Health and Shopping Blog

Long time before urologists recognized the physical nature of impotence, treatments generally fell into three categories-aphrodisiacs, and mechanical treatments.

Aphrodisiacs

Oysters, lobsters, eggs, and spices are examples. Spanish Fly, a substance made by grinding the wings of certain beetles, was a favorite of that party animal, the Marquis de Sade. It is illegal in the United States both because of the unproven nature of its effectiveness and a tendency to cause seizures or death. Many of these substances actually do nothing more than irritate the genital organs. The user interprets this irritation as increased sensitivity, thereby giving the impression of increased performance. Rhinoceros horn has been used (unsuccessfully) for so long that its name has become synonymous with sexual arousal. Unfortunately, its popularity has led to such widespread slaughter of the animals that they face extinction. Ancient Egyptians believed eating crocodile penises increased virility. Anyone capable of eating a crocodile’s penis probably didn’t need any more help proving his manhood.

Surgery/Transplants

The Malleus Maleficarum was a guide to witchcraft during that era that asserted witch’s spells caused impotence. The idea of using animal testes to treat impotence began in the Middle Ages, when a standard treatment for “the male malady” was to place the testicles of a cock under the bed. Another option was eating the rooster’s testes. You could guess that putting them under the bed was much more popular. This was a major reason witch-hunting became so widespread. French physiologist Charles Edouard Brown-Sequard injected himself in the 1880s with an extract from the testicles of dogs that he claimed made him smarter, stronger, and more virile. After ten injections, he reported improved erections, as well as a stronger jet of urine and “power of defecation.” He made no claims about the effect this had on the dogs. His “Elixir of Life” became an instant best-seller. Its 1889 launch rivaled that of cheap Levitra, even without a famous spokesman.

Mechanical

Hot metal rods inserted into the urethra during medieval times failed to revive erections. No one wanted a second treatment, so failures went unreported. Many types of splints have been used, including hollowed-out antlers and horns. Encouraged by finding the penis bone (baculum) in some animals, early surgeons placed rib cartilage into the penis. Although these initial attempts failed, penile prostheses have more recently proven particularly reliable.

Perhaps I am growing cynical, but every time I see a new piece of research only lasting one or two years, I wonder why it stopped early. If you have a specific hypothesis, evidence for or against should be apparent fairly quickly. Anyway, the longer a trial goes on, the more difficult it gets to distinguish between potential causes and their effects. So when one or two participants develop a heart condition or get depressed, is this a side effect of the medication under test or a coincidence? But no-one is systematically collecting longitudinal data. This is very convenient for the manufacturers which might have to pull a medication from the market if adverse evidence emerged.

The final thought has to be that if you are unlucky enough to suffer from insomnia, take ambien as directed by your doctor and work intensively with a therapist or counsellor. The combination is the best chance of avoiding long-term problems.

The study shows that most of the group found the insomnia growing steadily more pronounced as the years passed. You might wonder why they were not all given ambien or an equivalent. The answer, of course, is that they were and to excellent short-term effect. Thus, even though ambien and other sleeping pills produced the promised sleep artificially, the majority of participants could not recapture the natural sleeping patterns of their youth. Curiously, women were more at risk of insomnia patterns stabilising and expanding. More worrying was that about 35% of those who had episodes of insomnia lasting more than two weeks subsequently suffered a major depressive disorder. The study concludes that insomnia is persistent and increases the risk of depressive conditions.

American College of Cardiology released some clinical data from the Phase III trials for their proposed competitor to acomplia (rimonabant). This new medication, still going by its generic name of taranabant, targets the same cannabinoid system as acomplia. It is therefore interesting to compare results since, if it gains regulatory approval, it will be a direct competitor to acomplia.

The randomised, double-blind and placebo-controlled trials recruited more than eight hundred participants who all had at least BMI 27. Merck & Co disclosed the preliminary results calculated at the end of year one of what is intended as a two year trial. In conjunction with a diet and exercises, 28% of those taking a 2mg dose of taranabant lost more than 10% of their body weight, while 57% lost 5% of their body weight. Almost 8% of those on placebo also lost 10% of their body weight through diet and exercise alone. In terms of averages, participants taking a 2mg dose of taranabant lost 14.5 pounds compared to 5.7 pounds on placebo. Depending on how you view these things, this could be viewed as a failure because Merck & Co announced in advance that it was aiming for a minimum 5% body weight loss in all participants taking their medication.

In 2004, Acomplia’s results were that 32% on Acomplia lost more than 10% of their body weight while 62.5% lost more than 5% of their body weight. But these results were obtained at the higher dosage of 20mg as opposed to 2mg taranabant. The reason of this difference in the dosage levels is that acomplia is a CB1 receptor antagonist that blocks endogenous cannabinoid binding to neuronal CB1 receptors, while taranabant acts as a selective cannabinoid-1 receptor inverse agonist, binding to CB1 receptors. I am glad we have got that clear.

Merck & Co tested higher doses of 4mg and 6mg but admitted problems with psychiatric side effects. It confirmed that taranabant would probably only be brought to the market at the lowest 2mg dose. Because the FDA has already expressed concern about similar side effects in acomplia, the Merck trials looked more specifically for evidence of the effects.

Nevertheless, this must be placed in a proper context. rimonabant has, of course, been available on prescription in Europe for two years and there is no emerging evidence of problems sufficiently serious to justify withdrawing approval. Indeed, it has just been given a further level of approval in the UK. As its effects are better understood, the reported side effects may be better controlled.

There has been a wealth of research into what causes pain. Pain shows that something inside your organism is not right. Researchers can describe in detail how the sensation is transmitted from its source to the brain so we become aware of the problem and can take action to treat it. Unfortunately, despite our better understanding of what it is, actually relieving the pain remains a challenge. If you aren’t dealing with fatal injuries, nothing extreme comes out. During this time, the pain management choices for doctors focus on the various side effects of the medications, the interactions between medications, etc. If the pain becomes more acute due to a terminal condition, the issues of addiction and, to some extent, adverse side effects are less relevant. The cause may be a physical injury or a disease may affect the way it works. Consequently, the pain may be caused by the damage to the nervous system itself or the system may be sending out general distress symptoms or, in some cases, false pain messages. Physical injuries to the nervous system are very difficult to treat because nerve tissue does not easily regenerate. In other cases, researchers do not properly understand why an apparently undamaged system may malfunction. Because the system that transmits and controls pain sensations may be damaged or not working properly, people often react to treatment in a wide variety of unpredictable ways. For the same reason, many prove more vulnerable than usual to adverse side effects. But the consequences of not providing effective pain relief can be serious.

But ultram is an atypical opioid and its ability to relieve pain of all kinds makes it one of the first-response medications for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Doctors must, of course, take care to avoid adverse interactions with other medications, particularly the two classes of antidepressants. The other most common problem is that anyone with a history of seizures or who is being treated with medications that lower the seizure threshold may be at an increased risk of seizures if they are taking ultram. However, ultram is generally preferred in cases of neuropathic pain because there are fewer problems of dependence so long as people use the medication as prescribed. One of the main difficulties in treating neuropathic pain is that the usual opioid analgesics do not work well. Consequently, it can take longer for the medication to reach a stable and effective level in the blood stream. During the slow build up of the drug, people can become discouraged and either want to switch to another drug thought better or discontinue use of the immediate drug. In clinical trials of the opioids, more than a quarter of participants withdrew because of the physical and psychological side effects. This is unfortunate because it usually takes between four and six weeks for doctors to be able to assess the effectiveness of the chosen opioid. In other words, the balance of advantages against disadvantages usually supports the use of ultram for the treatment of neuropathic pain.