebo containing no Gardasil but the same amount of aluminum as the vaccine. They found that the placebo containing aluminum was much more painful than the saline placebo, and about as painful as the full HPV shot. The aluminum placebo also caused much more redness, swelling, and itching than the saline placebo, though not quite as much as the full HPV shot.

Unfortunately, Merck looked only at the effects of aluminum at the injection site. Nor did they state in the Gardasil product insert what role the aluminum placebo played in all the other standard side effects, such as fever and flu-like symptoms. Nor did they study the body's internal metabolism of aluminum. However, their research did show how irritating aluminum can be when injected into the muscles. It was a good first step. If aluminum can be toxic, why not just remove it from vaccines, as is being done with the preservative thimerosal, which contains the neurotoxin mercury? It's not that simple. Aluminum is an adjuvant; in other words, it helps vaccines work more effectively. When the metal is mixed with a vaccine, the body's immune system more easily recognizes the vaccine and creates antibodies against the disease. Thimerosal was easy to omit, because it has nothing to do with the efficacy of the vaccine itself. But the pharmaceutical companies would need good evidence that aluminum is harmful before they would invest in coming up with new, aluminum-free vaccines. (The Cochrane Collaboration report pointed out that removing aluminum from vaccines would then require extensive trials of the reformulated vaccines.⁷)

What, exactly, does a toxic level of aluminum do to the brain? While no one has studied healthy babies to see how much, if any, aluminum builds up in the brain from the amounts of aluminum used in vaccines, the study on IV feeding solutions in premature babies mentioned above revealed that aluminum impaired their neurologic and mental development.⁸ But that was in premature babies, not healthy, full-term infants. I found several animal studies involving aluminum and/or aluminum-containing vaccines that did show neurologic harm. Not only did aluminum build up in the brain and cause damage, but some of the damage looked similar to what is seen in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.^9-1314 However, it's hard to draw conclusions about aluminum's effects on humans from studies of animals. What we need are more studies of human infants.

A Call for Better Research There is good evidence that large amounts of aluminum are harmful to humans. Because no meaningful research has specifically been done on aluminum in vaccines, there is no existing evidence that the amount in vaccines is harmful to infants and children. However, no one has actually studied aluminum levels in healthy human infants after vaccination to make sure it is safe. Should we now stop and research this matter? Or should we just go on, continuing to hope that it is safe to use aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines?

Vaccine policy makers and advocates may read this article, review my perspective, and initiate research studies to explore the risks of aluminum. I would hope that those researchers do not conduct a retrospective review of all the old vaccine safety studies and journal articles to look for the side effects of aluminum. As the FDA, AAP, and others have stated, aluminum toxicity can't be detected by external observation alone. It would be a waste of time, and a grave disservice to the health of America's children, to have several such reports show up in the medical literature. The only way the issue of aluminum safety can be put to rest is to conduct real-time studies on thousands of infants and measure aluminum levels after vaccination.

In such a study, the researchers should look not only at blood levels. They should also find out whether or not aluminum accumulates in the body, where it accumulates, how the body eliminates it, and at what rate. Once I see such research, and have determined to my satisfaction that aluminum has been proven safe, I will post an update on www.thevaccinebook.com, and revise future editions of the book accordingly. If such research finds that aluminum may not be safe, then I would expect a new vaccine schedule to be adopted in which the administering of vaccines is spread out to minimize the amount of aluminum a child receives at any given time. I would also expect vaccine manufacturers to begin finding ways to reduce or remove aluminum from vaccines without compromising their effectiveness. We need to know the answers to many questions: Why does one brand of HIB vaccine require aluminum to make it work while another brand does not? Why does one brand of DTaP vaccine contain four times as much aluminum as another?

Learning from the Past I worry that aluminum may end up being another thimerosal. I am relieved that, as of 2002, the mercury-containing preservative had been removed from most vaccines. But according to an article in the Los Angeles Times, Merck & Co., the makers of several vaccines, knew in 1991 that the cumulative amount of mercury in vaccines given to infants by six months of age was about 87 times the level then thought to be safe.14 The article includes a copy of an internal memo, written by one of Merck's research doctors and sent to the president of Merck's vaccine division, clearly stating the doctor's worry about mercury overload. What was done with that information back in 1991? We'll never know. What we do know is that vaccine manufacturers knew that we were overdosing babies, but that the mercury wasn't removed from vaccines until 10 years later. This was because few paid attention to the potential problems with mercury. When we did find out, we hoped it wasn't harmful, we did extensive research to try to show that it wasn't, and we slowly removed it from most vaccines.

The issue of mercury toxicity from vaccines is moot for infants receiving vaccines today, as long as doctors and parents choose a flu shot without mercury, know which brands of vaccines still contain barely detectable traces of mercury, and are aware that some plain Tetanus and Diphtheria-Tetanus vaccines still contain mercury (though these last vaccines are not parts of the routine vaccine schedule). [For a current list of vaccines and their thimerosal contents, go to www.vaccine safety.edu/thi-table.htm.—Ed.]

What isn't moot is the question of aluminum toxicity. As doctors, we can choose certain vaccine brands that contain less or no aluminum. We can be careful about giving only one aluminum-containing vaccine at a time. And we can talk about it instead of sweeping the issue under the rug. I pray that my fears about aluminum are unfounded, and that objective studies performed by completely independent groups with no ties to vaccine manufacturers or political organizations show that it is safe. If not, I would hope that manufacturers would start to reduce or eliminate the aluminum content of their vaccines as soon as possible. I know this won't be an easy task, but our children are worth it.

Excerpted from The Vaccine Book � 2007 by Robert Sears, MD. Reprinted by permission of Little, Brown and Company. New York, NY. All rights reserved. For more information, see www.thevaccinebook.com. For the notes to this article, see www.mothering.com/ articles/growing_child/vaccines/aluminum-new-thimerosal-notes.html.

Accutane and Side Effects

One of the news programs at night had a documentary on a murder that happened where the perpetrator had mental issues and had taken a few doses of accutane prescribed by a doctor a few years earlier.  He promptly discontinued the drug after experiencing headaches, etc... but spent the next few years on a message board ranting about the drug and ultimately tracked down the doctor that prescribed it and murdered him. If I remember correctly, the guy only took two days of it.  Having taken accutane myself for 6 months in 2000, I realize that there are some nasty things about accutane that have made it a very controlled drug as far as obtaining it.  But, for me the drug was very useful.  In my case, I had severely oily skin not so much acne.  What accutane did was to shrink my oil glands a bit.  I don't struggle in the same way but maybe being a pharmacist helped the dermatologist treating me (same age as me in fact) collaborate on a "cure" for what I was trying to accomplish.

When I saw the news last night showing this young man in his twenties literally having a psychotic breakdown, I could see how perhaps accutane could have had some role, but at the same time the murderer already had a history of mental illness.  Perhaps accutane and the doctor that prescribed it were merely a part of his obsessions with his instability.  I shudder to think that he could have included the pharmacist that filled the medication.  Luckily somehow, that person fell out of the loop.

Here's the link to the family's website about their murdered father (physician).

Here's a link to write a letter for the murderer to be extradited back to the US to face charges.

Commercial Drug Mascots

One of the most annoying things about pharmaceutical commercials is branding.  I cannot stand the Nasonex bee.  I'm serious, when I see the little bee flying around talking about the great things about Nasonex treating all sorts of allergies, I want to scream!

Doesn't he look cute and make you want to go out and buy this fabulous product?

Then of course the wonderful ending:

Side effects were generally mild and included headache, viral infection, sore throat, nosebleeds, and coughing. NASONEX® is available by prescription only. Maximum effect is usually achieved within 1 to 2 weeks. Talk to your doctor to find out whether NASONEX® is right for you or your child. It is important that you take it regularly at the time recommended by your physician, since its effectiveness depends on regular use.

I think personally I would rather have some allergies than headaches, viral infections, sore throat, nosebleeds, and coughing.

And isn't it ironic that bees are another form of allergen... yet it's the MASCOT for Nasonex!?

Paternity Testing Available More Discreetly

Friday , February 29, 2008

By Marrecca Fiore

Who needs Maury Povich when paternity tests are now available at Rite Aid, Meijer and other pharmacies for just $29.99?

The Identigene DNA Paternity Test Collection Kit was first rolled out in Washington State, Oregon and California in November last year, according to Rite Aid spokeswoman Ashley Flower. The company continues to evaluate whether it should expand the kits to other states, she said.

According to the Identigene's Web site, the tests compare genetic information obtained from cheek swabs collected from both the child and the father. The swabs are then sent to the company's laboratory along with a $119 lab fee. The results are mailed within five business days.

While the tests are believed to be accurate (the company's Web site says they're 99 percent accurate), there are some reasons why women and couples may want to consult a professional laboratory for paternity tests, said Brad Imler, president of the American Pregnancy Association.

"There's no risk of harm from a medical standpoint," he said. "Although they're not admissible in court. And, from an emotional standpoint, it's a good idea to see a professional. It doesn't have to be a doctor, but someone who is prepared to discuss the result with you if it comes back in a way you were not expecting."

Imler said some people, especially married couples, may find the results of paternity tests traumatic.

"Whatever the circumstances are that bring someone to the point of needing a paternity test, that's irrelevant," he said. "The professionals associated with the laboratories are trained to present the results in a way that doesn't cause panic or in a way that reduces panic."

Both Rite Aid and Identigene representatives say the tests have brought no more controversy than at-home home pregnancy, blood pressure, cholesterol and drug tests did when they were first introduced.

"There was a lot of concern when the home pregnancy test first came out," said Douglas Fogg, chief operating officer for Identigene. "Would people use it correctly? Would people be able to handle the results?

"We have been providing home DNA testing since 1993 and on the rare occasion we'll have a client that has a hard time dealing with the results," he continued. "Most of our clientele are aware of what the results will be. They don't want to involve lawyers or physicians. They just want confirmation in a quick, easy and confidential way."

Fogg said the company’s Web site provides consumers with counseling information

"Some people are devastated by the result of a paternity test," he said. "A paternity test can have a life-changing result. For those that need professional help in dealing with their situation, our Web site offers references to family counseling services that can provide people with the help they need."

Fogg said 60 percent of Identigene's clients are females. Some users are looking to confirm their own paternity. Almost 30 percent of purchasers buy the test for someone other than themselves, according to the company's own surveys.

The tests are sold in 1,000 pharmacies nationwide, Fogg said. He said all pharmacies have reported sales and the company is pleased with the interest. The tests are also marketed online and through resellers.

Live Claritin Clear

And have silicosis. The reason I write this is that there is a commercial on TV right now featuring the wonderdrug Claritin. This commercial features a sculptor of some sort banging on a statue and makes the comment that if "he were to sneeze, he might take the statue's nose off."  (It's important not to sneeze) The funny thing is that the man is wearing no form of ventilation protection and silica is flying around everywhere.  He's inhaling it.  It's dusty in the air.

I think he should worry about bigger things -- like Silicosis:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

ICD-10	J62.
ICD-9	502

Silicosis (also known as Grinder's disease and Potter's rot) is a form of occupational lung disease caused by inhalation of crystalline silica dust, and is marked by inflammation and scarring in forms of nodular lesions in the upper lobes of the lungs.

Silicosis (especially the acute form) is characterized by shortness of breath, fever, and cyanosis (bluish skin). It may often be misdiagnosed as pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), pneumonia, or tuberculosis.

This respiratory disease was first recognized in 1705 by Ramazzini who noticed sand-like substances in the lungs of stonecutters. The name silicosis (from the Latin silex or flint) was attributed to Visconti in 1870.

The full name for this disease when caused by the specific exposure to fine silica dust found in volcanoes is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, and at 45 letters it is the longest word in any of the major English dictionaries. (The name has been described as a "trophy word"—its only job is to serve as the longest word.^[1])

Once again proving that Schering Corporation didn't think about this or ask ANYONE before airing this incredibly stupid commercial.

Can someone PLEASE let them know?

Brain Shivers... Brain Zaps... Brain Shocks...

I do not know if many in the medical community are aware of this term that is thrown out there for such offenders as venlafaxine (Effexor), duloxetine (Cymbalta), paroxetine (Paxil), fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), fluvoxamine (Luvox), citalopram (Celexa), and escitalopram (Lexapro), but it is a very real phenomenon. Unfortunately, though many in the medical community have not had to rely on any of these meds in their own personal lives, I had a 2-3 year stint with venlafaxine from 2002-03. Basically, I presented with the inability to sleep due to anxiety of some personal issues (which we all have from time to time), and did not want a controlled substance. I tried paroxetine first and absolutely despised the drug. I quit cold turkey. Very smart for a pharmacist, right? (You can't just stop cold turkey and expect to not endure some uncomfortable sensory disturbances.) I found venlafaxine, at 75 mg extended release, to be a very good drug for its purpose of 9 to 12 months. However, what I didn't expect was that weaning from the drug would be so uncomfortable. 75 mg in itself is not even a moderate dose, falling more into the lower dose category. I've seen higher doses much more than the lower doses.

To explain what I felt, I will do my best to try to break down into words the feelings. Initially, there was a sinking feeling in my brain. If you've ever been to the Grand Canyon or a very tall building and looked down, there is a falling feeling that your brain sometimes throws at you though you are not falling at all. That feeling would happen for very short bursts, 2-3 seconds, enough to disrupt my thoughts, my work, and my being. I would just think, "What was that?" If I tapered over the recommended taper schedule (usually a week at a time step down, but keep in mind there's only one strength lower than the 75 mg XR - the 37.5 mg XR. Then where do I go? Literally it didn't matter. The big divide between the 75 mg and the 37.5 mg was enough to cause the "shivers" in my brain - a disorientation, falling, weird, and uncomfortable feeling.

"Brain zaps" are said to defy description for whomever has not experienced them, but the most common themes are of a sudden "jolt," likened to an electric shock, apparently occurring or originating within the brain itself, with associated disorientation for a few seconds. The phenomenon is most often reported as a brief, wave-like electrical pulse that quickly travels across the surface of (or through) the brain. Some people experience these "waves" through the rest of their body, but the sensation dissipates quickly. They are sometimes accompanied by brief tinnitus and vertigo like feelings. Immediately following this shock is a light-headedness that may last for up to ten seconds. The sensation has also be described by many as a flashbulb going off inside the head or brain. Moving one's eyes from side to side quickly while open has also been known to trigger these zaps and sometimes causing them to come in rapid succession. It is thought to be a form of neuro-epileptiform activity.

As withdrawal time increases, the frequency of the shocks decreases. At their peak, brain zaps have been associated with severe headaches. They may last for a period of several weeks after the last dose and usually resolve completely within a month or two. However, anecdotal reports of "zaps" during a protracted withdrawal are known to last a year or longer.

My remedy was to open the capsule and to count the tiny beads and literally make capsules with less and less tapering over a 6 week period rather than the usual 2 - 3 weeks at this dose. It did eliminate the feeling, but it definitely helped. One could go as far as asking the physician for a 37.5 mg immediate release tablet and maybe breaking it up into pieces and tapering at the very end that way. Any way you dice it, venlafaxine was a pain and taught me right away a bigger lesson in remembering the side effects than any package insert ever could.

10/31/12 - update and fitting it is Halloween! Guess what? Add Cymbalta (duloxetine) to the list. It has been given approval for pain, both arthritic lower back and cancer. Withdrawal when you miss a dose.

I did take Vitamin B Complex, and maybe it helped.  Others have mentioned other vitamins.  Would love to hear remedies that worked if you can email me at theblondepharmacist@gmail.com

Alli - a new name = magic for the nonmedical community, apparently

Alli was born over-the-counter recently. It's the old Xenical drug (Orlistat) made by GlaxoSmithKline. Have you ever tried this medication personally? I have to share. Though, I will warn you, this is definitely TMI (too much information for those of you not into text messaging, short cuts, or the current way to speak... LOL). I took Xenical when it came out. Um (blushing) embarrassed to say I bought 5 capsules from the independent pharmacy I was working for... I know I know... unethical right? ANYWAY! There's issues with loss of Vitamins A, D, E, and K absorptions and also the potential for ANAL LEAKAGE. Yep. Anal Leakage.

What is anal leakage? Well it's where you can't control the oil slick coming out of your ass. I remember being horrified thinking, "Oh oh." Ran in a heated sprint to the bathroom (luckily at home!) and immediately there was a layer of OIL that spread out in the toilet water. OIL. What in God's name???

The new nonprescription diet drug Alli is flying off store shelves, but most people who use it will lose very little weight and may experience embarrassing side effects.

• Forum: About 20% of people who use Alli will lose 10% or more of their body weight. But most don't lose much weight at all, and some suffer embarrassing gastrointestinal side effects. Will you try the pill? Join a discussion.

Pharmacies are reporting brisk sales of Alli (pronounced like the noun "ally"), which is sold by drug maker GlaxoSmithKline and is the first over-the-counter diet drug to win FDA approval. Unlike other prescription weight-loss drugs such as Meridia and the generic phentermine, Alli doesn't make you feel full, reduce cravings or curb your appetite. Instead, it prevents the body from breaking down and absorbing fat.

The active ingredient in Alli is orlistat, which is found in a higher dose in the prescription diet drug Xenical. Alli blocks about 25% of the fat you eat; Xenical blocks one-third of the fat you ingest. For instance, a half-cup serving of Haagen-Dazs ice cream has about 320 calories and 19 grams of fat. Alli, which is taken with meals, would prevent the body from absorbing about 4.75 fat grams or about 43 calories. If you consume about 2,000 calories a day and eat about 30% fat, the fat-blocking benefits of Alli would translate to about 150 calories a day. A pound of weight loss equals 3,500 calories.

Here's what users of orlistat, the ingredient in Alli, can expect from the weight-loss drug:

• One in five will lose 10% or more of body weight

• Half will lose less than 5% of their body weight

• Side effects include gas, oily discharge and loose stools

The downside of Alli is the fat it blocks can come out of your body in embarrassing ways. The Glaxo Web site, myalli.com, warns the drug can cause gas with oily discharge as well as frequent or loose stools. The site suggests it's probably a "smart idea" to wear dark pants and bring a change of clothes to work if you use Alli.

To avoid the side effects, Glaxo suggests limiting fat intake to 15 grams a meal. Many Americans consume 80 to 100 grams of fat a day. Glaxo officials concede that many people would lose weight on their own with a diet that's moderate in fat, but that the pill helps them lose more weight.

"If you'd lose 10 pounds on a diet, you'll lose 15 pounds by adding Alli to your diet,'' says Vidhu Bansal, director of medical affairs for Glaxo's consumer-health division.

If someone is consuming a diet already low in fat and high in carbohydrates, they likely won't get much benefit from Alli. However, doctors say most people are eating far more fat than they realize.

Orlistat has been used by an estimated 28 million people world-wide, and studied in 30,000 subjects in about 100 trials. In a 1999 Journal of the American Medical Association report, 1,187 dieters, who weighed an average of 220 pounds, took either a placebo or 120 mg of orlistat (twice the dose of Alli). After one year, individuals in the orlistat group lost an average of 19.27 pounds, about 50% more than the 12.8-pound average weight loss in the placebo group.

Yeah, um, I don't know about this one... I can see it now. Misinformed customers buying the drug and LOTS and LOTS of accidents in the underwear!