![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 7 of 7. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by lotus on June 18, 2005, at 2:21:43
Doctors say a chemical called Mexoryl offers even better protection.
"It produces a product which gives us almost perfect protection against sunshine," said Dr. Vincent DeLeo, chairman of dermatology at Columbia University.
People are happily protecting themselves with Mexoryl on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro, the streets of Paris, in Canada, Mexico and Australia.
Mexoryl "is the No. 1 individual ingredient in terms of protection from Ultraviolet A radiation," Rigel said.
But even though dermatologists say Mexoryl is the best, you cannot legally buy it in the United States. It's illegal, because the Food and Drug Administration won't approve it. They won't even say why. The FDA is charged with making sure no drug is sold unless the government is convinced it's safe and effective. Dermatologists think it's just stuck in the bureaucracy. It routinely takes 12 to 15 years for a drug to get approval. After an approved drug -- Vioxx, for example -- gets bad publicity as a health risk, the FDA gets particularly cautious.
But is there no common sense here? All drugs have risks as well as benefits. Mexoryl has been in use in other countries for 13 years. It's passed many safety tests. Why won't our FDA even talk about it?
Although buying or selling sunscreens with Mexoryl is illegal in the United States, that doesn't mean sunscreens with Mexoryl aren't bought and sold here. We found it at some pharmacies. It was expensive -- $30 to $50.
"People really want this stuff. People go to pharmacies and they keep it under the counter, like it's a secret ingredient, like prohibition or something and people will still buy it," Rigel said.
I don't fault the pharmacies, they're serving their customers.
Everyone is always telling us, protect yourself from the sun, but then the government won't give us permission to have the best sunscreen?
Give me a break. {:(
Posted by KaraS on June 19, 2005, at 3:14:50
In reply to F****NG FDA, posted by lotus on June 18, 2005, at 2:21:43
> Doctors say a chemical called Mexoryl offers even better protection.
>
> "It produces a product which gives us almost perfect protection against sunshine," said Dr. Vincent DeLeo, chairman of dermatology at Columbia University.
>
> People are happily protecting themselves with Mexoryl on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro, the streets of Paris, in Canada, Mexico and Australia.
>
> Mexoryl "is the No. 1 individual ingredient in terms of protection from Ultraviolet A radiation," Rigel said.
>
> But even though dermatologists say Mexoryl is the best, you cannot legally buy it in the United States. It's illegal, because the Food and Drug Administration won't approve it. They won't even say why. The FDA is charged with making sure no drug is sold unless the government is convinced it's safe and effective. Dermatologists think it's just stuck in the bureaucracy. It routinely takes 12 to 15 years for a drug to get approval. After an approved drug -- Vioxx, for example -- gets bad publicity as a health risk, the FDA gets particularly cautious.
>
> But is there no common sense here? All drugs have risks as well as benefits. Mexoryl has been in use in other countries for 13 years. It's passed many safety tests. Why won't our FDA even talk about it?
>
> Although buying or selling sunscreens with Mexoryl is illegal in the United States, that doesn't mean sunscreens with Mexoryl aren't bought and sold here. We found it at some pharmacies. It was expensive -- $30 to $50.
>
> "People really want this stuff. People go to pharmacies and they keep it under the counter, like it's a secret ingredient, like prohibition or something and people will still buy it," Rigel said.
>
> I don't fault the pharmacies, they're serving their customers.
>
> Everyone is always telling us, protect yourself from the sun, but then the government won't give us permission to have the best sunscreen?
>
> Give me a break. {:(
>
>
I saw that segment on "20/20" the other night. I don't understand how the FDA can get away without even giving a reason for their decision. My guess is that it has something to do with money. Somebody is probably profiting big-time from keeping Mexoryl off of the market here.
Posted by Chairman_MAO on June 20, 2005, at 15:42:06
In reply to Re: F****NG FDA » lotus, posted by KaraS on June 19, 2005, at 3:14:50
This is just like how the methadone companies lobbied to keep buprenorphine from being approved for opioid dependence, as it could be used as a take-home med with fewer restrictions. It also is a a safer drug with fewer side effects, etc. That lobby coupled with the vicious puritain "addicts must suffer" mentality resulted in buprenorphine being stalled as a treatment for god knows how many years.
Land of the free! Wheeee!
Posted by KaraS on June 21, 2005, at 0:48:56
In reply to Re: F****NG FDA » KaraS, posted by Chairman_MAO on June 20, 2005, at 15:42:06
> This is just like how the methadone companies lobbied to keep buprenorphine from being approved for opioid dependence, as it could be used as a take-home med with fewer restrictions. It also is a a safer drug with fewer side effects, etc. That lobby coupled with the vicious puritain "addicts must suffer" mentality resulted in buprenorphine being stalled as a treatment for god knows how many years.
>
> Land of the free! Wheeee!
It happens with too many good medications. At least buprenorphine was eventually released.k
Posted by Declan on June 21, 2005, at 5:07:31
In reply to Re: F****NG FDA » KaraS, posted by Chairman_MAO on June 20, 2005, at 15:42:06
The thing about that mentality is the *narcissism* of it.
Posted by KaraS on June 21, 2005, at 18:19:45
In reply to Re: F****NG FDA, posted by Declan on June 21, 2005, at 5:07:31
> The thing about that mentality is the *narcissism* of it.
I see more as *greed* myself.
Posted by Declan on June 22, 2005, at 19:19:42
In reply to Re: F****NG FDA » Declan, posted by KaraS on June 21, 2005, at 18:19:45
What I was trying to get at was that "the addicts must suffer" mentality is the other side of a self-image of us as good people, and that this must be maintained at all costs. Remember when Bush said, "If only they knew what we're like", or can it have been "If only they knew how good we are". I must have made that second one up, it can't be right. Anymore of this and I'll be sent to the politics board.
Declan
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.