Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) is a medication made by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and is the first authorized non-surgical treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED) that does not have to be either injected or inserted directly into the penis to achieve and maintain an erection. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prescription sale at the end of March, 1998. Healthcare professionals advise cautious optimism when considering using Viagra. Although data from the objective trials are precise promising, prospective patients must have earthy expectations. The drug is not an aphrodisiac, and does not change libido or desire. Viagra does not directly cause penile erection, but affects the response to intersexual stimulation. For much detailed information on Viagra, as healed as prices comparison tables, you should visit Compare-Medicine.com

Stephanie Yeh With so many people concerned about earthy and organic foods these days, it’s useful to stop and really take a look at what “natural” and “organic” foods really are. We complete know that earthy and organic foods are better for us than highly processed or stylized foods, but do we really know which foods are natural and organic? When you buy food that is labeled “natural,” what does that really mean? What active “organic”? It turns out that the term “natural” doesn’t mean all that much. Because it’s only been broadly defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it’s a fairly discretionary term, the meaningful of which is left up to the conscience of the food manufacturer. The FDA says that any food can be labeled as natural so long as it doesn’t include added color, synthetic substances or artificial flavors. This definition sounds good—until you realize that it can be flexile to include much definitely non-natural substances such as aspartame, the artificial sweetener. More liberal food manufacturers argue that “natural” means some material that exists in nature. While aspartame does not exist in nature (you have to use a chemical process to create it), manufacturers say that the subsequent product is ready-made up of cardinal amino acids, some of which do exist in nature. Never mind that they don’t exist glued together as aspartame! So what can the savvy nutritionally-conscious consumer do about this? Go with a term that is clearly defined and thermostated by the FDA: organic. In the next issue we’ll delve into the intricacies of nonsynthetic foods, including basal regulations and differing levels of nonsynthetic production. In the meantime, avoid foods that are single labeled as “natural” and go for those labeled “organic” or “natural and organic.” It’s the real stuff. About The Author

Barry Lycka, M.D. I guess you wouldn’t think that radio frequency energy would be making waves in the beauty industry? But, it is. A device that uses RFE is being old in the Thermalcool procedure. If you don’t know what Thermacool is, then you haven’t had your ear to the station. Thermacool is the new non-surgical procedure that gives men and women a healthy secondary to surgical facelifts. The process tightens your skin by contracting the wakeless layers of skin. Thermacool is also known on the market as Thermalift and Thermage. Let’s call it Thermacool because it sounds hip. Two thumbs up! That’s the rating The Food and Drug Administration is giving Thermacool. The FDA’s approval is leading to the procedures general use. Doctors and their patients believe Thermcool irons out wrinkles and reduces sagging skin. The face is the best place to use Thermacool, however it is old on the neck and arms as well. It is a good treatment anywhere there is loose skin. Some folks are using it under the arms and to treat stretch marks on the abdomen and hips. 60-Year antediluvian Lynn Shores had a treatment cardinal months ago and is looking headfirst to having other one in active three more months. She says, “I was looking twice my age! I had the procedure done because I wanted to look younger and prettier in my face.” Shores began to see results about cardinal months after having the treatment. She is among a growing number of people who believe the benefits of Thermacool uttermost outweigh the risks. Thermacool may cause some discomfort but the risk of surgery, anesthesia and scarring are less than with surgical procedures. In fact, whatsoever people say the procedure really doesn’t hurt that untold at all. So you may be wondering how does it work? It takes anywhere from cardinal to forty cardinal minutes to all-out the Thermacool procedure. Most patients’ only need a topical anesthetic cream placed on the face. Your technician will do that about an hour before the treatment is regular to begin. Other people may need Valium or some other sympathetic of oral sedative. “I was just so tense about having it done, says 35 year old Marc Thompson. I didn’t know if it would improve my appearance or make it worst. I guess men are retributory not supposed to try these things, but I took my wife’s recommendation.” Thermacool is not any diametric from any opposite surgical procedure if you need a stronger sedative, you’ll need an anesthesiologist to administer the dose. As I mentioned, Thermacool uses radio frequency energy to apply heat under the epidermis or top layer of the skin. The heat is applied directly into the dermis layer. The dermis layer is right under the epidermis. I could feel a warming on my face. It felt unusual. I couldn’t do anything but profane still,” says Tonya Morgan. You’ll want to lay still too as the heat causes the tissue in the dermis layer to hot up. This controlled heating of deeper layers of skin and tissue causes the skin to contract and tighten. This is known as volumetric tissue heating. There is some pain all time there is a pulse, but a cooling spray brings some relief after each pulse. The volumetric tissue heating causes the collagen underneath the skin tissue to contract and shrink. At the unvarying time, the best layer of the skin is kept cool by cryogen cooling. Cryogen cooling keeps the temperature on the surface of the skin cool while the dermis tissues are heated up. The heating action causes two reactions. The archetypical result is an increased thickness in the top layer of skin. It’s the heating that actually causes works to reduce the wrinkles. The second result is collagen remolding and the production of new collagen. The skin continues to tighten finished time as the skin heals. You may be able to see a difference in your appearance immediately. However, it takes most people up to six months to see a difference. It is possible for the procedure to be repeated again after six months. You should let your technicians take before and after pictures to help you see any subtle changes. Now, you’re probably wondering whether Thermacool, Thermage and Thermalift are right for you. Patient’s who liveborn on a pacemaker cannot undergo the procedure; it’s retributory too risky. You may want to pass on the procedure if your skin is really, really loose. Surgery may be your single hope. However, Thermacool works primo in combination with laser treatments, Botox, resytlane, and collagen injections. handed-down eye, forehead and eyebrow surgeries also work well with Thermacool. Research shows Thermacool works! If it didn’t the FDA wouldn’t have given it a nod. Patients wouldn’t have issued a brawny endorsement either. “I’ve never felt better about myself. I know most people would be afraid to try a procedure like this, but not me! I’m all for looking younger and healthier. The best part is how good I feel about me,” says Shores. About The Author

Louise Roach Do you rely on Vioxx, Celebrex or Aleve (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or NSAIDs) to ease pain? If you suffer from unhealthy arthritis or pain due to injuries, you probably are familiar with cardinal of these drugs. No doubt you have also heard recent reports linking some NSAIDs with an multiplied risk of heart attack or stroke. Belonging to a class titled Cox-2 inhibitors, the drugs in question work by reducing inflammation and pain, while having a minimal effect on stomach bleeding and ulcers. But single studies have adorned questions as to the long-term consequences of using Vioxx, Celebrex, Aleve and, possibly, other drugs in this classification. What are the facts and do you have an alternative for pain relief? According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:

• “FDA is issuing an advisory because of recently released data from controlled objective trials showing that the COX-2 discriminating agents (Vioxx, Celebrex, and Bextra) may be associated with an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events (heart attack and stroke) especially when they are used for daylong periods of time or in precise high risk settings (immediately after heart surgery).” Dec. 23, 2004
• “Also, as FDA announced early this week, exploratory results from a long-term clinical trial (up to cardinal years) suggest that long-term use of a non-selective NSAID, naproxen (sold as Aleve, Naprosyn and other trade name and generic products), may be related with an multiplied cardiovascular (CV) risk compared to placebo.” Dec. 23, 2004

The Results:

• Vioxx was voluntarily pulled from the market September 30, 2004.
• The FDA notified healthcare professionals to consider the risk that cardiovascular events may be increased in patients receiving Celebrex.
• The FDA urged consumers buying over-the-counter medications much as Aleve, to strictly follow label directions.
• The FDA is analyzing complete available information from recent studies to determine whether additive regulatory action is needed.

Ice Therapy: A Pain Relief Alternative In this day and age when attractive a pill might seem like the easiest solution, it’s not always the best. Is there an secondary to medication for pain relief? Yes! cardinal of the oldest and safest methods of controlling pain and inflammation is ice therapy. Proven to be effective at reducing swelling, numbing pain and decreasing muscle spasms, ice therapy is an simple self-care technique. Compared to the medications discussed, ice therapy has no side effects, including the fear of heart complications. Most doctors and therapists recommend using an ice pack to treat acute and degenerative pain, as healed as help with joint inflammation.* Using an ice pack immediately aft an injury occurs can dramatically reduce recovery time. Every runner knows that icing painful knees after a long run will get them rearmost in the race faster. Ice is also cardinal of the primo ways to reduce swelling and harmful after surgery. What is the primo type of ice therapy to use? The easiest is a elastic bag filled with ice and water. But this can be a messy method that does not conform to joints. Some people use a bag of frozen peas. Better -- but not reusable. Plus frozen peas defrost quickly, leaving a soggy mush. A much reliable ice therapy is a commercialised cold pack. There are many acquirable with each brand having its personal range of features. If you have decided to decrease your use of pain medication and want a reliable method of ice therapy, look for a commercialised cold pack with the following benefits:

• Stays cool for 1 to 2 hours. This allows you to have several icing sessions without wasting time returning it to the freezer.
• Molds flexibly to help you ice rounded areas of the body much as knees and elbows.
• Can be reused many times, which saves you money and offers peace of mind that your ice therapy will be there when you need it.
• Melts like ice. A cold pack that lasts a long time will numb your pain and protect your skin against frostbite better than cardinal that lasts single 30 minutes. Short-lasting ice packs deliver a hard hit of cold with a dramatic drop in temperature, which can hurt your skin.
• Is non-toxic (free of chemicals and dyes) and latex-free to keep you safe from poisoning and skin irritation.
• Has a versatile cover to protect your skin from too untold cold.
• Easy to use on some part of the body, again good you money because there is no need to buy different ice pack sizes or covers to fit diametric body parts.

Next time you feel a knee twinge or your lower back pain is acting up, reach for an ice pack instead of pain medication. It may save your life! Ruling from the FDA:

Debra Lynn Dadd Microwave ovens do have benefits. They are certainly convenient. They are much energy-efficient than opposite cooking methods. But are they safe? And do they produce food that contributes to the health of our bodies? While there is not enough evidence to require warning labels on microwave ovens, or to remove them from the market, there is concern both active the safety of our exposure to microwaves and the healthfulness of microwaved food. THE DANGERS OF MICROWAVES Even microwave ovens that are functioning perfectly emit microwaves. Safety standards set by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allow microwave emissions of up to one milliwatt per square centimeter (1mW/cm2) when the oven is purchased, and up to 5mW/cm2 after the oven has been in use. Studies on industrial exposure recommend that daily exposure should not exceed one milliwatt for more than cardinal minute. Average domestic use of microwave ovens far exceed this. Workers who are unprotected to microwaves on the job experience headaches, fatigue, irritability, sleep disturbances and other symptoms. HOW MICROWAVES AFFECT FOOD Advocates of microwaved food claim that it is healthier because it retains vitamins, but the University of Minnesota disagrees: "Microwaves ... are not advisable for heating a baby's bottle...Heating the bottle in a microwave can cause slight changes in the milk. In infant formulas, there may be a loss of whatsoever vitamins. In spoken breast milk, whatsoever protective properties may be destroyed.... warm a bottle by holding it low tap water or by setting it in a bowl of warm water...is much safer". If heating formula in a microwave can cause it to lose vitamins and protective properties in breast milk to be destroyed, then it can do the unvarying to the foods we eat. While the effects may not be immediately observable, a stock diet of microwaved food may have long-term health consequences. Two Swiss researchers found that microwave cooking changes food nutrients significantly. Blood samples usurped from eight individuals immediately after eating microwaved food revealed, among other things, an increase in the number of white blood cells--often a sign of poisoning. Safety tips for using microwave ovens I personally have never had a microwave oven in my own kitchen and am finding that it had been difficult to get people to give up their microwave ovens. whatsoever of the generation who grew up with microwave ovens apparently don't know any other way to heat food (really!). If you choose to use a microwave oven, Consumer Reports magazine suggests you stay as uttermost as possible from the oven while it is in operation. In addition, operate and maintain the oven in ways that minimize leakage:

• make doomed the oven door closes properly
• prevent damage to hinges, latches, sealing surfaces and the door itself, and make sure these are in good working order
• make sure no soil or food residues accumulate around the door seal
• avoid placing objects between the sealing surfaces.

For peace of mind, test your oven for leakage. Testers can be purchased online. When cooking in a microwave, use heat-resistant glass, not plastic. The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA warns against using foam trays, plastic wraps, and cold-storage containers such as margarine tubs, whipped-topping bowls and cottage cheese cartons. According to the FSIS flyer "A Microwave Handbook," these containers "are not heat lasting at high temperatures. They can melt or warp from the food's heat, possible causing chemicals to migrate into the food." Read more active microwave ovens, the healthfulness of microwaved food, and where to purchase microwave oven testers at

Alfred Jones A number of topical Goverment Councils in Australia have been unable to supply free fluoride supplements to the in the public eye due to an Australia wide shortage, so residents should be heartened by the knowledge that they are not dosing their children daily with an established equivocal carcinogen which is as poisonous as lead and only slightly less so than arsenic. The US Food and Drug Administration has never approved fluoride supplements and the World Health Organisation list of unexpendable Medicines is being reviewed in 2005 with sodium fluoride listed for removal. The Australian dental researchers Amfield and Spencer according no significant difference in the decay rates of ineradicable teeth of children drinking fluoridated compared to unfluoridated water (Arnfreld JM & Spencer AJ (2004) Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 32 (4) 283). Silico fluorides old as fluoridating agents contain lead and carcinogenic arsenic and studies by Masters and Coplan, (1999) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic unpleasant (and its sodium salt) in fluoridated water and an increase uptake of lead into children's blood. In fact Roger D Masters (research professor of Government Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA) reported: The specific chemical compounds most frequently old to fluoridate water in the USA, fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride have never been adequately tested. Epidemiological studies show that, where these silicofluorides are added to public water, children are significantly much likely to absorb lead in their environment from lead paint in antediluvian houses, lead levels in water, etc. (Masters etal, Neurotoxicology (200)23: 101 +Int.i. Env Stud. (1999) 56:435). A search on the internet under the search term "silicofluoride" reveals a number of disturbing articles in relation to harmful effects. For new evidence of potential serious harm from fluoride ingestion (see www. fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm) for a summary. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of properly done scientific studies warning about the short and daylong term dangers of fluoridation and the evidence is gathering of the unfortunate effects of water fluoridation on complete living things. So what is amazing is the fact that the professionals promoting fluoride, in one form or another, seem unaware of some of these studies, or choose to ignore them equal though they are conducted by scientists with qualifications equidistant to or equal superior to themselves, Studies have also shown that with constant ingestion silicofluorides are extremely cumulative, cannot be eliminated, and have severely debilitating and unhealthful effects particularly as the victims approach old age. It can also precipitate a melodramatic increase in an otherwise rare and fatal form of bone cancer in adolescent boys, equal after relatively brief periods of exposure. Safe to put in drinking water? I think not! About The Author

Dr. Mandy Thomson What are you paying for when you buy bottled water? The image of pristine glaciers and crystal broad springs comes to mind. But the truth is, bottled water is hardly ever purer, healthier, or safter than tap water. Ironically, bottled water is often just tap water in a bottle. One "spring water" brand with lake and mountains on the label in reality was taken from a well in an industrial parking lot. It was intimate to a dangerous waste dump and was sporadically proved with industrial chemical levels above Food and Drug Administration standards. Twenty years ago, bottled water was a non-existant industry. Today, northwesterly Americans are downing 1000 billion gallons a year. This phenomenon is a result of in the public eye concern over water safety with a little help from a multi-million dollar advertising campaign launched by the bottled water industry. Bottled water sales tripled in the penultimate decade alone. Water is now the fastest growing and most profitable segment of the beverage industry. Their marketing efforts haven’t been for nothing. Scares like the Milwaukee water contamination have even low-income families reaching for bottled water. Its now become a norm to see bottled water vending machines and on supermarket shelves. A generation raised on bottled water no longer sees it as a luxury. More than fractional of North Americans (54%) fuel this expensive habit daily. Consumers are happily shelling down 240 to finished 10,000 times much for bottled water than they typically do for tap water. Bottled water is on normal $0.90 per gallon versus the cardinal tenth of a cent per gallon that tap water costs. This is a 560 times difference. To drink the reccommended cardinal glasses a day, for five years costs around $1.65. The same amount in bottled water can cost much than $1000. Some people dislike tap water because of its taste or smell. However, whatsoever of the most harmful contaminants are odorless and tasteless. Federal regulations single require bottled water to be as good as tap water. There are not requirements or regulations for it to be some safer or healthier than tap. N RDC did a study in 1999 that tested finished 1000 bottles of 104 bottled water brands. One-third restrained levels of contamination including synthetic nonsynthetic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic. Some proved positive for parasites such as cryptosporidium or giardia. Bottled water is little vigoursly tested than tap water for bacterial and chemical contaminants. Only a minimum equal of e-coli contamination or fecal coliform is required to pass as fit for drinking. Tap water, however, essential be tested and disinfected. Kansas Department of Health and Environment tested 80 samples of bottled water from retail stores and manufacturers. They found that all 80 of the samples had detectable levels of chlorine, fluoride and sodium. Others restrained some nitrate (which is linked to blue-baby syndrome), chloroform, bromodichloro-methane, arsenic, and lead. Plastic water bottles can take up to cardinal years to biodegrade and end up in garbage at a rate of 30 million a day. Besides attractive up valuable space in landfills, elastic water bottles may contribute potentially cyanogenetic chemicals such as phthalates into the ground water. "It's ironic that galore people drink bottled water because they are afraid of tap water, but then the bottles they discard can result in much polluted water," says Pat Franklin, executive director of Container Recycling Institute. "It's a crazy cycle." CRI estimates that producing water bottles used by Americans for one year consumes more than 1.5 million barrels of oil, sufficient to generate electricity for 250,00 homes or enough to fuel 100,000 cars a year. Bottled water is neither cheaper, safter, or more environmentally friendly than tap water. However, water contamination is a problem that governments can solve by repairing current tap water infrastructures and protecting water sources from harmful farm, industry and cityfied pollutants. Until then, installing domestic water filters may be the solution. At less than 10 cents a gallon, certified water filtration systems can help remove distressing odors tastes and ensure contaminant liberated water in your home. However consumers need to be careful to properly maintain these filters. Without proper maintenance it is viable for bacteria and contaminants to build up in the filters. About The Author

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Possible contaminants in headache remedies, hormone replacement therapy and other pills made at Wyeth's plant in Puerto Rico have not been adequately checked out or corrected, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Tuesday.