Question:
wasn’t Neomycin incorporated into the all purpose goop Polysporin and/or Bacitracin? (or was it sulfanilimide?)
Just backwards. Polysporin is polymyxin and bacitracin. Neosporin has that plus neomycin. No sulfa, unless one of the above is sulfa. J.
Response:
It didn’t have any side effects besides allergy mentioned, but a lot of warnings… One interesting thing to read was that the topical should not be used for more than one week at a time because it can cause neomycin induced eczema. Also, it must not be used in the ears. Use on large areas of skin can cause kidney damage and ototoxic (whatever that is) reactions. Also, if the powder is used in surgical incisions which are closed with sutures, it may cause necrosis… Hmmmm… Wonder why it was pulled off the market…
I think I will not be using it any more. Oddly, I stopped a year or two ago, derm gave me some polysporin, same ingredients as neosporin *minus* the neomycin, and I thought it worked *better*. J.
Response:
ototoxic (whatever that is) reactions (compliments of aol’s medical dictionary): oto*tox*ic (adjective) : producing, involving, or being adverse effects on organs or nerves involved in hearing or balance
(compliments of Star Trek’s medical dictionary): oto*tox*ic (adjective) : causing death of a particular Changeling who currently resides on Deep Space 9. This was, of course, what the other Changelings used to poison him when they wanted to bring him to trial for being the only Changeling to harm another Changeling. Is it just me, or is there a logical flaw with that plot line? Yeah, I know it’s Odo and not Oto, but I couldn’t resist it. Mind you, my favourite line comes from Voyager when Duckaway quacked: "Take the cheese to sick-bay." You can’t get much sillier than that, not even when you invent a new type of particle or radiation in every episode. Come back, Kirk, all is forgiven… We now return you to your regularly-scheduled flamewar over Skin Cap. BTW, I should apologise to LadyAndy for not being fast enough at taking AOL out of the mailkill file (went in there when some junk mailer was forging mail from them every day for a week). –Paul
Response:
ototoxic (whatever that is) reactions
(compliments of aol’s medical dictionary): oto*tox*ic (adjective) : producing, involving, or being adverse effects on organs or nerves involved in hearing or balance
Response:
ototoxic (whatever that is) reactions (compliments of aol’s medical dictionary): oto*tox*ic (adjective) : producing, involving, or being adverse effects on organs or nerves involved in hearing or balance
WOW… Nasty stuff that, at least if you bathe in it 
Thanks, Andy!!!! — Best regards, Visit my homepage: Med vennlig hilsen, <URL:http://home.newmedia.no/flaker/ Aase Marit 
)))))) ("Aw-Se-Mareet" from Norway")
Response:
would bet that neomycin was in a lot of them.
The over-the-counter Neosporin ointment does indeed contain "neomycin sulfate", apparently very safe topically. J.
Response:
would bet that neomycin was in a lot of them. The over-the-counter Neosporin ointment does indeed contain "neomycin sulfate",
A lot of OTC treatments do contain neomycin sulphate. apparently very safe topically.
Not according to my book of drugs. See the list of warnings and side- effects I posted. And this *was* for topical use. –Paul
Response:
Not according to my book of drugs. See the list of warnings and side- effects I posted. And this *was* for topical use.
Ew. Now I’m gonna go look it up. I’ve used that gunk for years (couple of dabs a year, but never thought much about it). J.
Response:
wasn’t Neomycin incorporated into the all purpose goop Polysporin and/or Bacitracin? (or was it sulfanilimide?) doug "ed should be busy now"
Response:
<snipped I thought I should check up neomycin in my drug catalogue since it was discussed here. I was surprised to find that it has been taken off the market here. No page ref., only a black dot… This goes for topicals, pills etc. The only thing left with it, is a type of antiinflammatory eye-drops which has it added. I found it in my old drug catalogue (1989) though… It didn’t have any side effects besides allergy mentioned, but a lot of warnings… One interesting thing to read was that the topical should not be used for more than one week at a time because it can cause neomycin induced eczema. Also, it must not be used in the ears. Use on large areas of skin can cause kidney damage and ototoxic (whatever that is) reactions. Also, if the powder is used in surgical incisions which are closed with sutures, it may cause necrosis… Hmmmm… Wonder why it was pulled off the market… — Best regards, Visit my homepage: Med vennlig hilsen, <URL:http://home.newmedia.no/flaker/ Aase Marit )))))) ("Aw-Se-Mareet" from Norway")
Response:
In a note that quickly expired on my university account’s news reader, Paul Allen wondered if the blue cans still contained neomycin (which comes with its own set of contraindications and potential adverse effects, none of which were listed by the manufacturer). One reference point here is that the so-called "clinical study" that the company circulated about the product disguised its technical references (as well as forging its author). Decyphering them, Ed Anderson and I came to the conclusion that the paper made the most sense if the original product were made of triamcinolone acetonide and neomycin sulfate, rather than zinc pyrithione and "sodium methyl ethyl sulfate". It is a likely guess that the product continued to have in it a steroid, a detergent, and an antibiotic. And the reason would be that it was indeed effective in the short term, which is one way to sell a lot of it. It is still an open question how uniform the product batches were, but I would bet that neomycin was in a lot of them. John
Response:
In a note that quickly expired on my university account’s news reader,
Hmmm, kinda suspicious that, if it expired faster than others. It doesn’t leave here with any expiration date on it and an expiration date isn’t added by the news server it’s injected to. Your news server should therefore expire it a fixed time after it arrives there, and that expiry time should be no different from any other post to this group. I’m tempted to see if somebody cancelled it, except it’s such a painful job doing it on a dial-up newsfeed and my browser doesn’t like DejaNews (the other way of doing it). Paul Allen wondered if the blue cans still contained neomycin (which comes with its own set of contraindications and potential adverse effects, none of which were listed by the manufacturer).
Yeah, it was something that I wondered about. It would explain quite a few things, like its effectiveness with Lupus and Scott’s digestion problems. It would also mean any woman using SC should avoid getting pregnant and any pregnant woman using it needs to seek medical advice. One reference point here is that the so-called "clinical study" that the company circulated about the product disguised its technical references (as well as forging its author).
As if they would do such a thing. Shame on you for suggesting it. Decyphering them, Ed Anderson and I came to the conclusion that the paper made the most sense if the original product were made of triamcinolone acetonide and neomycin sulfate, rather than zinc pyrithione and "sodium methyl ethyl sulfate".
Ah-ha. Thanks for that. I know it’s speculation at this point, and it needs proving or disproving by chemical analysis. But the point of such speculations is to decide whether or not a chemical analysis is needed. It’s interesting that the product claimed to have 2% ZnP and 1% MESS and yet one old formulation was actually found to contain 2% neomycin undecillinate and 1% salicylic acid (+0.5% triamcinolone acetonide). The coincidence in the numbers is surprising if it happened by chance (i.e., that there was *also* 2% ZnP and 1% MESS). It is a likely guess that the product continued to have in it a steroid, a detergent, and an antibiotic.
You forgot the salicylic acid… It is still an open question how uniform the product batches were, but I would bet that neomycin was in a lot of them.
I’m starting to feel that’s possible, and even probable. Which is worrying, because the contra-indications and side-effects are almost as bad (in some ways) as those for the steroid. But if Cheminova would put in one prescription-only, unsafe to use by certain people, unsafe for prolonged use, unsafe for excessive use, drug, why would they balk at putting in two? Or three? –Paul (wondering how fast this one will expire…)
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.