The Coming Plague (71 page)
Authors: Laurie Garrett
On October 8 the CDC hastily published the results of a small Utah TSS study that seemed to further implicate Rely.
20
The study compared the tampon use patterns of 29 Utah women who developed TSS during 1979â80 with the behavior of 91 age-matched females who did not have TSS. Sixty percent of the TSS cases involved use of Rely, compared with a Rely use rate among controls of only 23 percent.
20
The study compared the tampon use patterns of 29 Utah women who developed TSS during 1979â80 with the behavior of 91 age-matched females who did not have TSS. Sixty percent of the TSS cases involved use of Rely, compared with a Rely use rate among controls of only 23 percent.
Ralph Nader's Health Research Group in Washington, D.C., was not happy. The public advocacy organization, and its lead physician, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, were convinced that the federal government was dragging its feet with the tampon industry, putting the female public at peril. Wolfe attacked part of the message contained in the FDA/Procter & Gamble ads: namely, the statement that “tampons do not cause TSS.”
“They most certainly do!” Wolfe asserted. Convinced that the CDC's targeting of Rely was justified, Wolfe charged that the ads produced by Procter & Gamble were unsatisfactory. Though 97 percent of women got the proper messages from the television ads, according to most market surveys, only 89 percent correctly interpreted the company's print advertisements.
Under pressure from the Health Research Group, the FDA held public hearings on TSS in October, and after listening to a range of testimony from women's groups, medical and scientific organizations, and the CDC, issued its first set of tampon regulations.
It was the first time any federal agency had sought to regulate tampon safety.
The FDA ordered tampon manufacturers to put instructions inside their product boxes, describing TSS and explaining the healthy, safe ways to use tampons. Though the agency wasn't certain what “healthy and safe use” might be, there was general agreement that frequent tampon changesâshorter durations of useâwere fundamental. The manufacturers were also ordered to list all the ingredients of their tampons and inserters on the product boxes. Also on the outside of the boxes the manufacturers had to list the various available tampon sizes, indicating where on that scale the enclosed devices fit. And the FDA reclassified tampons as Class Three Medical Devices, thus, for the first time, legally requiring premarketing safety tests.
With lawsuits, and the female death toll, mounting, the tampon industry complied without the usual formal corporate protests that typically accompanied escalations in FDA regulation.
Rely tampons had barely been off the market four weeks when Osterholm reported a surge in TSS cases in Minnesota. Reflecting on his earlier study
that found that 34 percent of TSS cases had used Rely, Osterholm said the CDC had reached the wrong conclusions in September.
that found that 34 percent of TSS cases had used Rely, Osterholm said the CDC had reached the wrong conclusions in September.
“No other brand showed such a marked difference, so Rely does stand out. But that only accounts for a third of the casesâwhat about the other two-thirds?” Osterholm said in November. “We say there is risk with all tampons.”
Describing tampons as an “amplifying factor,” Osterholm added that “when we say tampons are guilty, it could be something correlated with wearing tampons.”
Todd was also distressed.
“All of our [Denver] cases occurred before Rely got on the market in Colorado,” Todd said. “TSS is not caused by tampons. Absolutely not. What we don't know about TSS far outweighs what we do know. You can go to a bar and get twelve theories about where TSS came from. I think TSS is a disease in search of a [bacterial] toxin.”
In response, the CDC's Schmid said he and the agency were standing by their Rely study. “The timing for the release of that information was very critical. You act as quickly as you can, based on your findings,” he said, noting that Wolfe and other activists were accusing the agency of not moving with adequate haste.
By late November, however, Schmid readily agreed that the focus needed to shift from targeting tampon brands to figuring out what actually caused TSS. And by late December, CDC officials were conceding that “all tampon brands are suspect now,” as well as tampon alternatives, such as sea sponges. Two TSS cases had surfaced during the fall among women who, afraid of getting the disease by using tampons, had switched to the then chic alternative, natural sponges.
Operating on the assumption that the tampon acted as “a growth media,” FDA officials said that leaving a tampon in the vagina for long periods of time “is not helpful.” For the five years prior to the appearance of TSS, the key advertising pitch in the volleys fired by competing manufacturers was aimed at offering ever-longer amounts of “freedom” from concerns about leakage, through the use of higher-absorbency fibers. As a result, women had extended the amount of time they used a single tampon from an estimated range of one to three hours to an average of 6.8 to 7.2 hours, according to the CDC.
Like many local public health officers, Dr. Betty Agee of the Los Angeles County Health Department noted a continuing TSS problem after Rely's withdrawal from the market. She saw no correlation with the brands women used, but did see “a consistent pattern of use of higher-absorbency tampons.” Sixty percent of the Los Angeles County cases involved not Rely but Playtex superabsorbency tampons, Agee said.
In Connecticut, where Rely was never even sold, there was a sizable incidence of menstrual TSS involving all four of the other tampon brands. And in California, where Rely hit the market in May 1979, the upward
surge in TSS cases began in 1977, coincident, local authorities said, not with a specific brand but with the introduction by all manufacturers of higher-absorbency products.
21
surge in TSS cases began in 1977, coincident, local authorities said, not with a specific brand but with the introduction by all manufacturers of higher-absorbency products.
21
There were three possible explanations for the apparent statistical correlation between TSS in women and superabsorbent tampons: like the Rely connection, it could have been a misleading indicator related to some as yet undiscovered underlying mechanism; something inside the new synthetic products could actually promote the growth of
Staphylococcus
;
22
or the superabsorbent products were simply left inside the vagina too long, serving as a sort of petri dish for bacterial growth.
23
Staphylococcus
;
22
or the superabsorbent products were simply left inside the vagina too long, serving as a sort of petri dish for bacterial growth.
23
In early October, Dr. Keith White, director of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, linked TSS to the carboxymethyl cellulose fibers used in some superabsorbent tampons. Such fibers, he asserted, were making the vagina abnormally dry and causing tiny lacerations in the vaginal wall through which
Staphylococcus
entered the bloodstream. A parallel theory had it that the carboxymethyl cellulose also bolstered the size of the staph population by serving as a chemical source of sugar for the bacterial colonies.
24
Staphylococcus
entered the bloodstream. A parallel theory had it that the carboxymethyl cellulose also bolstered the size of the staph population by serving as a chemical source of sugar for the bacterial colonies.
24
In the CDC lab, however, Shands was unable to grow staph bacteria on the CMC fiber alone. At the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health laboratories in Cincinnati scientists showed that the fibers were merely coated with CMC, which acted as a lubricant, probably reducing vaginal irritation. CMC, they noted, was contained in most popular eye drops, and there were no reports of increased conjunctivitis with its use.
In addition, there was a fundamental error in theories that linked fiber-induced lacerations to TSS: the bacteria didn't need to enter the bloodstream to produce TSS. In fact, if the bacteria did get into the bloodstream, a different disease resulted: septicemia. Toxic Shock Syndrome was produced when the bacteria colonized a mucosal area and secreted deadly toxins. The toxins were tiny molecules that could readily make their way into the bloodstream in the absence of cuts, scratches, ulcerations, or other injuries to the vaginal wall. If the fiber-cut/bloodstream theory of the disease were correct, the result would have been a very different disease.
As 1980 came to a close the Wisconsin group surveyed its TSS cases, all but two of which involved menstruating females who took ill after January 1979. They found that S.
aureus
could be cultured from the vaginal discharges of three-quarters of women with TSS,
25
but only from 2.6 percent of randomly selected healthy women who attended a Wisconsin family planning clinic.
26
aureus
could be cultured from the vaginal discharges of three-quarters of women with TSS,
25
but only from 2.6 percent of randomly selected healthy women who attended a Wisconsin family planning clinic.
26
“If a new strain of
Staph. aureus
with the potential to produce an unidentified toxin has evolved, it seems likely that conditions in the vaginas of some menstruating women who are using tampons enhance growth of the organism, production of the toxin, or absorption of the toxin,” the Wisconsin group wrote.
Staph. aureus
with the potential to produce an unidentified toxin has evolved, it seems likely that conditions in the vaginas of some menstruating women who are using tampons enhance growth of the organism, production of the toxin, or absorption of the toxin,” the Wisconsin group wrote.
By January 30, 1981, the CDC was exultant, claiming there had been
a marked reduction in TSS cases, from a high of 119 cases reported in August to 37 in December. The agency credited their swift action against Rely for bringing the epidemic under control.
a marked reduction in TSS cases, from a high of 119 cases reported in August to 37 in December. The agency credited their swift action against Rely for bringing the epidemic under control.
But overall statistics offered a less sanguine picture. Between January 1975 and October 1980 a total of 408 TSS cases, with 40 deaths, were reported. By January 30, 1981, the total had reached 941 cases and 73 deaths. Critics charged that publicity surrounding Rely had contributed to an apparent decline in late November/early December cases, but Rely's withdrawal from the market was just a blip on the social radar screen. The real story, they argued, was that frightened women turned away from tamponsâ
all
tamponsâin record numbers. Tampax reported a 25 percent drop in sales for the eight weeks following the massive Rely/FDA ad campaign, and other tampon manufacturers noted sales declines that ranged from 15 to 25 percent.
all
tamponsâin record numbers. Tampax reported a 25 percent drop in sales for the eight weeks following the massive Rely/FDA ad campaign, and other tampon manufacturers noted sales declines that ranged from 15 to 25 percent.
“Removal of Rely was clearly wrong,” Todd said in January.
27
“If I were Procter & Gamble, I'd sue FDA for $75 million!”
27
“If I were Procter & Gamble, I'd sue FDA for $75 million!”
Behind the scenes a bitter feud was raging between scientists in and out of the CDC over what
precisely
was the connection between tampons, S.
aureus
, and Toxic Shock Syndrome. Publicly CDC officials projected confidence in their position on Rely. But privately there was far less certainty.
28
precisely
was the connection between tampons, S.
aureus
, and Toxic Shock Syndrome. Publicly CDC officials projected confidence in their position on Rely. But privately there was far less certainty.
28
“The only thing we know is that tampons soaked in blood support bacterial growth,” the CDC's Shands said. Privately, the CDC's Dan acknowledged that the strain of
Staphylococcus
responsible for menstrually related TSS appeared to be new. And he admitted that there might well be evidence to support the assertions of a maverick UCLA scientist, Patrick Schlievert, that the new staph strain produced a lethal toxin, unlike any that had previously been discovered in the bacteria.
Staphylococcus
responsible for menstrually related TSS appeared to be new. And he admitted that there might well be evidence to support the assertions of a maverick UCLA scientist, Patrick Schlievert, that the new staph strain produced a lethal toxin, unlike any that had previously been discovered in the bacteria.
But publicly the CDC scientists, as well as Jim Todd, denounced immunologist Schlievert, accusing him of weaving bizarre theories in public view, failing to publish his work in refereed scientific journals, and seeking the media spotlight for personal glory. In the Midwest, however, where TSS was taking its greatest toll, Schlievert's theories were considered right on the money, so much so that Minnesota collaborators would soon woo the immunologist away from sunny California, convincing him to take a post at the University of Minnesota Medical School in 1982.
Schlievert got onto TSS research two years before the CDC's January 1980 announcement of the existence of the new ailment. A Pennsylvania physician was handling an odd case of what seemed to be Kawasaki syndrome, or perhaps scarlet fever, and needed help. He sent the patient's blood samples to Schlievert in Los Angeles. The immunologist isolated a previously unidentified streptococcal poison from the patient's blood, dubbing the substance “pyrogenic exotoxin,” meaning fever-producing poison secreted by a bacterium.
29
29
Convinced that he might have stumbled upon the molecular cause of both scarlet fever and Kawasaki syndrome, Schlievert set to work testing the effect of pyrogenic exotoxin on mice and rabbits.
30
30
While the CDC was preparing to move against Procter & Gamble's Rely tampons, Schlievert was busy isolating pyrogenic exotoxin from TSS patients' blood and mucosal samples, sent to him from Minnesota by Osterholm. He quickly confirmed the presence of the toxin, and warned Osterholm that pursuit of a tampon connection, though there probably was one, was diverting attention from the real issue: staphylococcal poison. Using Los Angeles samples sent to his lab by Agee, Schlievert confirmed the presence of pyrogenic exotoxin there as well.
CDC scientists were openly skeptical. While agreeing with Schlievert's assertion that the TSS staph strain was making some new, or usually extremely rare, toxin, Bruce Dan and Kathryn Shands were less than thrilled about discovery of pyrogenic exotoxin.
“More work needs to be done to prove that Schlievert's candidate is the actual toxin,” Shands said. There were, she said, several candidates for the TSS toxin.
Schlievert, who was a young, aggressive academic scientist, responded with the kind of certitude that was often misinterpreted as arrogance. “I'm already beyond the stage of trying to figure out what causes the disease,” he said. “I don't care what the CDC says.”
Having isolated the toxin and shown that it produced disease in animals, Schlievert set out to prove Koch's Postulate. Named after 1905 Nobel laureate Robert Koch, the Postulate was a statement of the experimental evidence required to establish the causal relationship between a given microbe and a particular disease. To prove that an organism or agent actually
caused
a disease, Koch (who discovered the cause of tuberculosis) said a scientist had to identify the presence of the agent in every case of the disease; isolate the organism and grow it (or its toxin) in the laboratory; show that the laboratory-grown sample caused the disease when it was injected into animals; and then re-isolate the organism, or toxin, from the ailing laboratory animals.
caused
a disease, Koch (who discovered the cause of tuberculosis) said a scientist had to identify the presence of the agent in every case of the disease; isolate the organism and grow it (or its toxin) in the laboratory; show that the laboratory-grown sample caused the disease when it was injected into animals; and then re-isolate the organism, or toxin, from the ailing laboratory animals.
Other books
Avalon Rising by Kathryn Rose
Tainted by K.A. Robinson
Hansel 1-4: The Complete Series by Ella James
How to Beguile a Duke (Entangled Scandalous) by Ally Broadfield
Countdown by David Hagberg
It's a Mall World After All by Janette Rallison
The Pirate by Katherine Garbera
A Thousand Naked Strangers by Kevin Hazzard
Silent Vows by Catherine Bybee
The Engagement - Regency Brides 02 by Kimberley Comeaux
