FDA Protects Him From Protecting Himself From Diarrhea -- And Me From Protecting Myself Against Serious Motion Sickness
I get carsick from my own driving. Even from driving five miles.
I also get carsick from driving with others. Even if I use the Scopolamine patch, which is expensive and makes me drowsy and basically feel weird.
There's a drug -- a benign drug called betahistine (Serc) -- that a friend in Paris took when she suffered briefly from vertigo.
The FDA found the tests on it not very good, contends that it has little therapeutic effect, and won't allow it to be sold here.
The thing is -- as I discuss with an epidemiologist who talks to me about study methodology -- there are individual differences, and Serc does work for some people, including me. It's probably the histamine form in it that blocks something malfunctioning or overfunctioning in my vestibular system.
The author also uses Betahistine to treat severe motion intolerance (e.g. Matsnev and Sigaleva, 2007).
It's inexpensive, works for some people, has very few side-effects (none, really, in me for occasional use) and it doesn't make you drowsy, which is miraculous and wonderful. (And no, this isn't a placebo effect -- I expected it not to work, much like the patch, which I was surprised didn't entirely work -- meaning I can't get to Santa Barbara from Venice by car without feeling somewhat sick the entire weekend.)
It isn't a complete cure-all. If we go downtown from Venice, I might be a little carsick when we get there, but I won't need to go lie down on the rug of people we're visiting and sleep the whole time. Or toss my cookies and remain dizzy and sick for two days, like I did when I couldn't make it across town to Mozza (fab gourmet Italian restaurant) for a think tank dinner I was invited to.
Still, this drug is nothing short of miraculous for me.
I found this out when I -- miserable from the Mozza experience and others -- decided to take a chance and order Serc off eBay from a seller in Thailand. I used to produce commercials, right out of college, and I had to make what are called "color-corrected packages" -- replicas of the package for TV. I looked at the price on eBay --$19.99 for maybe 24 pills -- and decided that it probably wouldn't be worth it for them to fake the packages.
So, I have a fantastic solution for motion sickness, but eBay keeps banning the sellers, so I have a connection in Romania now who will sell them to me without eBay in the equation. We don't make the mistake economist Alex Tabarrok did with his diarrhea medicine. He writes at Marginal Revolution:
I arranged for someone to buy me some Canadian Dukoral and ship it over the border. Unfortunately, my "connect" is not as practiced in the art of evading U.S. customs as would be ideal and in a fit of regrettable honesty wrote "gift, diarrhea medicine" on the package. The ever-vigilant U.S. Customs intercepted and confiscated my package, thus saving me from the dangers of FDA-unapproved medicine. So I am out $150 (2 doses) and will be less than fully protected on my trip.
And I absolutely agree with him here:
It has long been my position that if a medical drug or device has been approved in another developed country then it ought to be approved in the United States. If it's good enough for the Canadians then it's good enough for me.
This is called "drug reciprocity."
Oh, and fuck you, FDA, from only barring the French sunblock, Anthelios, to be sold here, except in what I now see is a less effective form (XS instead of XL -- which is the kind with the Mexoryl, the really effective ingredient in it). I've bought this by the caseful in Paris, and just bought more in Vancouver when I was there -- the effective kind that Europeans have been using for decades without dropping dead. As a reviewer on Amazon writes:
Before you buy, just know this: All the raves for Anthelios (which started in the mid-to-late 90's) originally were for the *European* version, which contains Mexoryl, a patented UVA blocker with proven track record in EU and Canada. Mexoryl is highly stable; it does not degrade after hours of sun exposure, rendering the "reapplication" part of sunscreen nearly moot. L'Oreal was the one to patent and develop Mexoryl, which is why it's only found in L'oreal brands outside of the US. In the late 90s and early 2000's everyone was buying Anthelios from European or Canadian sites. Coasting on this word-of-mouth success, the US version was soon launched--- but without the star ingredient which is so effective.The FDA did not approve Mexoryl as a sunscreen; Talk to anyone in cosmetic industry regulation and it's well-known that the USA is 10 years behind Europe and Asia on approving sunscreens. The list of US-approved sunscreen ingredients is very short, whereas in Europe and Asia the list is longer--- and these newer ingredients are much lighter, thinner, and more absorbent -- Another reason why EU/Asia sunscreens feel like invisible silk---and US ones tend to feel greasy/heavy.
The US version does NOT contain Mexoryl, instead it contains Avobenzone --also highly stable for many hours under the sun -- but this formula also contains Oxybenzone, a controversial ingredient (look it up). I'm not against chemical sunscreens, but I personally avoid Oxybenzone as much as I can. However, one great benefit is the milky-light texture, absorbent finish that feels weightless on skin. This is one reason why it's so popular.
If you don't care about chemical UV filters and just want an absorbent formula that works great on the face, this is a good option. But know that the Euro version is far superior, and if travelling outside the US, stock up --it's very affordable.
But hey, FDA, how great that you protect Americans from the best possible sun protection and maintain that wonderful feeling that you're powerful bureaucrats.
We like to live dangerously here in Canada. We actually allow our kids to have the dreaded Kinder Surprise Eggs and trust them to eat the chocolate and play with the toy rather than swallowing it.
Steamer at January 11, 2017 8:54 AM
We're from the government, and we're here to protect you.
On the other hand, the EPA is also a decade or two behind, as they haven't put forth regulations on how much wattage your electric kettle can draw. So...government taketh away, but also giveth.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 11, 2017 9:53 AM
Hey. Try Thalidomide.
What could go wrong?
Radwaste at January 11, 2017 10:01 AM
Personally, I prefer carrying an umbrella to putting on ANY kind of sunscreen. You would just have to wash it off, after all. Asians carry umbrellas a lot - maybe it will catch on. Besides, you keep off the heat that way, too. Not to mention that an umbrella will last years longer than one bottle of sunscreen and thus can be cheaper. If you need both hands free, that's different, of course.
And maybe even long bathing suits will come back into fashion - and yes, it would make everyone look like characters in a Mack Sennett silent film at first, but anyone who's out of shape or just plain lacking in confidence (especially young people) will breathe a sigh of relief.
lenona at January 11, 2017 10:09 AM
Try ginger. It works for some people
My wife thought it was BS but tried it anyways. It worked better than the anything else she tried. It probably doesn't work for everyone. Just search ginger motion sickness on Amazon. Cheap and still legal.
David H at January 11, 2017 10:19 AM
Heh -- on the Kinder eggs.
I also carry an umbrella. But it's hard to do in a car or at a backyard party.
Ginger...sorry...that is so cute. I know you mean well. This is like trying to stop a moving Mack truck with a two-inch Lego barrier.
Amy Alkon at January 11, 2017 11:01 AM
Amy, I had no idea that you had motion sickness so badly. Does it also affect you on flights? If so, your transatlantic flights to visit France must be pure hell.
I wish I knew something to suggest for you.
Patrick at January 11, 2017 2:10 PM
Hey. Try Thalidomide.
What could go wrong?
Radwaste at January 11, 2017 10:01 AM
When I was in Germany in the 80's I saw a few of these Thalidomide babies.
Gives new meaning to the term *unintended consequences*
Half the stuff the FDA approves is just as poorly tested.
As an alternative to rubbing poorly vetted drugs all over my skin (most of which I am allergic to). I prefer a hat, and long sleeves.
Isab at January 11, 2017 2:47 PM
"When I was in Germany in the 80's I saw a few of these Thalidomide babies."
I know, but that's been like 60 years ago now. Nothing like it has happened since. It's a bit like saying "there was once a bad accident on a freeway, so we're going to ban freeways". I won't dispute (much) Isab's comment about testing, but the biochemists do have a much better handle on what they are doing these days.
Cousin Dave at January 12, 2017 7:03 AM
I know, but that's been like 60 years ago now. Nothing like it has happened since. It's a bit like saying "there was once a bad accident on a freeway, so we're going to ban freeways". I won't dispute (much) Isab's comment about testing, but the biochemists do have a much better handle on what they are doing these days.
Cousin Dave at January 12, 2017 7:03 AM
What I am saying Cousin Dave is I have noticed a pattern on TV for the last twenty years. First comes a drug that is designed to treat either a non existent problem (longer thicker eyelashes anyone?) or something that is only a marginal improvement on an existing generic drug which has been redesigned to get around the fact that the patent is about to expire.
A few years later here comes the ads for the class action suit on behalf of anyone harmed by the drug.
The evidence of harm is usually as flimsy as the original evidence of efficacy
I will say one positive thing about Obamacare, anyone expecting a third party payer to cover eyelash therapy will probably have a long wait.
Isab at January 12, 2017 8:30 AM
Isab, I agree that there are a lot of people lately in the cosmetic industry who are focusing on treatments for conditions that are trivial, or on treatments that are only minuscule improvements over existing treatments. There's a bunch of "brand awareness" type stuff going on there, that doesn't contain any useful information.
Of course, as you say, there are also shysters who will solicit plaintiffs for class actions for absolutely anything. There is a group lately running a lot of ads on our local cable system seeking class members for a lawsuit against talcum powder manufacturers. Talcum powder. I suppose next they'll figure out that water causes cancer. (People who never consume water are 100% cancer free!)
I still blame the FDA for being part of the problem. Part of their ridiculous standards for clinical trials is that absolutely anything that happens in the trial must be listed as a side effect, even if only one person had it happen and it could not possibly have been related to the drug being tested. It prevents people from being able to determine which side effects are worth worrying about. This of course is an aspect of the completely stupid "precautionary principle" that animates nearly all government regulation.
Cousin Dave at January 12, 2017 11:36 AM
I still blame the FDA for being part of the problem. Part of their ridiculous standards for clinical trials is that absolutely anything that happens in the trial must be listed as a side effect, even if only one person had it happen and it could not possibly have been related to the drug being tested. It prevents people from being able to determine which side effects are worth worrying about. This of course is an aspect of the completely stupid "precautionary principle" that animates nearly all government regulation.
Cousin Dave at January 12, 2017 11:36 AM
I agree but another problem is, that it isnt cost effective to design a study that can adequately deal with long term side effects.
A big one back in my day, was a drug that prevented miscarriages called DES. A number of women took it, and now there is a sky rocketing cancer rate among the children who's mothers took this drug.
Our legal system is a big part of the problem, but it has put the FDA in the untenable position of trying to prove a negative.
Isab at January 12, 2017 3:52 PM
A few years later here comes the ads for the class action suit on behalf of anyone harmed by the drug.
I saw an ad for "survivors" of family members who died of kidney failure after years of dialysis to join a class action lawsuit against the company the manufactures the machines
lujlp at January 12, 2017 10:14 PM
Well, this is another case in which the consumer clearly has no ability whatsoever to determine if the substance is poisonous, either acutely or hereditarily.
Should the FDA get a move on? Yes.
Should anything whatsoever be sold commercially?
No.
Radwaste at January 14, 2017 10:34 AM
Leave a comment