Natural Hormone Cream

This Banner Ad Now Available
Advertise Your Products Here!
This Website Gets Thousands of Visitors Every Day
Send Email for more information: healthcare_marketing_services@yahoo.com

NaturalHormone Cream
www.NaturalHormoneCream.com™
FeminineHygiene, Gynecology & Menstruation Information,
Resources and Products for Dads and Husbands

Accordingto the late health and nutrition researcher, Dr. Linus Pauling, “you can trace every ailment, every sickness and every disease to an OrganicTrace Mineral deficiency.” Dr. Pauling was a much-acclaimed and heraldedleader in researching disease and received
2 Nobel Prizes in his lifetime.

OrganicTrace Minerals are needed by the human body for optimum health. OrganicTrace Minerals help the body create “balance” - also known as "homeostasis."

Because of the way we grow most of our food, and with all the fertilizers,pesticides, and non-organic farming methods, soil depletion has caused a loss ofthe organic trace minerals that used to be in our foods that were grown on thefarm. All of the non-organic chemical fertilizers applied on the crops beinggrown in today's "factory farms" kill the microorganisms in the soil thatused to produce Organic Trace Minerals. When our farmer's soils are destroyed bythe chemical fertilizers that are so widely used in the production of our cropsthat are grown on the "factory farms," the "natural" organichumus soils are destroyed, and the plants/crops grown in that soil are missingthe "natural" organic trace minerals. This was the finding over70 years ago by Dr. Northern in 1936, and as documented in the U.S. Senate Document 264.

WithoutOrganic Trace Minerals, the body cannot utilize amino acids, fats and vitamins properly.Organic Trace Minerals are absolutely necessary and required by every cell, organ, gland,muscle and vital life functions in the human body. Without Organic Trace Minerals,optimum health cannot be achieved, and diseases and accelerated oxidation occursin the body.

Organic Trace Minerals are “the gift of life” and cellular nutrition and function becomes impossible withoutall of the essential Organic Trace Minerals.

Verbatim Unabridged extractsfrom the 74th Congress 2nd Session in 1936 about the Importance of Organic TraceMinerals:

"Our physical well-being is more directly dependent upon the minerals we take into our systems than upon calories or vitamins, or upon the precise proportions of starch, protein or carbohydrates we consume."

"Do you know that most of us today are suffering from certain dangerous diet deficiencies which cannot be remedied until depleted soils from which our food comes are brought into proper mineral balance?"

"The alarming fact is that foods (fruits, vegetables and grains) now being raised on millions of acres of land that no longer contain enough of certain minerals are starving us - no matter how much of them we eat. No man of today can eat enough fruits and vegetables to supply his system with the minerals he requires for perfect health because his stomach isn't big enough to hold them."

"The truth is that our foods vary enormously in value, and some of them aren't worth eating as food. Our physical well-being is more directly dependent upon the minerals we take into our systems than upon calories or vitamins or upon the precise proportions of starch, protein or carbohydrates we consume."

"This talk about minerals is novel and quite startling. In fact, a realization of the importance of minerals in food is so new that the textbooks on nutritional dietetics contain very little about it. Nevertheless, it is something that concerns all of us, and the further we delve into it the more startling it becomes."

"You'd think, wouldn't you, that a carrot is a carrot - that one is about as good as another as far as nourishment is concerned? But it isn't; one carrot may look and taste like another and yet be lacking in the particular mineral element which our system requires and which carrots are supposed to contain."

"Laboratory tests prove that the fruits, the vegetables, the grains, the eggs, and even the milk and the meats of today are not what they were a few generations ago (which doubtless explains why our forefathers thrived on a selection of foods that would starve us!)"

"No man today can eat enough fruits and vegetables to supply his stomach with the mineral salts he requires for perfect health, because his stomach isn't big enough to hold them! And we are turning into big stomachs."

"No longer does a balanced and fully nourishing diet consist merely of so many calories or certain vitamins or fixed proportion of starches, proteins and carbohydrates. We know that our diets must contain in addition something like a score of minerals salts."

"It is bad news to learn from our leading authorities that 99% of the American people are deficient in these minerals, and that a marked deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually results in disease. Any upset of the balance, any considerable lack or one or another element, however microscopic the body requirement may be, and we sicken, suffer, shorten our lives."

"We know that vitamins are complex chemical substances which are indispensable to nutrition, and that each of them is of importance for normal function of some special structure in the body. Disorder and disease result from any vitamin deficiency. It is not commonly realized, however, that vitamins control the body's appropriation of minerals, and in the absence of minerals they have no function to perform. Lacking vitamins, the system can make some use of minerals, but lacking minerals, vitamins are useless."

"Certainly our physical well-being is more directly dependent upon the minerals we take into our systems than upon calories or vitamins or upon the precise proportions of starch, protein of carbohydrates we consume."

"This discovery is one of the latest and most important contributions of science to the problem of human health."

What is "Organic For Life™"

"Organicfor Life™" is our company's name for our new line of organicproducts.

TheNational Organic Program is a set of legal standards and regulations developedand enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that define farming, production and certification practices for foods bearing the organic label and sold in the United States.

What are the National Organic Standards and National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)?

The National Organic Standards are the standards for the organic industry aspromulgated and set forth by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).

TheNational Organic Standards Board is a 15-member, non-governmental, federal advisorycommittee created by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Organic Food Production Act ("OFPA") andthe Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"). By law the NOSB's makeup is a diverse constituencyrepresenting organic farming operations (4 people), organic handling operations (2), retail establishmentswith significant trade in organic product (1), experts in environmental protection and resource conservation
(3), public interest or consumer interest groups (3), scientific experts in toxicology, ecology or biochemistry(1) and an organic certifying agent (1).

The USDA appoints all National Organic Standards Board members, although the public is allowed to make recommendations forappointments. National Organic Standards Board members serve staggered five-year terms.

In general, the National Organic Standards Board is designed to be a public voice concerning the regulation of organic food. It isresponsible for advising the Secretary of Agriculture on implementing our national organic food laws.Board is responsible for evaluating substances for inclusion on the National List of allowed
(or prohibited) synthetic substances.

About70% of the 73 million women are of menstruating age in the U.S. use tampons.

Inthe U.S., women between 11 and 60 years of age reported 216 cases of menstrualTSS reported in 1993; 244 cases in 1994

Therisk of TSS is higher for women under 30 years old; 60% of patients are between15 and 24 years of age

Thefatality rate of TSS is 3% to 5%, but it is estimated that only 10% ofcases of TSS are reported, as many women suffer only flu-like symptoms

Absorbencyenhancers in tampons can cause peeling of the mucous membrane, vaginal dryness,ulcers, and lesions

Perfumesand fragrances in some tampons are reported to cause vaginal irritation,allergic reactions, and disruptions of a woman's microbial balance

"Tamponusers were demonstrated to be 18 times more likely to develop menstrual TSS asnon-users", Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 1993,Gilles R.G. Monif

"of[Toxic Shock] cases occurring in menstruating women, up to 99% were usingvaginal tampons", Obstetrics and Gynaecologic Infectious Disease, 1994,James McGregor and James Todd, (Chapter 21 - Toxic Shock Syndrome)

"Vaginalinflammation can result from rayon fibres from tampons becoming embedded invaginal walls", Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1980

"Rayontampons amplify the growth of the Toxic Shock Syndrome bacteria TSST-1"American Society for Microbiology Journal, May 1994, Dr. Philip Tierno of NYUMedical Center

Dioxinlevels once thought acceptable are now reported to adversely affect thereproductive and immune systems, "A Health Assessment Document forDioxin", published by the Environmental Protection Agency, 1996

"Cottontampons offer no protective advantage over cotton/rayon tampons with regard toprotection from TSS" Journal of Infectious Diseases, October 1995 (study byDept. of Microbiology, University of Minnesota.

Swedish studies have shown a link between tampons containing dioxin, and other chlorine by-products, and an increased risk of cancers of the female reproductive tract (especially the uterus, ovaries and bladder).

Rayon itself poses another risk. Unknown to most women, rayon and rayon-cotton blend fibers are widely used in commercial feminine hygiene products. Rayon used to make tampons is usually treated with chemicals to increase the absorption capability.

These super absorbent fibers then absorb not only the menstrual blood, but normal vaginal secretions as well, causing drying, and ulceration of vaginal tissues. The fibers can also become imbedded in the vaginal walls. Rayon fibers have been scientifically proven to amplify the production of Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin TSST1.

Toxic Shock Syndrome is a rare bacterial illness that caused over 50 deaths between 1979 and 1980. Unlike medical grade cotton, upon which the TSS toxin will not grow, the rayon acts like a petri dish encouraging bacterial growth. What makes these toxic residues even more disturbing, is that they come in direct contact with some of the most absorbent tissue in a woman's body.

According to a doctor at New York University Medical Center, almost anything placed on this tissue, including Dioxin, gets absorbed into the body.

Why is it acceptable to have toxic substances in our feminine hygiene products? The tampon industry is convinced that women need bleached white products. They seem to think that we view this as "pure" and "clean." The fact is, if Dioxin puts women at risk for cancer and Dioxin is stored in fatty tissue (just like that found in the vagina), and a woman uses as many as 11,000 tampons in her lifetime, could the long term use of tampons increase cancer risk?

An FDA report said that "the most effective risk-management strategy would be to assure that tampons, and menstrual pads, contain no Dioxin." Although the FDA currently requires tampon manufacturers to monitor Dioxin levels, the results are not available to the public. The dioxin tests, are done by the manufacturers themselves, who insist their products are safe. Tampon manufacturers are not required to disclose ingredients to consumers, although many will do so voluntarily.

How much Dioxin exposure is considered safe for humans? Why has there been more research done on the possible health effects of chlorine-bleached coffee filters than on chlorine bleached tampons and related products? Women need to demand that more research be done on these issues. We have a right to know about any potential hazards associated with tampons and related products. It is only when women fully understand the consequences that we can make informed decisions regarding our health and well being.

Writer's note: Currently there are only a few non-chlorine bleached all cotton tampons available in the US. Ask about them at your local store, if they are not available, ask them to special order!

ThePros And Cons Of Tampons
The type of tampon you choose may affect your healthBy Laurel Kallenbach

Today'saverage woman uses an estimated 12,000 tampons in her lifetime, a conveniencethat allows an unprecedented freedom to be active and confident in avoidingembarrassing leaks. We've come a long way since rags pinned into undergarmentsor belted-on bulky pads were the norm, but with our freedom comes risk. Thereare potential problems attached to tampon use that every consumer should knowabout: Chlorine-bleached products, as some tampons are, contain traces ofcarcinogenic dioxins. Highly absorbent tampons may still cause toxic shocksyndrome, a potentially fatal bacterial infection that occurs when tampons areworn for too long. There are even environmental ramifications, includingpesticides sprayed on cotton crops and pollution created when tampon ingredientsare bleached.

But,there are safe and ecological alternatives that enable women to still benefitfrom tampons. Here, natural is the rule of thumb. "Plainer is just betterwhen it comes to tampons," says Pam Chandler, a family nurse practitionerand certified nurse midwife who practices at the holistic clinic Wellspring forWomen in Boulder, Colo. Chandler encourages patients to use nonchlorine-bleached, 100 percent-organic cottontampons and pads. "We're lucky to have healthier choices," she says.

DioxinDilemma

The most urgent tampon health concern is that chlorine-bleached andrayon-containing products carry trace amounts of dioxin, an extremely toxicchemical that is associated with cancer of the stomach, sinus lining, liver andlymph system. Many people are familiar with the danger of dioxins from publicityabout Agent Orange and the Love Canal catastrophe. Tampons are linked to carcinogenic dioxin formed during thebleaching process that manufacturers use to purify and whiten both raw cottonand the wood pulp that goes into synthetic fibers such as rayon, a common fiberin tampons. "You find trace amounts of dioxin in some tampons, which havemaximal contact with the vagina's mucous membrane, which absorbs substancesdirectly into the bloodstream," explains Philip Tierno, MD, director ofclinical microbiology and immunology at New York University Medical Center. To ensure that your tampon is free of dioxin, switch to a brand that'snonchlorine-bleached, rayon-free, and made of 100 percent-organic cotton. Thoughcotton is a natural fiber, the majority of cotton crops are heavily treated withinsecticides, pesticides and herbicides. Organically grown cotton is not.

Checkyour tampon box for a list of ingredients. Whereas natural brands state thatthey're nonchlorine bleached, some conventional brands mention little on thesubject, because along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), they believe chlorine-dioxide bleachingis safe.

Tiernodisagrees: While trace quantities of dioxin aren't in and of themselves aproblem, tampons aren't your only exposure. "The problem is that measurableamounts of dioxins are everywhere, including food and water. Some portion of thedioxin that enters your bloodstream lodges in the body's fat cells and staysthere a long time," he says. "This residual effect becomesprogressively larger as you're exposed to even more dioxins."

Theonly way to avoid vaginally absorbed dioxin, Tierno says, is to eliminatechlorine-bleached and rayon-containing tampons and switch to peroxide-bleachedproducts instead. Tierno also says if the label on your tampon box doesn't say"nonchlorine-bleached," it's possible that it contains chlorine. Mostmanufacturers proudly promote the fact that their product doesn't containchlorine.

Thecumulative risks of dioxin are unknown. While a single tampon may contain only0.1 parts per trillion of dioxin, the fact that most women use between 10,000and 15,000 tampons in a lifetime increases the exposure. "A trace quantityof dioxin is not acceptable in a tampon, because a woman does not expose herselfto a single tampon," Tierno says. "It's trace quantity upon tracequantity upon trace quantity, multiplied by the number of tampons per month,multiplied by the number of months in a year, multiplied by 40 years ofmenstruation. Then add in all the dioxins you get from your diet, plus all theones occurring in the environment."

Earth-friendlyOptions

The environmental impact of the manufacturing of feminine products is anotherreason to use organic tampons. While cotton tampons may seem better thansynthetic, most cotton undergoes industrial bleaching in a polluting processthat dumps dioxins, along with other hazardous organochlorines, into the watersupply. Organic cotton tampons and pads are treated with hydrogen peroxideinstead of bleach, making them a safer alternative. If the label states that theproduct is third-party certified organic, that means the cotton has been grownwithout pesticides on land where no pesticides have been applied for at leastthree years.

Inresponse to concerns over dioxin in tampons and their impact on the environment,the EPA and some manufacturers have worked to find a better way of purifyingwood pulp and cotton without creating dioxins. The result is chlorine-dioxidebleaching, a process that has replaced the elemental chlorine-gas method of thepast but still generates low trace levels of dioxins.

Thepackaging of tampons is another troublesome environmental issue. Most areencased in a paper or cellophane wrapper, contain a cardboard or plasticapplicator, and are packed in boxes. Though you can't recycle cotton tampons,there are waste-saving alternatives to dealing with menstruation, such aswashable natural sponge tampons and cloth pads, and reusable, but awkward,vaginally inserted menstrual cups that collect flow.

ToxicShock: Still A Risk

In the '70s and '80s, toxic shock syndrome (TSS) struck thousands of women. The crisis peaked in 1980 with 814 cases of TSS, of which 38 women died, most due to extended use of the high-absorbency Relytampon. Today, women still get TSS, though cases are rarely publicized. Yet tampon safety is once again a nationalissue, in part due to the efforts of Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., whointroduced a bill to address the health problems associated with tampon use. TheRobin Danielson Act (HR 360) is named after a 44-year-old woman who died in 1998from TSS because she didn't recognize her symptoms. The bill directs the NationalInstitutes of Health to conduct reliable, independent research to determine thehealth risks posed by the presence of synthetic fibers, dioxin and otheradditives in tampons.

TSS is caused when staph or strep bacteria grow in the vagina, usually encouragedby the presence of a higher absorbency tampon or one that has been inserted morethan eight hours. The bacteria produce toxins that are absorbed into thebloodstream, which can cause a severe drop in blood pressure (shock) and/ororgan failure, especially of the liver and kidneys. In some cases, TSS is fatal. Its symptoms are similar to the flu, including a high fever, vomitingand diarrhea, muscle aches, dizziness or fainting, a red rash, headaches,bloodshot eyes and sore throat.

"Highlyabsorbent tampons, especially those containing synthetic fibers, increase theamounts of toxin present in the vagina," says Tierno.

Inthe mid-'70s, synthetic fibers were used in tampons because manufacturers wantedto produce more absorbent, leak-resistant products. Since then, three of thefour problematic synthetics have been eliminated from tampons. "The onlyone left is viscose rayon," Tierno says.

Tominimize your risk of contracting TSS, choose a tampon made of 100 percent cotton, preferably organic. "You'reat the lowest risk possible with cotton," says Tierno. "In myresearch, every synthetic fiber amplified toxin development, whereas cotton didnot."

Mostprecautions for guarding against TSS are simple, says holistic nurse practitioner Pam Chandler, a specialist inwomen's health care. Wear a tampon for a maximum of six to eight hours to avoidbacterial growth. However, she recommends leaving it in for at least two hours."If you remove a tampon too soon, it won't be saturated," she says."Then you risk scraping the dry, fragmented cotton across the vaginalmucosa, irritating it and setting the scenario for infection." Also, usinga tampon overnight, when planning to sleep longer than eight hours, is risky. Atnight, consider wearing a pad instead, she advises.

Choosinga tampon with proper absorbency is crucial to preventing TSS. "At the beginning of your period, if your flow is heavy, you may needSuper Absorbency so you don't have to change tampons too often," says Chandler. When the flow slows, however, don't be tempted to continue with a Superbecause it's more convenient. Switch to a lower absorbency tampon instead. Also,use tampons only during menstruation.

CarefulLiberation

Within the last couple of years, a rash of e-mails warned women that tamponmanufacturers put asbestos in their tampons to make women bleed more in hopes ofselling more product. Tierno says the rumor was false. "I have been privyto every manufacturer's records over the last 21 years, and I have never seenanything related to asbestos in tampons," he says.

Thoughthe asbestos scare amounted to nothing but an urban myth, true additives to beconcerned about are fragrances and deodorants. Perfumes may mask odors, but somewomen suffer allergic reactions to them. "Without question, a deodorizedtampon is dangerous," asserts Tierno, adding that deodorants encourageovergrowth of certain bacteria, upset the vagina's normal flora and irritate themucous membrane.

Themain point, when it comes to tampon use, is to stay informed and weigh theoptions. "Over the years, tampons have allowed women to be more active andfuss less during their periods," says Chandler, who points out that while this is liberating, it also makes it easy to taketheir use for granted.

Toxicshock syndrome is a rare infection that can happen during a woman's period. Thesymptoms include a sudden fever of over 101 degrees or more, diarrhea (theruns), vomiting (throwing up), muscle aches and a sunburn-like rash. If you havethese symptoms during you period, see a doctor right away.

3. Change your tampon at least every 4-6 hours (read the tampon manufacturersinformation inside the box).

5. Do not use a birth control sponge or diaphragm during your period. During yourperiod it is preferable to use other methods such as condoms and/or foam.

Thereare allegations that tampons made from rayon, or cotton with rayon, may cause orbe a contributing factor to Toxic Shock Syndrome, as well as vaginal dryness orulcerations of vaginal tissues.

ToxicShock Syndrome is a rare but potentially fatal disease caused by a bacterialtoxin. (Different bacterial toxins may cause Toxic Shock Syndrome, depending onthe situation, but most often streptococci and staphylococci areresponsible.) The number of reported Toxic Shock Syndrome cases has decreasedsignificantly in recent years. Approximately half the cases of Toxic ShockSyndrome reported today are associated with tampon use during menstruation,usually in young women. Toxic Shock Syndrome also occurs in children, men, andnon-menstruating women. In 1997, only five confirmed menstrual-related ToxicShock Syndrome cases were reported, compared with 814 cases in 1980 [accordingto data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)]. Althoughscientists have recognized an association between Toxic Shock Syndrome andtampon use, the exact connection remains unclear. Research conducted by the CDCsuggested that use of some high absorbency tampons increased the risk of ToxicShock Syndrome in menstruating women. A few specific tampon designs and highabsorbency tampon materials were also found to have some association withincreased risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome. These products and materials are nolonger used in tampons sold in the U.S. Tampons made with rayon do not appear tohave a higher risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome than cotton tampons of similarabsorbency.

Vaginaldryness and ulcerations may occur when women use tampons more absorbent thanneeded for the amount of their menstrual flow. Ulcerations have also beenreported in women using tampons between menstrual periods to try to controlexcessive vaginal discharge or abnormal bleeding. Women may avoid problems bychoosing a tampon with the minimum absorbency needed to control menstrual flowand using tampons only during active menstruation.

Tohelp women compare absorbency from brand to brand, FDA requires thatmanufacturers measure absorbency using a standard method and describe absorbencyon the package using standardized terms. Thus, the terms "junior,""regular," "super," and "super plus," alwaysdescribe a specific range of tampon absorbency regardless of the brand.

Historical Perspectives Reduced Incidence of Menstrual Toxic-Shock Syndrome -- United States, 1980-1990

InMay 1980, investigators reported to CDC 55 cases of toxic-shock syndrome (TSS)(1), a newly recognized illness characterized by high fever, sunburn-like rash,desquamation, hypotension, and abnormalities in multiple organ systems (2).Fifty-two (95%) of the reported cases occurred in women; onset of illnessoccurred during menstruation in 38 (95%) of the 40 women from whom menstrualhistory was obtained. National and state-based studies were initiated todetermine risk factors for this disease. In addition, CDC established nationalsurveillance to assess the magnitude of illness and follow trends in diseaseoccurrence; 3295 definite cases have been reported since surveillance wasestablished (Figure 1).

InJune 1980, a follow-up report described three studies which detected anassociation between Toxic Shock Syndrome and the use of tampons (3).Case-control studies in Wisconsin and Utah and a national study by CDC indicatedthat women with Toxic Shock Syndrome were more likely to have used tampons thanwere controls. The CDC study also found that continuous use of tampons wasassociated with a higher risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome than was alternating useof tampons and other menstrual products. Subsequent studies established thatrisk of Toxic Shock Syndrome was substantially greater in women who used Relybrand tampons than in users of other brands and that risk increased withincreased tampon absorbency (4-6). In September 1980, Rely tampons werevoluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer.

In1980, 890 cases of Toxic Shock Syndrome were reported, 812 (91%) of which wereassociated with menstruation. In 1989, 61 cases of Toxic Shock Syndrome werereported, 45 (74%) of which were menstrual. In 1980, 38 (5%) of 772 women withmenstrual Toxic Shock Syndrome died; in 1988 and 1989, there were no deathsamong women with menstrual Toxic Shock Syndrome. Reported by: Meningitis andSpecial Pathogens Br, Div of Bacterial Diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases,CDC.

Clostridiumsordellii Toxic Shock Syndrome After Medical Abortion with Mifepristone andIntravaginal Misoprostol --- United States and Canada, 2001--2005

OnJuly 22, this notice was posted as an MMWR Dispatch on the MMWR website(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).

OnJuly 19, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a public healthadvisory regarding the deaths of four women in the United States after medicalabortions with Mifeprex^® (mifepristone, formerly RU-486; DancoLaboratories, New York, New York) and intravaginal misoprostol (1). Twoof these deaths occurred in 2003, one in 2004, and one in 2005. Two of theseU.S. cases had clinical illness consistent with toxic shock and had evidence ofendometrial infection with Clostridium sordellii, a gram-positive,toxin-forming anaerobic bacteria. In addition, a fatal case of C. sordelliitoxic shock syndrome after medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostolwas reported in 2001, in Canada (2). All three cases of C. sordellii infectionwere notable for lack of fever, and all had refractory hypotension, multipleeffusions, hemoconcentration, and a profound leukocytosis. C. sordelliipreviously has been described as a cause of pregnancy-associated toxic shocksyndrome (3).

Investigationby FDA, CDC, and state and local health departments into the two most recentlyidentified U.S. deaths after medical abortion is ongoing. Empiric therapy forpatients suspected of having postpartum or postabortion toxic shock syndromeshould include antimicrobials with anaerobic activity against Clostridiumspecies. Health-care providers are encouraged to report any cases of postpartumor postabortion toxic shock syndrome to their state or local health departmentand to CDC at telephone 800-893-0485. Cases potentially associated with use ofmifepristone or misoprostol should also be reported through the FDA MedWatchsystem available at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/index.htmlor telephone 800-FDA-1088.

References

EditorialNote

EditorialNote: The number of Toxic Shock Syndrome cases reported annually to CDC hasdecreased substantially in the 10-year period since menstrual Toxic ShockSyndrome was first recognized. Changes in public awareness and diminishedattention to Toxic Shock Syndrome in the medical literature might have resultedin reduced diagnosis and reporting. However, reporting of non-menstrual ToxicShock Syndrome has remained constant during this time while menstrual ToxicShock Syndrome reporting has decreased.

Amultistate active surveillance study in 1986-1987 confirmed the trends detectedby national passive surveillance (7). Through active case-finding efforts in anaggregate population of 34 million persons, the rate for menstrual Toxic ShockSyndrome was determined to be 1.0 per 100,000 women 15-44 years of age (7). Thisrate represented a substantial reduction from rates reported in similar studiesin 1980 (6.2 per 100,000 women 12-49 years of age in Wisconsin (8), 9.0 per100,000 women 12-45 years of age in Minnesota (9), and 12.3 per 100,000 women12-49 years of age in Utah (10)). Active surveillance also confirmed that theproportion of Toxic Shock Syndrome associated with menstruation had decreasedconsiderably: in 1988, menstrual Toxic Shock Syndrome accounted for 55% of casesdetected both by active surveillance (7) and by the passive surveillance system.

Aprinciple reason for the decreased incidence of menstrual Toxic Shock Syndromemay be decreases in the absorbency of tampons. In 1980, when tampon absorbency(in vitro) ranged from 10.3-20.5 g (4), very high absorbency products ( greaterthan 15.4 g) were used by 42% of tampon users (9). After the association betweenToxic Shock Syndrome and absorbency was recognized, manufacturers lowered theabsorbency of tampons. In 1982, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued aregulation requiring that tampon package labels advise women to use the lowestabsorbency tampons compatible with their needs. By 1983, tampon absorbencyranged from 6.3-17.2 g (6), and the proportion of tampon users using very highabsorbency tampons had declined to 18%. By 1986, very high absorbency productswere used by only 1% of women who used tampons. Effective March 1990, the FDAinstituted standardized absorbency labeling of tampons, which currently rangefrom 6-15 g.

Tamponcomposition has also changed since 1980. Rely tampons consisted of polyesterfoam and cross-linked carboxymethylcellulose, a combination that is no longerused in tampons. Polyacrylate-containing tampons were withdrawn from the marketin 1985. Current tampons are manufactured from cotton and/or rayon. The uniquecomposition of Rely tampons may have been responsible for the increased riskassociated with those products (11); however, the role of current tamponcomposition as an independent risk factor for Toxic Shock Syndrome is unclearsince composition may vary even for a particular brand and style of tamponmarketed at a given time.

Otherfactors may have contributed to decreased reports of menstrual-related ToxicShock Syndrome. For example, public awareness of the syndrome may cause women toseek medical care earlier in their illness; milder disease may not meet thesurveillance case definition of severe multisystem illness. Increased variety inmenstrual products and concern related to Toxic Shock Syndrome may have resultedin fewer women using tampons or fewer using tampons continuously.

Currentpublic health efforts to prevent menstrual-related Toxic Shock Syndrome includetampon package labels and package inserts which describe early signs andsymptoms of Toxic Shock Syndrome and warn the consumer about the risk associatedwith tampons. Tampon users are encouraged to select lower absorbency products tofurther decrease risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome. Standardized absorbency labelingpermits consumers to compare absorbency between brands.

Theprecise mechanism by which Rely tampons increased the risk of Toxic ShockSyndrome is unknown. The increased risk associated with high absorbency tamponsis also poorly understood; high absorbency may be a surrogate for anothereffect. However, the withdrawal of Rely tampons and the subsequent decrease inuse of high absorbency tampons correlate with a marked decrease in incidence ofmenstrual-related Toxic Shock Syndrome. The rapid demonstration of the risk ofRely and high absorbency tampons resulted in prompt public health interventionsand substantial reduction in menstrual Toxic Shock Syndrome.

References

2.Todd J, Fishaut M, Kapral F, Welch T. Toxic-shock syndrome associated withphage-group-1 staphylococci. Lancet 1978;2:1116-8.

4.Osterholm MT, Davis JP, Gibson RW, et al. Tri-state toxic-shock syndrome study:I. Epidemiologic findings. J Infect Dis 1982;145:431-40.

5.Schlech WF, Shands KN, Reingold AL, et al. Risk factors for development of toxicshock syndrome: association with a tampon brand. JAMA 1982;248:835-9.

6.Berkley SF, Hightower AW, Broome CV, Reingold AL. The relationship of tamponcharacteristics to menstrual toxic shock syndrome. JAMA 1987;258:917-20.

7.Gaventa S, Reingold AL, Hightower AW, et al. Active surveillance for toxic shocksyndrome in the United States, 1986. Rev Infect Dis 1989;2(suppl S1):S35-42.

8.Davis JP, Chesney PJ, Wand PJ, LaVenture M, the Investigation and LaboratoryTeam. Toxic-shock syndrome: epidemiologic features, recurrence, risk factors,and prevention. N Engl J Med 1980;303:1429-35.

9.Osterholm MT, Forfang JC. Toxic-shock syndrome in Minnesota: results of anactive-passive surveillance system. J Infect Dis 1982;145:458-64. 10. Latham RH,Kehrberg MW, Jacobson JA, Smith CB. Toxic shock syndrome in Utah: a case-controland surveillance study. Ann Intern Med 1982;96:906-8. 11. Broome CV.Epidemiology of TSS in the United States: overview. Rev Infect Dis 1989;2 (supplS1):S14-21.

Does your company producesafer, healthier, environmentally-friendly feminine hygiene products? Are youseeking greater exposure and increased sales? Contactus to find out how you can advertise and promote your product(s) on our website! Send an email to us at: info at Feminine Hygiene dot com

Watchfor our new book, now being reviewed by several leading publishers:

Gynecology for Guys™
What Every Dad andHusband Must Know about
Gynecology and Gynecological Health"

*Copyrightand General Disclaimer
Unlessotherwise noted, all material on this is website is copyrighted and may not becopied or reproduced without our express written consent. Information provided on this website is for educational purposes only.Always seek the advice of your physician with any questions you have regarding amedical condition, and before undertaking any diet, exercise or other healthprogram and before relying upon this or any other website's information. Whilewe have made every effort to check, update and verify the accuracy of ourinformation and resources, we cannot be heldresponsible for any inaccuracies. The information contained on this website hasnot been evaluated by the FDA and not intended to treat, diagnose, cure orprevent any disease.

Clostridiumsordellii Toxic Shock Syndrome After Medical Abortion with Mifepristone andIntravaginal Misoprostol --- United States and Canada, 2001--2005

References

EditorialNote

References