Talent Mash

If you go back just a little more than one-hundred years, the law effectively made women the property of men. While young, they were under the control of their fathers. When married, they were controlled by their husbands. They were not allowed to own property, let alone do any of the things we would take for granted today. Their only function was as breeding stock. The right marriage would combine the assets of two families. Children would see the family assets pass on to the next generation. In this male-dominated world, all the laws and cultural expectations were pitched from the male point of view. Everything that happened was to be for the benefit of men. This included the somewhat difficult question of sexual satisfaction. There was little or no public discussion of sex in those days. Everyone was simply expected to do their duty and produce children. Failure in this respect was shameful to the individuals involved and potentially disastrous to wealthy families which might see their wealth pass into less direct bloodlines. It was customary to blame the women as infertile or frigid. No one talked about erectile dysfunction.

If we come forward, the erectile dysfunction issue has stepped out into the open with the arrival of drugs offering effective treatment. It’s almost impossible for anyone to avoid seeing the ads on television and in the media generally. As was the case one-hundred years ago so, today, the pharmaceutical companies are looking after the interests of men. Yet the voices of women are more clearly heard and some have been saying their sexual experience is unsatisfying. This is often seen as an attack on men as selfish or incompetent. Many approach the sexual act with the sole intention of enjoying themselves. Women prefer to be one of a pair interested in both getting the maximum satisfaction.

Obviously, there’s little can be done about male culture. If some men fail to consider their partner’s need for satisfaction, no drug in the world can help. But there are some women who fail to achieve any real degree of satisfaction. As it stands, medical research is unclear why this is. Some suggest psychological reasons, others identify possible physical causes. Whatever the reason, Levitra is the strongest of the erectile dysfunction drugs, but it’s of no use to women for sexual purposes. All it can do is improve the female blood circulation system by dilating arteries. Without a female equivalent of a penis to inflate, no drug working in the same way as Levitra can produce any improvement in sexual satisfaction. Indeed, feminists argue there’s no medical problem to be solved by the pharmaceutical industry. They see attempts to develop a drug for women as the worst side of capitalism. First, you invent a medical problem. Then you invent the cure. So there we leave this age-old problem. If men are producing an erection hard enough to penetrate and this erection remains sufficiently strong until both parties agree to orgasm, this will no doubt be enjoyable sex. But if women are left unsatisfied by their partners efforts, men will have a choice. They could ignore their parters’ complaints or they could actually attempt to make sex a two-person activity.

The Senate race in Nevada is getting dirty. Real dirty.

In a new commercial slamming her opponent Harry Reid, Republican Sharron Angle claims that the Senate Majority Leader voted on a bill that would, “pay for Viagra for convicted child molesters and sex offenders.”

Both candidates have done a bit of smearing in what has proved to be a hotly contested race, but perhaps Angle has strayed a bit farther from the truth than she should have.
Various news agencies, including the Associated Press, have analyzed the commercial and all have said that Angle is being more than unfair. She’s being untruthful.

The law she is referring to was actually just a proposed amendment to the federal health care bill. In an effort to delay the bill’s passing in the Senate, Republican Senator Tom Coburn introduced an amendment that would explicitly prohibit any federal money from funding the purchase of erectile dysfunction drugs by registered sex offenders.

The general consensus was and is that Mr Coburn and the Republicans were perpetrating a political stunt. The Democrats stuck together and the amendment promptly died.

While there is no doubt that Democrats were not trying to subsidize ED drugs for child molesters and rapists, it is distinctly possible that some federal money will end up doing just that. But this already happens. Had they voted for the amendment, the political process would have been gummed up and the bill might have, through the magic of Washington, never been passed.

It is worth noting that the law does not take effect until 2014, so there is a lot of room to introduce a provision that explicitly prohibits ED meds for sex offenders.

Mr. Coburn also tried to introduce amendments that would have done the following:

• Revoke the powers of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
• Make it impossible to hire a government health care worker without first firing one
• Require the President and Cabinet Members to buy healthcare through the new government act
• Issue a public referendum on gay marriage in Washington, D.C.

Those are just some of the purely politically motivated and sometimes unrelated amendments introduced to sabotage the bill.

But many are now asking the question, will Viagra for non-predators be covered?

That question is very much up in the air.

Many of the problems Republicans seemed to have with the bill focused on the wasteful spending, or non-medically essential procedures, that might be covered under the plan that President Obama campaigned for. While the protests have begun with a focus on prohibiting ED drug coverage for “sex predators”, some in the media have been speculating that it will not stop there.

Experts say that, as the public will still be able to choose their healthcare plan, it will likely depend on the policy whether you are covered or not. Others have said that the loophole of blood pressure treatment might be another way to get the medications with federal plans.

And the success of Sharron Angle’s ad? Well, we won’t know until the polls close. But, historically, fewer voters read the fact-check than see the commercials. On the other hand, mud slinging and negative campaigning can backfire. Angle may have undermined her credibility on this one, and that’s one dysfunction that Viagra can’t fix.

To get the scary bits out of the way, let’s review the medical reality. You can be fine when you wake up in the morning but, by the time night comes around, you can be flat on your back, pouring sweat and in a delirious condition. Malaria kills more people around the world than every other disease. About 500 million catch it every year. Thanks to good treatment less than 1% die (that’s about 3 million people) and, of those, one child dies every second in the worst affected parts of the world. When you add up the cost of treatment and the economic losses as infected people stop work, the disease is estimated to cost about $6 billion a year. This is a worldwide problem and, as global warming increases, the temperature in previously temperate parts of the world, now encourages the spread of mosquitos.

Over the last 20 years, the World Health Organization has been pushing the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, but this has produced few good results. The one high point has been the distribution of nets treated with insecticide. Hung over beds, these keep people safe while sleeping. Sadly, these are routinely taxed in African countries and are priced out of the reach of the poor who are most at risk. Most efforts to persuade countries to use the modern drugs have failed. Even though many strains of the disease are now resistant to the older drugs, local prejudices favor the continued use of the long-trusted medications. This is increasing the death rates.

So what is malaria? The name itself means “bad air”. People associated the disease with the miasma, the bad-smelling mist that hangs over swamps and stagnant pools at night. It came as a surprise when doctors discovered the mosquito was responsible. The bite of a pregnant female between dusk and dawn is the means of transmission. With this news, there was a real effort to kill off the mosquito and human deaths were reduced by 90%. But, since the 1960s, the disease has been spreading. Today, 40% of the world’s population is at risk. As a tourist, the odds now favor you traveling to an infected area.

One of the best preventative measures is to start taking Doxycycline before you travel. None of the repellents is 100% effective. You reduce the risk by wearing long-sleeved shirts and blouses, trousers, socks and shoes. It may be hot, but this is better than being bitten. Sleep under a net or with a fan to keep the air moving. There is, however, one problem with Doxycycline. It makes you more photosensitive. Make sure you stay covered up and wear a hat. Sunscreen will keep the sunburn to a minimum. If you feel ill, and develop a temperature and a headache, get emergency treatment. Doxycycline is good, but it’s not 100% effective. The only sure way of avoiding malaria is to avoid being bitten. For some, the sensible decision may be to find a safer place for the holiday. If you have no choice because work or some other commitment takes you to an at-risk area, take drugs before, during and after your visit. The symptoms may not appear for weeks or months after your return. If you fall ill back home, always tell your local doctor if you have been to an infected area.

One of the big problems in life is knowing how real a threat is. Newspapers take seriously the idea that only bad news sells. No one wants to read about how little Jimmy was kind to his pet giraffe (although many would be curious to know how he came to have a giraffe as a pet). But put up a headline about a disaster and copies fly off the newsstand. So it’s not unusual to see warnings. Scientists have detected a new strain of a killer disease that’s going to sweep the world. You are advised to stay indoors, wash your hands frequently and call a doctor if you develop a rash. After a while, these warnings start to lose their edge. You’ve lived through previous scares. You don’t know anyone who fell ill. Why should you care about the latest headlines? It’s the old “cry wolf” thing and unless people actually see the sky falling, Chicken Little stories will be ignored.

So, all you gardeners and campers, how do you feel about those warnings about Lyme disease? Recently, experts have been out in the field (and gardens) counting the ticks. It seems there’s a lot more of them this year. Worse, when they first started counting these pesky little things, they all hibernated or went south for the winter. Now they stay frisky on all but the coldest of days. This means the threat is with us more or less all the time except when there’s snow on the ground. Hardly the most reassuring piece of information.

But what is the risk? Sorry, but we need a little biology here. Lyme disease is a bacterial infection and you get it when a tick decides it prefers you to its usual lunch date. As this parasite digs into you and starts sucking out your blood, it also offers thanks in the form of this bacteria. The risk of transmission is small if this is a quick lunch. But if you catch the attention of a nymph, a very young and hard-to-see tick, it may literally hang around you for a day and more. The longer it stays, the greater the risk you will be infected. When this form of transmission was first discovered, science blamed deer ticks. But continuing research has confirmed that ticks can pick up this bacteria from a range of small mammals and some lizards. Taking action to keep deer away from your area is not going to keep you safe. Even mice can be carriers.

The good news is that Doxycycline is a sure remedy. That said, there are a number of other things to say. The sooner you take the Doxycycline in the cycle of infection the better. This can be a little difficult to manage. Not everyone shows the classic flu symptoms early. Even when you have a confirmed diagnosis, buying online adds another couple of days before you can start the treatment. This is not desirable. You want the Doxycycline inside you as soon as possible. This leaves you with the decision whether to lay in a supply of the drug against the possibility. If there is a known problem in your area, this can be safety first. It cannot prevent you from infection, but it’s ready the moment you feel the first symptoms.

As a title to an article, this may not look very exciting, but there’s a real problem to talk about. We need to start with the latest profit figures announced by the three pharmaceutical companies that manufacture erectile dysfunction drugs. They have all announced big increases in profits. We live in a capitalist society so the mere fact of profits is not unusual. But we are not talking about a few million dollars. We are talking about hundreds of millions. Now this is not money somehow plucked out of the air. All this money has come from you, the paying customers. This may be direct. You went to your doctor, got a prescription and paid the retail price to your neighborhood drugstore. Or indirect because you carry some form of health insurance and the plan paid for the drugs. Except, of course, you pay for the plan through premiums or accept the benefit of the plan as part of your remuneration at work. However you look at it, you pay for those drugs. So why worry?

One of the pressures that comes from the current recession is the need to save money wherever possible. In the case of must-have drugs, the easiest way to save money is to buy online. There are no accurate figures available, but there’s little doubt the number of erectile dysfunction drugs sold through the internet has been rising steadily over the last two years. Yet at a time when we are seeing more money spent on advertising these drugs on television and in the media generally, the US profits are rising. Remember, the US manufacturers do not supply the online pharmacies. They all buy from offshore manufacturers who charge rather less for the drugs. So the US manufacturers are making more money from a decreasing number of men?

This is where we get into unknown territory. There’s no accurate count of the number of men who suffer erectile dysfunction. It’s just too embarrassing a problem for many and they will avoid admitting it to a doctor who might write it into their medical records. It’s possible more men are now prepared to visit with their doctors, but the more likely explanation is cost-cutting by the manufacturers and quiet price increases. The remaining question is whether extracting more money from fewer men would be a bad thing.

Levitra has consistently been found the most powerful of the three erectile dysfunction drugs. When the other two give up, the third will give you some response. In older men, this is particularly important. We now live in a culture when our seniors expect to be able to stay sexually active for longer. Yet the medical evidence shows an increasing number of men lose sexual power as they age. All three drugs maintain sexual activity but the power of Levitra is demonstrated in the clinical trials dealing with the consequences of surgery for prostate cancer. This is an older man’s problem and this drug routinely restores sexual activity even though the surgery may have been quite radical. In such cases, you cannot put a value on a drug. You just pay to restore the activity.

Here’s a question for you. Before painkillers became so freely available and the price fell, what did people do? Did they roll around on the ground all the time, moaning that the pain was just too much? Or did they do their best to get on with life? Well, the whole point of movements like Christian Science was that, through prayer, you can promote physical healing. Indeed, the commonly held belief was that falling ill was a result of sin so, by repenting and healing the sin, you could also heal the body. In a culture where medical science was in its infancy, deciding to avoid drugs was an entirely rational decision since so many of them were actually or potentially dangerous and/or addictive. Today, we have a curious reversal. Despite the fact we are probably the most religious country on the planet, we now devalue prayer in favor of drugs. This is a remarkable victory for the marketers whose job it is to promote the pharmaceutical industry. The question remains how many people feel too much pain and therefore feel obliged to take strong painkillers. The answer has recently been supplied by researchers at BostonUniversity.

They undertook a random telephone survey of some 19,000 adults. This is a statistically significant number of people and it’s reasonably safe to generalize from this sample to the population of the US. Allowing for some of those answering the questions with less than perfect honesty, it seems that slightly more than 4 million take a strong opioid painkiller on a regular basis. Adding in the national count of prescriptions issued, we can say with some confidence that about 10 million are likely to take a strong painkiller in any given week. For this to make any medical sense, a vast number of people must believe they are suffering moderate to severe pain. Except the more likely explanation is that people have convinced themselves that strong drugs are like aspirin. The argument usually runs along the lines that the FDA have declared the drugs safe so, even if using this drug is an overreaction, it’s nevertheless safe. This is a bad way of justifying abuse. Worse, the use of the official prescription count to give credibility to the numbers is an underestimate. With the common use of online pharmacies, millions of people now buy their painkillers without a prescription.

In the survey people were asked to list the diseases and disorders they treated with drugs like Tramadol HCL. Most suggested headaches, back pain, and so on. About 5% admitted using painkillers for anxiety and depressive disorders. Alternatively, about 30% took painkillers and antidepressants together. The definition of pain is getting more flexible. At this point, we need a word of clarification. Many drug combinations are entirely safe but, with an increasing number of people taking drugs without medical advice, the risk of adverse effects is growing. Modern pain management strategies are highly effective without the routine need for painkillers. You can still buy Tramadol online, but you should keep it for the times when the pain is genuinely severe.