Latisse’s Side Effects Have Some Folks On The Fringe
January 25, 2010
Stylelist.com
By Julie Redfern Davis
It seems too good to be true: small, skimpy lashes grow into thick, lush fringe in a matter of weeks. That’s the promise of Latisse, an FDA-approved prescription treatment that helps the eyelashes grow thicker, longer and darker in as little as 12 to 16 weeks.
In recent weeks, Consumer Reports reviewed the product (watch the video, below) and called it risky given its possible side effects. Among the most alarming: increased brown pigmentation of the colored part of the eye, which is likely to be permanent.
According to Eric Schweiger, a New York City-based dermatologist who has prescribed Latisse, the active ingredient, bimatoprost ophthalmic solution, is also used to treat glaucoma. The difference between the usage for eyelash growth and glaucoma, he notes, is that when treating the latter you place it directly into the eye. In some cases with direct interior eye contact, increased iris pigmentation was reported, however, with Latisse, the product is applied to the lash lines and not directly into the eye.
But with every prescription drug there are potential side effects (just read the fine print and listen carefully to commercials) and the naysayers that question its safety. So then, should we avoid Latisse completely?
Clearly some say yes while others say no (several users have reported successful results with no ill effects). And as Schweiger reminds us, it’s important for doctors to inform patients of all the pros and cons before prescribing any drug treatment, and for patients to understand and accept the potential side effects and risks.
Side effects and controversy aside, Latisse does have a high price tag (an out of pocket expense of approximately $100 a month) and the results are temporary-as soon as you stop using it, your lashes revert back to normal. “You have to remember this is a cosmetic treatment, and most cosmetic procedures are not permanent,” says Schweiger. “A lot of my Latisse users decrease their frequency of use after three months and change to using it every other day. This mostly maintains the results the patients have already achieved, and using it every other day literally cuts the cost in half,” he adds.
A daily dose of mascara is likely to create the same full, thick eyelash effect for a fraction of the price, which has many asking if Latisse is worth it given the risks, price and temporary results.
The same question was posed when Botox was introduced, along with a glut of “wrinkle relaxing” skincare creams to compete with it. Given the demand of that procedure and many other cosmetic treatments, it seems there may be no price or risk too high when it comes to beauty.
Click here for the full report.
BPA Found in ‘BPA-Free’ Foods
December 8, 2009
NaturalNews
by E. Huff
A recent analysis of canned foods revealed that, across the board, the cans contained measurable levels of bisphenol A, also known as BPA, a toxin known to cause hormonal problems, sexual dysfunction, cancer, and other abnormalities. Even among products labeled “BPA-free”, tests revealed levels of BPA significant enough to cause problems.
Released by the Consumers Union, a non-profit organization in charge of publishing Consumer Reports, the report adds fuel to the fire in the growing opposition to BPA’s use in food products. Consumer advocacy groups are demanding that the FDA ban BPA from being used in any products that come into contact with food and beverages.
For years, the FDA has denied that BPA is dangerous, basing its non-concern upon flawed studies and incomplete evidence. When compelled to reinvestigate the issue, the FDA began reviewing the evidence once again. When question about the current report, an FDA spokesman had no response other than that the review was almost complete and that a “decision [about] how to proceed” would be made soon.
Manufacturers often use BPA in their food linings because it works as an effective food preservative. Yet the levels found in many of the consumer products tested were high enough to cause serious abnormalities in people, especially children.
Several supposed BPA-free items, including tuna cans that did not have the typical epoxy lining that is the primary source of BPA leeching, is concerning. It is unclear how the BPA made its way into these particular cans. Dr. Urvashi Rangan, director of technical policy at Consumers Union, believes it could have come from the factory where the product was made, from seawater, or from the fish itself. The company’s owner has indicated that it will work to find the source and fix the problem.
Public outcry over the dangers of BPA has led to many manufacturers removing the additive from their product containers. Several major retailers have removed all items containing BPA from their shelves as well as six baby bottle manufacturers who eliminated the additive from their bottle ingredients last March. The city of Chicago and Suffolk County, New York, have also made provisions banning all baby bottles and other baby beverage containers made with BPA.
Two Thirds of Chickens Carry Bacteria
November 30, 2009
ABC News
by Anne-Marie Dorning
The bad news from a new study is that two thirds of store-bought chicken was found to be contaminated with potentially harmful bacteria. The good news is that, believe it or not, the numbers are better than two years ago, when eight out of 10 chickens were found to contain pathogens like salmonella and campylobacter.
The study, to be published in the upcoming issue of Consumer Reports, tested 382 broiler chickens bought from 100 stores around the country. Some brand-name chickens — Tyson and Foster Farms — fared poorly, with salmonella and campylobacter found in more than 80 percent of the samples. Perdue chickens did a little better — 56 percent of chickens tested were found to be free of both pathogens. According to the study, organic “air-chilled” broilers seemed to be a consumer’s best bet because 60 percent of those chickens checked in bacteria-free.
Estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say more than a million people have salmonella poisoning every year from a variety of causes. About 25,000 people get so sick they seek treatment at a hospital and about 500 people die every year. Symptoms of an infection generally show up 5-7 days after contamination and can include diarrhea, stomach cramping and fever.
The news that everyday store-bought chickens can be contaminated with harmful bacteria drew a loud “ewww” from several moms shopping for chickens at a local supermarket in Ashland, Mass.
Linda Epstein said she was looking for a broiler chicken to feed her family of four because “it’s easy to make and my fussy kids will actually eat chicken.”
Epstein said she had “no idea” that campylobacter and salmonella could be present in such a high percentage of chickens. “It really kind of makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it,” she said.
Consumer Reports: Chicken Laced with Bacteria
As you might imagine, those words are not music to the ears of the major chicken distributors.
Tyson Foods provided a statement to ABCNews.com calling into question the testing methods of Consumer Reports. “We have confidence in the safety of our chicken but not in the testing by Consumer Reports. Since the Consumer Reports study only confirms the presence of bacteria and not the number it is not a true indication of the safety of our products&the small sample size is also a concern.”
A statement also detailed the company’s efforts to increase the safety of its poultry operations which include “the use of antimicrobial rinses, similar to those used in mouthwashes, as well as organic acids.”
The National Chicken Council released a statement that said, “Chicken is safe. Like all fresh foods, raw chickens may have some microorganisms present, but these are destroyed by the heat of normal cooking.”
But the problem with food-borne bacteria is not just in the cooking. Often an infection can occur because of unsafe washing and handling practices in the kitchen.
Al Franken Working to Stop Big Pharma
October 28, 2009 by JP
Filed under Government
October 28, 2009
WalletPop
By Jami Bernard
New legislation introduced by, among others, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), would cut off the federal tax deduction for drug companies that make those “direct-to-consumer” ads, the ones on TV convincing you to pop prescription drugs like candy.
There’s plenty to hate about those ads. They’re ubiquitous, for one thing. They manage to be misleading without being downright untrue. They play into the “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” category, because you’ve got people self-diagnosing without understanding that, in some cases, the side effects can be worse than the underlying condition. (“Death” is one of those annoying side effects.)
The proposed legislation also runs the risk of a side effect that Franken and his cohorts may have not considered: By yanking the financial incentive to run these ads, what will become of TV’s nightly news shows?
The audience for the nightly news on CBS, ABC and NBC has been shrinking and graying, like laundry that has been through too many spin cycles. The shows cost millions of dollars to produce. A half-hour news program is paid for by eight minutes of advertising.
Regular news watchers already know that most of those eight minutes are taken up by men with erectile dysfunction getting lucky after taking Cialis, or women being gently lulled to sleep by the Lunesta moth.
Drug companies currently get a tax break to make and market that kind of stuff. They’re called “direct-to-consumer” (or DTC) ads, but the consumer is only a means to an end.
The ads routinely beg you to “ask your doctor” for a prescription. It’s the doctor those ads are after, not you. They’re speaking to those doctors through you, much the way supermarkets put chocolate-coated “breakfast cereal” on the lower shelves to be at eye level with the kiddies. “Ask your doctor” is the same as “throw a tantrum for your mother until she buys you what you want.”
I can understand Franken’s point — that Big Pharma shouldn’t be making money from using consumers as pawns to achieve their profit margins. But print and TV journalism is already in big trouble.
According to Consumer Reports, drug companies spent $5.375 billion on advertising in 2007. While every dollar spent advertising osteoporosis drug Reclast resulted in just six cents of sales, every dollar spent advertising cholesterol drug Lipitor brought in $59.78 in sales. Without the tax break, you can be sure they’ll reconsider how much airtime to buy on the nightly news.
Without those ads, the news shows will have to cut costs. Soon, they’ll be lucky to maintain a news bureau in midtown Manhattan, let alone Afghanistan.
On one hand, the death of print and TV journalism means a loss of some of the standards of reporting that have not yet become de rigueur on the Web (such as sourcing and fact checking).
On the other hand, the explosion of DTC advertising from drug companies has resulted in lot of people overmedicating — why, just the other day, my leg twitched and I just knew it had to be Restless Leg Syndrome, not the six-shot venti Americano I had at 5 p.m.
I’m not saying Franken should withdraw the proposed legislation. I’m asking a general question that so far has no answer: Why is it that the consumer always gets the shaft?
Click here for the full report.
Poll Indicates Mass Rejection of Swine Flu
October 23, 2009 by JP
Filed under Government
October 23, 2009
Infowars
By Steve Watson
A new scientific poll has found that the vast majority of Americans have no intention of rolling up their sleeves for the H1N1 vaccine because they do not trust government assurances that the shot is safe.
In the week that the first H1N1 vaccines have become available, 62% of respondents to ABC News/Washington Post survey said they will probably not get vaccinated, while 30% said they are not confident in the shot’s safety.
The poll shows that the vast majority of Americans would rather risk sickness than trust their government’s advice of necessity, indicating that the $16 million federal propaganda effort is failing.
In addition, the survey reveals that around four parents out of ten say they have no intention of allowing their children to receive the vaccine.
Over half of respondents in that group said that the primary reason they would not allow their kids to be vaccinated was because of the possibility of side effects and suspicions that the shot has not been adequately tested.
The rest cited the belief that H1N1 was not serious enough to warrant vaccination or that getting the shot was not “worth the trouble”.
The results come despite the fact that concerns over getting the flu have also increased significantly from 39% to 52%. More people are worried over H1N1 than they were over bird flu and SARS in 2006 and 2003 respectively, according to the poll.
“These results suggest that encouraging vaccinations depends not merely on warning people about getting the flu but as much on persuading doubters that the vaccine is safe.” The ABC report states.
The numbers in the ABC/Washington Post poll dovetail almost exactly with those in recent AP, Consumer Reports and Harvard University surveys.
Elsewhere there have been mixed reports on the uptake of the vaccine. Some clinics have reported thousands lining up on the streets to get the vaccine, while others have reported very low turnouts.
Chicago has taken the step of making the vaccine free for pregnant women; health-care workers; caregivers of children younger than 6 months; children and adults under 24, and adults who have underlying medical conditions.
