The problem with writing articles is that it forces you to take a small piece of something complicated and say a little about it. In a book you have more space to explore the issues at length - which neatly bring me to Impotence: a Cultural History by Angus McLaren, Chicago Press, 2007. This is a fascinating historical survey of cultural attitudes towards impotence through the ages. It starts with the Greeks and Romans and slowly works its way up to modern times. To some extent, it retreads the same ground as the History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault (in three volumes) but without the same depth of philosophical postmodernism to inform it. Some readers may prefer McLaren because he is more descriptive than analytical.

The difficulty for men can be stated simply. Rather than being judged by their ability to write a book, men are conditioned to judge themselves by their ability to have penetrative sex. If this fails, men are told that there is some shameful defect in their masculinity. Most respond by casting around to find someone else to blame. The conventional response is that women have failed to excite them. So, for example, the mythology of witches in Europe and the early American settlements was based, in part, on the proposition that spells can rob men of their virility.

This simplistic view of gender, distinguishing purely between the functioning male and female, ignores all the shades of sexuality that may manifest in bisexuality, homosexuality, transgender behaviour, etc. By defining maleness by a single criterion of physical performance, it marginalises all the other factors of affection, love and commitment which may affect sexual desire. Worse, it overlooks all the treatable physical conditions that may cause impotence.

As McLaren takes us through history, we see every excuse for failure come into and pass out of fashion. More distressingly, we are told of all the treatments sold by the medical profession over the centuries, many of which are extraordinary by modern standards. Now instead of all the guesswork of the past, we are offered the “truth”. This is erectile dysfunction - a plumbing problem that can be solved by taking cialis. Look around and you will see the hard sell of adverts (pun intended) for these pills. Yet, the implication of these adverts is no more true than Freudian notions that performance weakens when childhood memories interfere with adult lives. Although cialis does effectively restore erectile function, it is a “magic” fig leaf to cover the lack of understanding about the real causes of the problem.

More realistically, McLaren argues that impotence is not really a medical disorder to be treated. It is more a collection of concepts and ideas that have been used to define gender roles and expectations. If we take the word “orgasm” and try to explain what it means, we are immediately lost in a world of subjective impressions. It is always easy to fall back on physical explanations of the mechanics of arousal and consummation. But actually listing the main sensations and emotions in a way that captures their universal significance is a serious challenge. Then trying to place the definition in a context of social relationships, some acceptable, others less so, turns the entire exercise into a minefield of taboo issues.

The book is a highly informative study of social attitudes through the ages. Having read it, it would not be unfair to conclude that our attitudes today are little different to those that defined men in Ancient Rome and Greece. The only difference, I suppose, is that rather than having to eat something disgusting or soak your penis in something potentially dangerous, we can now simply take cialis while reading the last few pages of the book and then be ready to enjoy sexual activity for the rest of the night without having to work about philosophical niceties.

When they do not suffer from the disease or disorder, people can be very selfish, not to say, callous. The same problems swirl around the politics of “Libertarianism” in the USA, where some activities such as drug and substance abuse are considered “victimless”. The argument is made that what people choose to do to themselves should not be the concern of the criminal law. Such arguments essentially ignore the real costs to the public exchequer to support the notion that the general tax rate can be reduced.

Similarly, the inability to sleep is not a real disease like cancer or heart disease which are big killers. There is therefore no need to spend any money on finding out why sleep is elusive. Anyway, the pharmaceutical industry has already produced the cure. It is called ambien and this marvel of medical science is available from your friendly physician.

But just as there are very real costs associated with the completely mislabelled “victimless crimes”, research shows there are equally real costs associated with the surprisingly pervasive insomnia. The fact that private capital makes a profit by selling ambien does not mean the rest of society bears no costs.

A recent survey in the United Kingdom of some five thousand randomly selected patients under the care of General Practitioners found that an initial 37% of respondents were affected by symptoms of insomnia. Twelve months after the first survey, a further 15% had developed problems with sleep. The data suggests that insomnia is closely associated with anxiety, depression and other conditions with chronic pain. It also seems more prevalent among older people. Ambien is one of the first resort medications.

But our transatlantic Libertarian friends are already contemptuous. So more Brits are waking up feeling tired. So what? You have already admitted that ambien is available to knock them out if they find sleep a problem. The British National Health Service picks up the bill. Americans who want ambien have to pay for their own prescriptions (or find a health plan that covers them). That is why the US health system is so great. If people get sick, they have to pay their own way back to health without burdening the taxpayers.

Libertarians almost certainly do not read Sleep, the official journal of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine - a publication guaranteed to send them to sleep when they least need it. In March, 2007, Ozminkowski led a team in a retrospective study to calculate the direct and indirect costs of untreated insomnia in the US. The sample was almost 140,000 younger adults who had been diagnosed with insomnia and 75,500 people who were aged 65 years. They were all members of self-insured health plans through their employment. Their medical claims before and after they developed insomnia were measured against a control group of matched individuals who did not develop insomnia. Over the same time, their employers supplied details of the indirect costs incurred through short-term illnesses and absenteeism.

The study found that the annualised costs per individual rose about $1,200 over the norm as the sampled people fell prey to insomnia. In part the costs rose because all the insurance plans paid for the ambien. About 94% received ambien or an equivalent medication. Thus, at the very least, all the other participants in the insurance plans were paying higher premiums. Equally, we customers have to pay higher prices if a proportion of employed staff are regularly ill or absent.

Because insomnia is so widespread and it costs us all money, self-interest says we should promote research into the cause. Although it is true that sufferers can and do use ambien and its equivalents to relieve the worst effects of sleeplessness, we need a better solution than a medication. Ambien is good in the short term but insomnia is not necessarily a short-term problem. Society should treat insomnia as a real medical condition and devote proper resources to relieving it. Simply relying on ambien should not enough even for a Libertarian.

Before urologists recognized the physical nature of impotence, treatments generally fell into three categories-aphrodisiacs, surgery/transplants, and mechanical treatments.

Aphrodisiacs

Innumerable substances have been used to increase sexual performance. Oysters, lobsters, eggs, and spices are examples. Spanish Fly, a substance made by grinding the wings of certain beetles, was a favorite of that party animal, the Marquis de Sade. It is illegal in the United States both because of the unproven nature of its effectiveness and a tendency to cause seizures or death. Many of these substances actually do nothing more than irritate the genital organs. The user interprets this irritation as increased sensitivity, thereby giving the impression of increased performance. Rhinoceros horn has been used (unsuccessfully) for so long that its name has become synonymous with sexual arousal. Unfortunately, its popularity has led to such widespread slaughter of the animals that they face extinction. Ancient Egyptians believed eating crocodile penises increased virility. Anyone capable of eating a crocodile’s penis probably didn’t need any more help proving his manhood.

Surgery/Transplants

The idea of using animal testes to treat impotence began in the Middle Ages, when a standard treatment for “the male malady” was to place the testicles of a cock under the bed. Another option was eating the rooster’s testes. You could guess that putting them under the bed was much more popular. The Malleus Maleficarum was a guide to witchcraft during that era that asserted witch’s spells caused impotence. This was a major reason witch-hunting became so widespread. French physiologist Charles Edouard Brown-Sequard injected himself in the 1880s with an extract from the testicles of dogs that he claimed made him smarter, stronger, and more virile. After ten injections, he reported improved erections, as well as a stronger jet of urine and “power of defecation.” He made no claims about the effect this had on the dogs. His “Elixir of Life” became an instant best-seller. Its 1889 launch rivaled that of Levitra, even without a famous spokesman.

Eugen Steinach in 1920 pioneered surgical treatment of impotence with a revolutionary idea-vasectomy. He believed blocking the vas deferens (the tubes semen passes through) would force maleness factors back into the bloodstream instead of letting them go to waste on the sheets. The erections probably weren’t much better, but with female partners spending less time pregnant, there was much more opportunity. Two recipients of the Steinach procedure were Sigmund Freud and Nobel Prize winner William Butler Yeats. Freud, the person most responsible for the mistaken impression that impotence was primarily psychological, set back our understanding of the disorder by decades. Taking him out of the gene pool probably did more to help the science of impotence therapy than anything else Steinach did. Many respected universities have subsequently been involved in the transplantation of animal or human testicular tissue. Swiss professor Paul Niehans treated tens of thousands of men with testicular cell injections in the early twentieth century. His procedure sometimes went straight to the root of the problem by injecting a booster shot directly into the patient’s testes.* Patients receiving the treatments included Charlie Chaplin (and you wondered why he walked that way), Aristotle Onassis, and Pope Pius XII. Chaplin was a well-known womanizer, but the Pope’s interest in this treatment remains a mystery. Another researcher in Chicago proudly stated his initial patient checked himself out of the hospital four days after surgery in order to satisfy his newfound potency. He fully understood the rule: “Never waste an erection.” Dr. Leo Stanley removed the testicles of recently executed prisoners at San Quentin in the 1920s. He transplanted them into other, more fortunate (albeit impotent) prisoners, reporting improvement in strength, well-being, and libido among the recipients. When the supply ran low, he substituted goat, ram, boar, and deer testicular tissue. Why he wanted to improve libido among prisoners is still not evident. It remains unclear whether any of these early attempts at treating impotence with human or animal testicular tissue actually worked. Most of the researchers mentioned eventually fell into disrepute-but at least Aristotle Onassis got the girl.

Mechanical

Hot metal rods inserted into the urethra during medieval times failed to revive erections. No one wanted a second treatment, so failures went unreported. Many types of splints have been used, including hollowed-out antlers and horns. Encouraged by finding the penis bone (baculum) in some animals, early surgeons placed rib cartilage into the penis. Although these initial attempts failed, penile prostheses have more recently proven particularly reliable.

There is one simple explanation for those extra pounds of weight. Too much food! The way the body works is very simple. If you get just enough calories for basic things like breathing, you have to burn fat to get the energy to walk around. Eat more calories than you need given your basal activity level, and your body puts on fat. Your body is actually protecting you against the next famine when you will have nothing to eat and need your fat to survive until the next sandwich comes along.

Now turn to many of the forum sites where people discuss their experience with zoloft. The general spirit of these posts is, “I weighed 120lb until I took zoloft. Now I am…”

A simple test rules out thyroid problems, one of the more common physical explanations for sudden weight gains and this leaves us with lack of exercise combined with overeating. . . and a side effect of zoloft. It is a natural association to make. You start taking a medication and immediately you put on five pounds with no obvious change in your diet or level of physical activity. So, let us start off by accepting that some people react to medications by putting on weight. Why? The medication may increase or decrease the basal metabolic rate. If this happens, your weight may fluctuate even though you do not change your caloric intake. In some people, the medication can cause hormonal changes and increase appetite. Increased levels of serotonin are also associated with hunger pangs which encourage you to eat more.

Now we are into the business of balancing the advantages and disadvantages of the particular medication. Let us say that zoloft has made a dramatic improvement in your emotional life. For the first time in months (or years), you do not feel (so) sad. If you have put on a few extra pounds, is that a price worth paying? Or will you get depressed again because your body has become less attractive? As a gentle warning, if your regular doctor asks you whether you want to try a different medication, zoloft causes less weight gain than the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs).

Back to denying the link. After all, the SSRIs were first promoted as anti-obesity medications. Like all decisions on whether to start a medication, you are dealing with unknowables. There is no doubt that some people eat more when they are depressed. Unless you have been keeping a food diary which counts calories, it will difficult to know how your eating habits have changed as the depression increased in intensity. You may already be putting on weight when you start taking the zoloft. Now let us reverse the psychological reaction. When people start feeling less depressed, they eat less and this reduces their weight. In other words, when the depression is cured, you may return to your healthy eating habits. Separating out the effect of the medication from the reality of the number of calories you eat is very difficult. It is easy to confuse coincidence with side effect.

So how should you react if you start zoloft and gain weight? Whatever else you may do, do not stop taking it. First, start counting calories properly. Start exercising. These are most likely to stabilise your weight. Only if you do change your diet and exercise to no effect, should you talk with your doctor. If self-help has failed, see what the professional recommends.

The pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis, has always promoted acomplia as achieving the best results when combined with a low-calorie diet and exercise. There is a simple explanation for this. People who are sufficiently motivated will lose weight if they reduce their calorie intake below their normal daily requirement and increase their metabolic rate through exercise. This forces the body to burn fat as stored energy to fill the gap. So why take acomplia? In the clinical trials, many of the people on placebo also lost weight.

There is another simple explanation. It is an application of the placebo effect. When people believe strongly enough that a medication is effective, it will produce the relevant healing effect. Even though a tablet is actually chemically inert, it can heal in the right context. More importantly, the placebo effect amplifies the therapeutic effect of all real medications. So back to the question of why anyone should use acomplia.

The answer depends on the precise effect that acomplia has. This medication is specifically designed to help people feel less hungry. Hunger is the psychological trigger to eating. Thus, if people feel only slightly hungry, they will naturally eat less leading to two opposing statements:

Acomplia should therefore not be seen as a weight reduction medication.

Acomplia should therefore be seen as a weight reduction medication.

Both statements are true consequences. Acomplia is not in itself a “fat buster”. The active chemical ingredients do not circulate through the body via the blood stream metaphorically killing fat cells whenever they find them. It is only a psychological prop to help people maintain their motivation to diet. The body will lose weight naturally if people consume more energy than they take in. If people feel less hungry, this is easier to achieve. Now let us go back to the idea of a placebo making a drug more effective. If everyone believes that acomplia is a fat buster, then it is more likely that people will lose more weight using it.

Now to add one further reason for following the formula of acomplia + diet + exercise. It is suggested that acomplia is associated with mood changes. In this respect, the research published in the April edition of Br. J. Sports Med. makes interesting reading. It has always been intuitively obvious that regular physical activity helps to improve mood, although no-one has ever been able to suggest exactly how much of whatever activity achieves this effect. All researchers have said is that if the physical activity is affecting the body positively, the body releases dopamine to reinforce the sense of pleasure or enjoyment and so encourage more of the activity.

The study focussed on some 20,000 adult Scottish participants using the General Health Questionnaire. If there is regular activity, there is a clear reduction in the levels of psychological distress after adjusting for factors of age, gender, BMI, smoking, marital status, social economic group, and the presence of any chronic illness. Less frequent activity has an effect, but it is less significant. The strongest effect was obtained through engaging in a sport, but there were also good results from gardening and other hobby activities involving physical exercise. Even twenty minutes per week had a good effect on mood.

Thus, whether by accident or design, the linkage between acomplia and physical exercise is genuinely valuable. If acomplia does potentially have an adverse effect on mood, this may to some extent be relieved if you are also exercising regularly. This article is not, of course, suggesting that physical activity will be a guaranteed cure for any looming depression. But whether you exercise to lose weight or to improve your mood, acomplia with exercise is obviously going to be better than acomplia without exercise.

Wherever you look in the newspapers or online, there are stories about people being arrested in possession of drugs. That an increasing number of these stories involve xanax should not surprise us. Xanax has been and remains one of the most commonly prescribed medications in the world, yet it is a controlled substance in most countries. Ordinary people, worried about the onset of anxiety or a panic attack naturally carry a bottle of pills around with them. They do not always remember to carry their prescriptions with them. This behaviour represents something of a culture shift. A few years ago, people would not have so openly carried anti-anxiety medication around with them. Now it is more socially acceptable (even if still illegal).

Trends are always difficult to detect in the area of mental health because getting the research evidence usually depends on the honesty of people self-reporting. Nevertheless, the Canadian Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has just released a report on Mental Health and Well-Being. It is the biennial Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey which may be a sign of a more general change in youth culture.

Just over 20% of the 6,300 students questioned reported seeking help from a mental-health professional in 2007. This represents a 9% increase over the percentage reporting a consultation between 1999 and 2005. The researchers do not believe that the mental health of the young in Canada has suddenly deteriorated. But rather that there is a reduction in the stigma for seeking help. The probable reason for this shift in attitude is the well-publicised difficulties of celebrities as they struggle with depression and their addiction to drugs.

On balance, we could view this as positive news. If more young people are seeking help than before, they can get the treatment they need to begin coping more effectively in our highly stressed societies. Looking at the pressures on children to hit the right educational standards they need to get good jobs, some anxiety is to be expected. As expected, a steady 30% of students taking part in the bienniel survey have reported levels of anxiety and depression sufficient to disrupt their normal pattern of living. Around 10% rate their mental health as “poor” with a fairly constant 3% reporting attempted suicide.

But there is one very interesting statistic that stands out above all others. Less than 1% of those surveyed reported that a doctor had prescribed any medication to treat their anxiety or depression. This is a most interesting response from the medical profession. Whether as psychiatrists or general practitioners, there would seem to be a reluctance to resort to medication.

Returning to xanax for a moment, there have been no formal clinical trials to establish the safety of this medication in younger people so whether it is prescribed to children is left to the discretion of their doctors. Given the high profile of xanax, it would be surprising if those seeking help did not ask about taking it. Many celebrities like John Meyer are quite open about their use. Yet it would seem that Canadian doctors are cautious in prescribing it. Whether the teens themselves are as wise given the more general availability of the medication is unknown. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that teenagers are casual in their abuse of prescription medications. They reason that if regulatory authorities have approved them, the drugs must be safe.

Thus, in Canada at least, the medical profession is relying on counselling and therapy as a first-line response to the treatment of the walking wounded in schools. If their ability to cope declines or they harm themselves, the children will of course receive appropriate medication under supervision. But if they can continue to function, prudence dictates that they should do so for as long as possible without resorting to medication.

The findings of American scientists simply shocked the world. They conducted a series of studies, which concluded that it often happens that we get fat because we want to drink.

In the West it becomes increasingly popular diet, which consists of only proper water consumption, as well as restrictions in the use of fatty products. The fact is that American scientists found that when the body is not enough of water, it is experiencing stress and the brain sends impulses, which are similar to those sent if people are hungry.

As a result, people wrongly considering the signs of tteir body starts eating, rather than drink. This means that people consume more food than they need, and this is the result of obesity.

American scientists emphasize that one should drink for two- two and a half liters of water a day, which, it should be emphasized that just water counts, not tea, coffee and juices. The point is that it even alter the chemical composition of the body. If people would drink the required amount of water a day, then he will eat less, because the feeling of hunger will visit him less frequently.

Scientists also stress that it was better to abandon the use of various carbonated drinks, which contain harmful chemical compounds, which could cause further dehydration.

Therefore, before torturing yourself with diets and bringing to exhaustion in the gym, just try to start more drinking. The effect pleasantly surprise you.

During the large-scale analysis, conducted by scientists from University of Northern California, it has been shown, that deactivation of a specific gene in tobacco plants allows to lower substantially the concentration of dangerous carcinogens in “healthy” leaves of tobacco.
This analysis can lead to revolution in the tobacco industry, experts consider. New tobacco will be free from carcinogens which are the reason of development of cancer at smoking people. Research has been conducted by doctor Ralph Dewey and associate professor Ramsey Lewis. Scientists managed to solve a riddle of transformation of nicotine into nor nicotine, which is formed when nicotine gets to a human organism. This substance is carcinogenic.
In the course of tobacco processing the considerable quantity of carcinogens, which represent serious hazard to health of the smoking person, is formed in it. In the course of the new analysis scientists have compared properties of tobacco to suppression of a dangerous gene, and traditional tobacco, which is used today in manufacture of cigarettes. It has been established, that genetically modified tobacco is six times less carcinogenic, than the standard. The harm to the person in case of smoking of new tobacco, can appear twice more low, than from the cigarettes accessible for today, researchers mark.
“Having created tobacco which would possess a minimum of carcinogens, or would be absolutely clean from harmful substances, would give the chance to apply it in a pharmaceutical industry, and also in creation of the high-quality products inaccessible for today”, - doctor Dewey says. Scientists hope, that the further analyses will confirm the received results, making them suitable for production.

Chair which creates uniform fluctuations, a mouse which vibrates, the display suspended over a table on a mobile support, - all this is not imaginations of computer designers, but insistent recommendations of doctors and scientists.
Researcher Alan Hedge, the professor of ergonomics from Cornel University, has conducted long tests of a workplace, which can cause considerable damage to health of the person, considering, that for today more than 100 million inhabitants of America spend eight and more hours at computers. The concept of computer traumas will soon become common among experts, scientists mark. “About half of traumas which the person can receive, sitting at the computer, are connected with frequent repetition of the same actions. Such position of a body leads to extremely unpleasant consequences”, - doctor Hedge says.
Back damages – are one of the most widespread traumas caused by a sedentary way of life by working at the computer. If earlier pains in a back were observed at people who by a sort of the activity should lift and carry heavy subjects today back traumas are most widespread among computer fans. The especially sharply this problem threatens young generation, experts mark.
For the purpose of prevention of such traumas scientists have developed a revolutionary workplace, which meets all demands of convenience and safety for the person. The chair creates uniform vibrations that does not allow to a back and finitenesses to “become numb”. Other workplace details also make oscillatory movements not stirring to work. The especial arrangement of the monitor promotes decrease of loading on eyes, scientists confirm.

The beloved person can help you to grow thin or to recover - the Canadian researchers have found out that men and women, who meet or live together, influence on gustatory preferences in meal of the partner. After having conducted the detailed review, the experts of University Ryerson in Toronto have established, that in couple people influence a food choice in shop and restaurant and culinary habits of each other.

As experts have defined, in most cases people positively reacted on desire to dump superfluous kgs at their young man or the girl and rendered to him/her emotional and physical support, also trying to refuse from harmful and high-calorific products. However, in some cases dieticians observed a boomerang effect: the partner, which consumed substitute and fat food, also “accustomed” the beloved person to a wrong food.

Recent posts