Tag Archives: FDA

Drixoral Availability In Future

It is almost a decade since people are using Drixoral Cold and Allergy medicine for immediate relief in symptoms of cold such sneezing, watery eyes and running nose. It has become as one of the most recommended medicine by the doctor or health care professional for the treatment of any cold allergy related symptoms.

It was being used by people from all ages from small children to 70 years old person. But starting 2010, there has been huge scarcity of the Drixoral drug in US and lately it has been discontinued in US. There are still few Canadian pharmacies which are selling the Drixoral branded medicine with another brand name Drixoral cold & sinus.

It is almost similar than that of Drixoral cold & allergy medicine though the new pill comes in green color. The ingredients used in both medicines are almost same as well and are manufactured by the same company as well.

Seeing a huge shortage of Drixoral drug, some pharmacies are trying to make more money by charging extra for the drug which is now not available in US anymore. They are importing drugs from countries like Europe, Japan etc.

But there are still few good Canadian pharmacies which are selling branded Drixoral & sinus oral tablets at reasonable rates. Now it has almost become an impossible for the people to buy Drixoral medicine without having any prescription from doctor or health care professionals.

Drixoral & Sinus medicine is not sold to people in huge quantities by pharmacies just like their successor. Moreover, FDA has also put a special warning on this drug that no household should be sold more than 2.5mg medicine per month.

Not only the pharmacies but it is also a responsibility of the people to keep buying the Drixoral cold & Sinus online from Canadian pharmacies by follow the guidelines determined by FDA and pharmacies, else a day will come that Drixoral Cold & Sinus tablets will disappear soon like Drixoral Cold & allergy medicine.

Myths and Facts About Milk

Another fantastic article from Mel Siff – taken from his Yahoo group, which still has enormous amounts of valid information its archives – check it out at or just grab the highlights at www.melsiff.com and then search through the various categories in the column on the left.

Milk advertisements have so long proclaimed that milk is a healthy food, that
it is a “complete food”, that it provides an excellent source of calcium, and
that one should drink it for preventing osteoporosis that most people believe
all of this to be true. On one side, we have been exposed to endless TV
commercials with healthy-looking people displaying parts of their faces
smothered with milk, and parents have come to believe the dairy industry
marketing claims to such as extent that most children are forced to drink
milk or have it on their morning cereals. Bodybuilders and many athletes
have been convinced that various milk derivatives such as whey serve as an
unrivalled source of highly concentrated protein.

On the other side, from the anti-milk lobby, we have heard that milk
consumption is associated with a great increase in the incidence of allergy,
stomach disorders, heart disease, cancer and various other diseases.

Who is correct? Can we really accept the biased proof of the healthful
aspects of milk from the huge dairy industry with its vested interests
everywhere? Equally well, can we trust that the anti-milk activists have not
grossly exaggerated the dangers of milk? Haven’t many of us, especially in
the strength and sporting world consumed huge quantities of milk since our
earliest years, without any obvious ill-effects? Isn’t the greater incidence
of heart disease and allergy among those who drink milk not due to other
possible factors?

As a dedicated and passionate milk product lover, I was convinced for much of
my life that the anti-milk lobbyists were way off track and were probably a
bunch of skinny runts who never drank large quantities of milk to help in
their quest for size and strength. However, more recently I began to
discover that both factions may be correct. Yes, milk may be both good and
bad for you, whether you are “lactose intolerant” or not!

My first clues came when I noticed how differently I responded to drinking
raw milk and pasteurised milk back in S Africa, then later when I drank milk
in the USA. I always found that certified raw milk tasted better, was very
easily digested even in large volume, and never putrefied when left
unrefrigerated, but simply became pleasantly sour, like a good yoghurt. I
simply could not understand why I consistently could not tolerate milk in
amounts greater than a cupful in the USA, until I noticed that the milk that
I drank in S Africa separated into a thick creamy layer at the top, unlike
the far less palatable milk in the USA. Then I noticed that all the milk
that I bought in the USA was “homogenized” and also found out that the
pasteurization process here may not be carried out under the same heating
conditions as my sources in S Africa.

I also noted that the milk here does not and cannot go sour, but putrefies
and becomes impossible to drink after a few days out of the refrigerator,
suggesting that it contains none of the natural bacteria which allow it to
become sour and palatable.

My feint suspicions grew far stronger that milk of itself may not be the
problem. Instead the way in which it is prepared may be the real problem, as
is the case with all other foods. That would explain quite simply why and
others have responded so differently to raw milk, pasteurised milk and
*pasteurised and homogenized* milk – clearly the processing involved must be
playing a central role in the whole affair. That should be not at all
surprising, since we all know that other foods can be overcooked, dried out
when reheating after storage in the refrigerator, become tough by poor
preparation or marinating, taste very different when microwaved compared with
roasted, and so forth. Often the digestibility can also be profoundly
affected by the manner of preparation. Why should milk be any different?

Before I go any further, here are some technical details about pasteurisation
and homogenization:

Now, the major rationale behind pasteurisation is that it eliminates the risk
of contracting TB (tuberculosis), but the statistics have never shown that
pasteurised milk is any safer than certified raw milk. On the contrary,
studies have shown that pasteurised milk often contains a percentage of pus
from the cow’s udders (at least it is pasteurised!).

If one wishes to use certified raw milk in many States in the USA, you just
do not have that freedom of choice, because it is often legislated against on
the grounds of health risk. I cannot begin to understand or accept this
reasoning at all, because if the milk is certified, then it is TESTED for any
harmful bacteria. On the other hand, every single batch of pasteurised milk
is not tested, but merely ASSUMED to be bacteria-free after its heat
treatment. In the light of this, legislation against the sale of certified,
tested raw milk is illogical and suspect.

To help you understand more about the pros and cons of milk consumption, here
is a random collection of resources presenting myths and facts about milk in
its various forms:

———–

Review of book Cohen “Milk the Deadly Poison”

Enter Robert Cohen, with rich experience in biological research and a risk
taker-one of his pursuits is mountain climbing. –.. Cohen divulged his
suspicions that the FDA’s approval of the bovine growth hormone represented
not only collusion between Monsanto and the FDA, but a cover-up of epic
proportions by the scientific establishment. His three-year fact-finding
journey proved him chillingly right.

Reading this book, you will learn that milk contributes to heart disease and
increases your risk of breast cancer. You will learn that milk is a poor
source of calcium and why, and that milk is a prime cause of allergies and
much more. You will learn that milk can even kill your infant.

Cohen doesn’t expect you to accept these shocking findings on faith. He
takes you by the hand as he uncovers layers of scientific fraud perpetuated
by the FDA, with assistance from JAMA, Science News, and even the Cadillac of
scientific publications, Science. In digging for scientific facts, Cohen
found that the web of deception concerning the bovine growth hormone involved
not only key players- FDA and Monsanto -but reached members of Congress as
well as a respected medical authority turned Monsanto lobbyist. At times
this book reads like a detective story–.

——–

The Effect of Processed Milk on Calves

I am a retired Veterinarian; I doctored horses and cattle for 25 years and
then I did only the Small Animals. The article I read in Discover Magazine
on milk brought back many memories. When the farmers kept a milk cow on the
farm to feed the weaner calves, there were few digestive problems. But when
no dairy cows were available they went to the local store and got “Store
Bought” milk for the calves to drink. Soon the calves died with diarrhea. I
thought milk was milk but I soon found out that the Pasteurized and
Homogenized milk could not be digested by these calves. Homogenization broke
the fat globule into such a small bit that it wouldn’t curd in the stomach
and passed directly into the small intestine where it created severe
inflammation. I called it toxic enteritis. I learned to treat these cases
with Goats milk which has the largest fat globule of any milk found on the
farm. The calves made a quick recovery if the patient hadn’t gotten too
debilitated.

I too drank a lot of milk when we milked cows on the farm. I never Had any
adverse effects from drinking a quart or more at one time. When I went on to
college and I was using “store bought milk” I got so I drank very little milk
and what I did drink reacted in my system like a poison. I was told I was
allergic to milk. Now 50 years later, a friend, who has a milk cow out in
the country, asked me if I could use some milk. I accepted and for three
years now I can drink milk like I did when I lived on the farm. I have no
adverse side effects. This milk is raw milk, also not Homogenized. The only
other question I have to answer has to do with the effect pasteurization has
on the natural enzymes. The destruction of these during the pasteurization
process could effect the digestibility of milk.

—–

Myths and Deceptions about Raw Milk:

Research and Other Articles on Raw Milk:

The Crime against Raw Milk

The Dangers of Processed Milk:

Milk – The Perfect Food?

———

MILK DECREASES HEART ATTACKS?

should create some interesting controversy among medical circles during the
next several months. Peter Elwood, director of the Epidemiology Unit at
Landough Hospital in Penarth, South Glamorgan, dropped a bombshell. His
ongoing life-style study of 5000 men produced some startling and very
unpopular findings. He discovered that men who drank the most full-fat milk
and ate butter (rather than margarine) had a lower risk of suffering from
heart attacks! (New Scientist 1991; 129(1759):17) –..

In 1929, Dr. J.E. Crewe with the Mayo Foundation reported “uniformly
excellent” success using raw milk in treatment programs for high blood
pressure, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, prostate problems and
tuberculosis. He later stated that the only problem with using raw milk to
treat these ailments was that it was too simple. As such, it didnt appeal to
the medical profession. Only raw milk seemed to be of benefit. Pasteurized
forms seemed to make most conditions worse->

——

Top Ten Reasons why Milk is not the Perfect food:

1. It’s a great source of unwanted antibiotics.

2. Ditto for recombinant bovine growth hormone.

3. Eighty percent or more of the world’s people are lactose-sensitive or
-intolerant.

4. The homogenization process (which allows the fat to stay in suspension, so
that the cream, for example, doesn’t rise to the top) makes the fat and the
cholesterol more subject to oxidation (and therefore free-radical
generation).

5. The nations that consume the most milk also, incidentally, have the
highest rates of oesteoporosis.

6. The top 10 reasons why you should drink it have been brought to you by the
dairy industry, not by independent assessors.

7. It is very high in phosphorus, which is a calcium antagonist, so the
calcium in it is not particularly well absorbed.

8. The calcium-magnesium ratio is not particularly good.

9. It is one of the top allergens, probably the number one allergen for
children, and it is filled with (milk) sugar.

10. Calcium is not as well absorbed in the absence of some fat; hence skim
milk is an even worse choice-..

———

FDA Cover-up about certain aspects of Milk Industry

——–

This and many other sources have convinced me that the effects of milk on the
body are very significantly altered by pasteurisation and homogenization, and
that the understanding of and consumption of milk simply on the basis of its
macronutrient and micronutrient analysis can be seriously misleading. It is
high time that the public were educated about the difference between safe
certified raw milk and the highly processed product that they buy from the
average supermarket. It would appear that many of the adverse side-effects
of milk consumption, even with a full fat content, have far more to do with
the aggressive processing of the product than any inherent -unhealthiness’.

Why American Health Care Is So Expensive

Obesity is America’s number one health problem. It commonly leads to diabetes, Type 2, heart disease, kidney disease, and sometimes cancer.

According to a recent report quoted by the New York Times, obese citizens spend about 42% more per year on health care than normal-weight Americans.

“Obesity, and with it diabetes, are the only major health problems that are getting worse in this country, and they’re getting worse rapidly,” Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the Center for Disease Control, said.

If obesity is driving up health care costs, what can we do about it? Ask doctors to charge less? Make the drug companies provide free diabetes medicines and diet pills to obese people? Ask the insurance companies to provide their services for free?

Maybe we could nationalize the whole health care system and force all American taxpayers share the cost equally of caring for these unfortunate Americans who are the victims of…what? The restaurant industry! That’s it! Fast food and Doritos did it to them! Lays potato chips: “Bet you can’t have just one!” They dared these poor souls to become addicted to their deadly products–and it worked!.

I’m sorry. I’m being ridiculous to make a point. My point is, our health care system is buckling under the weight of the expensive round-about procedures we do and drugs we provide to counteract the effects of what people are doing to themselves.

Digging Our Graves With A Fork & Knife We are a nation of food-aholics. Most of us don’t eat real foods prepared at home from fruit, vegetables, whole grains and beans. Most of what we eat has to center around either some animal meat and fat and lots of highly refined carbohydrates. Very few vitamins and minerals are left in our food–and almost no fiber. And we wonder why we get fat , have diabetes, heart attacks, and require expensive medical care.

My medical care costs me nothing but the time it takes to do some daily exercises and eat right. Chalk it up partially to vanity–I never wanted to let myself get overweight or suffer the diseases that plagued my family tree.

A big part of my medical care is to eat what science and my conscience tells me I should, rather than stuff that merely tastes good.

But it’s all worth it to me. I’m not pleading with the government to get me health care. Nobody had to inform me that eating too much of the wrong foods would make me sick: I figured it out on my own after reading a few good books and research reports. It wasn’t hard–and it was a benefit for me to stay well.

What would I do about the health of the American people? The best thing the health care professionals could do is to stop coddling us. Stop treating us like imbeciles. Tell us the truth. I suspect that if doctors and public health officials leveled with citizens and told them the golden truth that “We all are about 97% responsible for our own health, based on what we choose to eat,” it might make an impression after a while.

It probably won’t happen, I know, because the fast-food industry and other makers of fat-food(meat packers and the dairy and sugar industries) are in control of our FDA and the US Department of Agriculture. They would scream bloody murder if the public were told the truth about how their food products are the reason our arteries are plugged up with cholesterol and why we’re growing obese.

But, the bottom line is, we don’t have to eat those foods. Nobody is forcing us to eat foods that lead to heart attacks, breast cancer, strokes, Alzheimer’s Disease, colon cancer, etc., etc. If you don’t believe me, then read the medical research that clearly establishes the connection between what we eat and these diseases.

Did you know that there are still pockets of people who still eat traditional diets that are primarily vegetarian–and they rarely have heart attacks. Their women very rarely get breast cancer. People of these nations live to 90 and 100 years frequently, with sharp minds, good eyesight and they continue to work in their gardens and orchards. They are respected and contributing members of their society. If we chose to eat like these people, we could reduce our need for expensive and dangerous health care.

Here’s a simple truth of economics: If there was no demand for health care because everyone was healthy, then health care would be cheap. It’s a matter of supply and demand. A lot of cardiologists standing around with no triple-bypasses to do would quickly lower their prices. That’s my answer to the high cost of health care: Get healthy!

How do you get healthy? A good starting place to help you understand what’s wrong with our typical American diet is a book by T. Colin Campbell, Jr., PhD, entitled “The China Study.” =================================================================================================================

Paul H. Kemp is a lifelong entrepreneur, writer, and amateur athlete. Hanging out with many amateur, pro, and the occasional Olympic athletes, together with extensive reading of medical research literature, have given him an insight into what high-performance athletes eat when they want optimum performance.

He currently is fascinated by the opportunity to help individuals take control over their own health future.

For more information on a diet and healthy lifestyle designed to prevent and even reverse chronic degenerative diseases, visit his Web site:

All You Need To Know About Afinitor

According to the US National Institute of Health, new cases of renal cancer in 2010 in the US stood at 58,240, with 13,040 deaths cases. Although there are no significant symptoms of kidney or renal cancer, you should approach a doctor if you notice blood in your urine, lump in your abdomen, unexplained weight loss or appetite loss. Afinitor (everolimus), developed and manufactured by Novartis, is the first oral daily therapy for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. This drug was developed after the failure of treatment with Sunitinib or Sorferib in cancer cells.
Applications and Dosage Related Information About Afinitor
Afinitor, which received the FDA approval in 2009 is also used for the treatment of patients with subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA) who need therapeutic intervention instead of curative surgical treatments. The medicine stops cancer cells from expanding by cutting off the blood supply to them. Afinitor is an inhibitor of mTOR and prevents cell proliferation and angiogenesis.
The medicine is available in 5mg and 10mg strengths for oral administration. The recommended initial dose for this drug is 10mg, to be taken once a day at the same time every day with or without food. One should swallow this medicine as a whole and avoid chewing or crushing it.
Some commonly witnessed side effects by users of Afinitor are:
mouth ulcers
infections
weakness
cough
diarrhea
nausea
fever
loss of appetite
anemia
swelling of body parts
headaches
inflammation of the lining of the digestive system
These side effects are temporary and will go away after the therapy is complete.
However, some serious side effects may be felt by people taking Afinitor. These include:
Breathing problems
Severe infections, such as pneumonia, bacterial, fungal or viral
Precautions While Taking Afinitor
This medicine is not for patients who are already taking medication for fungal or bacterial infections, tuberclosis, seizures, HIV-AIDS, blood pressure or heart conditions. This medicine should also not be prescribed to a pregnant woman or a woman who is breast feeding.
If your doctor has prescribed Afinitor for your treatment, you should follow certain precautions:
Do not drink grape fruit juice or eat grape fruit, star fruit or Seville oranges during the whole treatment
In case of allergic reactions, one should immediately get back to his/her doctor
People using this medicine should not get a live vaccine or be around with people who have recently received a live vaccine

A Womans Facial Hair Vanquished With Vaniqa

For a woman, hair growth at unwanted place ruins her looks and charm. She may try to hide them with the aid of makeup or by going to a beauty saloon. These procedures are time consuming and may lead to deformation in the skin. Thus, there arises a need for a certain solution, which helps her retain the originality, texture and smoothness of the skin while removing hair. Vaniqa is one such FDA approved drug, which aids such woman when she wishes to remove unwanted hair.

The results of the usage of Vaniqa are visible within 4-8 weeks of the starting of its dosage. However, to start its usage a patient requires having a prescription. It is used in the context of removing facial hair amongst females. It works by interfering with a type of enzyme found in the hair follicles. This interference results in slower hair growth and improved appearance on that particular area of skin.

Vaniqa should not be used if the patient is allergic any of the ingredients of it. Children below 12 years of age are discouraged from using this drug. The normal usage of Vaniqa is twice daily with each dosage at least eight hours apart. However, the dermatologist may suggest you some other way to go with its dosage. In case of differences in the prescribed dosages, a patient should stick to the dosage instructed by the doctor.

For application of Vaniqa, a thin layer of it is to be applied to the area where the patient wishes to see the effect of it. The area of application should not be washed for at least 4 hours after its application. Usage of this drug may cause redness, burning sensation, rash, tingling or stinging. Usually these are temporary in nature. In case, the length of the side effects is for more duration, a patient should stop its usage and seek remedial action from a doctor or dermatologist.

Vanquishing facial hair in woman may be done with the aid of Vaniqa. However, individual results vary. If the usage of the drug does not show any effect, one should stop using the drug. To order and buy Vaniqa, online order is considered a more comfortable method as it is easy, time saving and cost effective. Take resort of online mode of Vaniqa purchase to vanquish your unwanted facial hair.

Billion Spent On Homeopathy In The Us

A study conducted in 2007 showed that Americans spend 3 billion dollars on homeopathy per year. This accounts for about 8.7% of spending on alternative medicine in the US. US spends about 34 billion dollars per year on alternative medicines. 43% are spent on vitamins, herbs and natural occuring products. 35% are spent on alternative medicine practioner costs. 12% is spent on Yoga, Tai chi, qigong classes, massage and chiropractic.

In 1997, another government survey showed that 27 billion dollars per year was being spent on alternative medicine. In 10 years, the amount of spending by the US consumer on alternative medicines has increased by 7 billion dollars. Government officials expect the purchase of alternative medicines to continue to rise in the next several years.

The total cost of medical care in the US is 2.2 trillion dollars. Insurance covers most of the cost of health care. However, Americans spend 48 billion dollars purchasing prescription drugs per year and about 49 billion dollars in doctor visits that insurance does not cover. Another large cost for the uninsured or under insured is conventional care such as cancer treatments, surgeries and so forth. 171 billion dollars were spent on this type of care.

Much of this data was gathered before the recession of the US. Many people are assuming alternative medicine popularity is growing due to loss of insurance coverage by many Americans. Homeopathy and vitamins can be purchased inexpensively and without a prescription most of the time. Prescription drugs require a doctor visit and may not be affordable to many uninsured patients. In fact, most medicines are except from FDA regulation all together. Homeopathy products are loosely regulated. The FDA assumes homeopathy to be harmless since the medicines are too dilute to cause any harm.

More research needs to be done on alternative therapies to decide which ones are effective. However, many alternative therapies such as homeopathy require special trials since most of the remedies are individualized. Acupuncture is also another alternative therapy where trials are difficult to do. Research does exist in other countries for alternative medicine. Extensive research has been done on homeopathy in the UK and the rest of Europe. India also is doing extensive research on homeopathy. US does not really need to start from scratch on alternative medicine research. US can simply look at some of the promising alternative medicine trials and try to replicate those in a large scale.

Alternative medicines make up a small portion of Americas health care costs. Alternative medicines cost make up about 1.5% of the total health care cost in the US. Do you see even more American consumers using alternative type medicines such as homeopathy in the future

Hair Loss and Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research Is Promising As a Hair Loss Treatment

With stem cell research, researchers study cellular regeneration therapy using a patient’s own platelet-rich plasma on the basis of wound-healing principals to treat hair loss.

Those with alopecia areata are first to see success

“We are about 40 patients into the study, but one of our patients was so thrilled that his hair started growing in after about 2 months that he alerted the local media — and then we had to tell our story!” says Dr. John Satino, clinic director for The Hair and Scalp Clinics in Clearwater, Fla. Satino and partner and medical director Dr. Michael Markou, a primary investigator for the Merck Pharmaceutical clinical research on Propecia, have run and administered some interesting tests and documented success with alopecia areata patients in regrowing hair in a patient’s bald patches. Currently they are taking on test patients and beginning to document and test the long-term effects of this treatment to test its viability as a long-term solution for hair loss. “The advantage is that we are seeing hair growth in bald areas. The disadvantage so far is that if a pattern of baldness exists down the road, the new growth can be affected by that. So far we are seeing the greatest benefit in young people suffering from alopecia areata.”

How the stem cell study procedure works

The term “stem cells” is used loosely. According to the National Institutes of Health Web site information on stem cell research, an adult stem cell is a type of cell found in many organs that can transform itself into a specialized tissue or organ cell when necessary. The primary role of adult stem cells in a living organism is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible, and that has led researchers and clinicians to ask whether adult stem cells could be used for transplants like the adult blood-forming stem cells from bone marrow that have been used in transplants for 40 years. Scientists now have evidence that stem cells exist in the brain and the heart. If the differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis of transplantation-based therapies. But the isolation and identification of these stem cells throughout the human body is still in its infancy.

What this study procedure is using is actually platelet-rich plasma (PRP) isolated from the patient’s own blood, explains Satino, not only the clinic director but also a biomedical engineer who has demonstrated and performed many studies, including those of Propecia and Rogaine. “The idea of this way of stimulating follicle regeneration is based on the principals of wound healing … a sort of cellular regeneration therapy.” Satino explains that when an area like the scalp is disturbed slightly, such as by abrading it gently with a laser, it shocks the body into healing mode, and when combined with the person’s own growth factors in PRP drawn from his or her own blood, it can stimulate the faulty follicles into an anagen phase of growth and give them the support they need to grow. “First we draw patient’s blood to separate out the small amount of PRP which contains platelet-derived growth factors, including three proteins that act in cell adhesion. These three — called fibrin, fibronectin and vitronectin create a matrix for cells to build upon, while the growth factors signal the epidermis and the follicle to interact with the dermal sheath. We then irritate the scalp with a laser, which moves the follicle toward an anagen phase as it tries to heal, and we inject the growth factors in the PRP, which migrate into the follicles to start the whole process. This promotes angiogenesis and mitogenesis … a sort of jump start for the follicles. We know that adult stem cells only are useful wherever there is an injury and that they are not specialized. We are also testing the topical application of the person’s PRP in addition to the effects of low-light laser therapy, Rogaine and Propecia in conjunction with this new treatment to find the most effective treatment protocols.”

The outlook of stem cell research as a hair loss treatment

So far, hair in all 40 patients has grown back in patients with alopecia areata. “It seems this procedure has the best results for the younger patient. The youngest we have treated is 15 so far, but the most important thing is to test the long-term results.” Satino adds that they have also begun soaking hair transplants in PRP and injecting into transplant incisions and have gotten faster healing and thicker, faster hair regrowth in transplant patients. “But again,” cautions Satino, “we don’t know how the balding pattern may affect this procedure. For example, in a transplant patient, if the hairline recedes further, he will be required to get additional transplants to cover the new balding area. We have definitely found our new procedure to be most effective on bald patches in the crown and back of a patient’s head. A patient may still need to supplement results with Minoxidil, Propecia or laser hair therapy.”

Proving the result, getting FDA approval

So far, the procedure is approved by the FDA as a soft-tissue injection for wound healing in hair transplants, not for hair regrowth. “In the meantime, we are taking on new patients to test the procedure at about one-quarter the price of a typical transplant procedure,” Satino states. “We are documenting all the results with a cast, and we mark the spot and count the hairs in one square centimeter. We test and measure hair strength and diameter and we do a recount in three months, six months and one year along with photos to document results.” He adds, “We plan to publish results in some peer-reviewed dermatology, hair transplant and laser journals in the coming year. We have refrained from performing the double-blind placebo tests and the independent review boards until we have the funding and the basis to do so to gain FDA approval as a long-term hair loss treatment.

Feedback from the hair loss treatment community

While the local news has picked up the story and the clinic is getting test patients from all over the world, Bob Rider, owner of Hair Replacement Clinic in Dayton, Ohio, who has been in the business for more than 40 years, says he wishes it could be that simple. “Growing hair where there is none existing for any reason is like growing a new organ. It’s just not at all simple.” Dr. Sara Wasserbauer, a board-certified, California-based hair transplant surgeon, adds that in the hair community, “We’re always looking for the clue to growing hair, and looking toward science and previous studies, as this study has, definitely holds some promise. But at this point, it’s too soon to tell, because there is no consistency in the results yet.”

Trick or Treatment The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh

This is an eye-opening, disturbing book. I highly recommend it for anybody with a biological body that may someday need healthcare (that is, everybody alive).

First, I have to admit my own background. I discovered nutrition and health food stores nearly forty years ago. I read Adele Davis and other pioneers.

In the years since, I’ve read a lot about supplements, and always regarded myself in the alternative medicine camp — and in the suspicious of modern medicine camp.

Yet I never hugged trees either. I paid little attention to stuff I regarded as crazy, and much of that is what the author focus this book on.

Acupuncture. Just because I believed in Vitamin C didn’t mean I believed that sticking needles in me would help me.

Homeopathy. I had no idea what this was until I researched my book on bird flu, and discovered it consisted of selling water. I was shocked then, and still am.

Chiropractors. Many years ago I read about how their theories were goofy and some of their treatments dangerous. I also know from taking disability claims that doctors don’t put much weight on evidence from chiropractors, but I spoke to a ton of disability applicants who thought getting treatments from a chiropractor meant they had a bad back.

Yet, at the same time, seeing how universally accepted chiropractors are, I’d suspended much of my skepticism. Besides, my mother got help from one. And he was one who found her tumor and sent her to a doctor to check it out.

And these are the more universally known and practiced alternative therapies. I never had more than a passing curiosity in aromatherapy or iridology.

Now I’m disturbed that so many people do go to chiropractors and acupuncturists, and spend money on worthless homeopathic remedies.

However, I’m not sure I agree with the authors on what constitute conventional medical treatment. They say, for example, that taking fish oil Omega 3 capsules is now accepted.

That blows me away. I’m too used to thinking of all nutritional supplements, no matter how supported by medical studies, as targets of the FDA.

I still feel as though “my” alternative medicine — primarily supplements — is still alternative. Maybe it’s because they’re British. They don’t realize that U.S. doctors don’t routinely prescribe nutrition except in a few cases (such as folic acid for pregnant women).

Some of their arguments don’t really address the efficacy of certain things. For example, they say herbs from India and China have been found that are contaminated with heavy metals. This is not an argument against the herbs, but for better quality control.

I’m still suspicious that medical science is as accepting of potential remedies as they claim it is. I think the assumption that herbs have one active ingredient can damage clinical trials. And that more and better clinical trials should be run.

And I suspect too many clinical trials are run with poor or weak ingredients. Dr. Richard Schulze, for one, has many bad things to say about the quality of herbs sold.

My conclusion has to be that I’m not as optimistic as they are about the openness of modern medicine. I’m more than willing to throw out things I never believed in to begin with, such as the alternates they justifiably rip to shreds.

I also suspect that part of the problem comes from the gap between medical science’s emphasis on curing diseases versus the desire of people to maximize their health.

This can affect how we look at herbs and vitamins, for example.

And what they label as “alternative,” unproven exercise systems such as Pilates and yoga.

Besides, while conventional medicine may accept the benefits of ordinary exercise, that doesn’t mean they promote it.

Discover the main health, fitness, weight, wellness and anti-aging benefiting of eating balance protein bars and getting Zone diet delivery.

The condom vs the dental local anesthetic plunger

Unlike condoms, which are made from latex, all dental local anesthetic cartridge plungers are manufactured from dry natural rubber, vulcanized at extremely high temperatures using triple valence bonding. The result is that there is no leaching of latex into the local anesthetic solution. Such impurities would be detected if they were present, through normal routine manufacturing checks. To date, there has never been a latex related allergic reaction reported to the FDA, directly associated with dental cartridge plungers. Latex sensitivity in a dental office is largely attributed to products manufactured using the wet rubber process.

Latex is a milky fluid that comes from the tropical rubber tree. Hundreds of everyday products contain latex. Repeated exposure to a protein in natural latex can make you more likely to develop a latex allergy which may have a genetic origen. In other words, one or both of your parents would also have been sensitive to that allergen. If your immune system detects the protein, a reaction usually start in minutes, thereby alerting the dentist. You could get a rash, asthma and in rare cases, anaphylactic shock from latex exposure.re.

However, anyone can develop an allergy to latex. The number of people who do is quite small considering the millions who are exposed every day to consumer products that contain natural rubber latex. Individuals with an increased risk are those who have spina bifida and have undergone numerous surgeries, those who are prone to any type of allergies, health care workers, rubber industry workers and others who have continuous contact with latex.

If you have had a prior allergic reaction to latex-containing objects, you should consult your physician who can try to determine the cause. Your physician also can determine the best strategy for dealing with a latex allergy. Until that is done, avoid contact with all latex products.

As a precaution you should inform your dental office staff so that your medical history can be updated and appropriate precautions can be taken before your next dental visit. However, as I mentioned the process of manufacturing dental cartridge plungers is unique and to date, to my knowledge, there has never been a latex related allergic reaction reported to the FDA, directly associated with dental cartridge plungers. Ref. West Pharmaceutical Services.

Comments to author. M.Sc. PharmD. CCPE
Please visit WWW.AnestheticsNews.com

Why Does My Medicine Cost So Much

To understand why medications cost so much you must first understand the process involved to get a medication on the market.

When you see a new medication being advertised on a television commercial you have to know that there is really nothing “new” about it. On average most medications take an average of 10 to 13 years to go from initial development to the drug store shelves.

Once a new chemical is developed by a pharmaceutical manufacturer it then has to register a patent to protect it. The patent is good for 20 years from that point. The developer then has to submit applications to the FDA to recognize the new chemical. Next is setting up clinical trials. This where this new chemical is tested to determine it’s safety and effectiveness. Once that is verified the chemical is given to selected patients who have agreed to participate in the study. There are several phases to these studies. If all of these phases are successfully completed the FDA then votes to approve the new medication. If approved the drug company will then begin a heavy marketing campaign to promote their new medication.

But here is something you don’t hear on the commercials. On average, for every 5000 new chemicals developed only 5 will make it past the safety test. And out of those 5 chemicals only 1 will actually make it all the way through the clinical trials and get approved. So for every commercial you see for a new medication you can know that there are 4,999 “commercials” that didn’t make it.

So what does this have to do with the cost of the medicine? Well, by some estimates the cost to bring a new drug from the lab to the pharmacy is ~ $900 million…. for 1 drug. And we also need to remember the other drugs that didn’t make it. I’m sure less money was spent on those, but all totaled there is a lot of money invested in drug development.

Once the new medication hits the market the drug company now aims to recoup their expenses. Obviously they do this by charging high prices for their medicine. Also keep in mind that the average new drug has only 7 to 10 years remaining on it’s patent. The drug companies know exactly how much time they have left, and they price their medication accordingly.