New Study Finds that Ciprofloxacin Depletes Mitochondrial DNA

An excellent article about the effects of ciprofloxacin (a fluoroquinolone antibiotic) on mitochondrial DNA was recently published in the journal, Nucleic Acids Research. The article, Ciprofloxacin impairs mitochondrial DNA replication initiation through inhibition of Topoisomerase 2, by Anu Hangas, Koit Aasumets, Nina J Kekäläinen, Mika Paloheinä, Jaakko L Pohjoismäki, Joachim M Gerhold, and Steffi Goffart, gives a great amount of insight into the damage that ciprofloxacin does to mitochondria, and I recommend that you read it (linked through the article title). I’m going to go over the article in this post, and point out some of the more interesting findings.

First, a bit of background information to help readers to understand the article.

Mitochondria are the energy centers of our cells. There are over ten million billion mitochondria in the human body (Lane p. 1). Each cell (with a few exceptions) contains an average of 300-400 mitochondria that are responsible for generating cellular energy through a process called ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate). Mitochondria regulate energy production, aging, epigenetic signaling between and within cells and many other important functions. Proper functioning of mitochondria is vital, and when mitochondria are not operating properly, a wide range of disease states can ensue (2).

Mitochondria have their own DNA (mtDNA) that is separate from (though it interacts with) nuclear DNA. The structure of mtDNA is similar to that of bacterial DNA, and it is widely thought that mitochondria descended from ancient bacteria. The similarities between bacteria and mitochondria should make everyone take pause to think about how antibiotics of all kinds are affecting mitochondrial health. This post, and the article that it is based on, only focuses on the effects of ciprofloxacin, a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, on mitochondrial health, but if you want to read about the effects of other antibiotics on mitochondria, the article “Bactericidal Antibiotics Induce Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Oxidative Damage in Mammalian Cells” is a great place to start.

There are enzymes in our cells called topoisomerases. According to the wikipedia article for topoisomerase:

Topoisomerases are enzymes that participate in the overwinding or underwinding of DNA. The winding problem of DNA arises due to the intertwined nature of its double-helical structure. During DNA replication and transcription, DNA becomes overwound ahead of a replication fork. If left unabated, this torsion would eventually stop the ability of DNA or RNA polymerases involved in these processes to continue down the DNA strand.

In order to prevent and correct these types of topological problems caused by the double helix, topoisomerases bind to DNA and cut the phosphate backbone of either one or both the DNA strands. This intermediate break allows the DNA to be untangled or unwound, and, at the end of these processes, the DNA backbone is resealed again. Since the overall chemical composition and connectivity of the DNA do not change, the DNA substrate and product are chemical isomers, differing only in their global topology, resulting in the name for these enzymes. Topoisomerases are isomerase enzymes that act on the topology of DNA.[1]

Bacterial topoisomerases and human topoisomerases proceed via similar mechanisms for managing DNA supercoils.

The mechanism of action for all fuoroquinolones is that they are topoisomerase interruptors. The FDA warning label for ciprofloxacin states that the mechanism of action for ciprofloxacin is, “The bactericidal action of ciprofloxacin results from inhibition of the enzymes topoisomerase II (DNA gyrase) and topoisomerase IV (both Type II topoisomerases), which are required for bacterial DNA replication, transcription, repair, and recombination.”

Here is a video that describes how fluoroquinolones work, and how they interrupt topoisomerase and thus interrupt the process of bacterial (and mitochondrial, as we shall discuss below) DNA replication.

I have argued, and I believe, that EVERY drug that is a topoisomerase interruptor, should be thought of as a chemotherapy drug. All other topoisomerase interrupting drugs ARE chemo drugs. But fluoroquinolones are thought of as antibiotics, and handed out as if they are inconsequential. They are extremely consequential though, and they are hurting too many people. More information on fluoroquinolones being chemo drugs can be found in the post, “Cipro, Levaquin and Avelox are Chemo Drugs.”

Now to highlight some of the important parts of Ciprofloxacin impairs mitochondrial DNA replication initiation through inhibition of Topoisomerase 2.

The abstract of the article, Ciprofloxacin impairs mitochondrial DNA replication initiation through inhibition of Topoisomerase 2, notes that:

“Loss of Top2β or its inhibition by ciprofloxacin results in accumulation of positively supercoiled mtDNA, followed by cessation of mitochondrial transcription and replication initiation, causing depletion of mtDNA copy number. These mitochondrial effects block both cell proliferation and differentiation, possibly explaining some of the side effects associated with fluoroquinolone antibiotics.”

When you look into the multiple roles of mitochondria–from controlling cellular energy production to aging, and the links between mitochondrial damage and various multi-symptom chronic illnesses (from ME/CFS to autism to autoimmune diseases), yes, most definitely, the damaging effects of fluoroquinolones on mitochondria can certainly explain many, if not all, of the side effects associated with fluoroquinolone antibiotics.

The study found that, “In agreement with the in vitro assay, also HeLa cells treated with ciprofloxacin or doxorubicin rapidly accumulated supercoiled mtDNA (Figure 3A).”

This accumulation of supercoiled mtDNA led to a “change in topology” of the mitochondria, and a depletion of the mitochondrial DNA. Per the article:

“The change in topology caused by the inhibition of mitochondrial Top2 was connected with an impairment of mtDNA replication. 7S DNA, the 650bp ssDNA strand incorporated at the D-loop region of mtDNA, was rapidly depleted upon ciprofloxacin, ethidium bromide and doxorubicin treatment.”

Ciprofloxacin treatment not only depleted mtDNA, it also inhibited mtDNA synthesis:

“ciprofloxacin treatment reduced mtDNA copy number by 18% within 3 days (Figure 3C). As at the same time the growth rate of ciprofloxacin-treated cells was strongly reduced doubling time 170.2 h versus 22.7 h in untreated controls (Supplementary Figure S4), the observed depletion reflects a nearly complete inhibition of mtDNA synthesis.”

Ciprofloxacin treatment, and the resulting supercoiled mtDNA, also stalled mtDNA replication.

“Ciprofloxacin caused a strong reduction in these intermediates already after 2 h treatment (Figure 3E). After 20 h, this effect was clearly enhanced, with the strand-asynchronous intermediates being replaced by strand-coupled replication intermediates, a hallmark of mtDNA replication stalling (25,31–33).”

It was also found that ciprofloxacin inhibited the increase of mtDNA that typically comes with building muscle. It was found that:

“The impairment of mtDNA maintenance by ciprofloxacin not only disturbed cellular proliferation and the physiological increase of mtDNA copy number during muscle maturation, it also effectively impaired the fusion of confluent myoblasts to multinuclear myotubes (Figure 4E) and cell differentiation as indicated by the reduced expression of the heavy chain of Myosin II, a marker of differentiated skeletal muscle (Figure 4F).”

In the paragraph that the above quote was taken from, it was stated that “This increase (of mtDNA when muscle matures) was completely abolished by ciprofloxacin.” I’ve said it multiple times before, but, again, fluoroquinolones should NEVER be given to athletes (or anyone who values their ability to move, or have their heart beat).

In the article’s discussion section, this summary of the demonstrated damage done by ciprofloxacin was given:

“Ciprofloxacin caused a dramatic effect on mtDNA topology, blocking replication initiation, reducing copy number and inhibiting mitochondrial transcription (Figures 2B3AE and 4A). Ciprofloxacin, the third most commonly used antibacterial antibiotic, stops the cleavage/re-ligation reaction of type II topoisomerases midway, generating double-strand breaks, persistent protein–DNA adducts and reduces also the overall enzyme activity (30). Its toxicity to mitochondria has been reported in various studies, suggesting a broad range of mechanisms including topoisomerase inhibition, oxidative stress, altered calcium handling and photosensitization (38–40). In our study, we observed ciprofloxacin to clearly reduce Top2 topoisomerase activity both in vitro and in vivo, but did not find any indication of increased mtDNA double-strand breaks (Figure 3AC). However, ciprofloxacin did impair the overall mtDNA integrity in post-mitotic cells (Figure 4D). As our detection method (long-range PCR) does not distinguish between strand-breaks, abasic sites or base alterations inhibiting Taq polymerase, the observed effect might be caused by oxidative damage, which fluoroquinolones have been reported to induce in a variety of cell types (41,42).”

And the study’s authors also surmise that many of the severe adverse effects of fluoroquinolones are due to the depletion of mtDNA caused by the drugs:

“The severe side effects of ciprofloxacin and other fluoroquinolones include tendinopathies such as tendon rupture, joint inflammation, muscle weakness, central and peripheral neuropathies, epilepsy and psychological symptoms such as depression. These symptoms have been proposed to be connected to enhanced oxidative stress (42,54,55), but the molecular mechanism remained unclear. The reduction of mtDNA copy number and mitochondrial transcription caused by the altered topology of mtDNA might result in severe dysregulation of the electron transport chain complexes, as known to occur under ciprofloxacin treatment (56), lead to respiratory chain dysfunction and cause the observed enhanced oxidative stress.

Ciprofloxacin has also been reported to interfere with physiologically significant cell differentiation processes, such as spermatogenesis (57), brain development (41), bone mineralization (58), as well as to induce renal toxicity and heart arrhythmia (59). While the molecular mechanisms of these adverse effects are yet unclear, mitochondria play a central role in all of these physiological processes, making mitochondrial impairment a likely culprit for the disturbed cellular physiology.”

Throughout the article, the effects of ciprofloxacin are compared to the effects of another topoisomerase interrupting drug, doxorubicin. Per its wikipedia post, Doxorubicin “is a chemotherapy medication used to treat cancer.[3] This includes breast cancer, bladder cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, lymphoma, and acute lymphocytic leukemia.” The authors of Ciprofloxacin impairs mitochondrial DNA replication initiation through inhibition of Topoisomerase 2 noted that, “Interestingly, doxorubicin had a similar, but milder inhibitory effect on mtDNA replication than ciprofloxacin.” Why, yes, it is interesting that a drug that is marketed and dispensed as an antibiotic is more damaging than a similar drug that is marketed and dispensed as a chemotherapy drug. It’s very interesting indeed. It is also interesting that another topoisomerase interrupting chemotherapeutic drug, topotecan, was found to increase the expression of genes related to autism (“Topoisomerases facilitate transcription of long genes linked to autism“).

The Ciprofloxacin impairs mitochondrial DNA replication initiation through inhibition of Topoisomerase 2, authors conclude their article with two points. First, that very little is known about the consequences of mtDNA supercoiling. “Although central in bacterial genome maintenance, the whole phenomena of DNA supercoiling and its functional implications are virtually unstudied in mitochondria and calls for future research.” Yes, future research is needed, and better late than never. But nalidixic acid, the backbone of all fluoroquinolone antibiotics, was first used clinically in 1967. Shame on the medical and scientific communities for not studying the effects of fluoroquinolones on mtDNA earlier. We should have known more about the consequences of these drugs long before millions of prescriptions had been doled out, and millions of people affected.

Second, the authors of Ciprofloxacin impairs mitochondrial DNA replication initiation through inhibition of Topoisomerase 2 conclude by stating, “As fluoroquinolone antibiotics are widely used and effective drugs against a number of important bacterial pathogens, their dosage, systemic enrichment and side-effects should be reviewed in the mitochondrial context, and their clinical use should be considered with great care.” Yes, indeed, the effects of fluoroquinolones on mitochondria should be given long, hard, thoughtful consideration by every doctor, pharmacist, scientist, and every relevant person in the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

Ciprofloxacin impairs mitochondrial DNA replication initiation through inhibition of Topoisomerase 2 is an eye-opening article with groundbreaking research. Yes, more research needs to be done. But the research that has been done, that is described in the article, is greatly appreciated. Thank you to all the authors – Anu Hangas, Koit Aasumets, Nina J Kekäläinen, Mika Paloheinä, Jaakko L Pohjoismäki, Joachim M Gerhold, and Steffi Goffart.


Fluoroquinolone Prescription Guidelines for Children

The ONLY FDA approved uses for fluoroquinolones in children are:

  1. Anthrax
  2. Plague
  3. Complicated urinary tract infections

That’s it.

All other uses of fluoroquinolones in children are off-label. All pediatric fluoroquinolone prescriptions for treatment of sinus infections, uncomplicated urinary tract infections, respiratory infections, diarrhea, ear infections, etc. are off-label. The FDA has not done a cost-benefit analysis, or a safety analysis, for any use of fluroquinolones in children, other than for treatment of anthrax, plague, and complicated urinary tract infections.

The reason that fluoroquinolones are not approved for most pediatric uses is because, “Fluoroquinolone-induced joint/cartilage toxicity has been observed in juvenile animal studies and is species- and dose-specific with canines exhibiting the highest rate of arthralgias. These early observations led to the contraindication of fluoroquinolones in the pediatric population” (source). Additionally, serious musculoskeletal and nervous system adverse reactions occur at higher rates in children treated with fluoroquinolones than children treated with other antibiotics (source). To put it into simple terms, fluoroquinolones have been shown to cause lameness, stunted growth, joint pain, and other permanent musculoskeletal problems in experiments on juvenile mammals (beagle puppies).

Despite the evidence that fluoroquinolones can cause irreparable musculoskeletal damage to juvenile mammals, there are some people who argue that fluoroquinolone use should be expanded in the pediatric population. Additionally, fluoroquinolones ARE prescribed to children, despite the fact that they cause lameness and arthralgia in animals, and the fact that there are no FDA approved indications for fluoroquinolones other than anthrax, plague, and complicated urinary tract infections.

The Hippocratic Oath and the precautionary principle should be the guiding thought processes when prescribing drugs to children. Drugs that have been shown to cause lameness in juvenile animals, and that have multiple black-box warnings on them, should not be given to children. The current black-box warning for fluoroquinolones states that they can cause “disabling and potentially irreversible serious adverse reactions.” No child should be subjected to even the risk of permanent musculoskeletal problems that could result in disability.

Yet… children are being prescribed fluoroquinolones every day, and they are being put at risk. Because of hubris and the general acceptance of off-label prescribing in medicine, many doctors are subjecting children to the risk of fluoroquinolone toxicity–a constellation of symptoms that includes not only serious musculoskeletal problems, but also autonomic nervous system dysfunction, neuropathy, psychiatric disturbances, blood-sugar irregularities, and more.

It’s not okay. Even the FDA, as ineffective as they are, recognizes that it is not appropriate to subject children to the risk of serious and permanent adverse drug reactions unless they are faced with life-threatening infections like anthrax and plague.

But too many doctors either don’t realize that fluoroquinolone adverse-reactions are severe, or they think that they can gauge the appropriateness of the risk of their prescribing behavior better than the FDA, and they prescribe fluoroquinolones off-label. This is absurd, foolish, and dangerous. Off-label prescribing is essentially experimental. It is not “evidence based medicine,” it is “throw it at the wall and see if it sticks” medicine. And everyone whose child was given a fluoroquinolone for treatment of an infection that wasn’t anthrax, the plague, or a complicated urinary tract infection was, in a sense, experimented on. The approved uses for Levaquin/levofloxacin, Cipro/ciprofloxacin, Avelox/moxifloxacin, and the other fluoroquinolone antibiotics in children are limited, but few doctors are paying attention to what the approved indications for fluoroquinolones are, and I doubt that most physicians even know that fluoroquinolones are not approved for use in children for, say, skin infections, or travelers’ diarrhea, or sinus infections, or swimmer’s ear, etc.

It is awful when anyone is prescribed a dangerous drug in a reckless or uncalled-for way, but it’s particularly horrible when it happens to children. Tragically, children are being hurt by negligent, off-label fluoroquinolone prescriptions. It’s not okay. Yet the FDA, and other world-wide regulators of medicines, are not doing anything to stop this practice. If the FDA is going to pretend to regulate the use of pharmaceutical drugs, they should start with curbing the practice of off-label prescribing – especially for pediatric patients. After all, what good are prescribing guidelines if no one pays attention to them?

Fluoroquinolones are too dangerous for anyone who is not facing a life-threatening infection to use. They are certainly too dangerous for use in children. The FDA knows this, yet they are unwilling to do anything to enforce their own guidelines around pediatric fluoroquinolone prescriptions. Tragically, children are being hurt because of doctors who prescribe fluoroquinolones off-label – and the FDA is unwilling to do anything to stop it.


Survey to Make Medicines Safer

I have followed holistic health coach, advocate, and blogger Alison Vickery for a while. Her site, has an immense amount of information about “mysterious” chronic illnesses, and it has particularly interesting and insightful information about histamine intolerance.

Many “floxed” people suffer from histamine intolerance, and/or their symptoms of fluoroquinolone toxicity overlap significantly with the symptoms of histamine intolerance and mast cell activation. Sites such as Alison’s have a wealth of information and resources for those suffering from histamine intolerance and mast cell activation – whether those were brought on by fluoroquinolones or another cause. Many pharmaceuticals, including fluoroquinolones, can trigger histamine intolerance, and the post, “Medicines That Cause Histamine Intolerance” goes over them. I suggest that all of my floxie friends (if you are reading this, I consider you to be a floxie friend) check out, and that you look into histamine and mast cell activation as they relate to fluoroquinolone toxicity. The post on this site, “Can Fluoroquinolones Activate Mast Cells?” gives some information on the connections between fluoroquinolone toxicity and histamine intolerance and mast cell activation.

Obviously, I think highly of Alison’s work. However, her work on histamine intolerance and mast cell activation are not the main point of this post. The point of this post is to ask for your help with some patient advocacy efforts that Alison is involved in. Alison is currently petitioning/lobbying the Australian government to change how they warn people about dangerous pharmaceuticals. In order to get them to recognize the severity of adverse reactions, and to show that there is support for changing the way that adverse-effects of pharmaceuticals are communicated, she has asked that people who have been hurt by pharmaceuticals complete a survey. This note from Alison explains what she is seeking:

“I am working to lobby the Australian Government on changes and also unite consumer voices to increase the volume. I am wondering if you would share a survey with your followers on boxed warnings. In Australia they are seeking consumer submissions on boxed warnings and also within one month there is going to be a working group on antibiotics. I have been asked to be a consumer representative. At the moment I have virtually no people responding about being floxed. I would also like consumer stories (anonymous to share). They don’t have to be Australian to participate. Is that something you would feel comfortable doing? You’re welcome to ask me any more questions.”

The survey link is –

It is a short survey–it only took me a few minutes to complete. The survey also gives you a chance to tell your story. Please take a few minutes to complete the survey and have your voice be heard. As Alison noted, you don’t need to be Australian to participate.

Alison also stated, “I have come to the conclusion (after getting an inquiry up) that they (the Australian government / regulators) don’t need more information, they are just not scared enough of us yet. The only way is for us to join together. I have no agenda other than to stop people getting hurt. Also if we can get this up in Australia it sets a precedent for others to run with. Any help or support you can give would be awesome.”

And any support that you (floxie friend reading this) can give will be awesome. Thank you in advance those of you who take the time to complete this survey!

The site that the survey is on, Australian’s for Safe Medicines, is also a wonderful site with a great mission. The “Meet Us” page states:

We are a consumer-led association of individuals.


We are not for medicines

We are not against them

We are for safe medicines.


We seek to empower you, the consumer to;


Make informed decisions on medicines

Voice your concerns about medicine safety (including unsafe prescribing practices and your need for new medicines)

Voice your support for any stakeholder striving to make a real difference to medicine safety, and

Disrupt any and all stakeholders that allow unsafe medicine practices to flourish.


Do you take

Have you taken or

Are you considering taking medicine?

Will you stand with us for safe medicines?



Indeed, #mylifematters. So does yours. Your voice matters too, and telling your story through surveys such as this one, is immensely helpful. Thank you for your help!



The Bleeding Edge and Parallels with Fluoroquinolone Toxicity

Have you seen the documentary The Bleeding Edge? It’s a wonderful film about the hazards of medical devices that I highly recommend. It’s currently (August 2018) available on Netflix. If you haven’t seen it, please do. It is an eye-opening, thought-provoking, insightful, frightening film.

The Bleeding Edge features stories from people who have suffered adverse reactions to various medical devises and procedures. Victims of Essure, mesh implants, metal hip replacements, and robotic surgical procedures report the harm done to them by these devices and procedures in the film.

The Bleeding Edge is a stark and scary reminder that, unfortunately, too often doctors are not abiding by the Hippocratic Oath. “First, do no harm” has gone by the wayside as these products and procedures maim their victims. Compounding the tragedy of the harm caused by these devices or procedures is the fact that, in many cases, there are safer devices or procedures available that would have had the intended results that the patients (and presumably their physicians) sought. Tying a woman’s tubes is a safer method of permanent sterilization than Essure; ceramic hip replacements are safer than metal ones; physical therapy can strengthen the pelvic floor and relieve symptoms of incontinence as well as mesh can; and, a surgeon’s hand may be a safer tool than a robotic arm. However, these safer procedures were not performed on the victims featured, or on thousands of other people, because the entire medical system ignored their Hippocratic Oath. Doctors (or administrators or insurance companies) were swayed to use these newer less-safe methods by marketing, efficiency, money, or ignorance–and patients were hurt in the process. It’s not okay, and steps back toward the basis of medicine in the Hippocratic Oath are, sadly, necessary.

There are several parallels between the experiences of people hurt by fluoroquinolone antibiotics (i.e. “floxies”) and the people featured in The Bleeding Edge. The adverse reactions to Essure are particularly similar to adverse reactions to fluoroquinolones. Adverse reactions to Essure look, and seem to feel, an awful lot like autoimmune diseases. Likewise, fluoroquinolone toxicity looks and feels a lot like an autoimmune disease. Essure adverse reactions are often severe and they affect multiple bodily functions. The women who had adverse reactions to Essure often suffered from permanent disability, even after the metal springs were removed from their body. Likewise, even long after fluoroquinolones “should” be out of a person’s body, the effects remain. Unfortunately, both Essure and fluoroquinolone adverse reactions can be permanent.

Like those featured in The Bleeding Edge who suffered from the toxic effects of metal-on-metal hip implants, fluoroquinolone victims often experience psychiatric adverse reactions. Fluoroquinolones can induce many serious mental health symptoms, and the FDA recently added “disturbances in attention, disorientation, agitation, nervousness, memory impairment, and serious disturbances in mental abilities called delirium” as highlighted adverse reactions to fluoroquinolones. Fluoroquinolones can also induce psychosis. The patient featured in The Bleeding Edge that suffered from psychosis, tremors, and other serious mental adverse effects from a metal hip replacement, is an Orthopedic Surgeon himself, and he “said he would never have believed neurological problems could come from orthopedic devices, if it wasn’t for that experience, and now tests the cobalt levels of his patients if they complain of having Parkinson’s or dementia-like symptoms.” (source). The victims of metal hip replacements are often told that their symptoms are simply a result of getting older. Fluoroquinolones are given to people of all ages, but those who are over 30 are often told that their symptoms are from “getting old” not from the drugs.

None of the adverse reactions featured in The Bleeding Edge are what one would intuitively expect an adverse reaction to look like. Who would think that a type of hip replacement could lead to psychosis? Who would think that a sterilization procedure could lead to a permanent autoimmune/neuroimmune disease? Similarly, who would think that a commonly prescribed class of antibiotics could cause multi-symptom, chronic, illness that has a lot in-common with these illnesses brought on by medical device adverse reactions? It’s absurd and unbelievable. It’s true though. Adverse reactions don’t look like they are “supposed” to look. They aren’t intuitive and they aren’t easy to identify.

Hopefully The Bleeding Edge will reform how patients and doctors alike view medical device safety. I hope that it also reforms how people think about adverse reactions generally, and that recognition of the connections between adverse drug and device reactions and multi-symptom, chronic, “mysterious” diseases starts to enter mainstream consciousness.

Watch The Bleeding Edge. It is a great film that has a message that needs to be heard.

Sorry, I don’t know how to squeeze this in gracefully, but several of the victims featured in the film had their intestines fall out of their bodies post-hysterectomy via robotic surgery. Is that not one of the most horrifying things imaginable–to have your intestines fall out of your body? Aaaaaaagh!!! Floxies can at least be thankful that our organs generally stay inside our bodies.

Floxie Hope Podcast Episode 26 – Tamara

I had the pleasure of interviewing Tamara for Episode 26 of The Floxie Hope Podcast.

Please check out the podcast through these links:


You can also read about Tamara’s journey:

Tamara wrote her recovery story back in 2014. She has since had a beautiful, healthy, vivacious little girl, and her life has changed significantly in the last 4 years.

She speaks about her journey through fluoroquinolone toxicity, and how her life has changed in the last 4+ years since she was hurt by Cipro in this episode of The Floxie Hope Podcast.

Thank you for sharing your journey, Tamara!


Subscriptions, reviews, and shares of The Floxie Hope Podcast are greatly appreciated! Please let me know if you have questions about how to do any of those things.


Change Will Come

Ruth wrote this guest post. You can read Ruth’s story of fluoroquinolone toxicity in “Ruth’s Story – Cipro Toxicity.” You can also listen to Ruth’s story through her episode of The Floxie Hope Podcast. THANK YOU, for sharing your insight and wisdom, Ruth! 

There was a long period of time after I got floxed that I despaired of anything ever changing in the medical field. I didn’t think doctors would ever change their prescribing habits regarding fluoroquinolones and people would continue to be harmed as I was, until the end of time, basically. But I recently had an epiphany that brought the realization that not only will the overuse of fluoroquinolones stop, it is inevitable that it does stop.

It is true that America’s FDA is doing a poor job of keeping the public safe from bad drugs and faulty medical devices. But I believe that even if the FDA does not become the watchdog it should be, the needed changes regarding fluoroquinolones will come. Probably not as soon as any of us would like, but they will come.

Every summer I work as a pyro technician for a display fireworks company. I have to undergo training for this. I am kept abreast of the requirements of the ATF, our own industry, and our company. Our own company is stricter than the legal requirements as regards safe distances for spectators. Our own industry has made recommendations to improve safety which are also stricter than what the ATF requires. Sometimes these requirements can seem burdensome or inconvenient.

Why would a fireworks company and professional organizations made up of pyro technicians create their own stricter regulations, when it would be easier to just stick with whatever is legally required? Because sane and rational people want to keep the public safe. Yes, we want to put on a good show, make some money and no one in this world actually wants to have to work harder– but at the end of the day no sane and rational person would want to be responsible for injuring another human being.

I believe the doctors themselves and others working in the medical industry will in the end solve this problem, whether or not the FDA ever wakes up and provides some regulations for use of fluoroquinolones that have some teeth. I believe even the drug companies will reluctantly come around due to social pressure or fear of litigation. I believe this because if it happened in one industry it can happen in another.

New and stricter regulations regarding the transport, handling and use of display fireworks have been met with resistance. I don’t want to paint a picture that says every time a new rule is added everybody is happy about it and immediately gets on board with it. But I have heard the arguments for continuing the old ways and I know why they aren’t holding up, why changes are happening despite opposition. The arguments against changing how fireworks shows are done are the same ones that are used against changing how fluoroquinolones are prescribed. They are all flimsy arguments. Here’s my list:

  1. We’ve always done it this way.
  2. It’s easier to do it this way.
  3. It’s cheaper to do it this way.
  4. I don’t believe this really makes a difference for safety, because I personally have never seen anyone get hurt doing it this way.

Let’s take these one at a time:

We’ve always done it this way” simply does not hold up when the science says what you have been doing is not safe. In both industries those advocating for safety have science on their side. Also, it is mainly the older pyros and older doctors using this argument. As they retire, and young people coming in are trained in a different way, this argument will simply disappear. I have had young pyro technicians come to me and say that an older person on the crew showed them how to do something that was inconsistent with training they received. I confirm that they have to do it the way they were trained and I never get an argument from them.

The more experienced person may continue to argue on the basis of, “I have always done it this way,” but the younger person will distrust anything that goes against the training he or she received. I have heard of some medical schools today teaching about fluoroquinolone toxicity syndrome and cautioning students to avoid using FQ’s unless really necessary. These are second and third hand accounts, but if they are true this is a huge win for us.

Some of the older pyro technicians, sad to say, take themselves out of the picture by choosing to continue doing things that we know today are not safe. Doctors who simply refuse to believe in the dangers of fluoroquinolones and take those drugs themselves also may learn the hard way. I’m not saying people getting hurt should be celebrated, absolutely not, but every time the lesson is learned the hard way it is still learned.

It’s easier to do it this way,” does not fly either in the face of how much people can be harmed. In one case we are talking about explosives that, if they don’t go off in the sky where they are supposed to become actual bombs on the ground, and in the other case we are talking about medications whose side effects have been described many times as being like a bomb going off in the person’s body. The amount of voices speaking out on the horrors of fluoroquinolone toxicity helps our case because after people have read our stories they don’t want to risk FQ toxicity no matter how much the doctor may claim Cipro has a great record of safety and efficacy.

The informed patient is going to request that the doctor culture the infection and prescribe accordingly, rather than just prescribe the broad spectrum antibiotic because it is easier. Patients are refusing to take the atomic bomb of antibiotics when they might not need an antibiotic at all. Being handed Cipro and sent on your way without even knowing for sure you have an infection is not going to continue to be accepted medical care. Those of us who speak out to our friends and post about this here at floxiehope and on social media are part of that change, and we can feel good about that. The dangers are becoming known.

Customers can and do drive changes that improve safety. For a recent fireworks show we were informed that the sponsor had requested we follow recommendations by our own industry for distance between loaded mortars. They were actually asking that we follow California’s standards, even though the show was shot in Wisconsin. What reason could we give for not doing what the customer asked? It’s easier to be able to load all the mortars right next to each other in the old style racks than to skip tubes or use the newer ones that have the required spacing? That would have been our only reason to refuse that request: It’s easier to do it the old way.

But the sponsor was making the request because he wanted as safe a show as possible. When patients make requests of their doctors because they want to be as safe as possible the doctor cannot really make any argument that is going to hold up as to why he should not honor those requests. Today we are seeing customers of display fireworks companies taking the time to inform themselves about our industry and what we do! How much more so are patients today taking the time to become informed? In both cases it is happening because the Internet makes information about any subject easily available. When we speak out about our reactions to fluoroquinolones we are helping provide valuable information for others.

It’s cheaper to do it this way,” may seem to be a logical reason to resist changes. After all, companies need to watch their bottom line. But when it comes to a question of money or public safety, the need for public safety will eventually win. There may be a period of time during which companies can make some money while risking the health and safety of other human beings, but eventually that time will end.

People have a desire for self preservation. Whether it is pyro technicians experiencing danger from low breaks, round trippers and finale racks blowing up or patients experiencing or reading about bad ADR’s to a drug, people are going to run the other way when their life or health could be put in danger. Fireworks companies that buy cheap but unreliable product lose workers and have difficulty selling more shows without crews to put them up. Hospitals that use fluoroquinolones for every little thing lose informed patients. If I needed surgery I know where I would go for it, because I know of hospitals (a couple) that do not use fluoroquinolones. If I had to pay out of my own pocket I would do it, because my health and safety is that important to me.

I know of display fireworks companies that are now out of business after consistently focusing on the bottom line instead of safety. I believe the same will hold true for medical facilities, doctors and even drug companies that continue to put money ahead of human health and safety. The display fireworks company I now work for tests all their product and they spend extra money to get product that is going to perform as it is supposed to. They are rewarded for this not only with greater customer satisfaction for some really beautiful shows, but they attract more workers. Pyro technicians would rather work where they feel safe and know they are not putting members of the public at unnecessary risk.

I think the same holds true in health care. I used to work for a medical staffing company in physical therapy. Some companies I temped for definitely cared only about the bottom line, with very high productivity standards. I was so rushed that I knew I was not really able to provide good care, and that put patients and myself at risk. I stopped taking jobs for those companies. Companies that had compassion for both their patients and employees attracted the best workers and could even pick and choose, selecting the cream of the crop of therapists, doctors and nurses. Patient satisfaction went up. While some of the companies that had pushed so hard for productivity were being bought out, the companies that I most preferred to work for were thriving. Decisions made with concern only for the bottom line always come back to bite the companies making them right in the butt.

I don’t believe this really makes a difference for safety, because I personally have never seen anyone get hurt doing it this way,” was the excuse my own doctor used for prescribing Cipro to me for a sinus infection. She had personally never seen anyone have a reaction to Cipro. Well, that is anecdotal evidence and it’s weak. The medical community cannot on one hand say that mountains of anecdotal evidence that fluoroquinolones are harming people is not strong enough evidence and then use anecdotal evidence themselves for their continued widespread use. The changes the FDA recommended for the use of fluoroquinolones in 2016 were made for a reason. A panel of experts heard the testimony of those harmed and looked at medical research regarding fluoroqouinolones and made an informed decision. Making a decision based only on your own experience and observations is not an informed decision.

I say that change will happen in the medical field because in the pyrotechnic industry change is happening. When a change is recommended in how something is done it is probably because somebody got killed doing it the old way. People who want to be safe believe those recommendations even if they personally never witnessed an accident. The same will happen with doctors. Even if they never personally had a patient get floxed, they will follow FDA prescribing guidelines for FQ’s because they do not want to harm other human beings.

One thing that does stand in the way of this change is cognitive dissonance created by the very fact that no sane and rational person wants to harm another human being. As the evidence comes out that fluoroquinolones are insanely dangerous and that the side effects are horrific, long lasting and sometimes permanent, doctors do not want to believe that they put anyone through that. The fact that reactions are delayed means they most certainly could have severely harmed a patient and never known about it because the connection to the antibiotic was never made. It is going to be very hard for doctors to come to terms with this, and I think it is behind a lot of their strident claims that Cipro is “safe and effective.” They need it to be, because if it were not, then there is a good chance they have harmed those they meant to help.

A floxed friend recently shared her experience with an ER doc who tried to give her Cipro for a UTI without even culturing to confirm an infection. She gave him an earful and the expression on his face said that she got through to him. He was horrified. He will either now disbelieve her because he must to avoid a truth he cannot face (that he may have harmed patients) or he will do some research, find the truth, change his prescribing habits and speak to his colleagues. I believe that in time even this cognitive dissonance will be overcome and doctors will do what is right, follow the recommendations of the FDA, and stop prescribing fluoroquinolones in situations that do not warrant their use.

The fluoroquinolone catastrophe has gone on far too long. It can be discouraging to reflect on how many have been needlessly harmed. However, as I have observed changes happening in the pyrotechnic industry that, although sometimes opposed, do happen and do increase public safety, I have to believe that the medical industry is not immune to those same types of changes. I think if it were easier to sue for harm done by pharmaceuticals, that would actually be a good thing, because sadly, there are some people out there who are neither sane nor rational, but consumed with greed. Only one thing gets their attention, and that is losing money. There has to be more accountability for drug companies and doctors who prescribe dangerous drugs needlessly. I do believe it will happen and in the meantime, as we inform people about the dangers of fluoroquinolones we are playing our part in bringing about these much needed changes to the medical industry.

Levaquin Production Stopped by J&J/Janssen Pharmaceuticals

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, part of Johnson & Johnson, has stopped production of (brand-name) Levaquin, according to the article, “Drug maker stopped making popular antibiotic Levaquin amid concerns about mental health side effects” published on the Indianapolis ABC affiliate RTV6 The Indy Channel. Janssen/J&J stopped producing both oral and IV Levaquin in December, 2017. The discontinuation of Levaquin production was confirmed by a Janssen/J&J spokesperson who stated, “The decision to discontinue LEVAQUIN was made due to the wide availability of alternative treatment options, and our focus on developing innovative medicines designed to address unmet medical patient needs.” Though that statement is BS propaganda, it is a direct confirmation from a Janssen Pharmaceuticals spokesperson that JANSSEN/JOHNSON & JOHNSON HAS DISCONTINUED PRODUCTION OF LEVAQUIN.



Unfortunately, there is still plenty of levofloxacin (generic Levaquin, made by hundreds or thousands of generic pharmaceutical producers) on the market, and it is maiming (and killing) thousands of people each year. The fight against these drugs is far from over.

Still, the removal of brand-name LEVAQUIN from the market is a really big deal, and it’s something that we, as a community, should celebrate.

We did this. All the people who filed complaints with the FDA, who testified before the FDA, EMA, and other regulatory agencies, who reached out to the press and told their stories, who shared their story of pain and suffering brought on by fluoroquinolones, all the people who shared articles about fluoroquinolone toxicity, all the scientists who did research showing the harm done by fluoroquinolones, all the advocates, all the people in the floxie community, and all the people who listened–we did this! We screamed loudly enough that people listened. Our efforts made a difference, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals has stopped making Levaquin.

“Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”—Margaret Mead

I never thought that one of the pharmaceutical giants that has made billions from fluroquinolones would stop making them. Janssen Pharmaceuticals and J&J are huge–they are behemoths–and I never thought that we could move or effect them. But we did.

The efforts of everyone in the “floxie” community contributed to this outcome. We–you–should be proud.

That is my optimistic take on things. We all have an optimistic side. We all have a pessimistic side too, and here’s the bad news.

Janssen decided to stop making Levaquin because, a) their market share was small because generic levofloxacin is cheaper and widely available (“’Levaquin was only about 1 percent of the market share, and 99 percent was the generic,’ said Bennett.”), and b) they were facing significant lawsuits, and to avoid liability for the drugs they created, they pulled them from the market.

Victims of pharmaceuticals can’t sue drug-makers for harming them, they can only sue for “failure to warn” of the dangers of the drugs. This is ridiculous – I can sue you for hitting me in the face with a sledgehammer even if you warn me that you’re going to do it and that it’s going to hurt – but pharmaceutical companies aren’t held to the same standards as you or me. It’s assumed that their deadly products are mainly good and that warning of the potential for bad effects is sufficient to wash their hands of liability and responsibility. On top of that, they don’t even have to directly warn YOU, they only have to say that they warned your doctor, the “learned intermediary” of the dangers of the drugs (or, at least they have to in theory – it’s assumed that doctors actually know what’s on the warning labels for pharmaceuticals… but most don’t). Both the “failure to warn” notion and the “learned intermediary” notions are crap, and I hate them, but they’re how the system is set up.

Because victims of pharmaceuticals can only sue for “failure to warn” the door for them to sue is only open when the drug warning labels change. Fluoroquinolone warning labels have undergone significant changes in recent years. In reverse-chronological order, the following warning label changes have been added to fluoroquinolone labels:

  • In July, 2018, fluoroquinolone warning labels were changed to note that, “Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics: FDA Requires Labeling Changes Due to Low Blood Sugar Levels and Mental Health Side Effects” – Drug Safety Communication
  • In July, 2016, fluoroquinolone warning labels were changed to note that, “FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA advises restricting fluoroquinolone antibiotic use for certain uncomplicated infections; warns about disabling side effects that can occur together” – Drug Safety Communication
  • In May, 2016, fluoroquinolone warning labels were changed to note that, “FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA updates warnings for oral and injectable fluoroquinolone antibiotics due to disabling side effects” – Drug Safety Communication
  • In August, 2013, fluoroquinolone warning labels were changed to note that, “FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA requires label changes to warn of risk for possibly permanent nerve damage from antibacterial fluoroquinolone drugs taken by mouth or by injection” – Drug Safety Communication
  • In July, 2008, fluoroquinolone warning labels were changed to note that, “FDA is notifying the makers of fluoroquinolone antimicrobial drugs for systemic use of the need to add a boxed warning to the prescribing information about the increased risk of developing tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients taking fluoroquinolones and to develop a Medication Guide for patients.” – Drug Safety Communication

With each of these warning label changes, the door opened for people to sue Janssen and Johnson & Johnson for the harm that Levaquin did to them. (It should be noted that each of these warning labels changed because of advocacy done by the “floxie” community. We screamed, and, slowly, the FDA listened.) Some people did successfully sue the drug companies that hurt them–they gained some compensation and justice.

Perhaps it’s cynical, but it certainly seems more logical than the BS explanation the Janssen spokesperson gave (noted above) that the reason that Janssen Pharmaceuticals took Levaquin off the market was because they didn’t want to be held liable for the blood sugar level changes and the mental health side-effects of Levaquin. They weren’t making much money off it anyhow (because of generics taking the bulk of the market share), this warning label update opened up a new load of liability, and they did a cost-benefit analysis that led them to take it off the market.

All’s well that ends well, and they took Levaquin off the market, and that’s a good thing, right? Well, it’s more complicated than that.

Because of a stupid and asinine rule put in place by the FDA and a lousy decision of the Supreme Court, victims of generic pharmaceuticals cannot sue generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. It all goes back to the “failure to warn” rules noted above. The FDA says that only brand-name drug manufacturers can change drug warning labels, and since generic drug manufacturers can’t change the warning labels, they cannot be held responsible for what’s on the warning labels. This results in victims of generic drugs being unable to hold anyone responsible for the harm done to them by the drugs. There have been a couple cases where brand-name drug companies were held responsible for the harm done by generic drugs, but the precedent wasn’t set very solidly, and most attorneys in most states still aren’t taking cases of people who have been hurt by generic pharmaceuticals. Still, I think that Janssen and J&J saw the writing on the wall–that they could potentially be held responsible for all the Levaquin and levofloxacin-induced mental health side effects, permanently disabling side effects, permanent peripheral neuropathy, tendon tears, and more. So, they hedged their bets. Their legal team, I’m betting, will now argue that they can’t be held responsible for the harm done by levofloxacin because they don’t even make Levaquin any more, and how can they be held responsible for a product that they don’t even produce? My reply is that they can, and should, be held responsible for the drug that THEY CREATED. Johnson & Johnson created and held the patent on Levaquin for a long time. They made billions of dollars off of it. They can, and should, be held responsible for the effects of their creation. The generic drug companies should also be held responsible for the harm that their drugs do, and the FDA should be held responsible for their warning labels (and failure to warn the public about these incredibly dangerous drugs).

We pushed the FDA to change their warning labels. They did, and we should be proud of that. The warning label changes scared Janssen and J&J enough that they stopped production of Levaquin, and we should be proud of that too.

We should also be diligent about the consequences of the removal of Levaquin from the market, and we should continue to work for change in the legal/justice system so that it leans more toward justice for victims, and less toward corporate protection. It is horridly difficult for victims of pharmaceuticals to gain justice or compensation through the legal system as it is currently set up. Janssen pharmaceuticals just made a move to make it even more difficult for victims of Levaquin and levofloxacin to gain justice.

Know what they’re doing. Stay on top of them. Celebrate our victories, then come back to the battlefield fighting. As long as millions of prescriptions of levofloxacin are distributed each year, and thousands of people are maimed by the drugs, our fight isn’t over.