Ranbaxy Recalls Atorvastatin Calcium Over Glass Particle Risks

Ranbaxy Recalls Atorvastatin Calcium Over Glass Particle Risks -- Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. has recalled dozens of lots of its generic version of cholesterol drug Lipitor because some may contain tiny glass particles, the latest in a string of manufacturing deficiencies that once led U.S. regulators to bar imports of the Indian company's medicines.

Ranbaxy, a subsidiary of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India's biggest drugmaker, is operating under increased scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because of quality lapses at multiple Ranbaxy factories over the past several years. The FDA also has alleged the company lied about test results for more than two dozen of its generic drugs several years ago.

On Friday, Ranbaxy posted a notice on its U.S. website, saying it's recalling 10-, 20- and 40-milligram doses of tablets of atorvastatin calcium. That's generic Lipitor, the cholesterol fighter that reigned for years as the world's top-selling drug.

The recall includes 41 lots of the drug, nearly all with 90 pills per bottle, but three lots contain 500 pills per bottle. It's unclear how many bottles are in each lot, but medicine batches typically contain many thousands of pills. The 80-milligram strength tablets are not affected.

Ranbaxy spokesman Chuck Caprariello did not answer questions or provide any additional information beyond the statement on the company's website.

"Ranbaxy is proactively recalling the drug product lots out of an abundance of caution," the website statement read. "This recall is being conducted with the full knowledge of the U.S. FDA."

The company also filed a two-sentence statement with the Bombay Stock Exchange stating Ranbaxy's investigation would be completed within two weeks, but that after that temporary disruption to the U.S. supply, the company expected to resume shipments here.

Patients who've filled a prescription can contact their pharmacy to determine whether it was made by Ranbaxy or another generic drugmaker and, if it's from Ranbaxy, whether it came from a recalled lot.

Ranbaxy's manufacturing deficiencies, dating to 2006, led to a lengthy investigation and sanctions by the FDA. During the probe, federal investigators found Ranbaxy didn't properly test the shelf life and other safety factors of its drugs and then lied about the results.

In mid-2008, the FDA barred Ranbaxy from shipping into the U.S more than 30 different drugs made at factories in India. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice demanded Ranbaxy turn over internal documents, alleging the company lied about ingredients and formulations of some medications.

In early 2009, the FDA said it would not consider any new applications from Ranbaxy to sell in the U.S. any products made at the troubled factories.

As FDA discussions with Ranbaxy continued, it appeared Ranbaxy would lose its shot at a revenue windfall when Lipitor's generic U.S. patent expired last Nov. 30. At the time, Lipitor brought in almost $8 billion a year in U.S. sales.

As often happens when patents first expire, for the first six months only one generic rival could compete with brand-name Lipitor. Ranbaxy had that right, although an authorized generic from Lipitor maker Pfizer Inc. and partner Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. went on sale on Dec. 1. With competition so limited, the generic prices only declined a bit from brand-name drug's price of about $115 a month – until several other generics entered the market six months later.

The FDA finally ended the suspense, deciding just before midnight on Nov. 30 to let Ranbaxy sell generic Lipitor made at the company's Ohm Laboratories factory in central New Jersey. It was unclear Friday whether the recalled Ranbaxy pills were made there or elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Ranbaxy is operating under a settlement with the FDA, called a consent decree, signed on Dec. 20, 2011. It requires Ranbaxy to improve manufacturing procedures, ensure data on its products is accurate and undergo extra oversight and review by an independent third party for five years. Ranbaxy at the time set aside $500 million to cover potential criminal and civil liability stemming from the Justice Department investigation. ( AP )

Blog : The Love is Beautiful

Post : Ranbaxy Recalls Atorvastatin Calcium Over Glass Particle Risks

READ MORE - Ranbaxy Recalls Atorvastatin Calcium Over Glass Particle Risks

Top Ten mistakes when buying a jogging stroller

Top Ten mistakes when buying a jogging stroller - One of the most important purchases every new parent must make is a good quality stroller. One of the most popular types of strollers on the market is the jogging stroller. A good, sturdy well built jogging stroller allows mom to get some exercise while the baby gets the fresh air and sunshine he or she needs to thrive. There are some mistakes that many new parents make when shopping for a jogging stroller. Some of the most common are listed below.

1). Not buying the best stroller you can afford - A cheap stroller is only a bargain if it is sturdy and reliable. Most of the time, paying a little more for the jogging stroller up front will help you ensure that the stroller is a good brand name, sturdy, reliable and of the highest possible quality.

2). Not buying a convertible stroller - When buying a jogging stroller, one of the best things to do is to buy a stroller which can double as a car seat and a baby carrier. Many of the best jogging strollers feature a snap in car seat and baby carrier, and this allows them to do triple duty. If you purchase a jogging stroller without this feature, you may spend more in the long run buying a separate car seat and baby carrier.

3). Buying a stroller with not enough storage capacity - It is important that a good jogging stroller have plenty of storage space on the bottom or on the handles. This will allow parents on the go to store frequently used items such as baby wipes, towels or cups and have them all within easy reach

4). Buying an off brand jogging stroller - While name brand jogging strollers can have quality defects as well, a good quality name brand jogging stroller is much more likely to be sturdy, long lasting and reliable. In addition, a good quality company will be more likely to stand behind their product should something go wrong.

5). Buying a stroller that does not meet your needs - When shopping for a jogging stroller, it is vital to take all your needs into account. For instance, if you will be traveling by car often, buying a jogging stroller that is easily collapsible for transport is very important. The same holds true for airplane travel. If you plan to travel by plane, be sure to find a stroller that is suitable for that use

6). Getting a stroller in the wrong place - A jogging stroller is a major purchase, and it is important that the store at which you buy it be willing to stand behind the purchase in case there is a problem. Be sure to check the reputation of the online or brick and mortar store before making a purchase
.
7). Choosing a stroller that cannot grow with your child - All jogging strollers will come with a rating for maximum weight and size of the child to be transported. The best jogging strollers are those that can grow and adapt with your child. Some of the best jogging strollers can do double duty as infant car seats, toddler car seats, and later even as booster seats for older children. A stroller or travel system that can grow and change with your child is the most cost effective solution for the long run.

8). Buying the first stroller you see - A jogging stroller is a major purchase, and buying one should not be done on impulse. Buying the first of anything you see is generally a mistake. The best way to go about choosing a quality jogging stroller is to research the various reviews and get recommendations from other parents.

9). Buying a stroller that is not collapsible - A good jogging stroller should be easily foldable and easy to carry and transport. A jogging stroller that does not fold or collapse will be very difficult to carry from place to place.

10). Buying a stroller that is poorly made - Quality and safety are the most important considerations when shopping for a jogging stroller. A stroller that is poorly made will not be able to withstand the rigors of regular use.

Blog : The Love is Beautiful
Post : Top Ten mistakes when buying a jogging stroller

READ MORE - Top Ten mistakes when buying a jogging stroller

Samsung's 'future-proof' voice-controlled television

Samsung's 'future-proof' voice-controlled television - A "smart" internet-connected television that has the ability to have its hardware upgraded every year has been unveiled by Samsung.

The device has a slot which allows new kit to be added to boost processing performance and add new features.

The innovation may help reassure shoppers concerned about their screen becoming outdated.

The move is aimed at helping the South Korean tech giant retain its lead as the world's best-selling TV maker.

Samsung's president of consumer electronics, Boo-keun Yoon, unveiled the firm's flagship LED television at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas noting that his firm currently sells two televisions every two seconds.

In addition to its "smart evolution capability" Samsung has also added gesture, voice and face recognition features to the ES8000 model.

Samsung was one of many companies that unveiled new connected TV facilities at CES

Familiar faces

A built-in camera allows users to browse the internet with a wave of their hand and to change channel by speaking in one of the more than 20 languages that the set can "understand".

A facial recognition facility also allows the set to recognise users, pulling up the relevant selection of their favourite apps.

“Start Quote
It's been the year of connected TV ever since 2008”
James McQuivery Forrester

The device is the latest in a run of so-called Smart TVs launched by the firm since 2008.

Samsung is on course to hit a milestone of 20 million global TV app downloads before the end of January, said its president of consumer electronics America Tim Baxter.

New apps announced at the trade show included Rovio's Angry Birds video game.

Samsung also announced its users would be given free access to a new Angry Birds on-demand animated television channel, marking the latest evolution of the hit title.

Smart TV surge

Connected televisions with built-in processors are tipped as one of the hottest trends at this year's CES.

Event organiser, the US Consumer Electronics Association, has said it expects that about half of all shipped TVs would have internet capabilities in 2012.

By contrast it said the figure was 12% of all units shipped in 2010.

While Samsung pursues its own software solution, its rival LG has announced a television with built-in Google TV facilities for the US market.

The firm's chief technology officer, Scott Ahn, only briefly mentioned the move at his firm's CES press conference saying that the step "will form the basis of a strong future working relationship" with the US search giant.

LG also promised voice-recognition via a new remote control.

Left unconnected

“Start Quote
But who is going to be the dominant force in smart TV - the Asian hardware manufacturers, or the search firm which has already made its mark on the smartphone industry?”

Meanwhile, Sony continues to hedge its bets.

Its new HX850 LED TV shares the same connected features as its predecessor including access to the Sony Entertainment Network and its Video Unlimited and Music Unlimited streaming services.

However, the firm also unveiled two new devices powered by the revised Google TV - a media streamer and a Blu-ray player.

Panasonic and Haier are among several other companies also showing off new connected TV facilities at CES.

Although sales of internet capable TVs are on the rise, analysts said the trend can be explained by the fact that the facility is offered on most of the biggest and highest quality sets.

"It's been the year of connected TV ever since 2008," said James McQuivery, television industry analyst at Forrester.

"Every year you see these at CES. However, the manufacturers have struggled with the fact that around half of all people who buy connected TVs never put them on the internet.

"So the challenge going forward is getting people to use the new functionality." ( bbc.co.uk )

READ MORE - Samsung's 'future-proof' voice-controlled television

Many Girls, Young Women Continue to Use Tanning Beds

Many Girls, Young Women Continue to Use Tanning Beds - The dangers of indoor and outdoor tanning have been hammered home over and over again by health experts, but that hasn’t made a difference to a large percentage of girls and young women who continue to worship the sun in order to get that sought after "glow."

In a new survey by the American Academy of Dermatology, 32 percent of respondents admitted using a tanning bed in the past year, and of those respondents, 25 percent used a tanning bed at least weekly. Even more concerning is the fact that 81 percent off all of the women surveyed said they had tanned outdoors either frequently or occasionally in the past year.

The survey involved more than 3,800 white non-Hispanic females ages 14 to 22.

"Our survey underscores the importance of educating young women about the very real risks of tanning, as melanoma – the deadliest form of skin cancer – is increasing faster in females 15 to 29 years old than in males of the same age group," Dr. Ronald L. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, said in a news release. "In fact, most young women with melanoma are developing it on their torso, which may be the result of high-risk tanning behaviors such as indoor tanning. In my practice, I have had patients – young women with a history using tanning beds – who have died from melanoma."

Indoor tanning is so risky that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services along with the World Health Organization have “declared ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun and artificial light sources as a known carcinogen,” according to the report, and numerous studies show indoor tanning increases a person’s risk of melanoma by as much 75 percent.

Melanoma is the most dangerous type of skin cancer and is the leading cause of death from skin disease. The National Cancer Institute estimates that there will be more than 68,000 new cases of melanoma this year, resulting in nearly 9,000 deaths.

"Exposure to UV radiation is the leading risk factor for skin cancer, yet – despite this knowledge – droves of teens and young women are flocking to tanning bed facilities and beaches or pools to tan every year," said Moy. "The challenge is that teens have access to indoor tanning salons on almost every corner. A recent survey of 116 U.S. cities found an average of 42 tanning salons per city, which means tanning salons are more prevalent than Starbucks or McDonald’s. We are very concerned that this tanning behavior will lead to a continued increase in the incidence of skin cancer in young people and, ultimately, more untimely deaths from this devastating disease."

At current rates, 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime, with approximately 75 percent of skin cancer deaths resulting from melanoma. ( foxnews.com )

READ MORE - Many Girls, Young Women Continue to Use Tanning Beds

What's Lurking in Your Meat and Poultry?

What's Lurking in Your Meat and Poultry? Probably Staph - It's a kitchen credo that you should wash your hands and utensils thoroughly, especially after they've touched raw meat or poultry, which may contain a host of bacteria — salmonella, listeria, E. coli — that can make you sick. Now add a new pathogen to the list.

Researchers were surprised to find that nearly half of samples of beef, pork and poultry tested from popular grocery stores were contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) doesn't even monitor in the food source, because it's not known as a common food-borne pathogen. And of the bacteria found, nearly all were strains that were resistant to more than one antibiotic.

Staph is the same bug that caused headlines several years ago, when hospitals and communities started reporting a particularly virulent strain, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, that sickened children and led to tens of thousands of deaths. The bacteria dies when heated, but until contaminated meat is cooked, it can pose a health hazard in kitchens.

Lance Price, a professor at the Translational Genomics Research Institute, which conducted the staph study, decided to focus on this bacteria because recent reports showed that people working on farms had picked up staph infections directly from affected animals. If the bacteria had colonized the animals, Price wondered, what about their meat when they were slaughtered?

"Now we now that when the average consumer purchases meat, he has a one-in-four chance of bringing a multidrug-resistant strain of staph into the kitchen," he says. "Bacteria in meat and poultry is something we deal with every day. We try to minimize it, but it's a normal part of slaughtering animals. But the fact that we have multidrug-resistant strains of staph is not normal."

The results of the study, he says, reflect the dangers of the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture. "The multidrug-resistant strains are the direct result of antibiotic use in food animal production, [even if] they aren't used to treat infection but instead to make the animals grow faster, make their feed more efficient and to prevent diseases from spreading in the crowded unsanitary conditions in which the animals are raised."

By analyzing the strains of staph picked up in the samples, Price and his team were able to show a diversity of strains that could come only from infected animals, including chicken, turkey, cattle and pigs — but not from human contamination, which originates from fewer strains of the bug.

The study is the first to show such widespread colonization of our favorite meats with staph, and, says Price, should give government regulators reason to consider adding staph to the list of potentially dangerous food-borne pathogens. The Food and Drug Administration and the USDA are already conducting a pilot survey of how commonly staph bacteria occur in the meat supply, and if their results mirror those of the current report, then staph could join E. coli and salmonella as potential food-borne hazards.

It's not clear how much illness the contaminated food causes each year, but annually 12 million people visit the emergency room with potential staph infections.

The findings are a warning that those numbers will only rise, thanks to meat-production methods that aren't entirely healthy, says Price. In particular, overuse of antibiotics will only make the problem worse. "The most effective way to reduce antibiotic resistance in the food supply is to stop using it in food production to boost yields," he says, "and only use it to treat sick animals."

Until then, remember to clean knives, countertops, cutting boards and even faucets that might have come into contact with staph from meat. Handling contaminated tools could be enough to cause nausea or diarrhea, and in people who are particularly vulnerable to bacterial infections, it could even lead to more serious issues such as toxic shock or a form of sepsis. ( time.com )

READ MORE - What's Lurking in Your Meat and Poultry?

Super Germs Found in U.S. Meat

Super Germs Found in U.S. Meat - Bacteria in meat have always been present; that's why it's important to cook meat properly before eating it. MedlinePlus reports on a study that found half the meat sampled from grocery store shelves is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

The likely reason behind this development is the routine use of low level antibiotics given to animals by food growers. Antibiotic therapy is instituted to help reduce the incidence of disease and death among the animals that we use for food -- turkey, pork, beef and chicken.

Lance Price, head researcher of this study conducted by the Translational Genomics Research Institute of Arizona explains that more than 130 meat samples were taken from 26 grocery stores in five states. Study findings concluded that 96 percent of meats tested were resistant to at least one type of antibiotic and 52 percent of meats tested were resistant to three or more types of antibiotics.

Staphylococcus aureus is one of more than 30 bacteria that cause infections in humans. Of all bacteria, Staph. aureus is the most frequent cause of infections, ranging from skin infections to pneumonia and toxic shock syndrome.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is a form of the bacteria that is resistant to a group of antibiotics called beta-lactam, explains the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition to methicillin, this group of antibiotics includes penicillin and amoxicillin. This gives health care providers fewer medication options to successfully treat the Staph aureus infection.

Increasing the severity of the problem with antibiotic-resistant Staph. aureus is that some strains of the bacteria have developed a reduced response to Vancomycin, the antibiotic often given to treat MRSA. The current study conducted on meat in U.S. supermarkets did not report the presence of this strain of the bacteria, but might that not be a likely development in the future with the continued routine use of antibiotics in animals?

No one is immune from the potential hazards of the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat. Baby boomers, children, young adults and the elderly need to increase vigilance in the handling and preparation of fresh meat products.

People who are immune-compromised may be at the greatest risk of infection from the meat-borne bacteria, but everyone needs to take extra precautions. Good hand-washing, cleaning of surfaces contaminated by raw meat and the prevention of raw meat touching other food are important techniques to prevent the spread of bacterial infection.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reports it is monitoring the situation of the use of antibiotics in animals and is awaiting further information from the CDC and U.S. Department of Agriculture before determining what, if nay, action needs to be taken.

That means that for now, caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, are the watchwords for meat consumers. ( yahoo.com )

READ MORE - Super Germs Found in U.S. Meat

Half of supermarket meat may have staph bug

Half of supermarket meat may have staph bug – Half the meat and poultry sold in the supermarket may be tainted with the staph germ, a new report suggests.

The new estimate is based on just 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey purchased from grocery stores in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Flagstaff, Ariz. and Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Proper cooking kills the germs, and federal health officials estimate staph accounts for less than 3 percent of foodborne illnesses, far less than more common bugs like salmonella and E. coli.

The new study found more than half the samples contained Staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria that can make people sick. Worse, half of those contaminated samples had a form of staph that's resistant to at least three kinds of antibiotics.

"This study shows that much of our meat and poultry is contaminated with multidrug-resistant staph," Paul Keim, one of the study's authors, said in a statement. "Now we need to determine what this means in terms of risk to the consumer."

Keim and his co-authors work at the nonprofit Translational Genomics Research Institute in Arizona. Their study is to be published in the journal Clinical infectious Diseases, an institute spokesman said.

Staph germs are commonly found on the skin and in the noses of up to 25 percent of healthy people. The bacteria can be spread in many settings, including in the packing plant or in the kitchen, and it can cause food poisoning.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that staph accounts for roughly 240,000 cases a year. Handwashing and proper cooking are the best ways to avoid problems.

The study's authors note that livestock and poultry are steadily fed low doses of antibiotics at industrial farms. They suggest that may be a contributor to the antibiotic resistance seen in some meat samples.

Among the types of drug-resistant germs the researchers found, one was methicillin-resistant staph, or MRSA, a superbug that can be fatal. They found MRSA in three of the 136 samples.

Food and Drug Administration officials say meat does not seem to be a significant route for MRSA transmission, but health officials continue to study the issue.

The government doesn't routinely check retail meat and poultry for staph bacteria. However, a fairly recent FDA pilot study in the Washington area looked at more than 1,100 meat and poultry samples and found staph in 280 of them.

A Louisiana State University study of 120 meat samples found it in almost half of pork chops and 20 percent of beef steak samples. That study, published in 2009, calculated the superbug MRSA was in about 5 percent of pork samples and 3 percent of beef.

In a statement Friday, the American Meat Institute said the study is misleading.

"Despite the claims of this small study, consumers can feel confident that meat and poultry is safe," said James H. Hodges, the organization's president. ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Half of supermarket meat may have staph bug

Experts Say Don't Worry About Radiation In US Milk

Experts Say Don't Worry About Radiation In US Milk - So now Japan's radioactive fallout is showing up in milk on the U.S. West Coast. Not to worry, though. It turns out that traces of radioactivity are in many foods we eat, the air we breathe and the water we swim in.

Based on current radiation levels leaking from the stricken Japanese nuclear plant, experts say it's very unlikely that health problems will develop in the United States and other places far from Japan.

"This amount of radiation is tiny, tiny, tiny compared to what you get from natural sources every day," said John Moulder, a professor of radiation oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee who studies the effects of radiation exposure.

Milk waiting to be tested sit on shelves in a cooler at the Environmental Protection AgencyÂs National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory in Montgomery, Ala., Thursday, March 24, 2011. The laboratory has added a few extra contract workers because of the threat from Japan, officials say.

That radioactive fallout is turning up in food and water is hardly a surprise. Very low levels of radiation in the air connected to the Japanese plant have shown up coast to coast in the U.S., as well as in Iceland, Britain and Germany.

Most of the radioactive material disperses in the atmosphere, but some falls to the ground.

Radioactive iodine was found in the milk in California and Washington state, most likely after a cow ate tainted grass or drank puddles of rainwater containing it. Iodine-131, the type that was found, is short-lived and decays fairly quickly, becoming harmless.

Moulder said he wouldn't be surprised if leafy vegetables like spinach are next to show contamination, the source being rainwater. Again, the health risk "is about as close to zero as you can get," he said.

Since this type of iodine is manmade, it isn't normally found in the environment. But we're exposed to natural sources of radiation every day — most of it from radon in the air and, to a lesser extent, from cosmic rays.

Foods we eat also contain low levels of naturally occurring radioactivity, including bananas, carrots and red meat. Even beer has it.

"Once you understand that we swim in this low-level sea of radiation, then it's just a numbers game," said Mike Payne of the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security at the University of California, Davis.

The Environmental Protection Agency normally tests milk, rainfall and drinking water every three months for radiation.

Since the March 11 tsunami that devastated parts of Japan and crippled the nuclear plant, the EPA began testing more frequently and screened samples from milk producers this week.

A small amount of radioactive iodine was found in a March 25 milk sample from Spokane, Wash. The amount detected was 5,000 times below the federal recommended limit for exposure.

In separate testing, the California Department of Public Health found a similar trace amount Monday at a dairy in San Luis Obispo County, where the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is located.

The department has an ongoing program that checks milk for radiation levels and occasionally tests vegetables grown near power plants. Since the Japan nuclear crisis, it started testing milk samples in the county each week.

"It is safe to drink milk. It is safe to eat dairy products," county Health Officer Penny Borenstein said at a news conference Thursday.

The Food and Drug Administration, which oversees the safety of the nation's food supply, said that so far it has not found radiation in any other foods.

To the north, health authorities in British Columbia said radioactive iodine levels recently found in rainwater and seaweed do not pose a health threat.

The United States had already banned imports of dairy and produce from the region of Japan where the crippled plant is located. Other foods imported from Japan, including seafood, are still being sold but are screened first for radiation.

"People shouldn't be afraid to continue eating dairy products, vegetables, fish and other nutritious foods," said Christine Bruhn, who studies food safety at UC Davis. ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Experts Say Don't Worry About Radiation In US Milk

The idiocy of text-message adultery

The idiocy of text-message adultery - Stop me if you've heard this one before: A woman says Tiger Woods had sex with her. No, really. Her name is Raychel Coudriet. It's the same story we've heard from other women: She liked Woods, he wanted her, he propositioned her, she said yes. He was sitting next to her at a party when he made his move. Did he touch her? Raise an eyebrow? Whisper in her ear? Nope. He texted her.

Woods may go down in history as the greatest golfer of all time. But he'll also be remembered as the king of sexting. He takes his place in a pantheon of lechers who have sated the world's oldest urge through the latest communications technology. Bill Clinton used the phone; Mark Foley used online chats; Mark Sanford used e-mail; Woods used text messages. Sitting right next to Coudriet, Woods went for his phone. He "texted her constantly," says the National Enquirer, echoing reports by other women. He was more addicted to texting than he was to sex.

Tiger Woods

The picture of Woods sitting there with Coudriet, discreetly sending her messages that would show up later in the Enquirer, captures the bottomless folly of extramarital sexting. Cheaters seem to think their phones send secret mating signals only their girlfriends can pick up. They couldn't be more wrong.

In the months since Woods' adultery was discovered, scores of his messages to various girlfriends have been leaked. So have the texts of Jesse James, the philandering husband of Sandra Bullock. If those aren't raw enough for your taste, try the X-rated pager messages between former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his then-chief of staff, Christine Beatty. No detail is spared. You can find out exactly how Beatty debriefed Kilpatrick and which holes Woods liked to play.

But that's only half of what makes these messages creepy. The other half is the cheaters' constant worry about being caught. Their thumbs work the keypads, pleading for secrecy. "Don't text me back till tomorrow morning. I have [too] many people around me right now," Woods told Jaimee Grubbs, a cocktail waitress. To Joslyn James, a porn actress, he texted: "Don't come down here yet. Lots of people in the hall. I will let you know when it clears." Later, he chastised her: "You almost just ruined my whole life. If my agent and these guys would have seen you there, Fuck."

Fuck, indeed. Everyone with an Internet connection now knows plenty about Woods' sex life. But we don't know it from a bimbo getting caught in a hallway. We know it from his texts. His comments to Coudriet—"Are you touching yourself? I want to f--- you"—are reprinted verbatim in the Enquirer. He treated his phone as a private channel, a place where he could hide his darkest thoughts from the world. Instead, the phone manifested and published them. His trysts are gone. His marriage is on the rocks. But his texts? They're immortal.

Bullock's husband, Jesse James, made the same mistake. "I'm texting you in secret," he told one of his girlfriends. That message, along with 194 others, is now in her possession and is among several, "many of them extremely graphic," that she has reportedly shown to TMZ, the celebrity gossip site. Too late, he has learned that there's no such thing as texting in secret.

So has Kilpatrick. "THEY WERE RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DOOR. THEY HAD TO HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING," he told Beatty after a night together. When she joked that they'd been "busted," he replied, "DAMN THAT. NEVER BUSTED. BUSTED IS WHAT YOU SEE! LOL."

That's the folly of the cheating sexter. He thinks that to be busted, he has to be seen with his girlfriend. He has it backward. A physical encounter can be broken up in seconds, leaving only the uncorroborated memory of a putative eyewitness. But a text is objective and self-incriminating. Busted isn't being seen. It's being read.

In hindsight, the exposed sexters seem almost poignantly naive. James' electronic attempt at just-between-us intimacy—"*wink*"—has been pasted all over the Internet. Kilpatrick's and Beatty's frequent reminder to each other—"ERASE!"—has been preserved as a warning to all who think their messages were purged. And Woods' leaked promise to Grubbs—"secretively we will always be together"—has become a self-refuting joke. The promise was a fantasy. So was the secrecy.

Remember that the next time you wander off the fairway of marriage. Lust isn't love, and texting isn't whispering. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The cell phone knows. Soon, the rest of us will know, too. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - The idiocy of text-message adultery

Aromatherapy massage is a scent of success

Aromatherapy massage is a scent of success - I like smellies as much as the next girl, but I don’t believe that bath oils and overpriced candles with hippy names such as Inspiration and Bliss can possibly have any real effect on my health or mood.

But as with many things in life, it appears I have been wrong.

On a recent weekend away, at the divine Vidago hotel, near Porto in Portugal, I booked an eighty-minute aromatherapy massage — Aromatherapy Associates Real Aromatherapy Experience — a treatment that has been loved by everyone from Princess Diana to Ava Gardner.

Reviving: An aromatherapy massage can give you a physical and emotional boost

It was a revelation. My therapist explained that when essential oils (the distilled essence of plants) are absorbed into the skin, they have real physical effects — helping clear sinuses, easing aches and pains — while the smell has an effect on our emotions.

I told her I wanted to be relaxed yet revived and, whatever combination of oils she used, worked.

Using a special massage technique that works on certain pressure points along the spine, the usual ache across my shoulders vanished. By the end of the treatment I felt uplifted, rather than exhausted, which is how I usually leave a massage.

Since then, I have been using two of these Aromatherapy Associates oils every day: the Revive oil which I rub into my skin in the morning and which is said to have brilliant effects on circulation and can even help with hangovers; and the Deep Relax oil at night, which does exactly what it says on the tin. It’s safe to say I’m an aromatherapy convert. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Aromatherapy massage is a scent of success

Are Sleeping Pills Addictive?

Can long-term use of sleep medications be hazardous to your health?

Are Sleeping Pills Addictive?. Dozens of readers had questions for the Consults blog about the long-term effects of taking sleep medications. Here, Dr. Michael Thorpy and Shelby Freedman Harris of the Montefiore Medical Center Sleep Disorders Center respond.

Q. What are your thoughts about short-term use of potentially habit forming medications? How do you weigh concerns about sleep deprivation vs. chemical dependency? Emily G., Washington State

Q. What are the risks of long-term use of prescription drugs to combat insomnia?Claudia, New York, N.Y.

A. Dr. Thorpy and Dr. Harris respond:

In our sleep center, we use several types of prescription medications to treat insomnia. The most well known are drugs like Ambien (zolpidem), Lunesta (escopiclone) and Sonata (zaleplon) — sometimes referred to as the “Z-drugs” or hypnotics. They all affect a brain structure called the GABA receptor, which is widely found throughout the brain and has many functions; their main effect is to dampen arousal, thereby allowing sleep to occur. There are also non-GABA sleep medications like Rozerem (ramelteon), which reduces arousal by affecting the receptor for the hormone melatonin.

Before using any of these medications, it is vital to understand the underlying cause of the insomnia, since other treatments may be more appropriate. If depression is the cause of poor sleep, for example, antidepressants or lifestyle changes may be the most appropriate course. Insomnia has now been shown to be associated with a range of underlying medical and psychological disorders, and it is therefore an important condition to treat. We usually use both behavioral and medication therapy, either alone or together, to get the best response. The aim is to have the patient come off the sleep medication completely when the insomnia resolves.

Some people, though, have chronic insomnia that is associated with a medical or psychiatric disorder and need to continue medication very long-term. They can do so without any untoward effects.

When used as prescribed, the sleep medications mentioned above are very safe — although, as with any prescription medication, they can have adverse effects in some people. For example, rarely, some of these drugs may actually cause an increase in arousal and prevent sleep. Ambien, surprisingly, has even been used to arouse people in a persistent vegetative state.

Still, sleeping pills are very widely used, and most people find them effective and do not suffer from adverse effects, even when used long-term. These medications have not been shown to produce a pharmacological or chemical addiction with withdrawal symptoms, unless they are taken in excessive doses.

These drugs can, however, be psychologically habit-forming. If the sleeping pill effectively promotes sleep but is stopped suddenly, for instance, some people may show signs of psychological dependence, with the desire to want to keep taking them. However, this is not an actual chemical addiction.

The sleeping pills mentioned above do not produce a worsening of insomnia — so-called rebound insomnia — when they are stopped. But insomnia can return, prompting the patient to want to continue with the medication. That is why we find that it is important to include behavioral treatments, such as good sleep hygiene or cognitive behavioral therapy, along with any medication treatment so that the patient can withdraw from the medication without a return of the insomnia. (See our earlier post, “Overcoming Insomnia Without Drugs.”)

When the medication is withdrawn, we always have the patient taper off the medication slowly, often over a period of weeks, to reduce any psychological dependence on the drug. So long as the insomnia is being actively treated behaviorally, the patient will not find a need to increase the dose of the hypnotic, and the patient will not develop a tolerance to the medication.

When a patient asks to increase a formerly effective dose of a medication, we usually find that something else has happened, usually additional stress or a lifestyle change. It does not mean the patient has developed a pharmacologic tolerance to the medication.

Sleeping pills should be taken only immediately before bedtime. It is not recommended they be taken in the middle of the night if you have to get up early the next morning. Some pills have a longer duration of effect than others and could cause daytime sedation. As with all prescription medications, sleeping pills need to be taken according to the physician’s recommendations. ( nytimes.com )

READ MORE - Are Sleeping Pills Addictive?