UND-Pilsa Blog

Yaz is different. That is what we are told that by the developers of this best-selling birth control pill. The reason Yasmin is so unusual is that it combines the two hormones estrogen and progestin. Estrogen is the essential factor of almost all contraceptive pills presently on the market. It is the progestin component of Yaz that has a potassium sparing diuretic issue in a number of patients that leads to Yaz side effects. Elevated potassium levels can lead to the fatal side effects.

According to the FDA, Yasmin should only state what has been passed by the FDA as part of the advertisement effects, which does not appear to be the situation. Yasmin is a drug that precludes pregnancies, however, it was authorized for the market to help problems with PMDD, or Premenstrual dysphoric disorder as well as moderate to sever acne. Having said this, the most life-threatening side effects were left out and you are driven to search for the side effects on your own.

Due to the high occurrence of many Yaz side effects, it is fundamental to know what do if you are experiencing them. The absolute first step is to consult your physician and if necessary to receive a second opinion. Most doctors who have the correct histogram on their patients will be able to decide if a particular drug would not be advocated. If your physician should confirm that your symptoms are indeed caused by Yaz then you should immediately stop taking your birth control pill and consult with an attorney.

Comments Off

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a unusual and fast moving tumor for which no successful remedy exists even with the breakthrough of several likely genetic targets. The late stages of MPM diagnosis and the long time that between some exposures and diagnosis have made it hard to fully study the importance of risk factors and the insuing molecular effects.

Quite a few medical centers are witnessing increasing numbers of patients that are suffering from peritoneal mesothelioma. This gives pathologists diagnosing the patient many problems, that are divided into those discovered in making the distinction between mesothelioma and benign changes and those seen in separating cancer of the mesothelium from additional sorts of epithelial and connective tissue tumours. Immunohistochemistry is a major factor in diagnosis, but it should be understood with due regard to the experimental setting and radiological features, and understanding the broad morphological variations that exist in malignant mesothelioma.

Malignant mesothelioma is a cancer affecting the serosal cavities, an anatomic area that is also frequently affected by metastasis, mostly from primary carcinomas of the ovary, lung and breast. Advances in IHC have lead to improved diagnostic sensitivity and mesothelioma regarding cytological and histological material. Recently, the authors group applied increased levels of throughput technology to the classification of new signs that may aid in telling the difference between malignant mesothelioma from ovarian and peritoneal cancer, tumors cells that contain closely related histogenesis and antigenic profile. Along with the improved tools obtainable for cancer of the serosa diagnosis, understanding the biology of mesothelioma has been accumulating lately.

Comments Off

After successfully being passed through the Senate, and the House of Representatives, Congress has now forwarded the Gun Liability Bill to President Bush for his signature. There is no doubt that President Bush will endorse this bill, which gives limited protection to firearms dealers and manufacturers from liability lawsuits.

This will not protect gun dealers, who are negligent in background checks, or who knowingly pass guns to criminals. Whatever your opinion of the second amendment, this seems to be common sense at a time when the U.S. legal system is backlogged with ludicrous liability suits.

If you are sick and tired of foolish lawsuits, the gun lobby, Pentagon, and the National Rifle Association, have finally demonstrated how to stop them in their tracks. You need friends in high places, a highly skilled lobby, and a letter from the Pentagon will be a big help too!

Lately, the U.S. fast food industry has been under legal scrutiny for contributing to obesity. Don’t people have any willpower? Everyone knows fast food should be a rare treat, and some of us should stay away all together. It’s a freedom of choice. You have the right to drive by the drive-thru and make a meal at home.

Movies such as, “Super Size Me,” serve to educate the public and actually made McDonald’s take a second look at their menu. This is a good thing, but foolish liability lawsuits serve to cripple our court system and strain small businesses’ pocketbooks.

Pay attention McDonald’s: You need to land a lot of defense contracts to have “Big Brother” in your corner. However, McDonald’s might be able to improve the taste of rations.

It’s too late for the cigarette industry to recover from their losses. However, was it morally right for them to be exposed to an onslaught of liability suits? I am not in support of smoking, tobacco consumption, or the cigarette industry’s sales tactics; but again, this is a matter of choice, and no one forces you to smoke cigarettes. The price of cigarettes alone should be enough to scare you off.

Something is wrong with a legal system that allows the public to pass responsibility onto others. People have to claim responsibility for their own mistakes and quit “passing the buck.”

This might hurt the legal industry a little, but the present system is breaking the back of U.S. citizens, small businesses, and some of the larger industries, as well.

Paul Jerard is a co-owner and the director of Yoga teacher training at: Aura Wellness Center, in North Providence, RI. He has been a certified Master Yoga teacher since 1995. He is a master instructor of martial arts, with multiple Black Belts, four martial arts teaching credentials, and was recently inducted into the USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame. He teaches Yoga, martial arts, and fitness to children, adults, and seniors in the greater Providence area. Recently he wrote: Is Running a Yoga Business Right for You? For Yoga students, who may be considering a new career as a Yoga teacher. http://www.yoga-teacher-training.org/index.html

Comments Off

History’s great promoters of “democracy”, whether they be Ancient Greek philosophers, American or French Revolutionaries, Communists, or English Parliamentarians, have in every case meant that “everybody” in a society should be able to take part in decision-making of the body politic. But how far has this ideal been realised? And is it time that we can take it further?

In none of the cases cited above were their “democratic” methods completely or truly inclusive: “everybody” variably excluded women, people of other races or ethnicities, people below a minimum threshold age, people without property, etc. In the course of the twentieth century, the right to vote in elections for “representational democracy” was broadened, though those who fell foul of the Law, or the diagnoses of psychiatric medicine, were still usually excluded.

“Democracy”, as it is claimed in modern nation states, generally refers to what can be categorised more specifically as “representational democracy” - i.e. where instead of a political decision being made directly by the masses, it is made by a group of regionally elected representatives, who make decisions “on behalf” of the masses for the duration of a fixed term. Take note that, once these elected representatives are comfortably seated in the decision-making room, they can basically do whatever they want. Though they may try to make decisions that will win public approval in the lead-up to the next election, the fact remains that they can make whatever decision seems best (or most advantageous) to them at the time; and it is clear enough, in any case, that elections for democratic representatives are mostly decided based on haircuts (see last American presidential election) and media manipulation (see any Australian federal election).

Until recently, there existed a strong argument in favour of representational democracy: that for a society of millions, direct popular decision-making would be unworkably impractical. But does this argument still hold? Has the internet altered our political potential as a society?

…

Let’s say you are a nation of some twenty million inhabitants, and you want to decide how to divide up the resources budgeted for education. You could hardly gather the population in a room and ask for a show of hands. You could ask them to make marks on pieces of paper, then collect and count the tally; but this too would be impractical if required for every decision. However, the world-wide network of computers linked by telephone cables provides us with a vastly more efficient system of communication.

Obviously, if internet connections were used to enable popular participation in political decision-making, it would still be very difficult to enforce compulsory voting by the entire adult population. But perhaps voluntary, total plebiscites could be efficiently and quickly conducted, so that a genuinely popular decision could be made on whether a new governmental Bill should be passed or not. Perhaps democratic representatives could still sit in parliament, but only to argue points of view, and without any exclusive voting rights. If this were the case, they might even begin to argue issues intelligently - which they clearly don’t feel the need to do at the moment. The Australian parliamentary television program Question Time shows very bored-looking, mostly oldish, mostly men, sitting half-asleep and jeering at each other. Is this really still the best method we have, as a society, of deciding our collective future?

Of course, if the internet were to be used for popular voting on political decisions, access to internet connections would need to be available to all. And data security would need to be both solid and agile; hackers would potentially mount “hacking wars” on the electoral system. If nothing else, this could make a good premise for a science-fiction film. But perhaps internet democracy still is nothing more than “speculative fiction” - for I am sceptical that our current elected representatives would lend much support to this idea. After all, history has rarely seen political power and exclusivity being relinquished willingly.

Tony Macaroni is a freelance writer and thinker.
http://www.totalcardboard.com

Comments Off

I’m starting to feel squeezed by all the political correctness being imposed on us by both the Left and the Right. Both sides are constantly trying to infringe on our freedoms by telling us what we can and cannot say or do. I’m getting sick and tired of it. Below are just a few examples of what they are trying to impose on us.

The Left tells us:

(1) Being simply tolerant of all kinds if sexual variants like homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, and the trans-gendered is not good enough. We must accept their lifestyles as natural and normal. We must never, of course, say anything negative about the practitioners of those lifestyles. Ideally, we should worship the ground they walk on like the Hollywood crowd does.

My take: I’m all for tolerance and I’m basically a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but this is over the top. Tolerance, yes; forced acceptance, no.

(2) Women are equal to men in every way (except those ways in which women are better or do not choose to be equal). They must be given every opportunity men are given, but must not be held to the same physical or emotional standards. In addition, women are considered minorities (even though there are more of them than there are men), so they must be given special preferences and opportunities that are not afforded to men. Violence to women is always unacceptable but men often deserve it. Any depiction of violence to women is no laughing matter and must be abolished, but depictions of violence to men are usually quite funny. Anything that can be perceived as degrading to women is horrible but most men deserve a little degradation at times.

My take: Any woman should be given the opportunity to prove that she can do any given job as well as a man could do. If she can, then she should be given equal access to that job and paid whatever a man would be paid. However, if she can’t, then she shouldn’t complain about the lack of access to the job or unequal pay. It is every woman’s right to determine whether or not she wants to be treated differently because of her gender. However, no woman has a right to have it both ways. Either she wants to be treated differently from a man or she doesn’t. Also, violence to either sex, except to defend oneself or someone from imminent physical harm, is totally unacceptable.

(3) All races and ethnic groups are equal, but those who are considered to be minorities must be given special preferences in order to succeed. More specifically, African-Americans must be given preferential treatment to offset the way white males treated them during the 18th and 19th centuries. All of the problems that exist in the African-American community can be traced back either to the direct actions or indifference of white males.

My take: I totally agree with the premise that all races and ethnic groups are equal. I’ve always endorsed the “color blind society” school of thought, with no special preferences for anyone. I think we would all do well to quit identifying ourselves and one another by racial and ethnic categories.

(4) Trees, land, and animals are all more important than making life better for humans. You cannot develop life-saving or life-enhancing drugs if some small animal will be hurt in the process. You cannot build what you want nor can you do what you want on your own land if it requires cutting down some trees or forcing some animals to go elsewhere. You cannot cut down trees to develop land and/or build new homes. You cannot drill for oil if it will ruin the pristine nature of any piece of land or interfere with any animal’s habitat. Besides, you’re supposed to drive small, cramped economy cars to conserve the oil supply. You’re also supposed to carpool and/or use public transportation, even if it’s not convenient.

My take: Any person or organization should have a right to do what they want with their own property, as long as no human being is directly harmed.

The Right tells us:

(1) The actions of a conservative Republican president should never be questioned but it is quite okay and even encouraged to bash a liberal Democrat president for every little peccadillo.

My take: This is complete hypocrisy.

(2) When the President decides to take the country to war (or is even contemplating it), criticizing or protesting that decision is un-American, unpatriotic, and even borders on treasonous. This kind of stuff gives aid and comfort to the enemy and there should be certain consequences for those who do this. You should follow the President in mindless lock-step when he decides to go to war. Whether or not that decision makes any sense to you is irrelevant.

My take: One of our most valued rights as U.S. citizens is to protest anything that the government does that we don’t agree with, including making war.

(3) The Second Amendment is absolute and cannot be infringed upon but more limits need to be placed on the First Amendment. All the sex, violence, and vulgarity on TV, in the movies, and in video games are not doing anyone any good and must be curbed substantially either through boycotts, intimidation, and/or government intervention. Not only must children be protected from this filth, but adults need to be as well. After all, this kind of stuff causes people to commit crimes such as murder and rape.

My take: The people who spend so much time worrying about what someone else is watching, hearing, or reading would be better served to just turn off and/or avoid the stuff the they claim offends them and endangers their children. If they did, a lot of it would disappear for lack of a market/audience. Parents are ultimately responsible for monitoring their children’s reading, listening, and viewing habits. It is not my responsibility and it’s not the government’s responsibility. In fact, when the government gets involved, it is nothing less than censorship. Also, there is not any credible evidence that sex and violence in the media causes people to commit crimes. Even if there was, the principle of personal responsibility dictates that those crimes should not be pinned on anyone or anything other than the criminals themselves.

(4) Laws should be written with a bias toward “family values”, even if these laws cause single people with no children to feel like second class citizens. For example, tax laws, drug laws, zoning laws, etc. should be geared toward the benefit of traditional family units. Also, there are certain actions that should be illegal, even if they appear on the surface to be victimless crimes. The real victim of these actions is the traditional family unit and it must be protected in order to maintain a free and prosperous society.

My take: The “equal protection under law” provision of our Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally. Any bias toward traditional family units is not only a violation of the Constitution but also stems from a misapplication of biblical teachings (which know nothing of the of the kind of “family values” being pushed on everyone by the Right). In addition, no action that is without a clear and direct victim should be illegal. The fact that it might be vile and repulsive is not alone enough to justify making it illegal. Any evidence of the effect of victimless crimes on the traditional family is only anecdotal at best.

That’s just a small sampling from both sides but you get the picture. We will have true liberty in this country only when no one is allowed to impose his or her will on anyone else and everyone can be free to speak his or her mind without the fear of retaliation or censorship. Political correctness on both ends of the political spectrum is the one thing that’s standing in the way of this lofty goal.

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

Comments Off

Is Starbucks a monopoly? It fits all the definitions. Does this mean the FTC will make them break it up like AT&T? Or is the Federal Trade Commission too chicken after losing the case with Microsoft? The FTC knew better than to go after Microsoft, after all they did nothing wrong except adding features to their operating system and programs. Is the FTC not attacking the Starbucks because all of its employees go to the one across the street in Washington, D.C..

It appears that the FTC is afraid of laying it on the line for predatory pricing after creating the Starbuck’s monopoly. The FTC has made it tough on franchises, which are new to enter the market to company with all the disclosure law to give Starbucks a run for their money. So essentially the FTC helped Starbucks become a monopoly in the first place, now they are afraid to look like the truly cheesy agency that they are in all their puffery.

How can we trust an agency of the US Government, which is so submersed in bureaucracy to be in-charge of anti-trust laws? Since Starbucks has bought up all the coffee fields in the world they have risen the cost of coffee world wide, this makes it very tough for other coffee companies to make a profit. Starbucks fits the perfect Monopoly Scenario, but the FTC will not do anything about it, because their attorneys are weak, wet behind the ears and they know Starbucks would kick their ass in a court of law. Our government, which is afraid to take on a real case cannot and will not enforce their own laws. Maybe they are seeing the error of their ways in the Anti-Trust Laws. Unfortunately the FTC is equally afraid to admit the mistake of the Anti-Trust Laws. May I ask why we need the anti-trust laws in the first place and once we get rid of that joke of regulations in the World’s greatest nation; can we please get rid of this worthless agency? What a complete waste of taxpayers money? Why not go to “FourBucks” and think on it?

“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

Comments Off

Although charged with the security of national borders by the “supreme” law of the land, Congress has pursued open door policies over the past century or longer. When lawmakers subvert the law they create, by deliberate non enforcement, they surrender all legal and moral authority to compel you and me to uphold their never ending laws. They encourage and allow the continuous daily invasion of this nation by those who understand American law amounts to window dressing. Now we are faced with a situation where Congressional criminals demand that citizens make life difficult for the guests they invite and encourage. If an employer of undocumented workers cannot win this case in court, it can only be the courts are as criminal as Congress itself. Do as we say, not as we do.

Illegal immigration is nearly as good for business as war. If we could choose one or the other, I would prefer the immigration. But this is America so we do both. If we could only admit whatever is good for business is good for everyone, we could end all the hypocrisy. We could all admit we serve money while pretending to serve God and humanity. We could all work for a dollar per day and fairly compete with workers all over the world. Of course, professionals and politicians would receive ten dollars per day to encourage sixteen or twenty years of education and indoctrination, just as we do now.

Let’s end the hypocrisy. Let’s throw the national doors open to any who want to live and work here. Let us make citizens of all who desire citizenship. However, if the hypocrisy is more profitable to business than an official open door policy, give us more. When corrupt and criminal government fails, as it always does, the undocumented worker will teach us how to feed ourselves and prosper in the cash economy. I swear there is an up side to every stupid rule. We only need patience to see and apply it. The region where I live is literally and figuratively hot. Migrants are filling the land from the North and the South. No matter what happens in Detroit or New York, boom times are here to stay in my neighborhood.

On 4 May, 2005, John Kyl, U.S. Congressman, appeared on public television telling Arizonans the important thing to remember about border security is; it is possible - which is to say, it remains possible for Congress to obey the law. The comfort I took from his message lasted only until I realized this law would be obeyed by Congress only at the expense of many long political careers no Congress people intend to sacrifice. After all, it is also possible to prevent people from flying airplanes into buildings. Possibility offers small comfort in the face of status quo. So long as people accept the politics of hypocrisy as normal, possibilities are irrelevant.

About the Author

Freelance writer published in newspapers and many websites.

Comments Off