Is Carisoprodol safe during pregnancy and breast-feeding

All women taking Carisoprodol are standartly advised to seek medical advice if they become pregnant or wish to use the drug while breast-feeding. The reason for the Category C warning is evidence from animal testing. Testing drugs on animals is a necessary precaution before allowing humans to take any substance. Some animals have biology sufficiently close to ours that we can quickly see whether there are likely to be problems. In the case of this drug, there are two sets of findings. The first concerns female animals. There’s clear evidence the drug crosses the placenta barrier and enters the fetus. In smaller animals, this affected the rate at which the fetuses grew and there was an increase in infant mortality. For male animals, there’s some evidence of a reduction in the size of testes and a slight fall in the volume of sperm. In human testing, there’s also clear evidence that Carisoprodol passes into breast milk and so is consumed by your baby.

The allocation of this drug to Category C by the FDA is a value judgement that the benefits of the drug outweigh any possible danger to the human fetus. There are no recorded cases of damage to human male sexual reproduction. So what has the postmarketing reporting shown for women? The answers are fairly encouraging. For example, the Medical Center at Long Beach, CA described a young woman who took a high dose of the drug during pregnancy and while breast-feeding for the first month after birth. Regular blood samples were taken throughout and, despite clear evidence that the active chemicals were present in both the fetus and the baby when born, there were no adverse effects. The baby was born with an average weight, did not experience withdrawal symptoms, and remained healthy during breast-feeding and afterwards. This is one of some sixteen published reports that shows no adverse effects on the child’s development, even when the mother is taking a high dose. Although none of the studies have been long term, there seems to be little risk to either mother or child in taking Carisoprodol during or immediately after pregnancy.

Ask for a doctor's supervision tryig to treat nodular/cystic acne

Our appearance is so much a part of who we are. More than any other animal on this planet, we are visually stimulated and choose our mates accordingly. Unlike any other species on this earth our appearance has deep ramifications on the quality of our lives. Perhaps it is because we feel we can control so much of our appearance. We choose our clothes, our style. Depending on your economic standing you can control the appearance of your body, large breasted, small breasted, a Romanesque proboscis, or a fine point, even abs and tummy tucks. We hire and fire on appearance. Studies have shown that good-looking people earn more for identical jobs as people that are more ordinary to not so handsome earn. What do you do when your own body seems to beat you down?

Nodular acne is not your run of the mill adolescent breakout. It is a deep, often painful breakout of skin lesions, that can leave scars behind. The scares are not just on the skin. Often people who suffer from nodular acne have emotional and social scars as well. Unfortunately, the treatment can be as cruel as the disease.

Isotretinoin is the generic name for Accutane. It is a retinoid. Retinoid drugs resemble vitamin A in structure, and how they affect epithelial skin cells. They also affect cell growth, vision, as well as bone development and the immune system. Isotretinoin is the drug of last resort for sufferers of cystic or nodular acne. Its retinoid properties make it very effective in treating the skins epithelial cells. But the other retinoid affects of the compound make it probably more dangerous to fetus development than thalidomide. Women who choose to use Isotretinoin must also engage in a strict birth control regime or risk having a child with severe birth defects as a result of the drug.

For both male and female, the drug has been linked to ulcerative colitis, a debilitating condition that can leave the individual requiring major surgery to remove the lower bowel. If you are currently using Isotretinoin and are experiencing bloody stools or recurrent diarrhea the you should stop the drug immediately and consult with a physician.

Constant medical supervision can make Accutane an effective treatment for cystic acne, provided the patient follows the doctor’s protocols, and schedules medical follow-ups with the physician.

Athletes can use corticosteroids to relieve pain from sport injures and inflammation

Just because prednisone is a corticosteroid does not mean it is a performance enhancer. In fact, the exact opposite is true. When athletes suffer injuries that cause inflammation, this drug can be administered to reduce the inflammation and help heal the injured area.

Corticosteroid versus Anabolic Steroids

Corticosteroids have absolutely no involvement in muscle growth. Rather, they are used to better regulate responses from the immune system. This type of medication is used to promote healing by eliminating inflammatory reactions in the body. Anabolic steroids are man-made hormones that are intended to promote muscle growth. Athletes use these substances to get an edge over their competitors. Anabolic steroids are prohibited in all organized sports.

Why Athletes Use Corticosteroids

Team physicians and personal doctors may prescribe corticosteroids to treat damage to muscles and joints that occurs after strenuous physical exertion. Depending on the exact injury, the accompanying inflammation can be so severe that doctors are unable to ascertain the extent of the actual injury. Using this medication can alleviate the inflammation so a proper diagnose can be made as well as a treatment plan to heal the injury. Once the inflammation is removed, the area should be able to function better.

Additionally, athletes with severe allergies may be prescribed the drug to manage symptoms during competition. Pollen is especially problematic for athletes who compete in outdoor sports. As long as the ruling athletic regulations permit use of this drug, it can be very beneficial to athletes.

Corticosteroid Use and Organized Sports

Use of this drug is permitted as long as it has not been banned by the sport’s regulatory council. This holds true for professional as well as high school sports. For example, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) permits use of the drug while it is banned at the Olympics. One reason for the ban of such drugs is because their side effects can be very serious. In particular, long-term use of the drug can cause permanent damage. You need to know the rules of your particular sport before using a corticosteroid in any form.

Prednisone shots can help certain sports injuries but should only be administered by a physician. If you want to remain eligible to play sports, it is necessary for you to have a full understanding of your sport’s rules and regulations. There are certain sports that have banned the use of the drug, and you should avoid the drug if your sport has such a ban in place.


Athletes can use corticosteroids to relieve pain from sport injures and inflammation

Considering tarmac delays and cheap air tickets

A number of high-profile incidents that saw passengers forced to sit in airplanes on the tarmac for as long as ten hours without food and water back in 2010. In one incident at Rochester, MN, an airplane landed at 1230 am and the airport staff refused to open the terminal to allow the passengers off the plane. To put it mildly, this was a stunning failure to provide even basic levels of humanitarian care. As a result of the six-hour delay, the airlines and airport operator were fined $175,000 by the Transport Department and rules were introduced which require airlines to allow passengers off the plane if it has been stuck on the ground for three hours.

Although there was a slight increase in the number of cancellations, airlines responded positively as a result of this rule change with the number of runways delays reduced to a tiny fraction of flights. The Transport Department is not clear whether the increase in cancellation is due to the new rules. All that can be said with any confidence is that airlines are returning planes to the gates if there are delays. This is a trade-off. Passengers who stay on the plane are entitled to food and drinks, must be allowed to use toilets and, if necessary, given access to medical treatment. Assuming no safety issues, passengers must also be allowed off the plane after three hours even if on cheap air tickets. If the airlines default, the fines are up to $27,500 per passenger. Obviously this is a substantial penalty and the airlines have been anxious to avoid paying. Even so, some delays have been unavoidable. For example, a severe thunderstorm can hold flights on the ground as priority is given to getting incoming flights on the ground. These flights take the gates and leave the waiting planes on the tarmac.

In part, there’s also a problem with a shortage of gates at some airports and a lack of people in the control tower. The issue is always whether returning an airplane to a gate will disrupt the operation of the airport. Since the fine falls disproportionately on the airlines, there’s possible unfairness but, so far, passengers holding both full-price and cheap air tickets are winning.

Considering tarmac delays and cheap air tickets

Tarmac delays and cheap air tickets

In 2010, there were some high-profile incidents with passengers forced to sit in airplanes on the tarmac without food and water for up to ten hours. In one incident at Rochester, MN, an airplane landed at 1230 am and the airport staff refused to open the terminal to allow the passengers off the plane. To put it mildly, this was a stunning failure to provide even basic levels of humanitarian care. New rules were brought in that require airlines to allow passengers to disembark the plane if it has been stuck on the ground for three hours and the airlines and airport operator were fined $175,000 by the Transport Department as a result of the six-hour delay.

As a result of this rule change, airlines responded positively with the number of runways delays reduced to a tiny fraction of flights, but with a slight increase in the number of cancellations. The Transport Department is not clear whether the increase in cancellation is due to the new rules. All that can be said with any confidence is that airlines are returning planes to the gates if there are delays. This is a trade-off. Passengers who stay on the plane are entitled to food and drinks, must be allowed to use toilets and, if necessary, given access to medical treatment. Assuming no safety issues, passengers must also be allowed off the plane after three hours even if on cheap air tickets. If the airlines default, the fines are up to $27,500 per passenger. Obviously this is a substantial penalty and the airlines have been anxious to avoid paying. Even so, some delays have been unavoidable. For example, a severe thunderstorm can hold flights on the ground as priority is given to getting incoming flights on the ground. These flights take the gates and leave the waiting planes on the tarmac.

In part, there’s also a problem with a shortage of gates at some airports and a lack of people in the control tower. The issue is always whether returning an airplane to a gate will disrupt the operation of the airport. Since the fine falls disproportionately on the airlines, there’s possible unfairness but, so far, passengers holding both full-price and cheap air tickets are winning.

Tarmac delays and cheap air tickets

Looking at how life insurance issues can occur when going through a divorce

When the first quotes come in and you look around, the majority see a settled domestic arrangement and steady jobs. Taking decisions about what life cover to buy, you therefore assume this happiness will continue indefinitely. Unfortunately, the statistics are against you. The majority of marriages and civil unions end in separation. This is rarely a time when rational thought prevails. More often, emotions run high and the partners see this as a chance to take their revenge for incidents long in the past. This means decisions about the existing life insurance cover may not be taken or poor quality decisions may be taken. It should always be the main rule that no matter what your feelings are for your partner, the children should never be made to suffer and these are just a few basic rules to remember:

The standard when couples buy a policy is for each to name the other as the beneficiary in the even of death. The first impulse to cancel the policy should be resisted. You may have been fitter and healthier when the policy was taken out. If you cancel and look for another policy now, it is probable the premium rate will be significantly higher. The best decision is therefore to change the nomination on the policy to the children. Even if you are not around, you have still provided for them. Some courts actually include this as one of their standard orders when making provision for children.

There can often be alimony issues even if children are not involved. Courts can sometimes favor an order for a financially dependent spouse to continue as the beneficiary in return for a lower rate of alimony during life. It is therefore better to do a full review of the life insurance provision as you have it. As the divorce will have produced a significant change in circumstances, you may need to change the extent of the cover to fit your new personal circumstances. If you asked for riders when the policy was written, they may no longer be relevant. Similarly, if you are facing a court order to provide life insurance cover, a Return-of-Premium term policy may be the best answer, i.e. if your spouse dies before you, you can recover the premiums you paid when the term ends.

Looking at how life insurance issues can occur when going through a divorce

Looking at how life insurance issues can occur when going through a divorce

When the first quotes come in and you look around, the majority see a settled domestic arrangement and steady jobs. Taking decisions about what life cover to buy, you therefore assume this happiness will continue indefinitely. Unfortunately, the statistics are against you. The majority of marriages and civil unions end in separation. This is rarely a time when rational thought prevails. More often, emotions run high and the partners see this as a chance to take their revenge for incidents long in the past. This means decisions about the existing life insurance cover may not be taken or poor quality decisions may be taken. It should always be the main rule that no matter what your feelings are for your partner, the children should never be made to suffer and these are just a few basic rules to remember:

The standard when couples buy a policy is for each to name the other as the beneficiary in the even of death. The first impulse to cancel the policy should be resisted. You may have been fitter and healthier when the policy was taken out. If you cancel and look for another policy now, it is probable the premium rate will be significantly higher. The best decision is therefore to change the nomination on the policy to the children. Even if you are not around, you have still provided for them. Some courts actually include this as one of their standard orders when making provision for children.

There can often be alimony issues even if children are not involved. Courts can sometimes favor an order for a financially dependent spouse to continue as the beneficiary in return for a lower rate of alimony during life. It is therefore better to do a full review of the life insurance provision as you have it. As the divorce will have produced a significant change in circumstances, you may need to change the extent of the cover to fit your new personal circumstances. If you asked for riders when the policy was written, they may no longer be relevant. Similarly, if you are facing a court order to provide life insurance cover, a Return-of-Premium term policy may be the best answer, i.e. if your spouse dies before you, you can recover the premiums you paid when the term ends.

Looking at how life insurance issues can occur when going through a divorce

Considering smoking and the question of health insurance

Despite taking out health insurance having an optional status, it is, without a doubt, a primary necessity these days. Any person that ever had to do anything with healthcare without a standard health insurance policy will tell you that it’s simply impossible to get proper care for reasonable money. Even an average health condition like flu or bronchitis can result in a medical bill that you’ll need to pay half of your annual salary to settle. Not to mention emergency situation when surgery and hospital care are required, and we all know that it can be as costly as hell. So whether costly or not, an insurance plan is a much more affordable option for having your health covered. But what if you make part of an insurance group that isn’t really favored these days? What’s the cost of health insurance if you’re a smoker?

It isn’t cheap to be a smoker, and the widespread social campaigns and studies certainly did their job of informing you of the perils and the costs of smoking if you didn’t realize it already. It is a well-established fact that smoking causes certain types of cancer, has serious effects on your general health and is a serious money drain, especially if you prefer the costlier cigarette brands. But what does health insurance have to do with it?

Well, the relation is rather obvious and unambiguous. If smoking is directly related to certain health conditions that cause the customer to file insurance claims more often than health insurance will be more expensive for the customer with such a habit. That’s why smokers always get higher rates than their non-smoking peers, and the difference can be rather pronounced depending on the company and the particular demographic group the person makes part of. But wait, it can get even worse!

Some companies will be unwilling to insure you once they realize that you’re a smoker and have any pre-existing conditions that can be attributed to this habit. They will regard your application as too risky to deal with and will deny you coverage. Sure, this may seem outrageous bit there were cases like these around the country and it’s the insurer’s right to decide whether you’re suited for having your health insured with them or not. So keep this in mind when shopping around for health insurance plans, since some of the quotes may drop off once the insurers realize that you’re a smoker.

It may sure look tempting to conceal your habit when applying for health insurance, but it’s not a particularly bright thing to do. In case the insurer finds out that you’re smoking or you develop a condition that can be linked to smoking you will likely to get your policy terminated and subjected to a substantial fine. But what’s even worse, this fact will be included to your insurance history and other companies will know very well that you’ve misinformed your previous provider. As a result your rates will always be high if any insurer will accept your application at all.

So, what’s the best solution for smoker to deal with health insurance? The most logic solution would be to quit smoking as it will spare your health and offer you lower rates. If you’re not willing to give up, however, at least make sure to inform your potential insurer about the habit in order to avoid any future complications. Otherwise you risk being left without any health insurance.

Considering smoking and the question of health insurance

Looking at cheap flights the delay compensation you can receive

When it comes to delays some budget carriers have a better record than others. It’s part of the price you pay. Some carriers use older airplanes which break down more often… No matter what the reason, the same European rules apply whether you’re waiting for full-price or cheap flights. As an example, a Monarch flight was delayed for more than seven hours in July, 2012. The reason was that the plane due to make the pick-up broke down and it took a longer than expected time to get the replacement part. The flight eventually left at 3 am. Monarch refunded the cost of the ticket and provided food vouchers during the wait. It refused accommodation on the ground that it was more disruptive to passengers to have the chance to sleep until 1 am before being rousted out and sent back to the airport in time to board the plane. Whether this is an appropriate view is irrelevant. The principle of a price refund and food is clearly correctly applied.

It is worth noting that this was not an example of a cancellation as, although it was later than scheduled, the plane did eventually get repaired and took off. On November 19, 2009, Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Bock and Others v Air France SA in the European Court made a very significant ruling. Angry claimants were arguing that, after a point, delay becomes the same as a cancellation. The only issue was how long. In the end, the court said three hours delay due to the fault of the carrier should be treated as a cancellation with all the rights of compensation that flow from that. However, the right of compensation is not absolute and the airline avoids payment if it can prove that there was an “extraordinary circumstance”, e.g. a volcano spewing out ash and, no matter what the airline had done, the delay was unavoidable. In the case of Monarch, the English courts have been asked whether the delay was avoidable. This seems likely. It was an old plane that broke down through lack of maintenance and no replacement part was available in the airport.

The problem of the US airport service investment and air tickets costs

Failure to invest in air traffic control seem to bring decrease in cheap air tickets

As Americans, we have a problem with the need to pay taxes. We seem to believe that caring commercial organizations will solve all our problems without the need for us to pay a government to provide a basic infrastructure. Sadly, this is completely unrealistic. Organizations that exist to make a profit are not interested in giving free access to services. If we do not pay modest taxes, we will end up paying higher commercial charges for the same services. As an example of the problem, let's look at the failure to invest in air traffic control. We're rapidly reaching the point where the controllers cannot safely manage the traffic. The result is increasing delays in scheduling take-off and landing slots. Unless something dramatic is done to increase capacity, delays will increase significantly. At first, this is likely to affect only those holding cheap flight tickets. For historical reasons, the air traffic system gives priority to the larger legacy airlines, so the discount and budget carriers will find it difficult to get slots at the major hubs.

As to the design or airports, we're already experiencing serious delays because of the increased levels of security. If airports are expected to operate at peak levels for more hours in the day, this will need major redesign and significant increases in the number of trained staff. In turn, this will force up prices for the use of airports. Yet there are no signs of any willingness to make the necessary investments. With Washington focused on reducing the deficit, it's difficult to see how funds can be diverted to air transport when there are obvious shortages and problems in other equally important public services. Air travel is not considered a public service in need of government support when put alongside health care and education.

Will cheap air tickets decline?

The situation is worse at state level where the local deficits are forcing some cities into bankruptcy. Without major increases in the level of taxes collected and adequate investment, the national air traffic control system will struggle to perform even at current levels, and it will also fail to match the more sophisticated systems operated in Europe. Cheaper ticket deals will decline as delays increase - only a higher ticket price guarantees arrival at the destination on time in a capitalist country.

Cheap air tickets and European travel for the disabled

The Europeans are very precise in the way they think about rights. If there's a single market, there should be one set of rules. If there's one set of rules, it should apply equally to all citizens no matter whether they are disabled or their mobility is restricted in some way. Opportunities for travel should not be denied people because they are disabled. Except. . . There are always exceptions. In this case, it comes down to questions of practicality and safety, so we need to explain carefully how the rules are designed to work. Before an airline or travel agent accepts a booking from a person with a disability or some form of limit to their mobility, there's a duty to identify any problems likely to occur. This is not something that should arise when the disabled individual arrives at the airport. If proper notice is given in advance of potential problems, refusal to allow boarding will be considered a breach of contract and entitle a full refund plus the award of compensation. This applies whether this was full-price or cheap air tickets are involved, and whether this is flight only or part of a package holiday or tour.

This duty to accommodate the disabled does not just apply to the airline. It also applies to the airport operator which should provide properly designed access and trained staff. This should not be separately charged. Societies should be inclusive and not discriminate against individuals on the ground of their disability.

So when can transport be refused? In less common cases, because the disabled individual cannot pass through the aircraft door or something prevents moving through the aircraft to the designated seat. If this proves the case, the carrier must suggest alternatives. This can involve requiring a second individual accompany the disabled person to offer help and support. If a person with limited sight has an assistance dog, all airlines must publish their rules and cannot ignore them when convenient. If the disabled person holds cheap air tickets that involve changing flights, each airport has the legal duty to ensure appropriate arrangements are made to move from one gate to another.