Wednesday, May 23, 2007
New Pill stops Periods
Men need not read further
By Katie Cox
The FDA approved a pill today that will stop a woman’s period. The new pill, Lybrel, will be marketed with that as its key feature. The pill must be taken daily, every day of the month, which is different from other pills that are only taken for 21 days. The pill is a lower dose of hormones and is produced by the Pharmaceutical distributor, Wyeth. This sounds quite promising for women around the country.
What consumers don’t realize is that this is no new feat. Just because pills in the past have a series of placebo, or sugar pills, during the week that the women is to menstruate does not mean that she has to take those. If she continues her pills back to back, she will miss her period, which is exactly what this new pill is.
To me they are marketing an idea that smart women out there have known for years. Ask any gynecologist and they will tell you the same thing, you don’t need to stop taking your birth control, the period that you get is only there to reassure you.
According to reports, unscheduled bleeding can still occur and it will not stop periods for all women on the pill. It sounds like a lot of B.S. to me.
Other forms of birth control, such as Seasonale, claim to limit menstruation to only once every few months. Scientists did not just discover the ability to halt periods, but rather, marketing experts have found that women, despite what they say, actually like the idea of menstruation and consider it a sign of good health and fertility. These are concerns of the distributors of Lybrel, who aren’t sure how women are going to feel about it. We all know that birth control is only 97-98% effective if taken correctly, so with no period how can one be sure that it is working at all?
Not to mention that symptoms including bloating, irritability, and fatigue to name a few cannot be promised away. Where is the cure all pill that gets rid of the cramps along with the period itself. I won’t be satisfied until I see that happen. Lybrel is the first oral contraceptive of its kind to be marketed specifically to stop periods and I would be surprised if it was a hit.
By Katie Cox
The FDA approved a pill today that will stop a woman’s period. The new pill, Lybrel, will be marketed with that as its key feature. The pill must be taken daily, every day of the month, which is different from other pills that are only taken for 21 days. The pill is a lower dose of hormones and is produced by the Pharmaceutical distributor, Wyeth. This sounds quite promising for women around the country.
What consumers don’t realize is that this is no new feat. Just because pills in the past have a series of placebo, or sugar pills, during the week that the women is to menstruate does not mean that she has to take those. If she continues her pills back to back, she will miss her period, which is exactly what this new pill is.
To me they are marketing an idea that smart women out there have known for years. Ask any gynecologist and they will tell you the same thing, you don’t need to stop taking your birth control, the period that you get is only there to reassure you.
According to reports, unscheduled bleeding can still occur and it will not stop periods for all women on the pill. It sounds like a lot of B.S. to me.
Other forms of birth control, such as Seasonale, claim to limit menstruation to only once every few months. Scientists did not just discover the ability to halt periods, but rather, marketing experts have found that women, despite what they say, actually like the idea of menstruation and consider it a sign of good health and fertility. These are concerns of the distributors of Lybrel, who aren’t sure how women are going to feel about it. We all know that birth control is only 97-98% effective if taken correctly, so with no period how can one be sure that it is working at all?
Not to mention that symptoms including bloating, irritability, and fatigue to name a few cannot be promised away. Where is the cure all pill that gets rid of the cramps along with the period itself. I won’t be satisfied until I see that happen. Lybrel is the first oral contraceptive of its kind to be marketed specifically to stop periods and I would be surprised if it was a hit.
Katie Holmes’ Battle with a Porn Star
By Katie Cox
“Why is Katie Holmes in the headlines again?” I ask myself as I flip through the Chronicle. I roll my eyes and swallow down the vomit that floods my mouth at the sight of her name, but a force stronger than myself turns the page as I unwillingly read the latest TomKat gossip.
According to the newspaper, several sources say that a soon-to-be porn actress is changing her name to “Katee Holmes” in tribute to the actress. An 18-year-old Texan reportedly plans to lose her virginity on screen claiming that she wants to be able to remember her first time forever.
Holmes who spells her name with “i-e” is furious with the girl, who plans to spell her name with double “e’s”, and plans to sue. But common’ Katie, you really think that this girl could make you look any worse? I am pretty sure that this is probably one of the mildest headlines about you in years.
Katie’s Dawson Creek, wholesome girl next- door image was marred by her ridiculous and over the- top freaky Scientology courtship to Tom Cruise. Soon after Tom jumped all over Oprah’s couch, Holmes announced that she was pregnant with what we later found out to be a creepy, beady-eyed devil baby wearing a toupee named Suri Cruise.
Now I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that a person can only sue over something like this if it will somehow damage the person’s reputation. But if your reputation isn’t that great anyway then I hardly see a reason to sue,
The wannabe porn star plans on jump -starting her career by first starring in a girl on girl flick and later being “de-flowered” on screen. Shy Love, a representative for the girl, says that she choose to mirror herself after Holmes because she liked the innocent and sweet character that she played as Joey on Dawson’s Creek.
While I agree that Holmes’ character on the popular teen drama was at least likeable, the current state of Katie’s like-ability is almost non-existent.
A word to the aspiring young sex star, other than “don’t do it, go back to school and keep your legs closed”…PICK A BETTER ROLE MODEL!! Out of every sexy young thing out there, you have to pick the weirdo? And in response to Holmes’ legal threats, get over it, you aren’t that great anyways and you are about to sue one of your only fans.
“Why is Katie Holmes in the headlines again?” I ask myself as I flip through the Chronicle. I roll my eyes and swallow down the vomit that floods my mouth at the sight of her name, but a force stronger than myself turns the page as I unwillingly read the latest TomKat gossip.
According to the newspaper, several sources say that a soon-to-be porn actress is changing her name to “Katee Holmes” in tribute to the actress. An 18-year-old Texan reportedly plans to lose her virginity on screen claiming that she wants to be able to remember her first time forever.
Holmes who spells her name with “i-e” is furious with the girl, who plans to spell her name with double “e’s”, and plans to sue. But common’ Katie, you really think that this girl could make you look any worse? I am pretty sure that this is probably one of the mildest headlines about you in years.
Katie’s Dawson Creek, wholesome girl next- door image was marred by her ridiculous and over the- top freaky Scientology courtship to Tom Cruise. Soon after Tom jumped all over Oprah’s couch, Holmes announced that she was pregnant with what we later found out to be a creepy, beady-eyed devil baby wearing a toupee named Suri Cruise.
Now I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that a person can only sue over something like this if it will somehow damage the person’s reputation. But if your reputation isn’t that great anyway then I hardly see a reason to sue,
The wannabe porn star plans on jump -starting her career by first starring in a girl on girl flick and later being “de-flowered” on screen. Shy Love, a representative for the girl, says that she choose to mirror herself after Holmes because she liked the innocent and sweet character that she played as Joey on Dawson’s Creek.
While I agree that Holmes’ character on the popular teen drama was at least likeable, the current state of Katie’s like-ability is almost non-existent.
A word to the aspiring young sex star, other than “don’t do it, go back to school and keep your legs closed”…PICK A BETTER ROLE MODEL!! Out of every sexy young thing out there, you have to pick the weirdo? And in response to Holmes’ legal threats, get over it, you aren’t that great anyways and you are about to sue one of your only fans.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Hey You! Keep Those Thumbs on the Wheel!
By Mauricio Grijalva
Most of us in this country have taken to texting like birds take to flying. In the Unites States alone, according to industry statistics provided by the New York Times, cell phone users sent 158 billion texts to their friends, family and acquaintances in 2006, up a staggering 95 percent from the previous year. Judging from those statistics, it’s safe to assume that we text everywhere: our homes, school, jobs, churches, and parks.
Two pieces of upcoming legislation in both Washington and New Jersey are about to stop their citizens from texting in the one place they feel people shouldn’t be texting: their car, while driving. ”Would you read a book or newspaper while you were driving? No!” Washington Governor Christine Gregoire said in a New York Times article. “Then why would you text while driving?” If the law is passed, drivers in Washington will face a $101 fine.
Has it really come to this? Does the government really need to create legislation that will control what we can do behind the wheel of our cars? I’m torn about this legislation. For one thing, I think the less government interference we have in our lives, the better. First, they ban textng while driving. What’s next, banning changing the radio dial while we pilot our automobiles? If this legislation passes, it will mean that we as individuals will have less control over what we can do in our very own cars, which for some of us are second homes.
On the other hand, I sometimes wish drivers would have just a little more common sense and refrain from doing things that would put others in danger. It’s not exactly brilliant to drink while drunk, but some people do it. Some people know that they’ll easily get distracted while driving and talking on their cell phones, but its done anyway, and the next you know, there’s a pile up on the freeway that could have been avoided. While not proven, maybe texting can be just as distracting as talking on the phone; even more so, because you have to take your eyes off the road for a long time to type in what you want to say. While I don’t agree with the legislation in spirit, perhaps its passing will remind people that their number one priority while driving their car is, well, driving their car.
Most of us in this country have taken to texting like birds take to flying. In the Unites States alone, according to industry statistics provided by the New York Times, cell phone users sent 158 billion texts to their friends, family and acquaintances in 2006, up a staggering 95 percent from the previous year. Judging from those statistics, it’s safe to assume that we text everywhere: our homes, school, jobs, churches, and parks.
Two pieces of upcoming legislation in both Washington and New Jersey are about to stop their citizens from texting in the one place they feel people shouldn’t be texting: their car, while driving. ”Would you read a book or newspaper while you were driving? No!” Washington Governor Christine Gregoire said in a New York Times article. “Then why would you text while driving?” If the law is passed, drivers in Washington will face a $101 fine.
Has it really come to this? Does the government really need to create legislation that will control what we can do behind the wheel of our cars? I’m torn about this legislation. For one thing, I think the less government interference we have in our lives, the better. First, they ban textng while driving. What’s next, banning changing the radio dial while we pilot our automobiles? If this legislation passes, it will mean that we as individuals will have less control over what we can do in our very own cars, which for some of us are second homes.
On the other hand, I sometimes wish drivers would have just a little more common sense and refrain from doing things that would put others in danger. It’s not exactly brilliant to drink while drunk, but some people do it. Some people know that they’ll easily get distracted while driving and talking on their cell phones, but its done anyway, and the next you know, there’s a pile up on the freeway that could have been avoided. While not proven, maybe texting can be just as distracting as talking on the phone; even more so, because you have to take your eyes off the road for a long time to type in what you want to say. While I don’t agree with the legislation in spirit, perhaps its passing will remind people that their number one priority while driving their car is, well, driving their car.