Some of you probably have never heard of it, but it used to be in almost every household in the medicine chest.. I remember it like it was yesterday..
So anyway...from http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2518/what-happened-to-mercurochrome
Quote
What happened to Mercurochrome?
July 23, 2004
Dear Cecil:
I had skin surgery recently and was told to apply Mercurochrome to aid in scarless healing. The product, once widely available, is sold by only one vendor in Boise, and I'm told they manufacture their own. Another pharmacist told me they were not allowed to handle or sell it. What happened to this antiseptic that I grew up with?
â€" David Young, Boise, Idaho
You're dating yourself, pops. Few under age 30 have ever heard of this stuff. In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared that Mercurochrome, generically known as merbromin, was "not generally recognized as safe and effective" as an over-the-counter antiseptic and forbade its sale across state lines. A few traditionalists complained: Whaddya mean, not generally recognized as safe? Moms have been daubing it on their kids' owies since the Harding administration! But the more reasonable reaction was: It's about time.
For many years the FDA, faced with the task of regulating thousands of pharmaceuticals and food additives, many of which long predated federal oversight, has maintained the so-called GRAS (generally recognized etc) list, originally compiled as a way of grandfathering in products like Mercurochrome that had been around for ages and hadn't hurt or killed a noticeable number of people. Recognizing that from a scientific standpoint such a standard left a lot to be desired, the FDA has been whittling away at the unexamined products on the GRAS list over time. Mercurochrome and other drugs containing mercury came up for scrutiny as part of a general review of over-the-counter antiseptics that began in 1978, and for good reason--mercury in large enough doses is a poison that harms the brain, the kidneys, and developing fetuses. While no one's offered evidence of mass Mercurochrome poisoning, the medical literature contains scattered reports of mercury toxicity due to use of the antiseptic, and these days the burden of proof is on drug manufacturers to show that their products' benefits outweigh the risks. In the case of Mercurochrome and many other mercury-containing compounds, that had never been done.
The FDA initially proposed clipping Mercurochrome's GRAS status in 1982 and asked for comment. Hearing little, the FDA classified the antiseptic as a "new drug," meaning that anyone proposing to sell it nationwide had to submit it to the same rigorous approval process required of a drug invented last month. (This took place in 1998--nobody's going to accuse the FDA of rushing to judgment.) It's not out of the question that a pharmaceutical company will do so someday--published research on Mercurochrome, though hardly abundant, suggests the stuff is reasonably effective. However, the approval process is time-consuming and expensive and any patent protection Mercurochrome might once have had surely expired long ago. For the foreseeable future those yearning for that delicious Mercurochrome sting will have to look somewhere else.
Other notes from the mercury wars, as long as we're on the subject:
Already illegal in some states and municipalities, mercury fever thermometers appear to be headed for history's dustbin. The U.S. Senate approved a federally mandated phase-out in 2002, although the bill didn't make it through the House. Even in jurisdictions where mercury thermometers are still legal, many drugstores are dropping them in favor of the digital electronic type, which are unarguably safer--although you don't get to play with those cool quicksilver globules when they break.
Despite two decades of controversy and threatened legislative bans, amalgam ("silver") tooth fillings, which are half mercury, are still a mainstay of dentistry. Although some health activists claim the mercury leaches out of the fillings and into the body, the FDA in a 2002 statement reaffirmed the mainstream view, to wit: "No valid scientific evidence has shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with dental restorations, except in the rare case of allergy."
Thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative in vaccines, is suspected of causing autism and other neurological disorders in children. A recent review by a panel of prominent scientists found no evidence for the much-publicized autism link; nonetheless thimerosal is no longer used in most vaccines, flu shots being the chief exception.
More than 30 years after the alarm was first raised, mercury accumulation in fish remains the chief source of exposure to the toxic metal in the U.S. The FDA advises that pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children avoid shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish entirely and limit consumption of albacore tuna (canned white tuna and tuna steaks) to 6 ounces (one meal) per week. Canned light tuna, shrimp, salmon, pollock, and catfish are said to be OK for up to 12 ounces per week. Some say even these guidelines, particularly the one for albacore, are too permissive. I'm not one to encourage the paranoids, but when you look at some of the brain-damaged decisions that get made in this country, often you can't help but think somebody's mom ate too much fish.
â€" Cecil Adams
I get bad flashbacks thinking of mercurochrome. Jeezus that stuff stung. But it was a pretty color.
Aspirin wouldn't be approved today, it is grandfathered. Given the side effects on sensitive people, most of the drugs sold would be banned under the same regulations ... but Big Pharma gets what it wants. Certainly I got Mercurochrome when I was little, but it may have been a grandfathered patent medicine, that outlived its history. Unfortunately, there are a lot more industrial metals and chemicals running about, that didn't exist 200 years ago in the public domain, that are horrible pollutants, not just mercury.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2016, 10:20:14 PM
Given the side effects on sensitive people, most of the drugs sold would be banned under the same regulations ... but Big Pharma gets what it wants.
WTF does this even mean?
Never knew Mercurochrome had met this fate. Thought it was still widely available. I rarely used it, though.
I remember it being applied with some little plastic stick in the bottle.. twas instant fire on a minor scrape...it sure kept you from running to mama every time you fell down.. Maybe that was its secret..
Quote from: Mermaid on February 05, 2016, 10:49:45 PM
WTF does this even mean?
If the medical regulatory rule is ... "do no harm". And if "placebo" equals fraud ... then there are no medicines that can be allowed, including "natural" remedies. People are not homogeneous. Every medicine out there that isn't a placebo ... will hurt someone. Not every patient, but some of them. Being allergic to a medicine is just one symptom. Grandfathering happens when an existing medicine no longer meets current standards. Mercurochrome was grandfathered, but then lost it (this was political not medical ... because under that standard, aspirin would be banned too).
Personally, I have no problem with medicines ... I avoid them as much as I can, and only use over the counter in favor of prescription (usually stronger medicine) when I can ... and avoid over the counter as much as I can too. Neither I nor the doctor know which of these I might have a reaction to. If you ever listen (in the US) to medicine advertisements on TV, they have to disclose the potential side effects ... which can be mild to horrendous (death). If a medicine potentially causes death, and it is allowed ... then why ban mercurochrome?
I have a memory of my mother applying it to my knee, and telling me it would prevent the scrape from being infected. I remember her saying that some people wondered if it might be dangerous in some way, but that no one had actually proved that it was. She said we would use it until someone proved it was more harmful than good.
The other common alternative to use on cuts and scrapes, at least at my house, was iodine. We had small vials of both, and I don't think I could tell them apart except by the shape of the bottle. As I recall, I would whine as my mother applied mercurochrome, but iodine was far worse. My mother thought iodine was probably better stuff, but for little cuts and scrapes, mercurochrome was good enough.
As I got older, other antiseptics started showing up. Bactine was often advertised on TV, but such newcomers were not commonly used. I assumed they weren't as good. None of my friends talked about them.
It's odd that this thread came up, because in the last few months, a memory of iodine and mercurochrome came back to me, but for no particular reason that I know of. I wondered where and why it went away.
Quote from: Baruch on February 06, 2016, 08:04:55 AM
If the medical regulatory rule is ... "do no harm". And if "placebo" equals fraud ... then there are no medicines that can be allowed, including "natural" remedies. People are not homogeneous. Every medicine out there that isn't a placebo ... will hurt someone. Not every patient, but some of them. Being allergic to a medicine is just one symptom. Grandfathering happens when an existing medicine no longer meets current standards. Mercurochrome was grandfathered, but then lost it (this was political not medical ... because under that standard, aspirin would be banned too).
Personally, I have no problem with medicines ... I avoid them as much as I can, and only use over the counter in favor of prescription (usually stronger medicine) when I can ... and avoid over the counter as much as I can too. Neither I nor the doctor know which of these I might have a reaction to. If you ever listen (in the US) to medicine advertisements on TV, they have to disclose the potential side effects ... which can be mild to horrendous (death). If a medicine potentially causes death, and it is allowed ... then why ban mercurochrome?
Because it contains a harmful heavy metal. Modern medicines are safety and efficacy tested. They are not perfect, but they are the best we can do. It's very difficult to get FDA approval.
Mercurochrome is not safe according to present safety standards. Equating it to modern medicine because "Big Pharma" gets what it wants is just not an educated statement.
Just about anything could potentially not meet the FDA standards.. Let's not forget dihydrogen monoxide and all the havoc it's created over the years and the many people killed by it..
https://youtu.be/QCVd3Q7r5wA
Quote from: Mermaid on February 06, 2016, 10:34:16 AM
Because it contains a harmful heavy metal. Modern medicines are safety and efficacy tested. They are not perfect, but they are the best we can do. It's very difficult to get FDA approval.
Mercurochrome is not safe according to present safety standards. Equating it to modern medicine because "Big Pharma" gets what it wants is just not an educated statement.
You trust the FDA ... I do not. You trust science (as in tobacco company type science) ... I do not. But I am not saying ... don't use over the counter or prescription drugs.
Quote from: Baruch on February 06, 2016, 12:04:03 PM
You trust the FDA ... I do not. You trust science (as in tobacco company type science) ... I do not. But I am not saying ... don't use over the counter or prescription drugs.
I am in drug development for a "Big Pharma" company, so this is what I do.
How exactly do you think drugs are discovered, developed and approved? Payola?
It has always been interesting to me how so many people theorize that the FDA is in bed with "Big Pharma". I know firsthand that quite the opposite is true. We have to work HARD to get agency approval, and they very often throw back millions of dollars worth of research for extremely small things.
Conspiracy theories annoy the shit out of me because they are generally uninformed. Go ahead and fill in the gaps instead of understanding the straight dope, that is your prerogative. There's no difference between that and religion, from my angle.
I also find it interesting that the same people who whine about Big Pharma are the first people to also whine when the agencies don't approve experimental drugs that target problems they deem to be Important, like cancer drugs Ebola vaccines because "curing them would not make them as much money".
Wow, I haven't thought about mercurochrome in some time. I had it daubed on me countless times.
Wonder whatever happened to Demazin? That was our go-to medication when the coughs and sniffles started. It was prescription only when I was little, then OTC, then gone.
(googles that)
Well, damn. Banned because one of its ingredients was linked to strokes in young women. Okay, don't give it to them. I'm an old man, I want my drug cocktail that worked.
Stromboli has Hydrogen Peroxide. Stromboli is wise.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 06, 2016, 12:17:28 PM
I also find it interesting that the same people who whine about Big Pharma are the first people to also whine when the agencies don't approve experimental drugs that target problems they deem to be Important, like cancer drugs Ebola vaccines because "curing them would not make them as much money".
i do approve of medical and pharma research ... I just understand that none of this is a panacea, and none of you/us are superheroes. If what you think you are doing, is developing a panacea ... then you need to find other work ;-). I have been in medicine for almost 20 years now ... but not a doctor (sorry to the authoritarians here, I will crawl under a rock and never comment on anything unless I have a damn MD/PhD ... no, you experts can bite me!) I am not saying that pharmacy research is corrupt (but the capitalism and politics it is imbedded in is) ... but perhaps some whistleblower can tell us all about the next Thalidomide. Forgot about that one?
Just like in engineering (something I also used to do) ... you have to stick a fork in it, and call it done. But science/technology is no ethical free for all. If you build a bridge, and it falls down and kills people anyway ... because you made a mistake (that would never happen) then you are professionally liable ... are you aware of every patient who tries your products during development? How about how drug marketing is done in the US, have any problem with that? You may try to be as ethical as possible ... I do.
But I know what I am doing ... I support the Deep State, and that kills people, including Americans ... even without trial. Stuff I do now is more peaceful, but I used to work on stuff to kill millions of people. But no conspiracy theory where I work ... we don't keep comatose people "on-line" to harvest their organs. But that is a strawman ... black/white thinking. Do you have self awareness and a conscience? Has anything you worked on ever had a bad reaction with a patient? Collateral damage that ... same as what I support. It bothers me, but being the adult I am, I gauge if I can continue or not given reality.
Quote from: trdsf on February 06, 2016, 09:40:56 PM
Wow, I haven't thought about mercurochrome in some time. I had it daubed on me countless times.
Wonder whatever happened to Demazin? That was our go-to medication when the coughs and sniffles started. It was prescription only when I was little, then OTC, then gone.
(googles that)
Well, damn. Banned because one of its ingredients was linked to strokes in young women. Okay, don't give it to them. I'm an old man, I want my drug cocktail that worked.
Exactly ... but I am not saying that the drug researchers or the drug company knew about that beforehand. Research is imperfect ... but marketing ... priceless!
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2016, 11:48:45 AM
i do approve of medical and pharma research ... I just understand that none of this is a panacea, and none of you/us are superheroes. If what you think you are doing, is developing a panacea ... then you need to find other work ;-). I have been in medicine for almost 20 years now ... but not a doctor (sorry to the authoritarians here, I will crawl under a rock and never comment on anything unless I have a damn MD/PhD ... no, you experts can bite me!) I am not saying that pharmacy research is corrupt (but the capitalism and politics it is imbedded in is) ... but perhaps some whistleblower can tell us all about the next Thalidomide. Forgot about that one?
Just like in engineering (something I also used to do) ... you have to stick a fork in it, and call it done. But science/technology is no ethical free for all. If you build a bridge, and it falls down and kills people anyway ... because you made a mistake (that would never happen) then you are professionally liable ... are you aware of every patient who tries your products during development? How about how drug marketing is done in the US, have any problem with that? You may try to be as ethical as possible ... I do.
But I know what I am doing ... I support the Deep State, and that kills people, including Americans ... even without trial. Stuff I do now is more peaceful, but I used to work on stuff to kill millions of people. But no conspiracy theory where I work ... we don't keep comatose people "on-line" to harvest their organs. But that is a strawman ... black/white thinking. Do you have self awareness and a conscience? Has anything you worked on ever had a bad reaction with a patient? Collateral damage that ... same as what I support. It bothers me, but being the adult I am, I gauge if I can continue or not given reality.
How where did I say anything about a panacea?
Forget about thalidomide? That's the WHOLE REASON the FDA is in place. Did YOU forget that?
Quote from: Mermaid on February 07, 2016, 11:56:21 AM
How where did I say anything about a panacea?
Forget about thalidomide? That's the WHOLE REASON the FDA is in place. Did YOU forget that?
You must be a Republican ;-) The purpose of US regulation, is to protect business, not the consumer. Ever here about the SEC? Oh, the public gets protection all right. And as I understand it, since Grandpa Reagan, the FDA isn't run the way it was at first. They purged those troublesome Democrats right out of that agency (and as many others as they can).
I thought patriotism was a panacea ... but I grew up.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2016, 12:04:38 PM
You must be a Republican ;-) The purpose of US regulation, is to protect business, not the consumer. Ever here about the SEC? Oh, the public gets protection all right. And as I understand it, since Grandpa Reagan, the FDA isn't run the way it was at first. They purged those troublesome Democrats right out of that agency (and as many others as they can).
I thought patriotism was a panacea ... but I grew up.
You keep assigning me traits that I am not displaying. I am a left wing liberal. I also have a firsthand understanding of the practicalities of how modern medicines are produced.
I said nothing about our current state of oligarchy, which I probably agree completely with you about. "Ever hear of the SEC"? Why are you speaking to me like I am a 6 year old?
My point, in case you missed it, was that you spoke to me like I was an idiot and had "forgotten" about thalidomide, when in fact, that very incident was WHY the FDA was structured the way it is. In direct response to a chemical being distributed to women for problems associated with pregnancy without the benefit of our current safety and efficacy testing, and with disastrous results. Modern medicine is no panacea, but it sure makes our lives a lot better than things were a century ago, when people were sure to die of some infectious disease or other. The FDA does the best it can do to protect consumers from fraudulent claims and safety issues. It's by no means a perfect system. I'd love to hear your suggestion if you have a better solution.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 06, 2016, 12:17:28 PM
I also find it interesting that the same people who whine about Big Pharma are the first people to also whine when the agencies don't approve experimental drugs that target problems they deem to be Important, like cancer drugs Ebola vaccines because "curing them would not make them as much money".
I don't put any store in conspiracy theories or ideas, either. For me Big Pharma is simply another corp. getting all it can in profit. What gets me, are the prices. Last year, when I fell into the doughnut hole, I was charged over $500 each for a months supply of long acting and another for short acting insulin. Needless to say, I did not pay that--I just did without. My older father-in-law was charged $3000 for a 10 day supply of an antibiotic. Are those prices caused by a conspiracy? No. Greed--yes. I simply cannot understand that those prices are warranted.
There is no free market chump ... particularly in medicine. It is an oligopoly, not an oligopsony.
Power, wealth, fame ... no conspiracy there, these aren't the vices you are looking for, carry on.
And no, same idea, different industry ... I don't think there is a secret carburetor out there, giving 100 miles per gallon, that Detroit is hiding.
Profit is good, all criminal elements thrive on it, including those who don't think they are criminals, because their bread is oh so white.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 07, 2016, 12:47:53 PM
You keep assigning me traits that I am not displaying. I am a left wing liberal. I also have a firsthand understanding of the practicalities of how modern medicines are produced.
I said nothing about our current state of oligarchy, which I probably agree completely with you about. "Ever hear of the SEC"? Why are you speaking to me like I am a 6 year old?
My point, in case you missed it, was that you spoke to me like I was an idiot and had "forgotten" about thalidomide, when in fact, that very incident was WHY the FDA was structured the way it is. In direct response to a chemical being distributed to women for problems associated with pregnancy without the benefit of our current safety and efficacy testing, and with disastrous results. Modern medicine is no panacea, but it sure makes our lives a lot better than things were a century ago, when people were sure to die of some infectious disease or other. The FDA does the best it can do to protect consumers from fraudulent claims and safety issues. It's by no means a perfect system. I'd love to hear your suggestion if you have a better solution.
Well, being a right-of-center Democrat is so much more progressive that a farther-right-of-center Republican ... but enough about those assholes.
Yes, we need agencies that look out for the public. But as long as they are public or private run ... it is corruption all the way down. Something sponsored by the AMA (in the US) should be sufficient, but it isn't, because the AMA doesn't care for patients, they aren't members.
And I agree that the perfect is the enemy of the practical. But I didn't realize for a long time, that the practical had background music like in the Godfather movie. If you can't fight the criminals, join them and fight for good crime on the inside.
No, not trying to talk down to anyone ... trying to wake people up! Too bad the seven deadly sins are real, even if Jesus isn't. But see, you and I are part of the oligarchy, and not way on the outside, we are on the inside.
The FDA historically, happened because of patent medicine and narcotics addiction ... way before the 1960s. For me, all medicines, well meaning or not, are patents medicines ... some are licit and some are not. Same as tobacco vs marijuana. And narcotics addition (and nicotine addiction) is real. But there is politics involved in what is allowed and what is not ... science just feeds the beast, same as the nuclear industry.