The Fluoroquinolone Drugs are the most toxic and dangerous antibiotic in clinical practice today.

"davidtfull" wrote in message
...

Antibiotics are not used to treat kidney stones. Sorry.

Apperently my urologist was unaware of that. Well since the only
thing wrong with me was a kidney stone and I did NOT have prostatitis
nor a urinary tract infection, or any bacterial infection whatsoever,
why the hell did the urologist keep me on them for two months then?
My initial exam showed EVERYTHING to be perfectly normal except for
blood in the urine and renal colic. I presented with gross hematuria
and severe renal colic on referral from my primary for a suspected
kidney stone. The IVP showed an occult stone at the fourth vertebrae
but the radiologist missed it, as well as the urologist who also
viewed these films.

Urinalysis was negative for a bacterial infection including the 24 and
48-hour studies. And throughout this who period all urine was free of
any bacteria but full of red blood cells. Prostrate was normal, it
was NOT boggy and of normal size. Cysto w/bladder wash was a negative
study as well. No infection, no cancer, nothing. There was no
frequency, no urgency, no testicular pain, no distension, normal bowel
sounds, no bruits, no hepatosplenomegaly, no ulcers or urethral
discharge, no evidence of hernia. No bladder infection and no kidney
infection. Only gross hematuria that persisted for two months as well
as severe renal colic as the stone shredded the lining of the ureter
as it made its way down to the bladder. Both ceased after I passed
the stone.


*** REPLY ***
Now you're getting your stories crossed. Earlier, it was the cipro that
caused the stone. Now the stone was there but you were treated with
cipro... uh huh... Your confusion aside, let's look at your hypothetical
case (cause I don't believe you have given more than half the story):

Pt presents with renal colic and gross hematuria. 1st thought is a ureteral
stone. Negative IVP makes that much less likely. You say it was misread...
maybe, but if you had renal colic as a result of a stone there should have
been obvious hydronephrosis which is very obvious on IVP. In the absence of
fever, elevated WBC count, and infected urine, it's not pyelonehpritis. So
let's play along... the antibiotics were given for?

Let me get this straight - you, who purpots himself to be educated and at
least reasonable educated - is told that you have no evidence or suspicion
for any infection and you're then given an antibiotic. Hmmm... did you
happen to ask, "Oh, ok... hey doc, what's this for?" I mean, most people
know what antibiotics are by middle school if not sooner. Certainly an
adult would know.

No, that's not what happened. There was more to it.. or less... and we'll
never know. The 24 hour urine was for what purpose? To assess what was
causing the stones they didn't think you had? LOL... c'mon man. It just
doesn't work that way. And a 48 hour urine? I doubt it.

As for this business of "shredding the lining of the ureter"... also a myth.
Sorry. Not your day, huh? Yeah, the stones seldom cause much ureteral
trauma unless they impact. Yours wasn't impacted. How do I know? You said
you passed it. You don't pass impacted stones. No, the pain comes from
distension of the collecting system secondary to ureteral obstruction.
That's why renal stones don't cause pain, only ureteral stones.

Maybe you should try "alt.medical.fables"

"ciprocripple" wrote in message
...
Skeptic wrote:

"You're just on some personal vendetta against this particular one for
no
particularly good reason".
-------------------------

Why In the hell would i have a personal vendetta against one
particular drug for
no particular reason?? WTF is wrong with you? What an idiot! That
makes no sense,
and neither do your comments. Cipro injured me, or was it just some
strange coincidence
that my body fell apart within days of finishing my scrip?

*** REPLY ***

Don't know. John drops dead of a heart attack on the 22nd. On the 21st he
had sex for the first time in 8 months. Did that kill him? On the 21st he
woke up 2 hours early, didn't feel like sleeping, made breakfast. Did that
contribute? On the 18th his friend's cat died. Must that be related, too?

Well, you hung in there for a little while. Then your real self came
through and you have shown yourself to be incapable of an adult conversation
with personal attacks as above with "idiot".

Cheers.

On Mar 5, 9:16*pm, "Skeptic" wrote:
"ciprocripple" wrote in message

...

Skeptic wrote:

"You're just on some personal vendetta against this particular one for
no
particularly good reason".
-------------------------

Why In the hell would i have a personal vendetta against one
particular drug for
no particular reason?? WTF is wrong with you? What an idiot! *That
makes no sense,
and neither do your comments. *Cipro injured me, or was it just some
strange coincidence
that my body fell apart within days of finishing my scrip?

*** REPLY ***

Don't know. *John drops dead of a heart attack on the 22nd. *On the 21st he
had sex for the first time in 8 months. *Did that kill him? *On the 21st he
woke up 2 hours early, didn't feel like sleeping, made breakfast. *Did that
contribute? *On the 18th his friend's cat died. *Must that be related, too?

Well, you hung in there for a little while. *Then your real self came
through and you have shown yourself to be incapable of an adult conversation
with personal attacks as above with "idiot".

Cheers.


Reply -

Sorry, idiot was not correct....Moron is more like it. You probably
finished
last in your class. Urine Dr. huh? No, more like **** Dr.

I wonder how many people you've injured with your ignorance and belief
that FQ's
are the answer to every little infection that comes along? Probably
way more than
you will ever realize. You see, small minds have a hard time with
comprehension.

We're done here. No use talking to a brick wall.... brick walls are
just too thick.

On Mar 5, 10:05*pm, ciprocripple
wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:16*pm, "Skeptic" wrote:





"ciprocripple" wrote in message

...

Skeptic wrote:

"You're just on some personal vendetta against this particular one for
no
particularly good reason".
-------------------------

Why In the hell would i have a personal vendetta against one
particular drug for
no particular reason?? WTF is wrong with you? What an idiot! *That
makes no sense,
and neither do your comments. *Ciproinjured me, or was it just some
strange coincidence
that my body fell apart within days of finishing my scrip?

*** REPLY ***

Don't know. *John drops dead of a heart attack on the 22nd. *On the 21st he
had sex for the first time in 8 months. *Did that kill him? *On the 21st he
woke up 2 hours early, didn't feel like sleeping, made breakfast. *Did that
contribute? *On the 18th his friend's cat died. *Must that be related, too?

Well, you hung in there for a little while. *Then your real self came
through and you have shown yourself to be incapable of an adult conversation
with personal attacks as above with "idiot".

Cheers.

* * * * Reply -

Sorry, idiot was not correct....Moron is more like it. *You probably
finished
last in your class. * Urine Dr. huh? * No, more like **** Dr.

I wonder how many people you've injured with your ignorance and belief
that FQ's
are the answer to every little infection that comes along? *Probably
way more than
you will ever realize. *You see, small minds have a hard time with
comprehension.

We're done here. *No use talking to a brick wall.... brick walls are
just too thick.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It looks like skeptic only speed reads these discussions and skips
over far too much.

I already told him that I was treated with cipro eight months prior to
having this stone for a minor infection. This is when the stone
formation began. Eight months later I have sudden onset of gross
hematuria. Where does this blood come from? Damage to the uterer as
the stone is moving along. But skeptic says this is a myth. Where
did this stone come from? Previous exposure to the cipro. Again
skeptic says this too is a myth. But when we exam the stone it
consist of Cipro. Not once but twice.

Again I told him that the urologist told me I had a urinary
infection. Stupid me believed him. But I was lied to. Next I was
told that I had prostatitis. Again I was lied to. NONE of the
testing or exams pointed to that diagnosis. When I was in ER the
doctor told me that I had an obstruction. But the urologist insisted
it was a severe urinary infection. It was not until I fired this jerk
that I found out all the urine test and all cultures were NEGATIVE.
Again it was not until I obtained my medical records for the new
urologist that I found out that all the testing was negative.

I was told that the xrays did not show a kidney stone. But when I
fired this incompetent ass and got a real doctor he saw the stone
right away. When I told him about all the problems I was having with
the cipro, levaquin and floxin, he believed that these were adrs to
the quinolones that I should not of even been on to begin with. The
NEW urologist said NO bladder infections, NO urinary tract infections,
NO prostatitis, simply a kidney stone that the radiologist missed when
reviewing the xray as it was an occult stone very hard to see on
film. But it showed up when he did more testing such as CT scan,
Retroperitoneal Ultrasound, and a KUB. Test the other urologist
should have done but didn't.

So when a doctor tells you you have a urinary tract infection and
prostatitis and need to be on these drugs you believe him. It was not
until much later that I found out otherwise. About eight months later
I develop another stone. Only this time it is treated properly. When
it is examined once again it consist of cipro. This I believe to be
from the SECOND exposure to cipro.

This was eight years ago. Since that time I have NOT had another
stone. So logic dictates that BOTH stones were the result of exposure
to cipro since both stones consist of cipro and only formed while
taking cipro. Skeptic says bull****. But when we consider the fact
that for 45 years prior to this FIRST stone I had never had a kidney
stone in my life, and 8 years AFTER the fact I have yet to have
another I would have to disagree.

When I started to look at my full medical history I find out that a
number of times in the past, AFTER taking a quinolone drug, I find
that I had all kinds of problems with these drugs that of course the
doctors said were not related. When I start researching the safety
profile of these drugs I find out that they were mistaken.

First exposure in the late eighties when treated for pnuemonia. Heart
attack and blown achilles tendon and the whole list of other problems
that eventually resolved.
.
Second exposre to cipro in the early nineties. Frozen knee and frozen
shoulder.

Third exposure in the late nineties. Blown knee, gastro problems, and
the whole list of other problems that persisted.

Fourath and fifth expsoure all hell breaks loose. Left with a laundry
list of serious problems including cipro kidney stones, rupture of the
stomach muscles, shrunken tendons, tendonitis, permanent double
vision, peripheral nueropathy, damage to the liver, heart, pancreas
and kidneys, etc. This may very well of been the result of not only
being on cipro, but also floxin and levaquin at ridiculiously high
doses. But again skeptic says bull****.

Prior to 2000 I had no idea what a quinolone even was let alone it's
side effects. NO doctor had ever warned me about them. So I got
curious. The more I read the more I found out how IGNORANT the
medical community is regarding these drugs. The result of this eight
years of research is posted on the fqresearch.org site. Skeptic I
believe hasn't even bothered to log unto the site.

He'd much rather nit pick my attempts to explain what has happened to
me instead. He is just another ignorant urologist, the same as the
one who crippled me for life eight years. He is not a doctor. But a
closed minded egotistical jerk. But I find his state of denial
fascinating to say the least. Just keep attacking the messenger while
completely ignoring the message being presented. Gotta love it. Here
I have presented a number of his peers, a couple of college
professors, the medical staff of Public Citizen as well as the medical
staff of an Attorney General bearing the same message and skeptic
still says "bull****".

His counter arguments? I have yet to see anything but nit picking.
No citations, no clinical studies, no evidence of any kind and
certainly not anything written by his peers. Just accusations that I
am a loony on a vendetta and perhaps even a fake. If he wants
confirmation that I exist and what has happened to me is documented
medical fact, all he has to do is go down to the District Court House
in Tampa and read Fuller vs. Starling et al. This is all a matter of
public record for anyone to read. Every gory detail of the damage I
endure as well as the gross medical malpractice by which this took
place is contained therein.

The results of the meeting with Rush Holt that I attended with a
number of other doctors and victims? New warnings for the quinolone
class:

In 2004 new warning labels added to all of the Fluoroquinolones
regarding Peripheral Neuropathy (irreversible nerve damage), Tendon
Damage, Heart Problems (prolonged QT Interval / Torsades de pointes),
Pseudomembranous colitis, Rhabdomyolysis (muscle wasting), Steven
Johnson Syndrome, as well as concurrent usage of NSAIDs contributing
to the severity of these reactions.

The results of my research? Two petitioins filed with the FDA seeking
"Black Box Warnings and Dear Doctor Letters" as well as the additional
warnings stated above.

What has he accomplished? Keeps handing this stuff out like halloween
candy claiming them to be just as safe or even safer than the other
drugs at his disposal and nit picking anything I say.

So let's decide who is correct here. Him or I. Frankly I think he
might just be a fake himself. For someone claiming to be so
"educated" why do I see nothing but stupidity? I can fix ignorance.
But I cannot fix stupid. And it cannot be considered to be anything
but shear stupidity to claim that the quinolone class is a safe
antibiotic and safer than any other other antibiotic on the market
today. This goes way beyond ignorance. It borders on medical
malpractice. But let him have his fun. Apparently he has nothing
better to do with his time than argue with me. Researching these
drugs is obviously not a priority with him. Thankfully I am not one
of his patients. I've have had enough of incompetent medical care to
last me a life time. The next time they just might succeed in killing
me instead. Maybe that would have been a blessing, as I what I now
endure cannot be called living.

On Mar 6, 7:51*am, davidtfull wrote:
On Mar 5, 10:05*pm, ciprocripple
wrote:





On Mar 5, 9:16*pm, "Skeptic" wrote:

"ciprocripple" wrote in message

....

Skeptic wrote:

"You're just on some personal vendetta against this particular one for
no
particularly good reason".
-------------------------

Why In the hell would i have a personal vendetta against one
particular drug for
no particular reason?? WTF is wrong with you? What an idiot! *That
makes no sense,
and neither do your comments. *Ciproinjured me, or was it just some
strange coincidence
that my body fell apart within days of finishing my scrip?

*** REPLY ***

Don't know. *John drops dead of a heart attack on the 22nd. *On the 21st he
had sex for the first time in 8 months. *Did that kill him? *On the 21st he
woke up 2 hours early, didn't feel like sleeping, made breakfast. *Did that
contribute? *On the 18th his friend's cat died. *Must that be related, too?

Well, you hung in there for a little while. *Then your real self came
through and you have shown yourself to be incapable of an adult conversation
with personal attacks as above with "idiot".

Cheers.

* * * * Reply -

Sorry, idiot was not correct....Moron is more like it. *You probably
finished
last in your class. * Urine Dr. huh? * No, more like **** Dr.

I wonder how many people you've injured with your ignorance and belief
that FQ's
are the answer to every little infection that comes along? *Probably
way more than
you will ever realize. *You see, small minds have a hard time with
comprehension.

We're done here. *No use talking to a brick wall.... brick walls are
just too thick.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It looks like skeptic only speed reads these discussions and skips
over far too much.

I already told him that I was treated with cipro eight months prior to
having this stone for a minor infection. *This is when the stone
formation began. *Eight months later I have sudden onset of gross
hematuria. *Where does this blood come from? *Damage to the uterer as
the stone is moving along. *But skeptic says this is a myth. *Where
did this stone come from? *Previous exposure to the cipro. *Again
skeptic says this too is a myth. *But when we exam the stone it
consist of Cipro. *Not once but twice.

Again I told him that the urologist told me I had a urinary
infection. *Stupid me believed him. *But I was lied to. * Next I was
told that I had prostatitis. *Again I was lied to. *NONE of the
testing or exams pointed to that diagnosis. *When I was in ER the
doctor told me that I had an obstruction. *But the urologist insisted
it was a severe urinary infection. *It was not until I fired this jerk
that I found out all the urine test and all cultures were NEGATIVE.
Again it was not until I obtained my medical records for the new
urologist that I found out that all the testing was negative.

I was told that the xrays did not show a kidney stone. *But when I
fired this incompetent ass and got a real doctor he saw the stone
right away. *When I told him about all the problems I was having with
the cipro, levaquin and floxin, he believed that these were adrs to
the quinolones that I should not of even been on to begin with. The
NEW urologist said NO bladder infections, NO urinary tract infections,
NO prostatitis, simply a kidney stone that the radiologist missed when
reviewing the xray as it was an occult stone very hard to see on
film. *But it showed up when he did more testing such as CT scan,
Retroperitoneal Ultrasound, and a KUB. *Test the other urologist
should have done but didn't.

So when a doctor tells you you have a urinary tract infection and
prostatitis and need to be on these drugs you believe him. *It was not
until much later that I found out otherwise. *About eight months later
I develop another stone. *Only this time it is treated properly. *When
it is examined once again it consist of cipro. *This I believe to be
from the SECOND exposure to cipro.

This was eight years ago. *Since that time I have NOT had another
stone. *So logic dictates that BOTH stones were the result of exposure
to cipro since both stones consist of cipro and only formed while
taking cipro. *Skeptic says bull****. *But when we consider the fact
that for 45 years prior to this FIRST stone I had never had a kidney
stone in my life, and 8 years AFTER the fact I have yet to have
another I would have to disagree.

When I started to look at my full medical history I find out that a
number of times in the past, AFTER taking a quinolone drug, I find
that I had all kinds of problems with these drugs that of course the
doctors said were not related. *When I start researching the safety
profile of these drugs I find out that they were mistaken.

First exposure in the late eighties when treated for pnuemonia. *Heart
attack and blown achilles tendon and the whole list of other problems
that eventually resolved.
.
Second exposre to cipro in the early nineties. *Frozen knee and frozen
shoulder.

Third exposure in the late nineties. *Blown knee, gastro problems, and
the whole list of other problems that persisted.

Fourath and fifth expsoure all hell breaks loose. *Left with a laundry
list of serious problems including cipro kidney stones, rupture of the
stomach muscles, shrunken tendons, tendonitis, permanent double
vision, peripheral nueropathy, damage to the liver, heart, pancreas
and kidneys, etc. *This may very well of been the result of not only
being on cipro, but also floxin and levaquin at ridiculiously high
doses. *But again skeptic says bull****.

Prior to 2000 I had no idea what a quinolone even was let alone it's
side effects. *NO doctor had ever warned me about them. *So I got
curious. *The more I read the more I found out how IGNORANT the
medical community is regarding these drugs. *The result of this eight
years of research is posted on the fqresearch.org site. *Skeptic I
believe hasn't even bothered to log unto the site.

He'd much rather nit pick my attempts to explain what has happened to
me instead. *He is just another ignorant urologist, the same as the
one who crippled me for life eight years. *He is not a doctor. *But a
closed minded egotistical jerk. *But I find his state of denial
fascinating to say the least. *Just keep attacking the messenger while
completely ignoring the message being presented. *Gotta love it. *Here
I have presented a number of his peers, a couple of college
professors, the medical staff of Public Citizen as well as the medical
staff of an Attorney General bearing the same message and skeptic
still says "bull****".

His counter arguments? *I have yet to see anything but nit picking.
No citations, no clinical studies, no evidence of any kind and
certainly not anything written by his peers. *Just accusations that I
am a loony on a vendetta and perhaps even a fake. *If he wants
confirmation that I exist and what has happened to me is documented
medical fact, all he has to do is go down to the District Court House
in Tampa and read Fuller vs. Starling et al. *This is all a matter of
public record for anyone to read. *Every gory detail of the damage I
endure as well as the gross medical malpractice by which this took
place is contained therein.

The results of the meeting with Rush Holt that I attended with a
number of other doctors and victims? *New warnings for the quinolone
class:

In 2004 new warning labels added to all of the Fluoroquinolones
regarding Peripheral Neuropathy (irreversible nerve damage), Tendon
Damage, Heart Problems (prolonged QT Interval / Torsades de pointes),
Pseudomembranous colitis, Rhabdomyolysis (muscle wasting), Steven
Johnson Syndrome, as well as concurrent usage of NSAIDs contributing
to the severity of these reactions.

The results of my research? *Two petitioins filed with the FDA seeking
"Black Box Warnings and Dear Doctor Letters" as well as the additional
warnings stated above.

What has he accomplished? *Keeps handing this stuff out like halloween
candy claiming them to be just as safe or even safer than the other
drugs at his disposal and nit picking anything I say.

So let's decide who is correct here. *Him or I. *Frankly I think he
might just be a fake himself. *For someone claiming to be so
"educated" why do I see nothing but stupidity? *I can fix ignorance.
But I cannot fix stupid. *And it cannot be considered to be anything
but shear stupidity to claim that the quinolone class is a safe
antibiotic and safer than any other other antibiotic on the market
today. *This goes way beyond ignorance. *It borders on medical
malpractice. *But let him have his fun. *Apparently he has nothing
better to do with his time than argue with me. *Researching these
drugs is obviously not a priority with him. *Thankfully I am not one
of his patients. *I've have had enough of incompetent medical care to
last me a life time. *The next time they just might succeed in killing
me instead. *Maybe that would have been a blessing, as I what I now
endure cannot be called living.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Reply -

Even if this quack is a real Dr...which I find that hard to believe,
his education
and learning ceased to continue as soon as he had that pretty little
degree
framed and hung neatly on his wall.

Real Dr.s continue to learn from their patients and continue to
research and
study new developments in modern medicine. Above all, real Dr.s that
are
worth anything listen to their patients with an open mind and
consider all possibilities
and realize that Dr.s and the drugs they prescribe are
fallible....more often than not.

This guy, if he even is a Dr. lives in his narrow little world where
black is black
and white is white and there are no gray areas. About as closed
minded as they get.
Scared to death that he could be wrong, and even more scared that he
could have to
admit it. A very sorry excuse for a Dr. if there ever was one. I
feel bad for all the patients
he has yet to injure through sheer ignorance. You said ignorance can
be fixed, but that's
only if the ignorant party wants it fixed. If they don't, then that
only leaves stupid, and
like you said, you can't fix stupid.

A wise old timer once told me : Some people you just can't
reach.....because that's
the way they want it.

Even if this quack is a real Dr...which I find that hard to believe,
his education
and learning ceased to continue as soon as he had that pretty little
degree
framed and hung neatly on his wall.

Real Dr.s
...

read more - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This discussion is a prime example of what EVERY patient who suffers
an adverse reaction to these drugs has to endure while seeking
competent medical care to treat such injuries. After eight years of
putting up with such nonsense I am pretty much immune to this type of
treatment. Just another day at the office. I guess when they
graduate from medical school they believe themselves to be
infallible. Incapable of making either a mistake in judgment or an
error of any kind. They are now to be considered "GODS" and we are
all expected to bow down to their superior intellect. Bull****. They
are nothing more than glorified mechanics that instead of working on
Porches they now spend fifteen minutes working on a human body.

And a backyard mechanic who has been working on cars themselves is of
no interest to them whatsoever. Beneath their dignity I would
imagine. And as direct result of such egotism my life has been
destroyed. Does this guy care? Not in the least.

I try to warn him that these drugs have serious side effects that are
non-abating and can last a lifetime. I try to relate my own
experiences regarding this. First I tell him that my whole ordeal
began when I developed a kidney stone as a result of being on cipro
and a medrol dose pak. Bull**** he says, quinolones do not cause
kidney stones. Ok, I pull up a citation that states exactly that.
Not good enough.

Let's take a moment and look at some of skeptic's statements regarding
kidney stones. First he states that cipro induced kidney stone is
possible but there had been only ONE reported event (citing to CHOPRA
et al which he was totally unaware of till I brought this to his
attention):

"So while the very very occasional odd side effect is possible, it by
no means should be considered a standard side effect - especially that
is the only ever reported event of that phenomenon."

Then he goes on to state that cipro DOES NOT cause kidney stones.
Even though he just read a report that clearly contradicts him and had
already admitted that fact that this was possible.

"Cipro does not "cause kidney stones". That would be a very misleading
statement. There is one known case of cipro causing stones resulting
in obstruction."

Yet when we look at the package inserts for all the various forms of
cipro what do we find being reported? FRICKIN KIDNEY STONES:

First Citation:
Ciprofloxacin Injection
Adverse Reactions in Adult Patients
RENAL/UROGENITAL: renal failure, interstitial nephritis, nephritis,
hemorrhagic cystitis, RENAL CALCULI, frequent urination, acidosis,
urethral bleeding, polyuria, urinary retention, gynecomastia,
candiduria, vaginitis, breast pain. Crystalluria, cylindruria,
hematuria and albuminuria have also been reported.

Second Citation:
Cipro:
RENAL CALCULI, serum sickness like reaction, Stevens-Johnson syndrome,
taste loss,

Third Citation:
Cipro IV
RENAL/UROGENITAL: renal failure, interstitial nephritis, nephritis,
hemorrhagic cystitis, RENAL CALCULI, frequent urination, acidosis,
urethral bleeding, polyuria, urinary retention, gynecomastia,
candiduria, vaginitis, breast pain. Crystalluria, cylindruria,
hematuria and albuminuria have also been reported.

Fourth Citation:
And what does the material safety data sheet regarding Ciprofloxacin
Hydrochloride MSDS state?
May also affect the kidneys and cause nephritis, hematuria,
cylindruria, renal failure,
urinary retention, polyuria, urethral bleeding, RENAL CALCULI,
interstitial nephritis.

Review of the literature also points to this side effect:

First Citation:
Efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin in the treatment of UTIs and RTIs
in patients affected by liver diseases
"In which it is reported that nephrosis followed cipro induced RENAL
CALCULI"
$32.00 (this may be yet another additional report but I was not
willing to spend $32 to find out)

Second Citation:
Ciprofloxacin Use in Children: A Review of Recent Findings
from Pediatric Pharmacotherapy it is stated that:
"Renal disease, including interstitial nephritis and RENAL CALCULI,
has been reported in adults taking ciprofloxacin"

Third Citation:
Rev Urol. 2003 Fall; 5(4): 227-231. PMCID: PMC1508366
Copyright (c) 2003 MedReviews, LLC
Drug-Induced Urinary Calculi
Brian R Matlaga, MD, MPH, Ojas D Shah, MD, and Dean G Assimos, MD
Department of Urology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Winston-Salem, NC
"Urinary calculi can also be induced by medications when the drugs
crystallize and become the primary component of the stones. In this
case, urinary supersaturation of the agent may promote formation of
the calculi. Drugs that INDUCE CALCULI via this process include
magnesium trisilicate; CIPROFLOXACIN; sulfa medications; triamterene;
indinavir; and ephedrine, alone or in combination with guaifenesin.
When this situation occurs, discontinuation of the medication is
usually necessary."

Fourth Citation:
Within Antimicrobial Therapy in Veterinary Medicine, Fourth Edition,
it stated the following in regards to cipro:
"Crystalluria leading to obstructive uropathy has been reported in
human studies. Other renal toxciities include acutre renal failure
associated with interstitial nerphritis."
Notice here how the authors cited to "human studies" which means MORE
THAN ONE STUDY.

The fact that quinolones can induce renal calculus has been well known
since 1983. For example in this article this association is reported
with flumequine. A quinolone drug:

First Citation:
Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 1983;41(4):239-49.Links
[Detection and diagnosis of drug induced lithiasis][Article in French]
Daudon M, Protat MF, Réveillaud RJ.
DRUG-INDUCED CALCULI are often mis-diagnosed because of inadequate
analysis of the urinary calculi. These stones can only be
characterized unambiguously by global physical methods like infra-red
spectrophotometry. From a series of 2,000 calculi analysed under infra-
red, we identified 22, i.e. 1.1% of cases, which contained, partly or
entirely, drug products. Ten other cases are still being studied.
Amongst the products identified we found metabolites of glafenine
(Glifanan) in 7 cases, triamterene and its derivatives (Cycloteriam)
in 7 cases, metabolites of phenazopyridine (Pyridium) in 4 cases,
sulphonamides in 2 cases : N-acetylsulphamethoxazole hydrochloride
(Bactrim) and N-acetylsulphaguanidine (Guanidan), FLUMEQUINE (Apurone)
in 1 case and calcite (Cal-Mag-Na) in 1 case. The authors estimate
that about 100,000 calculi are excreted in France each year and that
at least 1,000 of these potentially contain drugs and are not
diagnosed. Early recognition of drug induced stones is essential in
order to protect the patient from recurrences, the risks of renal
complications or, more simply, from useless therapeutic or dietetic
regimes.

Second Citation:
Kidney stone
1: J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1987 May;25(5):313-4.Links
IDENTIFICATION OF FLUMEQUINE IN A URINARY CALCULUS.Rincé C, Daudon M,
Moesch C, Rincé M, Leroux-Robert C.
Various analytical methods are available to help identify the presence
of drugs in urinary calculi. Using infrared spectrophotometric
analysis, nonmetabolized flumequine was identified in a protein
calculus from a patient who had taken the drug for a urinary tract
infection. Free flumequine can precipitate in an acidic environment.

Third Citation:
1: Presse Med. 1983 Oct 29;12(38):2389-92.Links
[Drug-induced urinary lithiasis][Article in French]
Reveillaud RJ, Daudon M.
All urinary calculi should be thoroughly examined. Among 2 000 calculi
analyzed by infra-red spectrophotometry, some were found to contain
rare constituants and drugs which might be held responsible for
urinary stone formation. These included glafenine, triamterene, co-
trimoxazole, sulphaguanidine, allopurinol, phenazopyridine, FLUMEQUINE
and anti-acid powders containing aluminium, calcium and magnesium
trisilicates and/or carbonates or bicarbonates.

So basically our good doctor is full of it. More than one case of
cipro induced renal colic has been reported or we would not see this
listed as a side effect in all the package inserts. I rather doubt
that the various manufacturers (cipro has gone generic) would include
this side effect based upon ONE report.

He also blows off the significance of crystalluria:

"The fact that there may or may not be crystalluria at an increased
incidence is cute but of no clinical consequence."

Which once again is not true. Why is this of any clinical
consequence? Because nephrolithiasis (kidney stones) is PRECEDED by
Crystalluria, that is why. Crystal precipitation is the necessary
initial step in kidney stone formation. But once again we find that
the literature does NOT support his opinions in this matter:

First Citation:
"Crystalluria examination is an essential laboratory test for
detecting and following pathological conditions, which may induce
renal stone disease or alter kidney function due to urine crystals."
Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2004 Jul-Aug;62(4):379-93. Links
[Clinical value of crystalluria study][Article in French]
Daudon M, Jungers P, Lacour B.
Laboratoire de Biochimie A, Groupe hospitalier Necker-enfants malades,
Paris.

Second Citation:
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1993;27(2):145-9.Links
Crystalluria and its possible significance. A patient-control
study.Abdel-Halim RE.
The significance of crystalluria in the diagnosis and prognosis of
urolithiasis remains a controversial subject in the current urological
literature. In this study, in addition to the standard urolithiasis
clinical and biochemical work-up, routine urine microscopy was
performed to study crystals in 1 fresh and 2 stored morning urine
samples from 140 urinary stone patients and 42 controls. Crystalluria
was more frequently detected in patients (9.3% of the fresh samples)
than in controls (2%). Storing the samples for 6 hours did not
increase the frequency percent of detected crystalluria either in
patients or controls. However, in the samples stored for 24 hours, the
frequency of crystalluria increased to 27.1% in patients and only to
12% in controls, though the pH did not change from that of the fresh
sample. In addition, while calcium oxalate crystals in patients formed
aggregates whether in fresh or 24 hour samples, those of controls did
not. This denotes a characteristic change in the physico-chemical
properties of the urine of stone formers from that of controls.
Accordingly, the study of crystalluria in patients with urolithiasis
seems to help in the proper evaluation and, maybe, treatment of the
disease.

Third Citation
Serial crystalluria determination and the risk of recurrence in
calcium stone formers
MICHEL DAUDON, CAROLE HENNEQUIN, GHAZI BOUJELBEN1, BERNARD LACOUR and
PAUL JUNGERS
Department of Biochemistry A, Necker Hosptial, Paris, France; and
Department of Nephrology, Necker Hospital, Paris, France
Serial crystalluria determination and the risk of recurrence in
calcium stone formers.
Background Urinary crystal precipitation is the necessary initial step
in kidney stone formation. However, clinical relevance of crystalluria
in the evaluation of stone formers is disputed.
Methods We serially determined crystalluria in first-voided morning
urine samples, together with full 24-hour urine biochemistry, in 181
patients with idiopathic calcium nephrolithiasis who had formed at
least one calcium-oxalate stone and were followed for at least 3 years
under our care. All stone events which occurred prior to referral,
then after entry in the study were recorded.
Results As compared with 109 patients who had no evidence of stone
recurrence during follow-up, the 72 patients who experienced one
recurrent stone event had a lower daily urine volume (1.74 0.06 vs.
2.26 0.05 L/day (mean SEM) (P 0.0001), higher urine calcium and
oxalate concentrations, and daily calcium excretion, and they had more
frequent crystalluria (68% vs. 23% of urine samples) (P 0.0001). By
multivariate Cox regression analysis, the hazard ratio for stone
recurrence was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16-0.62) for 1 L increase in daily urine
volume, 1.12 (1.09-1.24) for 1 mmol/L increase in urine calcium
concentration, 1.24 (1.02-1.50) for 0.1 mmol/L increase in urine
oxalate concentration and 27.8 (10.2-75.6) for crystalluria index.
Conclusion These data provide evidence that crystalluria, when
repeatedly found in early morning urine samples, is highly predictive
of the risk of stone recurrence in calcium stone formers. Serial
search for crystalluria, a simple and cheap method, may be proposed as
a useful tool for the monitoring of calcium stone formers, in addition
to urine biochemistry

Acute renal colic is described as one of the WORST types of pain that
a patient can suffer. Note that the pain is generally due to the
stone's presence in the ureter, and not--as is commonly believed--the
urethra and lower genitals. So once again common sense would dictate
that if you gave a damn about your patients you would not want to
subject them to the WORSE TYPE OF PAIN THAT A PATIENT CAN SUFFER
needlessly. Crystalluria is therefore VERY relevant and of course
clinically relevant if you engage in treating patients with kidney
stones. Especially when your favorite drug has been shown to cause
such stones as a direct result of such Crystalluria.

So what does the good doctor do when I inform him that in humans,
ciprofloxacin crystalluria may be induced when urinary pH is greater
than 7.3? He says"bull****" this only applies to animals treated by
enrofloxacin and not humans. So what exactly is enrofloxacin? You
may have heard of is as Baytril. Which is the veterinary form of
what? CIPROFLOXACIN. Enrofloxacin is an analogue of the human
antibacterial ciprofloxacin. Ciprofloxacin is a metabolic breakdown
product of enrofloxacin. Ciprofloxacin has been identified as a major
metabolite of enrofloxacin.

Enrofloxacin, its counterpart for human use ciprofloxacin, has toxic
properties in humans yet we find very little difference in its
chemical structure and cipro:

C19H22FN3O3 is the chemical structure of N-Ethylciprofloxacin
(commonly known as Enrofloxacin or Baytril)

C17H18FN3O3 is the chemical structure of Ciprofloxacin.

Most fluoroquinolones possess a nitrogen-containing cyclic substituent
on the quinolone nucleus. Although several ring structures are
possible, the 1-piperazinyl substituent and the 4-methyl-1-piperazinyl
substituent are the most common ones. The only real difference being
the subsitition of 7-(4-ethylpiperazin-1-yl) for 7-piperazin. Hence
what we see here is Enrofloxacin uses the 4-methyl-1-piperazinyl
substituent where as cipro uses the 1-piperazinyl substituent. Not a
whole lot of difference. In fact you will find enrofloxacin and
ciprofloxacin used interchangeably within the literature.

Baytril if you will recall has been banned. The Committee noted that
the antimicrobial activity of ciprofloxacin against the relevant human
intestinal microflora was about four times greater than that of
enrofloxacin and that consumers may be exposed to residues of
ciprofloxacin in some species of food-producing animals.
(WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES 39 World Health Organization, Geneva
1997)

So basically in plain English Cipro is derived from Enrofloxacin. So
common sense would again dictate that when we look at the possible
adrs of cipro me must also take into consideration of the adrs of
enrofloxacin. Not to mention the fact that the entire food chain has
been contaminated with baytril and people have the potential to being
exposed to this drug everytime they sit down to eat.

Bladder stones are quite common with Enrofloxacin. But the
manufacturers state that this is because of the pH level of the
animal's urine. Since human pH is different this would not be an
affect seen in humans. But once again common sense would dictate that
if the human pH were the same as an animal's pH then there is a
possibility that a bladder stone would occur. So what does the good
doctor say?

"Cipro does not cause bladder stones. That was just a silly comment.
The pH issue is based on either in vitro lab data or animal data and
since we only have one published case of renal stones resulting from
cipro use we can't really say if acidity of the urine played any
role."

Persistent Crystalluria may contribute to formation and growth of
uroliths. Crystalluria may solidify crystalline-matrix plugs,
resulting in urethral obstruction. Bladder stones, more correctly
called 'uroliths,' are rock-like collections of minerals that form in
the urinary bladder. Not a whole lot different than kidney stones. As
such a person's pH is a part of the risk of developing a bladder stone
resulting from being on cipro and something that should be monitored
in a patient undergoing therapy. States the very same thing within
the package insert and advises that the patient remain hydrated to
avoid this complication.

Therefor I have demonstrated the following:

1. Cipro has been reported to cause kidney stones.
2. Enrofloxacin has been reported to cause bladder stones
3. For all practical purposes Enrofloxacin and Ciprofloxacin are one
and the same
4. Crystalluria has been shown to be a contributory factor to both
stones
5. Cipro causes Crystalluria
6. Crystalluria is a definitive marker for the possibility of forming
either stone
7. We have one case report of cipro-induced bladder stone and kidney
stone; hence it has been confirmed that Cipro is capable of causing
both bladder stones and kidney stones due to crystalluria.
8. We have numerous post marketing reports of kidney stones being
caused by cipro
9. Within the AER database, selecting one quarter at random, showed
numerous reports of kidney stones in which cipro was cited as to being
the primary suspect drug.
10. The pain of a kidney stone is the worse pain that a patient could
possibly experience
11. The good doctor does not give a **** about any of this. Being
"right" is far more important to him.

As such I don't give a **** about the good doctor's frivolous
opinions. Neither should his patients for that matter. Like I said
to him before, he simply is not worth the effort that it takes to do
this kind of research to prove him wrong. First and foremost because
he won't even bother to read it to begin with. Secondly rather than
examine it for something of value to his patients, he will examine it
for either a typographical error, misspelling of a medical term, bitch
about the lack of full abstracts and text, or simply tell me that all
of these references are in error as they do not agree with his
preconceived notions. But the question I continue to ask, the one
that is constantly being ignored, is where the hell are HIS citations
that prove me wrong? I've added a couple of dozen more to my never-
ending list. I have yet to see ONE of his. Must be because they do
not exist.

But can you just imagine what the poor patient who is unaware of any
of this research is up against when fighting with his or her doctor
about these issues? I can. That is why I continue to do battle with
this stubborn ass. If I don't who will?

No, a medical degree does not make one infallible. I am not
infallible either. I make mistakes just like everybody else. And
when I am wrong I say I am wrong if you can prove that this indeed is
the case. But I do know how to read what others a helluva lot smarter
than I have written. And I tend to believe what they have to say more
so than this quack. If I am wrong then you would think that he would
be kind enough to show me my errors based upon the literature rather
than being crude, rude and sarcastic. Rather than just nit pick and
insult me why does he not simply provide his proofs? Apparently I am
asking too much of the good doctor for he adamantly refuses to do so.

Respect what he has to say JUST because he is a doctor? Hell no.
Earn my respect first and we will go from there. He has failed to do
that as well so far. I find him to be just as amusing as he finds me
to be. Perhaps even more so. I only have a High School Diploma.
What's his excuse for such ignorance? Egotism? Or infatuation with a
set of 40DDs?

On Mar 7, 12:06*am, davidtfull wrote:
* Even if this quack is a real Dr...which I find that hard to believe,
his education
* and learning ceased to continue as soon as he had that pretty little
degree
* framed and hung neatly on his wall.

* Real Dr.s
...

read more - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This discussion is a prime example of what EVERY patient who suffers
an adverse reaction to these drugs has to endure while seeking
competent medical care to treat such injuries. *After eight years of
putting up with such nonsense I am pretty much immune to this type of
treatment. *Just another day at the office. *I guess when they
graduate from medical school they believe themselves to be
infallible. *Incapable of making either a mistake in judgment or an
error of any kind. *They are now to be considered "GODS" and we are
all expected to bow down to their superior intellect. *Bull****. *They
are nothing more than glorified mechanics that instead of working on
Porches they now spend fifteen minutes working on a human body.

And a backyard mechanic who has been working on cars themselves is of
no interest to them whatsoever. *Beneath their dignity I would
imagine. *And as direct result of such egotism my life has been
destroyed. *Does this guy care? *Not in the least.

I try to warn him that these drugs have serious side effects that are
non-abating and can last a lifetime. *I try to relate my own
experiences regarding this. *First I tell him that my whole ordeal
began when I developed a kidney stone as a result of being on cipro
and a medrol dose pak. *Bull**** he says, quinolones do not cause
kidney stones. * Ok, I pull up a citation that states exactly that.
Not good enough.

Let's take a moment and look at some of skeptic's statements regarding
kidney stones. *First he states that cipro induced kidney stone is
possible but there had been only ONE reported event (citing to CHOPRA
et al which he was totally unaware of till I brought this to his
attention):

"So while the very very occasional odd side effect is possible, it by
no means should be considered a standard side effect - especially that
is the only ever reported event of that phenomenon."

Then he goes on to state that cipro DOES NOT cause kidney stones.
Even though he just read a report that clearly contradicts him and had
already admitted that fact that this was possible.

"Cipro does not "cause kidney stones". That would be a very misleading
statement. There is one known case of cipro causing stones resulting
in obstruction."

Yet when we look at the package inserts for all the various forms of
cipro what do we find being reported? *FRICKIN KIDNEY STONES:

First Citation:
Ciprofloxacin Injection
Adverse Reactions in Adult Patients
RENAL/UROGENITAL: renal failure, interstitial nephritis, nephritis,
hemorrhagic cystitis, RENAL CALCULI, frequent urination, acidosis,
urethral bleeding, polyuria, urinary retention, gynecomastia,
candiduria, vaginitis, breast pain. Crystalluria, cylindruria,
hematuria and albuminuria have also been reported.

Second Citation:
Cipro:
RENAL CALCULI, serum sickness like reaction, Stevens-Johnson syndrome,
taste loss,

Third Citation:
Cipro IV
RENAL/UROGENITAL: * renal failure, interstitial nephritis, nephritis,
hemorrhagic cystitis, RENAL CALCULI, frequent urination, acidosis,
urethral bleeding, polyuria, urinary retention, gynecomastia,
candiduria, vaginitis, breast pain. Crystalluria, cylindruria,
hematuria and albuminuria have also been reported.

Fourth Citation:
And what does the material safety data sheet regarding Ciprofloxacin
Hydrochloride MSDS state?
May also affect the kidneys and cause nephritis, hematuria,
cylindruria, renal failure,
urinary retention, polyuria, urethral bleeding, RENAL CALCULI,
interstitial nephritis.

Review of the literature also points to this side effect:

First Citation:
Efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin in the treatment of UTIs and RTIs
in patients affected by liver diseases
"In which it is reported that nephrosis followed cipro induced RENAL
CALCULI"
$32.00 (this may be yet another additional report but I was not
willing to spend *$32 to find out)

Second Citation:
Ciprofloxacin Use in Children: A Review of Recent Findings
from Pediatric Pharmacotherapy it is stated that:
"Renal disease, including interstitial nephritis and RENAL CALCULI,
has been reported in adults taking ciprofloxacin"

Third Citation:
Rev Urol. 2003 Fall; 5(4): 227-231. *PMCID: PMC1508366
Copyright (c) 2003 MedReviews, LLC
Drug-Induced Urinary Calculi
Brian R Matlaga, MD, MPH, Ojas D Shah, MD, and Dean G Assimos, MD
Department of Urology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Winston-Salem, NC
"Urinary calculi can also be induced by medications when the drugs
crystallize and become the primary component of the stones. In this
case, urinary supersaturation of the agent may promote formation of
the calculi. Drugs that INDUCE CALCULI via this process include
magnesium trisilicate; CIPROFLOXACIN; sulfa medications; triamterene;
indinavir; and ephedrine, alone or in combination with guaifenesin.
When this situation occurs, discontinuation of the medication is
usually necessary."

Fourth Citation:
Within Antimicrobial Therapy in Veterinary Medicine, Fourth Edition,
it stated the following in regards to cipro:
"Crystalluria leading to obstructive uropathy has been reported in
human studies. *Other renal toxciities include acutre renal failure
associated with interstitial nerphritis."
Notice here how the authors cited to "human studies" which means MORE
THAN ONE STUDY.

The fact that quinolones can induce renal calculus has been well known
since 1983. *For example in this article this association is reported
with flumequine. *A quinolone drug:

First Citation:
Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 1983;41(4):239-49.Links
[Detection and diagnosis of drug induced lithiasis][Article in French]
Daudon M, Protat MF, Réveillaud RJ.
DRUG-INDUCED CALCULI are often mis-diagnosed because of inadequate
analysis of the urinary calculi. These stones can only be
characterized unambiguously by global physical methods like infra-red
spectrophotometry. From a series of 2,000 calculi analysed under infra-
red, we identified 22, i.e. 1.1% of cases, which contained, partly or
entirely, drug products. Ten other cases are still being studied.
Amongst the products identified we found metabolites of glafenine
(Glifanan) in 7 cases, triamterene and its derivatives (Cycloteriam)
in 7 cases, metabolites of phenazopyridine (Pyridium) in 4 cases,
sulphonamides in 2 cases : N-acetylsulphamethoxazole hydrochloride
(Bactrim) and N-acetylsulphaguanidine (Guanidan), FLUMEQUINE (Apurone)
in 1 case and calcite (Cal-Mag-Na) in 1 case. The authors estimate
that about 100,000 calculi are excreted in France each year and that
at least 1,000 of these potentially contain drugs and are not
diagnosed. Early recognition of drug induced stones is essential in
order to protect the patient from recurrences, the risks of renal
complications or, more simply, from useless therapeutic or dietetic
regimes.

Second Citation:
Kidney stone
1: J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1987 May;25(5):313-4.Links
IDENTIFICATION OF FLUMEQUINE IN A URINARY CALCULUS.Rincé C, Daudon M,
Moesch C, Rincé M, Leroux-Robert C.
Various analytical methods are available to help identify the presence
of drugs in urinary calculi. Using infrared spectrophotometric
analysis, nonmetabolized flumequine was identified in a protein
calculus from a patient who had taken the drug for a urinary tract
infection. Free flumequine can precipitate in an acidic environment.

Third Citation:
1: Presse Med. 1983 Oct 29;12(38):2389-92.Links
[Drug-induced urinary lithiasis][Article in French]
Reveillaud RJ, Daudon M.
All urinary calculi should be thoroughly examined. Among 2 000 calculi
analyzed by infra-red spectrophotometry, some were found to contain
rare constituants and drugs which might be held responsible for
urinary stone formation. These included glafenine, triamterene, co-
trimoxazole, sulphaguanidine, allopurinol, phenazopyridine, FLUMEQUINE
and anti-acid powders containing aluminium, calcium and magnesium
trisilicates and/or carbonates or bicarbonates.

So basically our good doctor is full of it. *More than one case of
cipro induced renal colic has been reported or we would not see this
listed as a side effect in all the package inserts. *I rather doubt
that the various manufacturers (cipro has gone generic) would include
this side effect based upon ONE report.

He also blows off the significance of crystalluria:

"The fact that there may or may not be crystalluria at an increased
incidence is cute but of no clinical consequence."

Which once again is not true. Why is this of any clinical
consequence? *Because nephrolithiasis (kidney stones) is PRECEDED by
Crystalluria, that is why. Crystal precipitation is the necessary
initial step in kidney stone formation. But once again we find that
the literature does NOT support his opinions in this matter:

First Citation:
"Crystalluria examination is an essential laboratory test for
detecting and following pathological conditions, which may induce
renal stone disease or alter kidney function due to urine crystals."
Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2004 Jul-Aug;62(4):379-93. Links
[Clinical value of crystalluria study][Article in French]
Daudon M, Jungers P, Lacour B.
Laboratoire de Biochimie A, Groupe hospitalier Necker-enfants malades,
Paris.

Second Citation:
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1993;27(2):145-9.Links
Crystalluria and its possible significance. A patient-control
study.Abdel-Halim RE.
The significance of crystalluria in the diagnosis and prognosis of
urolithiasis remains a controversial subject in the current urological
literature. In this study, in addition to the standard urolithiasis
clinical and biochemical work-up, routine urine microscopy was
performed to study crystals in 1 fresh and 2 stored morning urine
samples from 140 urinary stone patients and 42 controls. Crystalluria
was more frequently detected in patients (9.3% of the fresh samples)
than in controls (2%). Storing the samples for 6 hours did not
increase the frequency percent of detected crystalluria either in
patients or controls. However, in the samples stored for 24 hours, the
frequency of crystalluria increased to 27.1% in patients and only to
12% in controls, though the pH did not change from that of the fresh
sample. In addition, while calcium oxalate crystals in patients formed
aggregates whether in fresh or 24 hour samples, those of controls did
not. This denotes a characteristic change in the physico-chemical
properties of the urine of stone formers from that of controls.
Accordingly, the study of crystalluria in patients with urolithiasis
seems to help in the proper evaluation and, maybe, treatment of the
disease.

Third Citation
Serial crystalluria determination and the risk of recurrence in
calcium stone formers
MICHEL DAUDON, CAROLE HENNEQUIN, GHAZI BOUJELBEN1, BERNARD LACOUR and
PAUL JUNGERS
Department of Biochemistry A, Necker Hosptial, Paris, France; and
Department of Nephrology, Necker Hospital, Paris, France
Serial crystalluria determination and the risk of recurrence in
calcium stone formers.
Background Urinary crystal precipitation is the necessary initial step
in kidney stone formation. However, clinical relevance of crystalluria
in the evaluation of stone formers is disputed.
Methods We serially determined crystalluria in first-voided morning
urine samples, together with full 24-hour urine biochemistry, in 181
patients with idiopathic calcium nephrolithiasis who had formed at
least one calcium-oxalate stone and were followed for at least 3 years
under our care. All stone events which occurred prior to referral,
then after entry in the study were recorded.
Results As compared with 109 patients who had no evidence of stone
recurrence during follow-up, the 72 patients who experienced *one
recurrent stone event had a lower daily urine volume (1.74 *0.06 vs.
2.26 *0.05 L/day (mean *SEM) (P 0.0001), higher urine calcium and
oxalate concentrations, and daily calcium excretion, and they had more
frequent crystalluria (68% vs. 23% of urine samples) (P 0.0001). By
multivariate Cox regression analysis, the hazard ratio for stone
recurrence was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16-0.62) for 1 L increase in daily urine
volume, 1.12 (1.09-1.24) for 1 mmol/L increase in urine calcium
concentration, 1.24 (1.02-1.50) for 0.1 mmol/L increase in urine
oxalate concentration and 27.8 (10.2-75.6) for crystalluria index.
Conclusion These data provide evidence that crystalluria, when
repeatedly found in early morning urine samples, is highly predictive
of the risk of stone recurrence in calcium stone formers. Serial
search for crystalluria, a simple and cheap method, may be proposed as
a useful tool for the monitoring of calcium stone formers, in addition
to urine biochemistry

Acute renal colic is described as one of the WORST types of pain that
a patient can suffer. Note that the pain is generally due to the
stone's presence in the ureter, and not--as is commonly believed--the
urethra and lower genitals. *So once again common sense would dictate
that if you gave a damn about your patients you would not want to
subject them to the WORSE TYPE OF PAIN THAT A PATIENT CAN SUFFER
needlessly. *Crystalluria is therefore VERY relevant and of course
clinically relevant if you engage in treating patients with kidney
stones. *Especially when your favorite drug has been shown to cause
such stones as a direct result of such Crystalluria.

So what does the good doctor do when I inform him that in humans,
ciprofloxacin crystalluria may be induced when urinary pH is greater
than 7.3? *He says"bull****" this only applies to animals treated by
enrofloxacin and not humans. *So what exactly is enrofloxacin? *You
may have heard of is as Baytril. *Which is the veterinary form of
what? *CIPROFLOXACIN. Enrofloxacin is an analogue of the human
antibacterial ciprofloxacin. *Ciprofloxacin is a metabolic breakdown
product of enrofloxacin. Ciprofloxacin has been identified as a major
metabolite of enrofloxacin.

Enrofloxacin, its counterpart for human use ciprofloxacin, has toxic
properties in humans yet we find very little difference in its
chemical structure and cipro:

C19H22FN3O3 is the chemical structure of N-Ethylciprofloxacin
(commonly known as Enrofloxacin or Baytril)

C17H18FN3O3 is the chemical structure of Ciprofloxacin.

Most fluoroquinolones possess a nitrogen-containing cyclic substituent
on the quinolone nucleus. Although several ring structures are
possible, the 1-piperazinyl substituent and the 4-methyl-1-piperazinyl
substituent are the most common ones. The only real difference being
the subsitition of 7-(4-ethylpiperazin-1-yl) for *7-piperazin. *Hence
what we see here is Enrofloxacin uses the 4-methyl-1-piperazinyl
substituent where as cipro uses the 1-piperazinyl substituent. *Not a
whole lot of difference. In fact you will find enrofloxacin and
ciprofloxacin used interchangeably within the literature.

Baytril if you will recall has been banned. The Committee noted that
the antimicrobial activity of ciprofloxacin against the relevant human
intestinal microflora was about four times greater than that of
enrofloxacin and that consumers may be exposed to residues of
ciprofloxacin in some species of food-producing animals.
(WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES 39 World Health Organization, Geneva
1997)

So basically in plain English Cipro is derived from Enrofloxacin. *So
common sense would again dictate that when we look at the possible
adrs of cipro me must also take into consideration of the adrs of
enrofloxacin. *Not to mention the fact that the entire food chain has
been contaminated with baytril and people have the potential to being
exposed to this drug everytime they sit down to eat.

Bladder stones are quite common with Enrofloxacin. *But the
manufacturers state that this is because of the pH level of the
animal's urine. *Since human pH is different this would not be an
affect seen in humans. *But once again common sense would dictate that
if the human pH were the same as an animal's pH then there is a
possibility that a bladder stone would occur. *So what does the good
doctor say?

"Cipro does not cause bladder stones. That was just a silly comment.
The pH issue is based on either in vitro lab data or animal data and
since we only have one published case of renal stones resulting from
cipro use we can't really say if acidity of the urine played any
role."

Persistent Crystalluria may contribute to formation and growth of
uroliths. *Crystalluria may solidify crystalline-matrix plugs,
resulting in urethral obstruction. Bladder stones, more correctly
called 'uroliths,' are rock-like collections of minerals that form in
the urinary bladder. *Not a whole lot different than kidney stones. As
such a person's pH is a part of the risk of developing a bladder stone
resulting from being on cipro and something that should be monitored
in a patient undergoing therapy. *States the very same thing within
the package insert and advises that the patient remain hydrated to
avoid this complication.

Therefor I have demonstrated the following:

1. Cipro has been reported to cause kidney stones.
2. Enrofloxacin has been reported to cause bladder stones
3. For all practical purposes Enrofloxacin and Ciprofloxacin are one
and the same
4. Crystalluria has been shown to be a contributory factor to both
stones
5. Cipro causes Crystalluria
6. Crystalluria is a definitive marker for the possibility of forming
either stone
7. We have one case report of cipro-induced bladder stone and kidney
stone; hence it has been confirmed that Cipro is capable of causing
both bladder stones and kidney stones due to crystalluria.
8. We have numerous post marketing reports of kidney stones being
caused by cipro
9. Within the AER database, selecting one quarter at random, showed
numerous reports of kidney stones in which cipro was cited as to being
the primary suspect drug.
10. The pain of a kidney stone is the worse pain that a patient could
possibly experience
11. The good doctor does not give a **** about any of this. Being
"right" is far more important to him.

As such I don't give a **** about the good doctor's frivolous
opinions. *Neither should his patients for that matter. *Like I said
to him before, he simply is not worth the effort that it takes to do
this kind of research to prove him wrong. *First and foremost because
he won't even bother to read it to begin with. *Secondly rather than
examine it for something of value to his patients, he will examine it
for either a typographical error, misspelling of a medical term, bitch
about the lack of full abstracts and text, or simply tell me that all
of these references are in error as they do not agree with his
preconceived notions. *But the question I continue to ask, the one
that is constantly being ignored, is where the hell are HIS citations
that prove me wrong? *I've added a couple of dozen more to my never-
ending list. *I have yet to see ONE of his. *Must be because they do
not exist.

But can you just imagine what the poor patient who is unaware of any
of this research is up against when fighting with his or her doctor
about these issues? *I can. That is why I continue to do battle with
this stubborn ass. *If I don't who will?

No, a medical degree does not make one infallible. *I am not
infallible either. *I make mistakes just like everybody else. *And
when I am wrong I say I am wrong if you can prove that this indeed is
the case. *But I do know how to read what others a helluva lot smarter
than I have written. *And I tend to believe what they have to say more
so than this quack. *If I am wrong then you would think that he would
be kind enough to show me my errors based upon the literature rather
than being crude, rude and sarcastic. *Rather than just nit pick and
insult me why does he not simply provide his proofs? *Apparently I am
asking too much of the good doctor for he adamantly refuses to do so.

Respect what he has to say JUST because he is a doctor? *Hell no.
Earn my respect first and we will go from there. *He has failed to do
that as well so far. *I find him to be just as amusing as he finds me
to be. *Perhaps even more so. *I only have a High School Diploma.
What's his excuse for such ignorance? *Egotism? Or infatuation with a
set of 40DDs?


Reply to Davidfull -

Apparently Skeptic has no come back to the facts you presented to him.
All the
citations mean nothing to him because he has none of his own to refute
them.

This is common behavior of most half assed Dr.s that know they haven't
a leg to
stand on, and only their old and misguided beliefs that they accepted
from the drug
rep. without any real scientific material to back them up. The lazy
Dr's. way of
doing research is to just listen to what the rep says. After all, it's
a drug rep. They
would never lie to protect their companie's profits.......... would
they?

Apparently Skeptic has no come back to the facts you presented to him.
All the
citations mean nothing to him because he has none of his own to refute
them.

This is common behavior of most half assed Dr.s that know they haven't
a leg to
stand on, and only their old and misguided beliefs that they accepted
from the drug
rep. without any real scientific material to back them up. The lazy
Dr's. way of
doing research is to just listen to what the rep says. After all, it's
a drug rep. They
would never lie to protect their companie's profits.......... would
they?

Yes indeed they would. Just follow this link to see what these reps
have to say about the quinolones and have a barf bag ready as well.
It is that sickening.

Read what the drug reps are saying about the Avelox "Dear Doctor"
letter. These people are fricking heartless animals...and this is who
the doctors depend upon for their information.

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/sho...d.php?t=257508

I am so sorry for wasting so much of this forum's time. But doctors
such as this have destroyed more lives than I could possibly count.
It just makes me so angry that they are so closed minded about adverse
drug reactions. Why is it so difficult to say "hey, maybe you got a
point here and I should be more aware and a bit more careful?" But
this never happens. It is always a fight to the death as we have just
witnessed. Sad isn't it?

So much pain and misery could be so easily avoided if someone would
only take the time to listen. If you had harbored any doubts about
the safety profile of these drugs, or think that I have exaggerated
here, the above link will surely cure you of that. And the young lady
who died as a result of Avelox, who's story is posted on that forum?
I know her parents.

"ciprocripple" wrote in message
...
Real Dr.s continue to learn from their patients

You are not my patient. You are an overboard, melodramatic, quite possibly
lying internet poster.

"davidtfull" wrote in message
...
Apparently Skeptic has no come back to the facts you presented to him.
All the
citations mean nothing to him because he has none of his own to refute
them.

This is common behavior of most half assed Dr.s that know they haven't
a leg to
stand on, and only their old and misguided beliefs that they accepted
from the drug
rep. without any real scientific material to back them up. The lazy
Dr's. way of
doing research is to just listen to what the rep says. After all, it's
a drug rep. They
would never lie to protect their companie's profits.......... would
they?

Yes indeed they would. Just follow this link to see what these reps
have to say about the quinolones and have a barf bag ready as well.
It is that sickening.


much like listening to your circular and repetitive rants.

let's just ban all medications with potentially serious side effects.

congrats, you just banned just about all of medicine.