# No Sturgeron in the USA--Why?



## Yamsailor (Jun 7, 2006)

Are there any Doctors or Lawyers out there who might be able to tell me why Sturgeron is not allowed to be sold in the USA?


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

"now" or "not"? Your opening post says "now".


----------



## Yamsailor (Jun 7, 2006)

Not--I edited it. Thanks


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

They are either listed as endangered or threatened species depending on the waters.

Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction :: NOAA Fisheries


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

I'm sure they're some in Alaska, but I doubt you'll find any south of the Canada border.


----------



## Landwalker (Aug 23, 2016)

Where did you hear / encounter that? I am fairly certain that (in certain jurisdictions and under certain parameters), there's nothing illegal about selling sturgeon as a blanket statement. White Sturgeon, for example, appear to still be commercially fished in the Pacific Northwest.

That said, the jurisdictions and parameters might be fairly restrictive, and Caspian Sea sturgeon caviar specifically does seem to have been banned, due to the extreme endangerment / risk of extinction of the sturgeon species there, and many jurisdictions probably approach other sturgeon similarly in the name of conservation efforts—the particular biology and habits of the fish, coupled with the demand for sturgeon caviar, make them a natural candidate for high risk of extinction through overfishing and environmental changes.

Disclaimer: Everything may be wrong, but that's just my understanding.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Uh, the title refers to sea-sickness medication, not fish.

Mark


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Yamsailor said:


> Are there any Doctors or Lawyers out there who might be able to tell me why Sturgeron is not allowed to be sold in the USA?


Simply because the cost of obtaining FDA approval is too great for the size of the market and, of course, the FDA is so much wiser than the drug approval agencies in the rest of the first world which can't be trusted to protect the health and safety of their citizens. The US Government at its best...


----------



## Landwalker (Aug 23, 2016)

colemj said:


> Uh, the title refers to sea-sickness medication, not fish.
> 
> Mark


Ah, so the _first_ R was the extraneous one, not the _second_ one. Oops.

But, hey, I got to do some research on Sturgeon, so it wasn't a total loss.

In that case, yeah, I'm sure it's an FDA hurdle situation.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

Still some in the Delaware River

Rebuilding sturgeon numbers in the Delaware River

But I think the OP was referring to Sturgeron a drug available in the UK and Ireland.

Don't know the answer, maybe a different name in the US or not yet FDA approved?


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Ulladh said:


> Still some in the Delaware River
> 
> Rebuilding sturgeon numbers in the Delaware River
> 
> ...


oops. I clearly mis-read.


----------



## Landwalker (Aug 23, 2016)

For the sake of anyone as confused as I (and others) initially were, the OP appears to be referring to *Stugeron* (only one R, and in a different location than the R in Sturgeon). I guess any time you name something too close to another common word, there's bound to be some mental mix-up where people try to fuse the two.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

And why are you asking for a doctor or lawyer? Did you harm one? Is it in your garage now? Are you trying to cover up your crime? 

I'm not sure of where you are, but up here, there are Sturgeon cops everywhere. And trust me they'll find you. It ain't easy hiding a 15 foot long fish.

Best thing to do would be to turn yourself into the police now. If you call up the local dept, they will direct you to the Sturgeon dept.

Edit: I see you're in Philly. Sturgeon cops are thugs there. Is it possible to move the sturgeon to another state? Do you have a Miata? Sometimes you can drape them over the seat with the roof down. It will look just like a carpet.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Gotta love the thread drift


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

svHyLyte said:


> Simply because the cost of obtaining FDA approval is too great for the size of the market and, of course, the FDA is so much wiser than the drug approval agencies in the rest of the first world which can't be trusted to protect the health and safety of their citizens. The US Government at its best...


YUP .... as of ~15 years ago it took a minimum of $15 BILLION and 15 YEARS to bring any ethical pharmaceutical to market in the USA due to FDA scrutiny and regulatory procedures. Probably MUCH MUCH higher time and $$$ now due to an ever exponentially expanding central government. The majority of potential new US drugs, etc. are NOT approved. 
The 'interesting' aspect is that even if a pharmaceutical drug/device is FDA approved after the extremely exhaustive heavily regulated and mandatory FDA process, if later that drug is discovered to produce objectionable severe & untoward side effects, the FDA/US govt. takes NO responsibility whatsoever for that prior APPROVAL.

Also, as well as I can remember, FDA approval for Sturgeron was NOT gained due to the severe, but rare, adverse and untowards side effects.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> Uh, the title refers to sea-sickness medication, not fish.


Spelling counts, doesn't it? *grin*


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RichH said:


> YUP .... as of ~15 years ago it took a minimum of $15 BILLION and 15 YEARS to bring any ethical pharmaceutical to market in the USA due to FDA scrutiny and regulatory procedures. Probably MUCH MUCH higher time and $$$ now due to an ever exponentially expanding central government. The majority of potential new US drugs, etc. are NOT approved.
> The 'interesting' aspect is that even if a pharmaceutical drug/device is FDA approved after the extremely exhaustive heavily regulated and mandatory FDA process, if later that drug is discovered to produce objectionable severe & untoward side effects, the FDA/US govt. takes NO responsibility whatsoever for that prior APPROVAL.


Those costs are way high and the magnitude not due only to FDA, but the sentiment is correct - pharmaceutical development is expensive, and takes a long time, to safely bring a drug to market.

The seemingly low approval rate isn't solely due to the FDA because the statistics are from clinical trials to FDA approval. So any drug failing clinical trials or not meeting marketable endpoints is included in this statistic - and the FDA doesn't have any involvement in that.

The FDA does take responsibility for problems after approval. They pull drugs off the market regularly, as well as limit the usage and require black box warnings. All of these are pretty severe consequences. It doesn't make sense to blame the FDA for problems after approval because those are unknown unknowns. It would help much if the human race were all clones in a fixed environment and not so darn variable.

My best guess for Stugeron is that there really isn't any money to be made from it, and it can be a dangerous drug, so liability comes into play.

Mark


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

RichH said:


> YUP .... as of ~15 years ago it took a minimum of $15 BILLION and 15 YEARS to bring any ethical pharmaceutical to market in the USA due to FDA scrutiny and regulatory procedures. Probably MUCH MUCH higher time and $$$ now due to an ever exponentially expanding central government. The majority of potential new US drugs, etc. are NOT approved.
> The 'interesting' aspect is that even if a pharmaceutical drug/device is FDA approved after the extremely exhaustive heavily regulated and mandatory FDA process, if later that drug is discovered to produce objectionable severe & untoward side effects, the FDA/US govt. takes NO responsibility whatsoever for that prior APPROVAL.
> 
> Also, as well as I can remember, FDA approval for Sturgeron was NOT gained due to the severe, but rare, adverse and untowards side effects.


Absolutely and completely wrong. The average cost to develop new drugs is actually pegged at around 2.5 billion. But the vast, vast majority of that cost is the cost of research for drugs that never make it to market. The a erge is that for every new drug to market about 100 have to be developed. So the drugs on the shelf cost more like $250 million to develope, it's all the drugs that never make it that cost so much.

As for time... It actually takes about 5 years from the start of the FDA approval process until a drug is approved. The remaining 15 years has to do with the time it takes the company to develope them.

There is no question that drug development takes a long time and costs a lot of money, but to imply that it's the governments responsibility is just wrong.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

The primary reason it has never been FDA approved is that it has severe and possibly permanent side effects. With 17% of new parkinsonism (Parkinson's symptoms without the degeneration) cases linked to Stegeron use. Basically you cured sea sickness by getting a debilitating lifelong disease. 

It has also been shown to cause birth defects, other long term neurological disorders, cause heart problems... Basically there is a very long list of serious and relatively common side effects, and the FDA has decided the therapeutic use is outweighed by its risk factors.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Stumble said:


> Absolutely and completely wrong. The average cost to develop new drugs is actually pegged at around 2.5 billion. But the vast, vast majority of that cost is the cost of research for drugs that never make it to market. The a erge is that for every new drug to market about 100 have to be developed. So the drugs on the shelf cost more like $250 million to develope, it's all the drugs that never make it that cost so much.
> 
> As for time... It actually takes about 5 years from the start of the FDA approval process until a drug is approved. The remaining 15 years has to do with the time it takes the company to develope them.
> 
> There is no question that drug development takes a long time and costs a lot of money, but to imply that it's the governments responsibility is just wrong.


Oops! *I stand corrected* as I slipped a decimal point. $1.5B seems average to end point approval instead of my $15B. But then again, My 'bio-pharma' workings were in vaccines, cell culture, etc.: BUT, not in 'memory restoratives'.  
Source: Forbes Welcome

I never made the claim that its government's responsibility for drug development; so your attribution is totally false and baseless - IMO. 
My statement was and remains: that after the rigorous FDA approval process, 'the government' takes no responsibility for any (priorly approved) subsequent FAILURE. 
VERY BIG difference.


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

The FDA does a *very* good job balancing competing mandates (make drugs quickly available!/make drugs completely safe!) and competing interests (public hunger for new treatments/Pharma's desire to protect turf & profits/government's desire to protect the public). If you think their job is easy -- or even possible -- you don't understand what they do every single day.

Science doesn't even know for certain the role of different cholesterols in our bodies nor the long-term effects of daily statin intake to reduce some but not others. So far, statins seem to offer positive outcomes. 25% of Americans take statins; some doctors are pushing for more people to take more of them; the profit to existing patent holders is insane, and the cost to insurance companies, Medicare, and individual patients is almost ungraspable. The benefits are ... maybe? probably? ... harder to measure but real as far as we know today.

In the center of this broiling mess stands the FDA, which among its many other responsibilities must keep close watch on the newest egghead science, constantly review performance of existing drugs (w/out always cooperation from Pharma -- see Vioxx), track manufacturing, labeling and prescribing, lord over generics, and decide as fast as possible whether new drugs are safe, effective, and properly marketed.

Fast, safe, cheap: I suspect you only get one of those three, when if comes to drug approval.  The FDA professionals do an astonishingly good job of bringing generally sound and effective pharmaceuticals to market in a reasonable time frame, while resisting immense pressure from all sides. If I had a quibble with them, I wish they would crack down harder on the parallel herbal and dietary supplement industry, which is openly flouting the "No medical claims" rule. But then we're asking the FDA to play law enforcer, too; and it would need a new mandate from Congress before it could really begin evaluating those products & their claims independently.

In general, the FDA does brilliant work, and y'all would be damned sorry if they stopped tomorrow. You'd miss them when they were gone, and you were staring at your old-man shelf of twenty daily pills, wondering which ones were really safe and effective. If Stugeron (cinnarizine) has not received FDA approval, there are are a few possible reasons:

1. The manufacturer, patent holder, or a generic competitor has not submitted to the full approval process.
2. The drug was submitted to the FDA for approval, but it was ruled unsafe.
3. The drug was submitted to the FDA for approval, but it was ruled ineffective.
4. The drug was with withdrawn by the submitter during the approval process (often due to patent or market concerns).

Some people have used Compazine (a similar antihistamine) with success. It is approved in the US and Canada for treatment of vertigo, so seasickness is a barely-off-label grounds for prescribing. Ask your doctor if it is right for you. (*grin*) *None* of these drugs is safe enuf for OTC sales, not least for dangerous interaction with alcohol. I, for one, want the FDA making nuanced and science-based distinctions like this.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RichH said:


> My statement was and remains: that after the rigorous FDA approval process, 'the government' takes no responsibility for any (priorly approved) subsequent FAILURE.
> VERY BIG difference.


I addressed that point. They do take responsibility in several ways depending on the circumstances.

Mark


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Rich,

What you said was

"YUP .... as of ~15 years ago it took a minimum of $15 BILLION and 15 YEARS to bring any ethical pharmaceutical to market in the USA due to FDA scrutiny and regulatory procedures."

And that is what I was objecting to. The cost of bringing new drugs to market is trivially effected by the FDA approval process. It obviously depends on which drug, but estimates vary between $50-200 million to complete stage 3 trials. So somewhere between 3% and 13% of the cost of bringing new drugs to market is FDA testing. Not an insignificant amount in total dollars but as a percentage this is not the FDA's problem. 

And of course if a drug once approved is shown to be dangerous, or ineffective in actual use its pulled. But that just adds one more to the number of failed chemicals (remember the success rate is about 1%). In the same way the government didn't refund paint manufacturers for R&D on new paint colors based around lead. 

But if you think there is no government help here you are wrong. About 1/3 of all drug research is paid for by tax write offs (drug research is deductable as an expense). So about $500m per approved drug is paid for by tax subsidies of the research.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

bobmcgov said:


> The FDA does a *very* good job balancing competing mandates (make drugs quickly available!/make drugs completely safe!) and competing interests (public hunger for new treatments/Pharma's desire to protect turf & profits/government's desire to protect the public). If you think their job is easy -- or even possible -- you don't understand what they do every single day.
> 
> Science doesn't even know for certain the role of different cholesterols in our bodies nor the long-term effects of daily statin intake to reduce some but not others. So far, statins seem to offer positive outcomes. 25% of Americans take statins; some doctors are pushing for more people to take more of them; the profit to existing patent holders is insane, and the cost to insurance companies, Medicare, and individual patients is almost ungraspable. The benefits are ... maybe? probably? ... harder to measure but real as far as we know today.
> 
> ...


Excellent post; and, I totally (almost) agree. 

What I don't agree with (not with you, of course) is the market and financial pressure to do the very same discovery/development/R&D/ ... and finally - full production somewhere 'offshore', simply because of 'competitive', tax, risk, etc. etc. etc. advantages in doing so.

In the case of Sturgeron, apparently those countries where approved, probably made their approval by envisioning/ascertaining less risk of untoward etc. effects. ;-)


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RichH said:


> In the case of Sturgeron, apparently those countries where approved, probably made their approval by envisioning/ascertaining less risk of untoward etc. effects. ;-)


The approval was made in the 1970's, and motion sickness was an off-label usage, if that helps with understanding the situation today.

Mark

Edit: Stugeron was brought to market in 1958, not the 1970's.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RichH said:


> What I don't agree with (not with you, of course) is the market and financial pressure to do the very same discovery/development/R&D/ ... and finally - full production somewhere 'offshore', simply because of 'competitive', tax, risk, etc. etc. etc. advantages in doing so.


Hope you don't have an iphone, or drive one of several model automobiles, or dress yourself in pretty much any clothing, or buy your kids any toys, or use one of many brands of tools, or&#8230;

Mark


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

Still no one has said anything about why Stugeron is no approved for sale in the US other than someone that said it has more side effects than Thalidomide or that its nausea fighting capabilities are not what it was originally approved for.

Doubt seriously that the drug has common serious side effects. Asked the doctor on a cruise ship if I could have some and she gave me a full blister pack without making any comments. With the Trial Lawyers suing everyone and everything for anything, drug perveyors feel they have to say drugs on the market may have the possibility of a plethora of side effects the same as snow blower MFG feel compelled to say not to use them on your roof. Does the drug have relatively common serious side effects or any significant reasons for the FDA not approving its sale in the US while it's commonly available almost everywhere else??

FYI, I don't have a problem with sea sickness but wanted the Stugeron just in case I had a guest who might get sick. Have heard for years every one whose afflicted singing the praises of Stugeron.


----------



## willyd (Feb 22, 2008)

Exhaustive internet research using a highly classified browser revealed this thread on a little-known website: Why no Stugeron in the USA? - Cruising Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums

Interesting that the OP never bothered to edit the misleading name in the title of this thread. Misspelling is the digital age equivalent of talking with your mouth full.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

roverhi said:


> Still no one has said anything about why Stugeron is no approved for sale in the US other than someone that said it has more side effects than Thalidomide or that its nausea fighting capabilities are not what it was originally approved for.
> 
> Doubt seriously that the drug has common serious side effects. Asked the doctor on a cruise ship if I could have some and she gave me a full blister pack without making any comments. With the Trial Lawyers suing everyone and everything for anything, drug perveyors feel they have to say drugs on the market may have the possibility of a plethora of side effects the same as snow blower MFG feel compelled to say not to use them on your roof. Does the drug have relatively common serious side effects or any significant reasons for the FDA not approving its sale in the US while it's commonly available almost everywhere else??
> 
> FYI, I don't have a problem with sea sickness but wanted the Stugeron just in case I had a guest who might get sick. Have heard for years every one whose afflicted singing the praises of Stugeron.


It is just not a good drug. It is very promiscuous in binding with receptors for many things besides its intended ones and has awful pharmacokinetics and dynamics for motion sickness. While it may have been approvable in 1958 when it came out, I don't think approval would be possible today since there are much better drugs for its various usages.

In other words, that ship has sailed.

Mark


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

Mahalo for the discussion on Sailing Anarchy. Pretty much covers what Stugeron is all about and, strange for Anarchy site, not a lot of 'F' bombs. Swear that the 'F' word is the total vocabulary of the posters over there.



willyd said:


> Exhaustive internet research using a highly classified browser revealed this thread on a little-known website: Why no Stugeron in the USA? - Cruising Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums
> 
> Interesting that the OP never bothered to edit the misleading name in the title of this thread. Misspelling is the digital age equivalent of talking with your mouth full.


----------



## IStream (Dec 15, 2013)

roverhi said:


> Mahalo for the discussion on Sailing Anarchy. Pretty much covers what Stugeron is all about and, strange for Anarchy site, not a lot of 'F' bombs. Swear that the 'F' word is the total vocabulary of the posters over there.


Hey, I resemble that remark!

If you really want Stugeron, you can buy it in almost any non-US airport.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

cinnarizine. google it..mebbe different name or usfda aint tested the stuff yet. could be a bureaucratic fda thing preventing development due to pharma corruption.
OR, available by prescription only, as are most medications in usa. 

Cinnarizine tablets (Stugeron) - 
patient.info/medicine/cinnarizine-tablets-stugeron
Cinnarizine is an antihistamine used to treat Ménière's disease, travel sickness, vertigo and other balance or movement problems.

Cinnarizine is a medication derivative of piperazine, and characterized as an antihistamine and ... Trade names, Stugeron, Stunarone, Arlevert, Diznil-25.


----------



## jeremiahblatz (Sep 23, 2013)

Short answer is because we don't seem to care about motion sickness. Cinnarizine is great, and I have used it (outside the US) and been pretty pleased with it. I will say that the Scopolamine patches (available with an Rx in the US as Transderm Scop) are *wonderful* and I greatly prefer them to everything else I've tried.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

As Stumble has said, the FDA found it neither safe nor effective. Stugeron is an anti nausea drug used in conjunction with chemo therapy. Sea sickness is an off label (read unapproved) use of the drug. It's standard dose is 75 mg. Are you guys taking it in that dosage and multiple times a day?


----------



## Caribbeachbum (Feb 23, 2014)

The drug was invented in 1955 at, and marketed in 1958 by, Janssen Pharmeceutica, a small Belgian company that simply did no noteworthy business in the USA. The company was bought by Johnson & Johnson in 1961. Sturgeron was low on the radar of reasons for buying out Janssen, and you can presume that by the time J & J took a look at submitting it for approval, the actuarial math did not support doing so. That is, there wasn't enough time remaining before the patent expired to justify the investment (money and effort) required for FDA approval. And by then there were better drugs anyway. I believe transdermal scopolamine has been shown to be significantly more effective with significantly fewer side effects. For most people, anyway.
If you want it, you can get it. Buy it online via mail order (it's not a controlled substance); or travel to a country that allows its sale.

Or so i've read somewhere.

--


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

For motion sickness 15mg is adequate for most people and greatly decreases risk of side effects particularly drowsiness in my experience. There's a manufacturer in England that markets that dose. We've had it on the boat for some years now and pleased with its effectiveness and side effect spectrum. It's a "dirty" drug effecting many neurotransmitters not just histamine so you need to pay attention for possibility of drug interactions and your past medical history before using it. Several Canadian internet suppliers exist.
That said side effects just as hallucinations, very blurred vision, marked confusion, extreme sleepiness which can be seen with the other anti motion sickness drugs might lead you to want to try it. Would stick with the 15mg or 25mg dose for the indication of motion sickness not the 75mg.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

GeorgeB said:


> As Stumble has said, the FDA found it neither safe nor effective.


Just to clarify, the FDA made no findings on this drug because it was never submitted to the FDA for approval.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

This is consistent with my experience. I have sourced it from Canada mail order so would disregard that statement. It's available on eBay.

An opinion on Seasickness

by David Anderson Posted in Cruising



"I am a Canadian physician who has cruised long distances, and the posted answers cover everything I’ve heard on seasickness. Tom Connelly’s advice is excellent – be outside, face the wind, watch the horizon – important even when taking seasickness drugs. You cannot focus on a task close-up – that is, no reading, sewing, cooking, splicing lines, gutting fish, playing scrabble, etc. On a long passage, it is frustrating when you can’t “do” anything except take watch outside, and sleep (or lie horizontal) when you’re off watch. It’s true that after a few days you get used to the motion, but that’s only true if the motion is consistent. If the weather and wave pattern changes mid-passage, you have to start all over again!

During our circumnavigation, I tried every drug available in the developed world, and then some, including ginger snaps. A warning about the scopolamine patch (Transderm Scop) – side effects do include blurred vision and sometimes even hallucinations – too risky for someone with watch-keeping and navigational responsibilities. I believe the manufacturers warn against cutting the patch in half (although many of us tried that too – hoping for less side effects) – it interferes with the proper absorption of the drug through the membrane. The manufacturers were having absorption problems with the intact patch not too long ago, and took the patches off the market for a long time, but they are available again now. I think they are a reasonable option for someone who is a passenger or even crew, but not for someone essential, like the skipper.

While cruising in the South Pacific I met some cruisers who offered me some Stugeron (generic name is Cinnarizine). I must have been desperate to take a drug I’d never heard of, given to me by complete strangers (although we all treat fellow cruisers immediately like family). It is now the only thing I use, because it works every time. It is an antihistamine, and works in the same way as Gravol (or dramamine), but does not have the side effect of drowsiness at the doses needed for seasickness – for me it was the opposite of drowsiness – I got so much energy from it I was baking bread, cleaning the head, happily bouncing around down below – I felt great! Just so glad to not be seasick anymore.

Unfortunately Stugeron is not available in Canada or the United States. (I couldn’t get it in New Zealand or Australia either – a time when I did more experimenting with other drugs.) The good news is, Stugeron can be obtained easily, without a prescription, in most of the European and developing countries – including Bermuda, Mexico, and many in the Caribbean etc. So you’ll either have to cruise to these places – or get a “source”. It is not a new drug, and is safe – just no one markets it here.

Dosing is individual – I find that 15-25 mg in one dose at breakfast daily is all I need. (I took it for almost 6 months straight going across the Indian Ocean and up the Red Sea. I like the idea of premedicating for days in advance before known rough conditions or awkward motion – for severe sufferers that might give added benefit.

Bonamine (generic name is Meclizine) is another good option, available by prescription, but I experienced more drowsiness and less effectiveness than Stugeron. I would use it before Gravol though – too much sedation with Gravol. As for the wrist bands, I never met anyone in our years of cruising who had any success with these. In my experience, the majority of cruisers use stugeron"


----------



## cshrimpt (Jun 8, 2015)

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV. Stugeron (Cinnarizine) is not available in the US most likely due to a potentially severe side effect. It is known to induce Parkinson's disease and according to Wikipedia it is the second leading cause of the disease.

Stugeron is nasty. I wouldn't take it. Bonine (Meclizine) is very effective and safe. Use that instead.

Shrimp


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

From what I read of the literature, Stugeron does not cause Parkinson's disease just temporarily amplifies the symptoms. People who might not have been aware they had Parkinson's felt the symptoms and those that knew they had it had more severe symptoms but the side effect was/is only temporary. It took a couple of enterprising druggy chemists in California to make a drug that actually caused Parkinson's much to their chagrin as they used their own product. Up until that time, researchers could do no animal studies on Parkinson's because it is a disease only naturally occuring in humans. The druggies inadvertent discovery made a tremendous advancement in Parkinson's research. Guess that's a plus for illicit drug creation. Now let's hear it from the PETA people who truly are a PITA.

The 75 miligram doses of Stugeron should not be taken for seasickness. Apparently doses as small as 10mg are effective which is approximately half a pill of the normal version of the drug. With any drug, there are different effects in different people. Sure that for some Stugeron is a god send and for others not as effective as other drugs. Fortunately have never had the need for any Mal de Mer medicine.



cshrimpt said:


> I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV. Stugeron (Cinnarizine) is not available in the US most likely due to a potentially severe side effect. It is known to induce Parkinson's disease and according to Wikipedia it is the second leading cause of the disease.
> 
> Stugeron is nasty. I wouldn't take it. Bonine (Meclizine) is very effective and safe. Use that instead.
> 
> Shrimp


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Shrimp I was a neurologist for 35+ years. Your statement is somewhat out of context. It does not cause Parkinson's disease. Paralysis agitans (PD) is a progressive neurodegenarative disease. Drug induced Parkinsonism does not have many of the features of that unfortunate illness. Many drugs ( licensed in the US) as a side effect can produce the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. When the drug is cleared from the body the side effect clears as well. In rare cases the side effect is persistent. This is different then progressive neuro degeneration. 

There was a illicit drug MPTP ( actual toxin is MPP+) which causes irreversible damage to the brain and irreversible PD. It is used as an animal model for PD research. 

Stugeron can cause drug induced PD ( meaning persistent symptoms after drug clearance) but the risk in real terms is quite low. Would suggest those genetically at risk for PD and those who have had PD like symptoms as a side effect from other drugs should definitely avoid this agent. However, the occasional use at low dose would seem to carry reasonable risk.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

cshrimpt said:


> I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV. Stugeron (Cinnarizine) is not available in the US most likely due to a potentially severe side effect.


I thought this was settled. The reason it is not available in the US is that it was never submitted to the FDA for approval back in 1958, and there is no economic reason to do so now. IMO, it could never be approved today, but that is beside the point - it has never been submitted.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

You caused me to do a brief search on this subject.
Risk low with dose <150mg/d.
Most cleared with discontinuing drug.
Most with irreversible disease evidence to suggest underlying true Parkinson's disease uncovered by use of this agent rather than it being actual cause.
Was able to search back to the citation used in the wiki article. Again literature supports thinking there is D2 cell toxicity in susceptible individuals when given chronically above a threshold dose. 
Of interest several sources refer back to 2012 study suggesting scopolamine is more effective and safer. However have had experience with multiple individuals intolerant to this agent due to vision or cognitive side effects.
Hence at this point may be reasonable to try scopolamine first and if intolerant or ineffective then cinnerazine at low dose (15-25mg).


----------



## skalashn (Jun 28, 2011)

Good to see some input from the professionals. FWIW, we are occasionally using a European 25mg version in rough conditions. Half a pill seems to work quite well for everyone including kids. We haven't noticed any side effects. The package has a note listing "prevention of motion sickness" as one of the "official" applications and does not list any serious side effects.


----------



## Caliber35 (Jul 21, 2016)

Yep, a half a pill is all we ever take.


----------

