 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Lupus / July 2005Sunblock from Canada?
In the news there seems to be a big thing with people going across the border, into Canada at Windsor. They are buying the sunblock that is illegal in the USA. But very effective Sunblock. The two they are talking about is L'Oreal products, Ombrelle and the expensive one Anthelios. These two products contain Mexoryl which protects the skin from ultraviolet-A rays that penetrate Deep into the skin and cause wrinkles too. Apparantly you can buy these products cheaper at Ebay. 3 FDA spokes person says she wasn't allowed to comment when the products would be availble in the US. The Canadian government says it will consider new restrictions on selling prescription drugs to the Americans. Nice huh? If the US don't get off their soapbox and get the meds we need at a better price, I say go where you can. After all some of the medications we do get are already from Canada. How stupid do they think we are?/ me who else > These two products contain Mexoryl which protects the skin from > ultraviolet-A rays that penetrate Deep into the skin and cause wrinkles > too. Apparantly you can buy these products cheaper at Ebay. 3 <snippage> > If the US don't get off their soapbox and get the meds we need at a better > price, I say go where you can. After all some of the medications we do get > are already from Canada. > How stupid do they think we are?/ > > me who else Hi Janers... I just mentoined this product briefly in the above thread to Worried Hubby. There was a good article about it in... uh.. some paper. grr.. dont' remember. anyway - I think this is silly. This product has been in use for a number of years and has a good record of safety. I can't help but wonder if there are some interest groups out there who are not wanting to cut into their titanium dioxide or zinc oxide profits? I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist but this is not a dangerous drug and in fact could be saving lives. Very frustrating. If I could find it around here, I would buy it. of course, that theory doesn't make a lot of sense because the meroxyl is only one ingredient in these products that also tend to have other UV blockers. It's the combination that makes it more effective overall than what is currently legally available in the US. rant over me too. :) > Hi Janers... I just mentioned this product briefly in the above thread to > Worried Hubby. There was a good article about it in... uh.. some paper. > grr.. dont' remember. anyway - I think this is silly. This product has > been in use for a number of years and has a good record of safety. > I can't help but wonder if there are some interest groups out there who > are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fact could be saving lives. Very frustrating. If I could find it around > here, I would buy it. Same here, now that I know about it. After googling mexoryl I can only find that the FDA won't comment on their approval process. It may be that they're waiting for all their test results--even with something as short-lived as lab mice it takes time for dangerous side-effects to show up. If they give premature approval, and it turns out they guessed wrong, they're in trouble. My search turned up this snippet from a June 2004 article: "While on trips to Canada or Europe, sun-savvy consumers stock up on Mexoryl-carrying products like Anthélios (from La Roche-Posay) and Ombrelle. Oddly, both can also be found at the New York apothecaries Zitomer (888-219-2888) and C. O. Bigelow (800-793-5433) and online at skincarelab.com, feelbest.com and candrugstore.com." --Bill Thompson > Same here, now that I know about it. After googling mexoryl I can > only find that the FDA won't comment on their approval process. > It may be that they're waiting for all their test results--even with > something as short-lived as lab mice it takes time for dangerous > side-effects to show up. If they give premature approval, and it > turns out they guessed wrong, they're in trouble. yes.... but that's not stopped them with drugs that pharmacies can make lots of money on. Can we say "Vioxx"? And many other fast-track drugs. One of the problems with this is that it will not be prescription and therefore not something they can control in the same way or that Big Pharma as it is now called by some can make money off of. I sound like one of those paranoid nuts i suppose but lately I've been disgusted with how the FDA handles some of these things. OTOH, I'm equally disgusted with the fact that the media puts out warnings about drugs that have dangers, yet also have very important uses that can outweigh their risks. For that reason, while I am not allowed to and probably never would take Vioxx, I am not condemning Merck or anyone else for marketing the drug. I just think that fast-tracking is used so selectively as to be of very little use to the average person and a risk to those who might really need and use the drug. One of the problems here that most irritates me is the fact that overseas data is ignored. I heard a very astute(?) woman say that she would "consider the possibility of legalizing marijuana for medical use when she can see peer-reviewed studies showing it's medicinal value." Well, the problem with this is that of course - here in the US, it is nigh impossible to legally study the drug. Very few US pharmaceutical companies are a) going to go through the hassle of getting approval for such a study or b)skip that step and risk prosecution. BUT! studies done in other countries are not considered acceptable no matter how well-done. So she's asking for something she won't ever get - i suspect she knows that but it makes her sound reasonable to say it the way she said it. don't get me wrong, I don't want the drug, but I think it has promise for certain conditions and it is of no more risk than any other drug on the market. Oxycodone is a far more dangerous drug, IMO. But in rampant use. And don't *even* get me started on alcohol! It isn't the use of drugs themselves that make me upset, it's the rampant hypocrisy. > My search turned up this snippet from a June 2004 article: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Zitomer (888-219-2888) and C. O. Bigelow (800-793-5433) and online > at skincarelab.com, feelbest.com and candrugstore.com." thanks, Bill. I knew I'd heard of the NY sources. But being in TX that is kinda out of the realm of possibility for me. I am curious though, is it a federal offense to ship/sell these things? Or just illegal to make them in the US? What I saw on t.v. showed that the apothecaries had them "behind the counter" - hey, these are skin cremes, not skin mags! :P yeah - some of my more liberal side is showing... sorry. normally i'm firmly in the middle of politics but when things impact my health... i swing wayyyy left. :) > "William R Thompson" <wrthomps@ix.netcom.com> wrote : >> Same here, now that I know about it. After googling mexoryl I can >> only find that the FDA won't comment on their approval process. >> It may be that they're waiting for all their test results--even with >> something as short-lived as lab mice it takes time for dangerous >> side-effects to show up. If they give premature approval, and it >> turns out they guessed wrong, they're in trouble. > yes.... but that's not stopped them with drugs that pharmacies can make > lots > of money on. Can we say "Vioxx"? Or "Viagra"? ("If you use it, you'll go blind!"--"Can I use it until I need glasses?") Somehow I don't think Viagra will be pulled anytime soon. I know what you mean about the foot-dragging and hypocrisy. I get the feeling that a lot of these decisions are made for us by people who say "I've never been sick a day in my life." I wish they could have a limited approval for some drugs, instead of having to act like everything is a potential thalidomide disaster. >> My search turned up this snippet from a June 2004 article: >> "While on trips to Canada or Europe, sun-savvy consumers stock up on >> Mexoryl-carrying products like Anthélios (from La Roche-Posay) and >> Ombrelle. Oddly, both can also be found at the New York apothecaries >> Zitomer (888-219-2888) and C. O. Bigelow (800-793-5433) and online >> at skincarelab.com, feelbest.com and candrugstore.com." > thanks, Bill. I knew I'd heard of the NY sources. But being in TX that > is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the US? What I saw on t.v. showed that the apothecaries had them "behind > the counter" - hey, these are skin cremes, not skin mags! :P I just looked at the feelbest.com site. The bad news is, they are out of the forbidden material until October. The good news is, this is because they shipped so much of it to the States; they've been swamped every since the NY Times ran an article on it. They say that the products pass through US Customs without any problem. I'm not going to contact Customs and ask if this is legit--if mexoryl has slipped through the cracks, why upset them? Zitomer will let you order online at http://www.zitomer.com CO Bigelow may have a web site, but I can't find it. Whether or not they have mexoryl in stock is debatable. > yeah - some of my more liberal side is showing... Don't worry, both of my sides are left. Makes it hard to buy pairs of shoes and gloves. --Bill Thompson William R Thompson wrote: > "While on trips to Canada or Europe, sun-savvy consumers stock up on > Mexoryl-carrying products like Anthélios (from La Roche-Posay) and > Ombrelle. Oddly, both can also be found at the New York apothecaries > Zitomer (888-219-2888) and C. O. Bigelow (800-793-5433) and online > at skincarelab.com, feelbest.com and candrugstore.com." Well, Im pretty sure I saw that Loreal products contain it. I cannot find a Canadian (Health Canada) reference to Mexoryl (usually a health Canada website comes up right away), which makes me wonder if it's made in other countries (Europe) and imported here?? And this Candian dermatologist says it's all hype. <http://www.canada.com/calgary/globaltv/healthbeat/story.html?id=69e53ff5-739e-4b 3a-b35f-e2db80d172b5> "You will pay more for a sunscreen that contains Mexoryl, but any sunscreen that says broad spectrum coverage is adequate. The other thing about it is that it's photo-stable. Some sunscreens are not photo-stable. They contain something called Parsol 1789 which starts to break down as soon as it's exposed to the sun versus Mexoryl SX which is photo-stable. It's the best, but is a sunscreen that doesn't have it just as good, you bet," says Calgary dermatologist Dr. Greg Storwick." However: He's talking to the general population: I don't know if his advice would be different to a Lupus patient. The other thing is if it makes the product photo-stable, one doesn't have to reapply as frequently? Woudl that be reight? If so, and if it's more expensive, might make it worth the extra. J > William R Thompson wrote: >> "While on trips to Canada or Europe, sun-savvy consumers stock up on >> Mexoryl-carrying products like Anthélios (from La Roche-Posay) and >> Ombrelle. Oddly, both can also be found at the New York apothecaries >> Zitomer (888-219-2888) and C. O. Bigelow (800-793-5433) and online >> at skincarelab.com, feelbest.com and candrugstore.com." > Well, Im pretty sure I saw that Loreal products contain it. > I cannot find a Canadian (Health Canada) reference to Mexoryl (usually a > health > Canada website comes up right away), which makes me wonder if it's made in > other > countries (Europe) and imported here?? I don't know yet. Here's an Aussie site http://www.nicnas.gov.au/PUBLICATIONS/CAR/NEW/NA/NASUMMR/NA0300SR/na399.asp which has a brief summary of its physical properties; the bottom of this site has a link to a PDF file which gives Mexoryl's chemical names at the top. Its alternate trade name is Ecamsule. The bad news for some people is that may include a benzene-based compound in it. At least the PDF page has a diagram of the molecule, and that's definitely a benzene ring in the middle of the pretty picture. Can someone look at the "Assessment of Toxicological Data" on the link I gave? It looks like Mexoryl might cause some thyroid problems if it's used over a prolonged period (this report is ambiguous here-- the researchers found that their first group of control animals had low thyroid weights. These rats didn't take mexoryl, but the test animals appear to have had some changes in thyroid weight, as well as other things that sound less than good.) > And this Candian dermatologist says it's all hype. > <http://www.canada.com/calgary/globaltv/healthbeat/story.html?id=69e53ff5-739e-4b 3a-b35f-e2db80d172b5> > "You will pay more for a sunscreen that contains Mexoryl, but any > sunscreen that > says broad spectrum coverage is adequate. "Adequate?" I prefer "obsessed overachiever" in my sunblocks. > The other thing about it is that it's photo-stable. Some sunscreens are > not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bet," > says Calgary dermatologist Dr. Greg Storwick." > However: > He's talking to the general population: I don't know if his advice would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reapply as frequently? > Would that be right? It should last longer under UV light, with fewer side effects than Parsol 1789, which evidently breaks down into benzene-based compounds. If nothing else, Mexoryl appears to have fewer break-down by-products. But it would probably wash off/sweat off as readily as the next sunscreen. > If so, and if it's more expensive, might make it worth the extra. If it gives increased UV-A protection, I'd say so. (I went to see "War of the Worlds" the other night. The theater has quartz-halogen lights in its parking lot, and I had to spend a bit more time under them than I would have liked. At least the fatigue, chills and hand-numbness were mild, and have passed . . . but I expected death rays in the movie, not outside the theater . . . ) --Bill Thompson > William R Thompson wrote: > And this Candian dermatologist says it's all hype. <http://www.canada.com/calgary/globaltv/healthbeat/story.html?id=69e53ff5-73 9e-4b3a-b35f-e2db80d172b5> > "You will pay more for a sunscreen that contains Mexoryl, but any sunscreen that > says broad spectrum coverage is adequate. I'd have to do more reading but i'm not sure I agree. see below comments. Part of the problem is the whole SPF system which only references UVB blockage. SPF on the bottle does not tell you how much UVA protection a product has. Only UVB. They can call it full-spectrum when it may only block a small percentage of UVA & UVC. Again, see more below. > However: > He's talking to the general population: I don't know if his advice would be > different to a Lupus patient. Here is the part that makes the difference for me: "Mexoryl SX is a molecule, invented in Europe, that has been proven to cover the whole spectrum of UVA rays. Other sunscreens only cover part of the UVA spectrum" Lupus patients, as you might suspect in your question above, are thought to react more to UVA in terms of our actual photosensitivity symptoms. Therefore, a better blocker of UVA is of value to us, IMO, even more so than to the average individual who is more concerned about wrinkles and looking older. > The other thing is if it makes the product photo-stable, one doesn't have to > reapply as frequently? presumably. not sure. also depends on how stable it is WRT sweat and water. Contary to the labels, Waterproof sunblocks are not. not really. They only have to be "waterproof" for a certain period of time to qualify for that label. > Woudl that be reight? > If so, and if it's more expensive, might make it worth the extra. > J *I* would like it to be available. BTB, it's the UVA from fluorescents that make us sick. A sunblock that better protects me from *that* would be well worth it to me. If indeed it works. Kat, is the product available in Mexico? If so do you know anyone who makes trips across the border? I used to get some of my meds yrs ago from across the border as they were affordable there and not here. Hugs, sherry >> William R Thompson wrote: >> And this Candian dermatologist says it's all hype. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > well > worth it to me. If indeed it works. "William R Thompson" <wrthomps@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> Hi Janers... I just mentioned this product briefly in the above thread to >> Worried Hubby. There was a good article about it in... uh.. some paper. >> grr.. dont' remember. anyway - I think this is silly. This product has >> been in use for a number of years and has a good record of safety. Found it!: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701099_ pf.html According to the article, the main reason for the FDA foot-dragging is that the FDA regards mexoryl as a drug. In Europe, it (and other sunblockers) is classified as a cosmetic, which subjects it to less-rigorous standards. --Bill Thompson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.