Tattoo's and body piercings - a good idea?

Tattoos are very much in vogue now. Years ago, they had a negative connotation and were mostly found on prisoners and merchant marines but these days, it's quite respectable to have a tattoo or two - most of the Olympic athletes have the 5 Olympic rings tattooed in a prominent place to show the world their participation in these prestigous games. And body piercings and tattoos are common in High Schoolers and young adults, who consider them "cool" - ever more so because many of the older adults around them disagree with them.

What has helped sell tattoos, are the many shows on TLC which "sanitize" them, not showing the pain sometimes lasting many hours, it takes to get one or infected tattoos or even folks who change their minds later on in life.

Just because the practice is acceptable or even stylish, is it a healthy thing to do?  

The jury is still out on whether tattoos are a good idea or not.  For example, there is no data about the long term repercussions of either body piercings or tattoo's - could either raise the risk for cancer, for example?  No one knows.  

We can't really get the answer from history although both practices are very old and were practiced in ancient societies - simply because people didn't live long enough in those societies to experience lifestyle repercussions - most died of infectious disease, most children never made it to adulthood.

One thing which should cause us to think twice about these decisions,  is that many folks when they get into their 30's and 40's either regret their tattoo's or actually dislike them to the point of seeking removal - removing a tattoo is a long, painful and somewhat risky process, involving several lazer treatments.  It also can get expensive.


At present, there are no guarantees that the artist who applies a tattoo to your anatomy, is working under totally sterile conditions (unless he/she is a medical professional) - and even if done under sterile conditions, you can still get a nasty infection from a tattoo or body piercing.  On TV the shows, the artists tell the clients it can take two weeks to heal totally from a tattoo.  Infected tattoos are not pretty (to put it mildly). (see photo above)

As one article puts it:

Infections from tattooing are nothing new. Hepatitis, staph infections and even the superbug known as MRSA have been tied to tattoos. Dirty needles and unsanitary conditions are often to blame.

 

Recently a rash of infected tattoos in the New York area were traced to the ink used (the tattoo artist did wear gloves and worked under sterile conditions).  The infections were traced to the water used to dilute the ink.

Infections of tuberculosis have been reported from tattoos also.

"Even if you get a tattoo from a facility that does everything right, it's not risk free," said Dr. Byron Kennedy, deputy director of the health department in New York's Monroe County. He was lead author of a report on the Rochester cases which was released by the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2012.

 Body piercings can be troublesome that way also. I've know folks who got their tummies pierced and had to remove it due to infection or inflamation.

Christians may want to give thought to the fact that tattooing is prohibited in Leviticus: 

"The Old Testament law commanded the Israelites, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:28). "

I typically call those rules found in the O.T. a set of good health rules and generally speaking, they still are a wise plan - even in our modern society.

A writer answering issues about tattoo's and body piercing for Christians in Yahoo answers went into this in more detail.

Tattooing and body piercing is pretty and a definite form of art but personally for me, there are too many questions about the safety thereof, to take the risk.  Life is risky enough without adding risks, I'm thinking and there are many other ways to enjoy art. 

     

Why did the CEO of Planned Parenthood misrepresent the truth about Obama?

If Planned Parenthood is so great, why does the CEO have to misrepresent the truth?

In a speech which is on the net, the CEO, Cecile Richards, of Planned Parenthood, largest provider of abortions in the world, spins several myths. 

Cecile Richards is an attractive looking blond, who is 50ish and sharply dressed.

She has decided to take time off of Planned Parenthood to campaign fulltime, for Obama...Any bets that she's still collecting her salary for Planned Parenthood?  No bets! Richards, in January of 2012, defended her almost half a million bucks a year salary she gets from Planned Parenthood, saying she works hard for the bucks.

"The first act Obama signed," states Richards," was the 'Lily Ledbetter Act' allowing us to make sure that women get equal pay to men."

But this act did nothing of the sort.  It merely increased the length of the statute of limitations, according to the Wall Street Journal, allowing women who felt they were not getting equal pay, to have a longer time to sue their employers.  Most consider it an act to enhance business for attorneys!

"attorney Victoria Toensing, writing in the Wall Street Journal, said the Lilly Ledbetter act was not a big step at all, but rather a "teensy" one."

"Those rights are covered both in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she said. The Democrats' handiwork in 2009 'merely changed how the statute of limitations is calculated.' "

Richards continues, "Under the affordable healthcare act, health care is expanded for millions of women" (right, including coverage of abortion only some of us feel that killing an unborn baby is NOT health care!

"Romney wants to take us back, not only 4 years but 40 years.", says Richards, "He said he'll do anything he can to overturn Roe V Wade."

This, is of course, another baldfaced lie  - Romney and Ryan both believe that abortion is appropriate in cases of rape and incest which means neither favors overturning Roe V Wade which would render abortion illegal in all cases.

Then, Cecile Richards gets to the real issue when she says "of course, Romney wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood which is providing millions of women with affordable healthcare!"

This may be Richards' biggest lie.  First of all, Romney never said anything about getting rid of Planned Parenthood - he only wants to remove some of the tax payer moneys from funding it (Planned Parenthood is, at present, 98% funded by our tax dollars).  He also wants to not fund Planned Parenthood in overseas abortions.

Since Planned Parenthood's profit margin from a $500 abortion which takes all of 5 minutes is obscene, perhaps Romney feels, rightly so, our tax dollars can be better spent, like FEEDING the hungry rather than killing their progeny.

Cecile then makes a plea for campaign help and contribution bucks, reminding us that "our daughters and granddaughters' future depends on it [re-electing Obama]"

Perhaps she is telling the truth here - whom we elect might determine whether our granddaughters get a chance to live or not and whether our daughters lose their children while in the womb.
 

The hidden risks of hormonal birth control

The article, link below, below, was written by a nurse who referenced data from the Gullmacher Institute of Planned Parenthood and other scientific sources....

Is hormonal birth control safe?

First of all,read the risks - a 40% greater risk of heart attack, stroke and thrombosis  - that's on the prescribing info, that no one reads!

Secondly, the elephant in the room is that the hormones, all of them, greatly raise the risk for cancer of all kinds especially uterine and breast cancer.  Unless you listen to Dr Oz who now says the birth control meds are cancer protective!  He also advocates gastric bypass, a procedure which has been dropped by many surgeons due to the risks!

Consider the following from scientific sources :

(1)     Since 1975 there has been a 400% increase in in situ breast cancer among pre-menopausal women under 50 years old. This mirrors the increased use of birth control over these same years. In situ is a medical term which means “at the location.”

(2) >     A Mayo Clinic study confirms that any young girl or woman who is on hormonal birth control for 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy increases their breast cancer risk by 52%.

(3)   Women who use hormonal birth control for more than 5 years are four times more likely to develop cervical cancer.

 (4)     The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization, classifies all forms of hormonal contraception as a Group 1 carcinogen. This group of cancer causing agents also includes cigarettes and asbestos.

(5) Why is it that the FDA can require cigarette manufacturers to place warning labels and  real life photos of corpses on cigarette packages to warn consumers of the health dangers yet they, in turn, take an equally harmful substance (hormonal birth control) and force companies to give it away free to young girls without parental consent and woman of all ages?   For high school boys and men to take steroid drugs, it is a crime. Whereas girls and women taking steroid drugs (i.e. hormonal birth control) are now treated as if they are taking a sacred, life preserving vitamin that women cannot live without.

(6)  In October 2010 the NY Times carried an article about Hormone Replacement Therapy drugs. It quoted the America Medical Association (AMA) as warning women that these post-menopausal drugs which were originally marketed as keeping a women “young and sexy” were discovered instead to be more likely to cause advanced and deadly breast cancer.

(7) It stopped short of making one other startling revelation: The only difference between hormone replacement therapy drugs which cause deadly breast cancer and the hormonal birth control drugs (now mandated by the Obama administration) is that the birth control drugs are six times the dosage---and are the very same drug! 

Does birth control cut down the number of abortions?

Nope, not according to statistics... Planned Parenthood reports that 60% of the abortions they sell are due to failed birth control... The pill is only 60-70% effective!

Is the IUD any safer? 

According to this article, besides irritating the womb and causing a fertilized egg to abort, the IUD releases birth control hormones into the body.

Finally what about the so called morning after pill?

Well, it's 6 times the dosage of regular birth control medication.  So do the math!

The only difference between hormone replacement therapy drugs which cause deadly breast cancer and the hormonal birth control drugs ... is that the birth control drugs are six times the dosage---and are the very same drug! 

If you are a medical provider and have prescribed these medications or devices for someone who trusts you and they get a heart attack or stroke or cancer, are they going to thank you then?

This nurse asks why when we warn about cigarettes, we do not warn about the cancer risks of hormonal birth control medication...a question I've often asked also..

"Any way you name it, these hormone drugs dispense poison into a woman’s body."

Click here to read article - note article includes links to scientific sources!

Hormone discovered - now no exercise needed?

Big News flash - the discovery of a hormone which gives the benefits of exercising without exercising.

 "Just take a pill and it will be like we exercised?" asked one newscaster of Dr Steven Garner who was not associated with the study.  The doctor answered affirmatively, explaining that it switches the "bad fat" to "good fat".  "If you want to do without exercise, you would only would take this pill for 10 weeks!" continued the doctor.

"Wouldn't there be other benefits of exercise though that this hormone would not provide?" The newscaster asked.  Dr Garner admitted it did not build up muscle mass.  And when the newscaster asked how much this pill would cost, Dr Garner suggested it might be very expensive because only one pharmaceutical has the patent.

I am a strong believer in "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't" so I investigated.  An article by Bloomberg, admitted the hormone had only been tested in mice.  That definitely, might be a problem as far as it working the same way in humans. For example, giving mice Leptin makes them slim and it was once touted as the magic obesity curing hormone yet it was very disappointing in human trials.  For some reason, Leptin doesn't have the same effect on humans as it did on the mice.  Whatever the case, the announcement that it would even be effective, let alone safe in humans was very premature.

The reality is first of all, it's unproven whether it's safe or effective in humans and Dr Garner on Fox News using buzz phrases like "all natural" and "no KNOWN side effects" is code for "we haven't really tested it and won't know about its safety or effectiveness until we market it and people live or drop dead."  

Secondly, the greatest benefit from cardio exercise is exercising the heart and no pill will do that.

Bottom line, unless you trust the pharmaceuticals with your life, pass on this one and don't throw out your treadmills or bicycles.
More than likely, this headline was more about obtaining funding for the scientists rather than a real breakthrough and nothing does that so well as an eye catching, anti-obesity headline given to the news services.

Tylenol Deadly? Not according to this study!

I find it very interesting that there is such ranting against one of the safer medications available, like Tylenol, and very little against meds like Cerebrex, or the statin drugs and ibuprofen - both of which are much more taxing on the liver than tylenol.

The latest study found that (as the headline on MSNBC read) "Even a tiny overdose of tylenol can be deadly".
 
Doing the math on this one.... The single dose of 27 grams was equal to 27,000 MG! That much of anything can be deadly!


From Google's calculator: 1 gram = 1000 mg. Extra Strength tylenol = 0.75 grams per pill, not even a gram.

Now if those folks took 24 grams of tylenol over "several days" (how many days "several days" meant isn't mentioned) but say they mean 14 days so that's 24/14 = 1.7 grams a day or 1700 mg so... if they broke it up into 4 doses, that would be 425 mg per dose.

It's true that this is a tiny over dose - your liver can only handle 325 mg at a time.

But then, do we know what other drugs these folks had been taking? They could have been taking statin drugs which are very hard on the liver. Marajuana, medical or not, is hard on the liver. Splenda and Nutrasweet really tax the liver as does Alcohol - which can be a liver killer - did they sequester these folks and give them two weeks of a healthy diet to make sure their livers were "clean"? Seems not.

"Staggered overdose patients may have fared less well because they did not receive the appropriate treatment soon enough, or because they had been drinking alcohol along with acetaminophen, he said."

Looking at the study, we find that they took 663 patients over a 17 year period having liver problems. Then somehow accessed how much tylenol they'd been taking (probably from hospital records which would be what the people self reported and people tend to understate what meds especially OTC's they are taking).

Then, looked at how many died.

But one may ask, how do they know it was the tylenol which caused the damage since there are so many other medications and substances people use which also cause liver damage?
Epidemiological studies are notoriously inaccurate because they never have sufficient amount of information on the cohort to make a good analysis.

A good example of this is the deviation in the results of the epidemiological studies on low dose birth control (for hormone replacement therapy) which found that birth control hormones greatly lowered the risk for heart attack and stroke, and the clinical studies on birth control hormones for HRT which found that these hormones greatly raised the risk for heart attack, stroke and thrombosis as well as significantly raised the risk for breast cancer.

Epidemiological studies can be misleading in other ways - they often can be manipulated to conclusions desired by those funding the studies. For example if they asked how many of those folks rode bicycles when they were kids, they would likely find that most or all of them did. Using the logic of the study they could then, reason that riding a bicycle when you are a kid burns your liver as an adult! No wonder Phillip Johnson a doctor of law, quipped that if lawyers used the same logic as scientists, they'd be laughed out of court! :)

A couple of months ago, a friend of mine collapsed with a heart attack from the medication she was taking. She didn't tell me what it was but I suspect something like Celebrex which raises the risk for heart attack. She was fine and then, suddenly, she keeled over. Of course, she's 78 years old so she could have had a heart attack anyway even without the medications. Hard to tell. If we don't get something else, we will get a heart attack sooner or later. Age 78 is pretty close to the expected lifespan of women in the USA and she also has had a lot of stress in her life since she was forced to move several times etc.

My spiritual advisor, a Jesuit priest, on Warfarin, was found in a pool of blood - brain bleed. He died in the hospital 2 hours later. The reason he was on Warfarin was because 2 years before I met him, in his mid 70's, he had been put on Vioxx. After two weeks of no arthritis pain, he keeled over suddenly, with a heart attack. A fit, active man who rode his bicycle at least once a week or so, he didn't expect a heart attack and attributed it to the drug, but again, it could have been that the occasional exercise he got, wasn't enough to really protect his heart, plus the extreme stress he was under, trying to keep working and being forced to retire because of his age.

It's true the warfarin saved him from another heart attack. He died of a brain bleed instead. I remember his arms being a sort of purplish from the obvious internal bleeding going on. Warfarin is also still used as "rat poison". We must ask if it is compartimentalizing too much to say that we should give one drug which works well for what it's specified but produces side effects which can be equal or worse than that from while the person is being "saved".

Nancy Rogers, MD, in her book, NO MORE HEARTBURN, observed that medicine seems to all too often treat one thing which is broken in the body by breaking something else.
Epidemiological studies are advantageous for making good news headlines as they use large numbers of people in the cohort and most folks don't question how the study was constructed so being published all over the world in the news media can open the door for large grants for the the researching scientists. One scientist told me "of course epidemiological studies are baloney sausage, but if they come out with a result we like, then we use them." :( As ex-NASA climatologist reminded, "Scientists are human too!" (Roy Spencer, PhD, CLIMATE CONFUSION, NY 2008)
I like this recommendation in the article:

"Acetaminophen also appears in combination with other drugs in certain prescription products. In January the Food and Drug Administration asked all manufacturers of acetaminophen to lower the dose in a single tablet to 325 mg. Even at this dose, patients who took two tablets every four hours for 24 hours would be at risk for a staggered overdose, Lenchus said."

I hope this goes through. Lately I've only been able to find Tylenol Regular, 325 mg a pill in house brand. I agree here. 1 pill, 4 times a day is about all a person wants to take. Of the pain meds, Tylenol in the proper quantities is about the safest and a whole lot safer than aspirin (which to me, is like playing Russian Roulette because if you do get a brain bleed from aspirin, you have only a 20% chance of surviving). Not withstanding aspirin can also cause a severe gastrointestinal bleed (1 in 1000 says the Bayer company) and microbleeds in the brain (one UK study found that a large percentage of those who took the daily aspirin got these).

I think more than tylenol, that ibuprofen, statin drugs, alcohol and aspartame are what is a huge factor in the increased incidence of liver damage we are seeing. As for this study, it sounds rather poorly designed to me!

But it did make a good news story! Which is of course, the bottom line.

Safety of Hospitals - check this out!

Created by: Medical Billing and Coding

Essure birth control - miracle or not?

Listen to the ads on Essure (and read the website) and it sounds really great - a one time non surgical procedure which takes care of birth control forever.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. They call it "non surgical" because although it involves a procedure which has to be done in the doctor's office, there is no incision but in another way, it could be considered surgical because it's invasive - it's just that they go in through an opening already there - that's why no incision. And also, they are inserting a foreign medal object (two of them) into your body in order to cause an irritation in the tubes which go from the ovaries to the uterus in order to force your body to create scar tissue in the tubes and thus, in theory, block the tubes.

The way that is said delicately on the website is "your body forms natural barrier around the micro-inserts that prevents sperm from reaching the eggs". Well, yes, scar tissue is a natural reaction but the irritation which caused it is not natural at all and can be a health risk!

And if you are still ovulating, blocking your fallopian tubes like this can raise the risk for ectopic pregnancy, a condition which can be life threatening for the mother.

That is, it doesn't take very much for a sperm to sneak through the scar tissue if it isn't really a super strong barrier. (Sperm are very small).

Also, it must be causing some other problems because the side effects are listed as heavy bleeding during periods, dizziness and more, which according to not happy campers, continue long after the procedure. We are not told why it's causing these side effects but a page on FaceBook where unhappy Essure patients hang out, confirms that at least a percentage of women get these uncomfortable side effects. The cramps the Essure folks warn can happen are described by some as "stabbing pains in the abdomen"

The women who are not happy with the procedure (posting on the complaint site), all say they are sorry they ever had it done and since it's permanent and the only fallopian tubes they will ever have, have been ruined, unlike something like "tubal ligation", Essure cannot be undone. The nice doctors who performed the procedure in the first place (there are 150 of them in my area for example) apparently, according to these women, are not any help when they are suffering side effects and some complain that the fatigue, nausea and dizziness, heavy bleeding etc, are pretty disabling.

On one site, there are more complaints about Essure.

Another side effect which doesn't seem to be listed in the Essure material but which many complain about, is weight gain.

On the website, they admit that the claim of rendering a woman safe from pregnancy was made from tests of less than one year.

This procedure doesn't sound like a real good idea to me. Sold on the premises Americans love, of "fast and easy", it sounds like if your body objects, it can be difficult and painful.