|
|
TOXIC SHOCK SYNDROME: THE
EXHIBIT Toxic Protection / Confidence
Shock / Why Am I Sick? / The Teflon Training Tampon |
Despite considerable
attention being given to such matters, mistakes continue to be made...
|
Medical anthropologist
Sabine Wilms has noted that in 7th century China: "women’s
medical treatment...was performed by and contested between a large variety of
practitioners..." In the late
20th/early 21st century United States, research as to the causes of trTSS has
been "performed by and contested between" numerous researchers,
particularly Philip Tierno Jr. and Patrick Schlievert. Although trTSS is an
illness affecting only females, the leading voices in the debate over its
causes are both male. A similar gender
dynamic is at work in the debate over menstrual suppression. Click here to learn more. |
|
|
|
Philip Tierno,
Jr. Not funded by tampon companies. |
Patrick Schlievert,
funded by tampon maker Procter & Gamble, as is the Society for Menstrual Cycle
Research. |
|
YEAR |
Average # Cases Per Month Minneapolis- St. Paul Metropolitan Area |
Total # Cases Per Year Minneapolis- St. Paul Metropolitan Area |
In 2004, Patrick
Schlievert et al. reported an
increase in toxic shock cases ("menstrual or nonmenstrual") in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area over the previous 4 years, 2000 to 2003. They also noted this was consistent with
the Centers for Disease Control finding of an 18% increase in the incidence
of toxic shock from 2002 to 2003. Schlievert et al.
stated that "the reason for this increase is unclear," yet also
claimed: "It is unlikely that increases in
menstrual cases are due to changes in tampons since there have not been
significant changes in these products since 1984; it is possible, however,
that there are changes in tampon usage patterns." |
|
Includes BOTH "menstrual or nonmenstrual" cases |
|||
|
2000 2001 2002 2003 |
1 2 3 4 |
15 22 37 50 |
|
|
However, is it true
that tampons have not signficantly changed since 1984? In his response to Schlievert, Tierno
pointed out: "...in 1999 the
Food and Drug Administration proposed an amendment to tampon labeling...which
provided an absorbency term for tampons that absorb 15 to 18 [grams] of
fluid, namely, ultra. Soon thereafter
tampons with this increase in absorbency became widely available on the
marketplace..." Schlievert et al.
responded that: "Although such
tampons are available, they are not highly used today." To the right is the cover of a report published by Frost &
Sullivan, a "business research and consulting firm." It includes a section entitled: "Total
Tampons Market: Market Share Analysis and Trends of Major Market Participants
(U.S.), 2001-2003 Such a report could have
been cited by Schlievert et al. regarding ultra tampon market share. But it was not. |
|
|
US$1,950 allows single-user
electronic access to the above report, published December 1, 2003. |
|
|
Instead, Schlievert
et al. presents the following scenario: "...recommendations
for tampon use advise women to use tampons of lowest absorbency to control
menstrual flow. These recommendations
suggest the majority of women will not use tampons of ultra absorbency." However, a patent
application filed by Procter & Gamble on September 1, 2000, offers
this scenario: "Because of the
concern of accidental soiling, first time and novice users often tend to try
the use of a tampon at "low risk" times in their cycle. Such a time typically includes days when
menstrual flow is light such as when it is first starting. Additionally, because of the fear of
soiling or pre-mature leakage, such users may also
tend to seek a higher absorbency product such as a "super,"
"super plus" or even a "regular" absorbency tampon. Such a combination of
light flow and higher absorbency often leads to an uncomfortable insertion
experience, however. [...] The novice or first time user, then, in order to
minimize the risk of leakage, tends to want to
use more absorbency than might be
necessary at the time when flow may be the lightest for her. This is particularly true for teens or
young users who may tend to have lighter flow and smaller
bodies in the first instance." [bold/blue MOLT] As Procter &
Gamble has been a long-time funder of Schlievert's research, perhaps they could
have provided him with a copy of this patent, to help him "build a
better scenario" of "menstrual toxic shock." But P&G did not. Question: Does Procter & Gamble's scenario
account for the fact that 40% of trTSS cases are among 15- to 19-year-olds, as
well as the increase in total TSS cases between 2000 and 2003? |
|
Drawing from Procter
& Gamble "Feminine Hygiene Kit" patent application, granted
Dec. 5, 2006. Kit "fell
flat" in May 2002 [the same month as the annual Menstrual Monday holiday]
because it was distributed to "...teen
girls who were too old for such hand-holding." Note piece of candy
(Fig. 5E), "a small reward to the consumer which she may give herself
for successful tampon insertion," possibly a "non-absorbant"
"training tampon" "made of any suitable material including Teflon, polyethylene, and polyester,"
using either the disposable hand glove or
finger glove. Click here to
see contents of Menstrual Monday Starter Kit, distributed each Spring
since 2000. [bold/blue MOLT] |
RETURN TO TOXIC
PROTECTION / CONFIDENCE SHOCK DIRECTORY
X
|
Art,
Poetry and Music
|
From Protection to Expression: The Future of Menstrual
Advertising |
|||||
Menovulography:
the years from puberty to menopause, told as a story with pictures
|
|||||||
Contact
MOLT
|
|||||||