Ohh Crap!…Another attack….best anxiety treatment

August heat can be risky for athletes: As your body temperature climbs, lightheadedness, dizziness, nausea, fatigu…

CRITICAL HEART ATTACK REMINDER

If you were with someone having a heart attack would you know what to do? Given that a heart attack occurs in this country every 20 seconds, and death from a heart attack every minute, I thought it would be good to periodically review what should be done when a heart attack happens. For expert advice, I called Richard A. Stein, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Urban Community Cardiology Program at New York University School of Medicine and national spokesperson for the American Heart Association.
WARNING SIGNS NOT ALWAYS OBVIOUS
The classic description, of course, is “I feel like an elephant is sitting on my chest,” which covers the pressure, squeezing and/or fullness in the chest that are the most common, well-known symptoms. But it's not uncommon for a heart attack to feel less intense, which doesn't mean it is any less dangerous, warns Dr. Stein. Even mild heart attacks can cause major damage, which is why you should seek immediate medical attention. In fact, some heart attacks don't even cause chest pain or discomfort… they may be characterized by subtle symptoms, too, that can be all too easy to miss or dismiss — such as a burning pain in the chest similar to indigestion, unexplained and profound weakness, and/or shortness of breath. This last is a serious warning sign.
Heart attack symptoms can be intermittent or constant, mild or severe, says Dr. Stein, emphasizing that you should act immediately when any new, unexplained symptoms like this occur. (If, on the other hand, you have a history of shortness of breath due to anxiety or panic attacks, or are experiencing indigestion-like symptoms after eating to excess, and your doctor says not to worry, it may not be a medical emergency.) These symptoms are more common in women, but also occur in men. And symptoms may be less intense for older people and those who have certain medical problems including diabetes, cautions Dr. Stein… but that doesn't mean their heart attack will be any less severe.
In addition to chest pain, symptoms that suggest heart attack include…
• Pain or discomfort — especially sudden and intense, but this can vary 
– in the back, shoulders (especially the left one), neck, jaw and/or one or both arms.
• A cold sweat.
• Nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and burning pain resembling indigestion. These symptoms can be difficult to distinguish from those caused by bad food choices, acknowledges Dr. Stein, so err on the side of caution, especially when there's really no reason you should feel this way.
• Extreme weakness or fatigue. People with diabetes or who are elderly may be more vulnerable to so-called “silent” heart attacks, which produce no symptoms or mild symptoms.
• Dizziness, lightheadedness or fainting.
• An unexpected, otherwise inexplicable feeling of intense anxiety or impending doom.
CALL 911… IMMEDIATELY!
Call 911 as fast as you can, if you or someone you are with experiences chest pain or even any of these other, more subtle symptoms, stresses Dr. Stein. Even if you live near the hospital, this is advisable since people who arrive by ambulance usually receive faster care, which is critical since time is of the essence in treating heart attack. Expect, in most instances, to be given a plain aspirin tablet to chew in the ambulance or in the emergency room — it can make a big difference. To everyone you encounter, including ambulance personnel and in the ER, say “I think I am having a heart attack” and describe your particular symptoms. This helps to convey the seriousness of the situation so you don't end up waiting while other patients are attended to first.
TIMING IS EVERYTHING
Don't ever waste time seeing if symptoms worsen before seeking treatment — the sooner you get medical attention, the less damage is done and the greater likelihood of survival. So don't worry that you may be over-reacting, says Dr. Stein. “Be assertive, it's your heart and your life.” He stresses that doctors don't mind seeing you if you think you're having a heart attack — even if you're not. It's not the worst thing in the world to get examined by a physician in the emergency room, and be told it's not a heart attack — the worst thing is to ignore symptoms and fail to get life-saving treatment.

Source(s): 

Richard A. Stein, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Urban Community Cardiology Program at New York University School of Medicine and national spokesperson for the American Heart Association.
 

I just wanted to address you personally about the comment you made on a recent Huffington Post article about Heidi Fleiss and her comments on abortion.

First of all, I appreciate that you signed the comment with your name and included a link to this site. It frustrates me when people hide behind the anonymity that the internet (and comment boxes) offer. It takes real courage to state your opinions and do so with your name behind it.

With that being said, I can tell that you've never been the proud owner of a uterus nor have you ever had to bear the responsibility of preventing a pregnancy. Sure, as a man, you have probably had to buy condoms, but that's as far as “prevention” goes for men. And how do you obtain condoms? Without a prescription, at any age, at any drug store/convenience store/men's bathroom, and at a fairly reasonable price. And if that condom breaks that you've purchased? Well, it's no longer your problem, is it? You've done your part. You were responsible.

Now, if I am a woman, and I am responsible and have my partner wear a condom and it breaks, it is now my problem.

Morning after pill, you say? Well, here's hoping that I'm over the age of 17, and have a drug store around that isn't staffed by fundamentalist Christians who can “legally” refuse to sell the drug to me even though it is over the counter. Otherwise, I'm screwed.

Maybe I should have been on the pill/ring/shot/iud as a back-up, right? Well, most women do use those methods as back-up . . . if they have health insurance and/or have a planned parenthood clinic nearby that isn't surrounded by fundamentalist nutcase groups that murder doctors that perform legal procedures. Unfortunately, if you live in the midwest, going to PP is REALLY f-ing scary because of this and because of the healthcare debate we know that 46.3 million people are without health insurance right now. (US Census Bureau, Sept. 10, 2009)

Let's just be SUPER conservative and say that 1/3 of that 46.3 million uninsured people are female (even though logic suggests that because health insurance depends largely on the occupations, region, sex, and age that there is a much higher percentage of women and children that are uninsured due to our societal norms and values), that is still 15.43 MILLION women without insurance. Are you familiar with how much the pill costs when you do not have insurance? I can tell you from personal experience that it can range from around $50/28-day pack for a generic brand to almost $75/28-day pack for name brands. If you go with a generic, that is roughly $650/year for adequate birth control. And the price of a doctor's visit to get that prescription for that generic pill for a calendar year? That's roughly $100, without insurance. Maybe I live in the city and there's a free clinic, but I will still need to have the time off work to go to said clinic which is costing me money by my having to schedule my work around it instead of the other way around (which would be the case if I had insurance). If I'm a woman in the suburbs or in a rural area, I hope I have adequate transportation to get me to the “free clinic”. . . and this is all without the price of the condoms, if we are being truly safe and responsible.

Plus, all of this relies on the fact that I am a legal adult with no moral/religious issues with modern birth control methods, have the resources to obtain said birth control, and that I'm not currently taking medications that can interfere with oral contraceptives, the ring, or the patch.

Wanna know what can effect that? Glad you asked!
Antibiotics
Anti-HIV Protease Inhibitors
Anti-Seizure medications
Antidepressants
Anti-Fungal medications
Diabetes medications
Anxiety treatments
Natural supplements like St. Johns Wart
. . . and, of course, grapefruit.

So, if I'm underage? Screwed.
If I've asked to be on birth control and have had parents refuse? Screwed.
Have a religious family? Screwed.
Be socio/economically destitute? Screwed.
Have a fundamentalist pharmacist? Screwed.
On ANY of the medications that can alter the effectiveness of the birth control that I'm being responsible and taking? Screwed.
Have nutcases outside my Planned Parenthood? Screwed.

Are you starting to see a trend here? So, in short, even if women are being truly super-responsible and are using TWO methods of birth control, there are MANY MANY MANY obstacles to clear before we are socially sanctioned to have “the sex”.

THAT is how you can be actively trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and still end up knocked up. I would dare to say that being uninsured and not being able to shell out the cash necessary for a back up contraceptive is exactly TRYING to get pregnant.

Plus, according to the American Pregnancy Association, 47% of the unplanned pregnancies in the U.S. are due to not using birth control. That means that the other 53%, the majority, are conceived while using birth control methods.

And we both know that telling people who are in any of the numerous situations that can hinder your ability to obtain birth control methods to just not have sex is ridiculous and completely unrealistic.

Birth control? Covered it. Now on to “child-birth as a means to a way” as you so eloquently put it. You may want to get some lube for this part.

If you can name for me 5 women that you know personally that have gotten pregnant to keep a man around, I will give you this category. In all of my years, in all of my experiences with women in desperate situations, I have yet to meet a single woman who has “trapped” a man (or tried to) by having his child. Never once. Why?

Well, it's not exactly foolproof. A man can either leave or stay. He's not legally obliged to stay, and if he doesn't he's not even all that responsible for child support. Do you know how many men owe back child support? Please!

Granted, if there is that situation and the man stays, then that makes the woman a bit of a monster . . . and a bit of a sociopath, doesn't it? Not exactly someone you want bringing up a child.

Plus, having a kid to keep a man around is like buying a whole farm to get a glass of milk . . . buying a McDonalds franchise to get a Big Mac . . . bringing a shotgun to a squirrel hunt . . . it's complete and total overkill, and just completely stupid. Nobody with any notion of a cost/benefit trade-off, which would be all rational people as economics taught me, would make that deal. If you are not rational, you probably shouldn't be raising children.

Now on to the excuse of getting pregnant to escape a religiously fanatical family. I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one too. If anything, I have seen more girls get sucked deeper into religiously fanatical families because of this. “You need to beg for God's forgiveness,” kind of mentality.

Sure, I've seen plenty of girls get out from under the thumb of a deeply oppressive religion or family, go a little wild, and end up pregnant, but never the other way around . . . then again, I'm not all that close to many devoutly Mormon families or Scientologists, both religions that (from my understanding, which is limited) will kick you out of the church for such things.

But, again, it's kind of like buying the whole farm just to get a glass of milk.

*Sigh* And now on to the “governmental monetary gains” that you spoke of . . . and this is kind of my specialty.

You know when Reagan came out and said that he was going to hire folks to do social research to find these “welfare queens” that just keep having kids so that they can keep getting government handouts so that they live like queens without having to lift a finger? Yeah, well, the research is in. Do you know what they found? There were none of these “welfare queens”, but rather a community of impoverished women who were (and still are) blamed for their situations.

Aside from the fact that this whole idea is rooted in a whole field of awful stereotypes about women (and their uncontrolled sexuality, which is a problem in a puritanical society) and especially minorities (laziness), it completely bastardizes programs like WIC and TANF.

Monetary gains? Yeah, right.

To be eligible for most government programs (save for TANF, section-8 housing, and Medicaid), your family’s yearly income must be between 100% of the poverty level and 180% of the poverty level. That looks like this:

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

So yes, the bigger your family is, the higher the poverty guideline . . . thus easier to get those monetary gains in the form of government assistance, right? Umm, except for the fact that in order to make $40,000 a year and get those benefits, you will need a family of 7 . . . and that means that when you get those benefits, you still have to house, feed, clothe, provide heat/electricity, bathe, transport, and generally support 7 people. These aren’t Chia pets, they are people, and (believe it or not) it costs a LOT to provide for all those people.

Do you know how the poverty line was created? In 1965, the government adopted the Orchansky model of taking the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s economy food plan for a family of 4 and multiplying that number by 3 . . . during that time, it was found that a family of 4 will spend 1/3 of its income after taxes on food, thus 3 times the bare minimum, economy family food plan would create the poverty guideline. Anyone who fell below that line (made less money than 3 times the amount of money that is the bare minimum for keeping a family fed) was in poverty, anyone above that line was fine.

Do you know that this is still the same model that we use today? Thus, the $33,000 you make in your family of 7 that qualifies you for the programs means that the government assumes that you will spend $11,000/year just to feed your family. That may or may not be a fair estimate, depending on where you live, but then the assumption is that a family of 7 with $33,000 annually will only spend $22,000 on EVERYTHING ELSE. Rent. Electricity. Clothes. School supplies. Hygiene products. Blankets. Toilet paper. Beds. EVERYTHING.

If you do the math, that means that in order to reap these “monetary gains” you have to live like a rat. Again, going back to the rationality model I used several times earlier. . . IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Try to think this to yourself: “I’m going to have a pack of kids and live at the poverty line so that I can get government assistance, but just barely enough to get by.” Is it worth it?

Remember that this is without the hospital bills from having said pack of kids, without the bills from prenatal care for said pack of kids, and without the time/effort/knowledge of the government programs needed to really get everything you can get out of these programs.

For a small percentage of these women in these situations where they have a lot of kids and are on assistance programs, did it ever occur to you that maybe these children are the only thing that brings any joy to the lives of the women? If you had grown up in poverty, were uneducated, working a dead-end job or unemployed, where would you get true joy?

For an even smaller, miniscule percentage of these women, the idea is that with every kid she has, the chances that one will grow up, be successful, and pull them all out of poverty increases. The only problem with this idea is that the woman has not taken into account that it is statistically unlikely that any of her children will rise any further up the socio/economic chain than she is . . . it is unlikely for anyone to do significantly better than their parents. Generational wealth rarely changes.

Lastly, on the issue of abortion: As someone who does not have a uterus, and will never have to face the decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy or not: I feel that you shouldn’t have a voice in the debate. Nobody is telling you what you can and cannot do with your reproductive organs, it’s bullshit that anyone should stand around and tell me what I can and cannot do with mine.

Plus, I find it really shady that women are made to seem like we are incapable of making the decision about what is best for our lives and bodies, but in the same breath told that we are responsible for birthing and raising these children. Usually alone.

*Deep breath in*

In short:
Please do not talk about birth control options for women and whether or not they are getting pregnant on purpose if you have no clue what obstacles women face in getting said birth control.

Please do not talk about women having children to trap men or to reap some monetary gain when you have no real working knowledge of the history of women in poverty, the welfare system, or what it means to truly live at the poverty level.

Please do not talk about the abortion debate, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, since you are clearly ignorant of the issues facing women in our society. Once you have a working knowledge of such things, then you may join the conversation.

Sincerely yours,
Sarah

3 Tips to Effectively Control Anxiety Attacks – <a rel="nofollow"

I just wanted to address you personally about the comment you made on a recent Huffington Post article about Heidi Fleiss and her comments on abortion.

First of all, I appreciate that you signed the comment with your name and included a link to this site. It frustrates me when people hide behind the anonymity that the internet (and comment boxes) offer. It takes real courage to state your opinions and do so with your name behind it.

With that being said, I can tell that you've never been the proud owner of a uterus nor have you ever had to bear the responsibility of preventing a pregnancy. Sure, as a man, you have probably had to buy condoms, but that's as far as “prevention” goes for men. And how do you obtain condoms? Without a prescription, at any age, at any drug store/convenience store/men's bathroom, and at a fairly reasonable price. And if that condom breaks that you've purchased? Well, it's no longer your problem, is it? You've done your part. You were responsible.

Now, if I am a woman, and I am responsible and have my partner wear a condom and it breaks, it is now my problem.

Morning after pill, you say? Well, here's hoping that I'm over the age of 17, and have a drug store around that isn't staffed by fundamentalist Christians who can “legally” refuse to sell the drug to me even though it is over the counter. Otherwise, I'm screwed.

Maybe I should have been on the pill/ring/shot/iud as a back-up, right? Well, most women do use those methods as back-up . . . if they have health insurance and/or have a planned parenthood clinic nearby that isn't surrounded by fundamentalist nutcase groups that murder doctors that perform legal procedures. Unfortunately, if you live in the midwest, going to PP is REALLY f-ing scary because of this and because of the healthcare debate we know that 46.3 million people are without health insurance right now. (US Census Bureau, Sept. 10, 2009)

Let's just be SUPER conservative and say that 1/3 of that 46.3 million uninsured people are female (even though logic suggests that because health insurance depends largely on the occupations, region, sex, and age that there is a much higher percentage of women and children that are uninsured due to our societal norms and values), that is still 15.43 MILLION women without insurance. Are you familiar with how much the pill costs when you do not have insurance? I can tell you from personal experience that it can range from around $50/28-day pack for a generic brand to almost $75/28-day pack for name brands. If you go with a generic, that is roughly $650/year for adequate birth control. And the price of a doctor's visit to get that prescription for that generic pill for a calendar year? That's roughly $100, without insurance. Maybe I live in the city and there's a free clinic, but I will still need to have the time off work to go to said clinic which is costing me money by my having to schedule my work around it instead of the other way around (which would be the case if I had insurance). If I'm a woman in the suburbs or in a rural area, I hope I have adequate transportation to get me to the “free clinic”. . . and this is all without the price of the condoms, if we are being truly safe and responsible.

Plus, all of this relies on the fact that I am a legal adult with no moral/religious issues with modern birth control methods, have the resources to obtain said birth control, and that I'm not currently taking medications that can interfere with oral contraceptives, the ring, or the patch.

Wanna know what can effect that? Glad you asked!
Antibiotics
Anti-HIV Protease Inhibitors
Anti-Seizure medications
Antidepressants
Anti-Fungal medications
Diabetes medications
Anxiety treatments
Natural supplements like St. Johns Wart
. . . and, of course, grapefruit.

So, if I'm underage? Screwed.
If I've asked to be on birth control and have had parents refuse? Screwed.
Have a religious family? Screwed.
Be socio/economically destitute? Screwed.
Have a fundamentalist pharmacist? Screwed.
On ANY of the medications that can alter the effectiveness of the birth control that I'm being responsible and taking? Screwed.
Have nutcases outside my Planned Parenthood? Screwed.

Are you starting to see a trend here? So, in short, even if women are being truly super-responsible and are using TWO methods of birth control, there are MANY MANY MANY obstacles to clear before we are socially sanctioned to have “the sex”.

THAT is how you can be actively trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and still end up knocked up. I would dare to say that being uninsured and not being able to shell out the cash necessary for a back up contraceptive is exactly TRYING to get pregnant.

Plus, according to the American Pregnancy Association, 47% of the unplanned pregnancies in the U.S. are due to not using birth control. That means that the other 53%, the majority, are conceived while using birth control methods.

And we both know that telling people who are in any of the numerous situations that can hinder your ability to obtain birth control methods to just not have sex is ridiculous and completely unrealistic.

Birth control? Covered it. Now on to “child-birth as a means to a way” as you so eloquently put it. You may want to get some lube for this part.

If you can name for me 5 women that you know personally that have gotten pregnant to keep a man around, I will give you this category. In all of my years, in all of my experiences with women in desperate situations, I have yet to meet a single woman who has “trapped” a man (or tried to) by having his child. Never once. Why?

Well, it's not exactly foolproof. A man can either leave or stay. He's not legally obliged to stay, and if he doesn't he's not even all that responsible for child support. Do you know how many men owe back child support? Please!

Granted, if there is that situation and the man stays, then that makes the woman a bit of a monster . . . and a bit of a sociopath, doesn't it? Not exactly someone you want bringing up a child.

Plus, having a kid to keep a man around is like buying a whole farm to get a glass of milk . . . buying a McDonalds franchise to get a Big Mac . . . bringing a shotgun to a squirrel hunt . . . it's complete and total overkill, and just completely stupid. Nobody with any notion of a cost/benefit trade-off, which would be all rational people as economics taught me, would make that deal. If you are not rational, you probably shouldn't be raising children.

Now on to the excuse of getting pregnant to escape a religiously fanatical family. I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one too. If anything, I have seen more girls get sucked deeper into religiously fanatical families because of this. “You need to beg for God's forgiveness,” kind of mentality.

Sure, I've seen plenty of girls get out from under the thumb of a deeply oppressive religion or family, go a little wild, and end up pregnant, but never the other way around . . . then again, I'm not all that close to many devoutly Mormon families or Scientologists, both religions that (from my understanding, which is limited) will kick you out of the church for such things.

But, again, it's kind of like buying the whole farm just to get a glass of milk.

*Sigh* And now on to the “governmental monetary gains” that you spoke of . . . and this is kind of my specialty.

You know when Reagan came out and said that he was going to hire folks to do social research to find these “welfare queens” that just keep having kids so that they can keep getting government handouts so that they live like queens without having to lift a finger? Yeah, well, the research is in. Do you know what they found? There were none of these “welfare queens”, but rather a community of impoverished women who were (and still are) blamed for their situations.

Aside from the fact that this whole idea is rooted in a whole field of awful stereotypes about women (and their uncontrolled sexuality, which is a problem in a puritanical society) and especially minorities (laziness), it completely bastardizes programs like WIC and TANF.

Monetary gains? Yeah, right.

To be eligible for most government programs (save for TANF, section-8 housing, and Medicaid), your family’s yearly income must be between 100% of the poverty level and 180% of the poverty level. That looks like this:

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

So yes, the bigger your family is, the higher the poverty guideline . . . thus easier to get those monetary gains in the form of government assistance, right? Umm, except for the fact that in order to make $40,000 a year and get those benefits, you will need a family of 7 . . . and that means that when you get those benefits, you still have to house, feed, clothe, provide heat/electricity, bathe, transport, and generally support 7 people. These aren’t Chia pets, they are people, and (believe it or not) it costs a LOT to provide for all those people.

Do you know how the poverty line was created? In 1965, the government adopted the Orchansky model of taking the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s economy food plan for a family of 4 and multiplying that number by 3 . . . during that time, it was found that a family of 4 will spend 1/3 of its income after taxes on food, thus 3 times the bare minimum, economy family food plan would create the poverty guideline. Anyone who fell below that line (made less money than 3 times the amount of money that is the bare minimum for keeping a family fed) was in poverty, anyone above that line was fine.

Do you know that this is still the same model that we use today? Thus, the $33,000 you make in your family of 7 that qualifies you for the programs means that the government assumes that you will spend $11,000/year just to feed your family. That may or may not be a fair estimate, depending on where you live, but then the assumption is that a family of 7 with $33,000 annually will only spend $22,000 on EVERYTHING ELSE. Rent. Electricity. Clothes. School supplies. Hygiene products. Blankets. Toilet paper. Beds. EVERYTHING.

If you do the math, that means that in order to reap these “monetary gains” you have to live like a rat. Again, going back to the rationality model I used several times earlier. . . IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Try to think this to yourself: “I’m going to have a pack of kids and live at the poverty line so that I can get government assistance, but just barely enough to get by.” Is it worth it?

Remember that this is without the hospital bills from having said pack of kids, without the bills from prenatal care for said pack of kids, and without the time/effort/knowledge of the government programs needed to really get everything you can get out of these programs.

For a small percentage of these women in these situations where they have a lot of kids and are on assistance programs, did it ever occur to you that maybe these children are the only thing that brings any joy to the lives of the women? If you had grown up in poverty, were uneducated, working a dead-end job or unemployed, where would you get true joy?

For an even smaller, miniscule percentage of these women, the idea is that with every kid she has, the chances that one will grow up, be successful, and pull them all out of poverty increases. The only problem with this idea is that the woman has not taken into account that it is statistically unlikely that any of her children will rise any further up the socio/economic chain than she is . . . it is unlikely for anyone to do significantly better than their parents. Generational wealth rarely changes.

Lastly, on the issue of abortion: As someone who does not have a uterus, and will never have to face the decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy or not: I feel that you shouldn’t have a voice in the debate. Nobody is telling you what you can and cannot do with your reproductive organs, it’s bullshit that anyone should stand around and tell me what I can and cannot do with mine.

Plus, I find it really shady that women are made to seem like we are incapable of making the decision about what is best for our lives and bodies, but in the same breath told that we are responsible for birthing and raising these children. Usually alone.

*Deep breath in*

In short:
Please do not talk about birth control options for women and whether or not they are getting pregnant on purpose if you have no clue what obstacles women face in getting said birth control.

Please do not talk about women having children to trap men or to reap some monetary gain when you have no real working knowledge of the history of women in poverty, the welfare system, or what it means to truly live at the poverty level.

Please do not talk about the abortion debate, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, since you are clearly ignorant of the issues facing women in our society. Once you have a working knowledge of such things, then you may join the conversation.

Sincerely yours,
Sarah

#ocd #anxiety Anxiety And Depression Disorder- Symptoms And Treatments

cure technique can be found in its 250 #causes of anxiety attacks treatments

#Inception

Here is an email from a reader who is trying to wean off her medications. She asks for any help offered by professionals reading WellPostpartum Weblog. Of course, practitioners are unable to recommend specific dosages, but a general description of the issues may be helpful.

She says:

Here's what I am on (which has been reduced in quantity and will continue to slowly be):
Seroquel- 50 mg/day- used at bedtime to induce sleep (insomnia)
Alprazolam- 1mg/day- used in middle of the night to continue sleep and calm nightime anxiety
Lexapro- 15mg/day- to treat PPD

Here's the supplement I bought and thought I would try- although I read a warning on the label that that concerns me about still be on prescription meds- “This product could potentiate the use of barbituates and central nervous system depressant medications…” Is this referring to illicit drugs or prescription ones and if so, what are the ingredients in the formula that should be avoided?

GABA EaseTM – Calming Support 60 capsules

GABA and L-theanine are two of our best nutrients researched for their promotion of calming effects. Passion flower, skullcap and hops have generations of traditional use in herbal medicine for their calming and nerve tonic support. This formula is an important combination of the results of modern science in natural medicine and the decades of experience in herbal medicine to promote a calming effect during occasional stress, nervous tension and hormonal irritability.*+

Each vegetarian capsule provides: Vitamin B6 (as HCL), GABA (Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid), L-Theanine, Passion flower extract (5:1), Hops flower extract(4:1), Skullcap leaf and stem extract (5:1)

Also, I understand that Tart Cherry and Passion Flower can be good natural anxiety treatments- would those be good choices for me?

From Cheryl- I would establish a relationship with one of the experienced practitioners listed here. Having your neurotransmitters tested is a great first step. Many practitioners can recommend specific amino acids, or blends of aminos and nutrients to address underlying issues.

I agree (with psychiatrist Hyla Cass) that it is very hard to treat a problem without knowing what is happening in the brain. Neurotransmitter testing gives a highly accurate picture of activity- and a road map for recovery.

Trying to figure out the above question without continued professional guidance could absolutely make the situation MUCH WORSE! Amino acid therapy is very powerful, but potentially problematic. Guessing is simply not advised.

I'm glad this reader has the outlet provided here; asking these questions is a great sign of strength and determination. Keep learning and you will find wholeness in the future. Then, staying well can be a fabulous do-it-yourself project!

3 Tips to Effectively Control Anxiety Attacks – <a rel="nofollow"

if it is below 90/60 it is hypotension or low blood pressure w/ cardinal symptoms of lightheadedness or dizziness.

I just wanted to address you personally about the comment you made on a recent Huffington Post article about Heidi Fleiss and her comments on abortion.

First of all, I appreciate that you signed the comment with your name and included a link to this site. It frustrates me when people hide behind the anonymity that the internet (and comment boxes) offer. It takes real courage to state your opinions and do so with your name behind it.

With that being said, I can tell that you've never been the proud owner of a uterus nor have you ever had to bear the responsibility of preventing a pregnancy. Sure, as a man, you have probably had to buy condoms, but that's as far as “prevention” goes for men. And how do you obtain condoms? Without a prescription, at any age, at any drug store/convenience store/men's bathroom, and at a fairly reasonable price. And if that condom breaks that you've purchased? Well, it's no longer your problem, is it? You've done your part. You were responsible.

Now, if I am a woman, and I am responsible and have my partner wear a condom and it breaks, it is now my problem.

Morning after pill, you say? Well, here's hoping that I'm over the age of 17, and have a drug store around that isn't staffed by fundamentalist Christians who can “legally” refuse to sell the drug to me even though it is over the counter. Otherwise, I'm screwed.

Maybe I should have been on the pill/ring/shot/iud as a back-up, right? Well, most women do use those methods as back-up . . . if they have health insurance and/or have a planned parenthood clinic nearby that isn't surrounded by fundamentalist nutcase groups that murder doctors that perform legal procedures. Unfortunately, if you live in the midwest, going to PP is REALLY f-ing scary because of this and because of the healthcare debate we know that 46.3 million people are without health insurance right now. (US Census Bureau, Sept. 10, 2009)

Let's just be SUPER conservative and say that 1/3 of that 46.3 million uninsured people are female (even though logic suggests that because health insurance depends largely on the occupations, region, sex, and age that there is a much higher percentage of women and children that are uninsured due to our societal norms and values), that is still 15.43 MILLION women without insurance. Are you familiar with how much the pill costs when you do not have insurance? I can tell you from personal experience that it can range from around $50/28-day pack for a generic brand to almost $75/28-day pack for name brands. If you go with a generic, that is roughly $650/year for adequate birth control. And the price of a doctor's visit to get that prescription for that generic pill for a calendar year? That's roughly $100, without insurance. Maybe I live in the city and there's a free clinic, but I will still need to have the time off work to go to said clinic which is costing me money by my having to schedule my work around it instead of the other way around (which would be the case if I had insurance). If I'm a woman in the suburbs or in a rural area, I hope I have adequate transportation to get me to the “free clinic”. . . and this is all without the price of the condoms, if we are being truly safe and responsible.

Plus, all of this relies on the fact that I am a legal adult with no moral/religious issues with modern birth control methods, have the resources to obtain said birth control, and that I'm not currently taking medications that can interfere with oral contraceptives, the ring, or the patch.

Wanna know what can effect that? Glad you asked!
Antibiotics
Anti-HIV Protease Inhibitors
Anti-Seizure medications
Antidepressants
Anti-Fungal medications
Diabetes medications
Anxiety treatments
Natural supplements like St. Johns Wart
. . . and, of course, grapefruit.

So, if I'm underage? Screwed.
If I've asked to be on birth control and have had parents refuse? Screwed.
Have a religious family? Screwed.
Be socio/economically destitute? Screwed.
Have a fundamentalist pharmacist? Screwed.
On ANY of the medications that can alter the effectiveness of the birth control that I'm being responsible and taking? Screwed.
Have nutcases outside my Planned Parenthood? Screwed.

Are you starting to see a trend here? So, in short, even if women are being truly super-responsible and are using TWO methods of birth control, there are MANY MANY MANY obstacles to clear before we are socially sanctioned to have “the sex”.

THAT is how you can be actively trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and still end up knocked up. I would dare to say that being uninsured and not being able to shell out the cash necessary for a back up contraceptive is exactly TRYING to get pregnant.

Plus, according to the American Pregnancy Association, 47% of the unplanned pregnancies in the U.S. are due to not using birth control. That means that the other 53%, the majority, are conceived while using birth control methods.

And we both know that telling people who are in any of the numerous situations that can hinder your ability to obtain birth control methods to just not have sex is ridiculous and completely unrealistic.

Birth control? Covered it. Now on to “child-birth as a means to a way” as you so eloquently put it. You may want to get some lube for this part.

If you can name for me 5 women that you know personally that have gotten pregnant to keep a man around, I will give you this category. In all of my years, in all of my experiences with women in desperate situations, I have yet to meet a single woman who has “trapped” a man (or tried to) by having his child. Never once. Why?

Well, it's not exactly foolproof. A man can either leave or stay. He's not legally obliged to stay, and if he doesn't he's not even all that responsible for child support. Do you know how many men owe back child support? Please!

Granted, if there is that situation and the man stays, then that makes the woman a bit of a monster . . . and a bit of a sociopath, doesn't it? Not exactly someone you want bringing up a child.

Plus, having a kid to keep a man around is like buying a whole farm to get a glass of milk . . . buying a McDonalds franchise to get a Big Mac . . . bringing a shotgun to a squirrel hunt . . . it's complete and total overkill, and just completely stupid. Nobody with any notion of a cost/benefit trade-off, which would be all rational people as economics taught me, would make that deal. If you are not rational, you probably shouldn't be raising children.

Now on to the excuse of getting pregnant to escape a religiously fanatical family. I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one too. If anything, I have seen more girls get sucked deeper into religiously fanatical families because of this. “You need to beg for God's forgiveness,” kind of mentality.

Sure, I've seen plenty of girls get out from under the thumb of a deeply oppressive religion or family, go a little wild, and end up pregnant, but never the other way around . . . then again, I'm not all that close to many devoutly Mormon families or Scientologists, both religions that (from my understanding, which is limited) will kick you out of the church for such things.

But, again, it's kind of like buying the whole farm just to get a glass of milk.

*Sigh* And now on to the “governmental monetary gains” that you spoke of . . . and this is kind of my specialty.

You know when Reagan came out and said that he was going to hire folks to do social research to find these “welfare queens” that just keep having kids so that they can keep getting government handouts so that they live like queens without having to lift a finger? Yeah, well, the research is in. Do you know what they found? There were none of these “welfare queens”, but rather a community of impoverished women who were (and still are) blamed for their situations.

Aside from the fact that this whole idea is rooted in a whole field of awful stereotypes about women (and their uncontrolled sexuality, which is a problem in a puritanical society) and especially minorities (laziness), it completely bastardizes programs like WIC and TANF.

Monetary gains? Yeah, right.

To be eligible for most government programs (save for TANF, section-8 housing, and Medicaid), your family’s yearly income must be between 100% of the poverty level and 180% of the poverty level. That looks like this:

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

So yes, the bigger your family is, the higher the poverty guideline . . . thus easier to get those monetary gains in the form of government assistance, right? Umm, except for the fact that in order to make $40,000 a year and get those benefits, you will need a family of 7 . . . and that means that when you get those benefits, you still have to house, feed, clothe, provide heat/electricity, bathe, transport, and generally support 7 people. These aren’t Chia pets, they are people, and (believe it or not) it costs a LOT to provide for all those people.

Do you know how the poverty line was created? In 1965, the government adopted the Orchansky model of taking the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s economy food plan for a family of 4 and multiplying that number by 3 . . . during that time, it was found that a family of 4 will spend 1/3 of its income after taxes on food, thus 3 times the bare minimum, economy family food plan would create the poverty guideline. Anyone who fell below that line (made less money than 3 times the amount of money that is the bare minimum for keeping a family fed) was in poverty, anyone above that line was fine.

Do you know that this is still the same model that we use today? Thus, the $33,000 you make in your family of 7 that qualifies you for the programs means that the government assumes that you will spend $11,000/year just to feed your family. That may or may not be a fair estimate, depending on where you live, but then the assumption is that a family of 7 with $33,000 annually will only spend $22,000 on EVERYTHING ELSE. Rent. Electricity. Clothes. School supplies. Hygiene products. Blankets. Toilet paper. Beds. EVERYTHING.

If you do the math, that means that in order to reap these “monetary gains” you have to live like a rat. Again, going back to the rationality model I used several times earlier. . . IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Try to think this to yourself: “I’m going to have a pack of kids and live at the poverty line so that I can get government assistance, but just barely enough to get by.” Is it worth it?

Remember that this is without the hospital bills from having said pack of kids, without the bills from prenatal care for said pack of kids, and without the time/effort/knowledge of the government programs needed to really get everything you can get out of these programs.

For a small percentage of these women in these situations where they have a lot of kids and are on assistance programs, did it ever occur to you that maybe these children are the only thing that brings any joy to the lives of the women? If you had grown up in poverty, were uneducated, working a dead-end job or unemployed, where would you get true joy?

For an even smaller, miniscule percentage of these women, the idea is that with every kid she has, the chances that one will grow up, be successful, and pull them all out of poverty increases. The only problem with this idea is that the woman has not taken into account that it is statistically unlikely that any of her children will rise any further up the socio/economic chain than she is . . . it is unlikely for anyone to do significantly better than their parents. Generational wealth rarely changes.

Lastly, on the issue of abortion: As someone who does not have a uterus, and will never have to face the decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy or not: I feel that you shouldn’t have a voice in the debate. Nobody is telling you what you can and cannot do with your reproductive organs, it’s bullshit that anyone should stand around and tell me what I can and cannot do with mine.

Plus, I find it really shady that women are made to seem like we are incapable of making the decision about what is best for our lives and bodies, but in the same breath told that we are responsible for birthing and raising these children. Usually alone.

*Deep breath in*

In short:
Please do not talk about birth control options for women and whether or not they are getting pregnant on purpose if you have no clue what obstacles women face in getting said birth control.

Please do not talk about women having children to trap men or to reap some monetary gain when you have no real working knowledge of the history of women in poverty, the welfare system, or what it means to truly live at the poverty level.

Please do not talk about the abortion debate, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, since you are clearly ignorant of the issues facing women in our society. Once you have a working knowledge of such things, then you may join the conversation.

Sincerely yours,
Sarah

Anxiety Treatments – <a rel="nofollow"

<a class="watch-comment-atlink" Thank you so much for you feedback of you initial experiences.

Symptoms of Dehydration: Thirst, Hunger, Fatigue, Headache, Muscle weakness, Dizziness, Lightheadedness – Sound familiar?? H2O is ur friend!

I LOOOVE IT¡¡ JUST with the glitter

Symptoms of Dehydration: Thirst, Hunger, Fatigue, Headache, Muscle weakness, Dizziness, Lightheadedness – Sound familiar?? H2O is ur friend!

Stop Panic Attacks: Treatments To Cure Anxiety Attacks | CosmEPIC: http://www.justbewell.com Hi Yes it is possible to sto…

Dear Laura:

You are indeed amazing. All those kids! How do you find the time to train? When do you train! As for your comment, on the kegel thing you bring up a good question…..I did kegel exercises during my pregnancies but I only gave birth twice and my kegel muscles – I don't think- were affected in either of my pregnancies other than some things which you'd expect…jumping jacks are not as comfortable as they once were but running is not a problem. As with anything in pregnancy – keep your weight gain to the acceptable 30 pounds give or take 5. In your case you may want to read more about how you can keep those muscles working the way they should….my only fear for you would potentially be incontinence in the future. I found an interview you may find interesting.

As for the baby bouncing and your stomach muscles, your baby is in a amniotic sac and sure, the baby will move when you run but it's not like your fetus is rolling around pinging off the uterine walls like in a video game. I would not flex your muscles while running. However, with the amount of pregnancies that you've had and all the exercise you are doing, just promise me you will listen to your body and know that multiple births such as what you've had will cause irreversible changes in your muscles. Be mindful of this so that you can be conscious of your changing body.

Here are some things to note in terms of running in general (this is for other readers just as a reminder):

It also isn't good for your baby if you become overheated because temperatures greater than 102.6° Fahrenheit (39° Celsius) could cause problems with the developing fetus — especially in the first trimester — which can potentially lead to birth defects. So don't overdo exercise on hot days.

AND watch for these signs (where you'd need to see your doctor)

* vaginal bleeding
* unusual pain
* dizziness or lightheadedness
* unusual shortness of breath
* racing heartbeat or chest pain
* fluid leaking from your vagina
* uterine contractions

I get some really wonderful pure raw agave syrup online from a raw vegan website. I haven't had any issues, but I have had issues with honey in the past. I think no two people will react the same way to any substance. Just my opinion.

I hope everything goes well with your heart. As far as my stomach after surgery, I do not feel like it was messed with at all. I am 6 weeks out now, I have still not felt hungry at all since surgery. Also as of right now I am able to get in much more water than I did the first 4 weeks. I still sip but they are bugger sips. No gupls yet though.

thinks for posting it,sounds like mike has some technical deficaltes with his mic.

I just wanted to address you personally about the comment you made on a recent Huffington Post article about Heidi Fleiss and her comments on abortion.

First of all, I appreciate that you signed the comment with your name and included a link to this site. It frustrates me when people hide behind the anonymity that the internet (and comment boxes) offer. It takes real courage to state your opinions and do so with your name behind it.

With that being said, I can tell that you've never been the proud owner of a uterus nor have you ever had to bear the responsibility of preventing a pregnancy. Sure, as a man, you have probably had to buy condoms, but that's as far as “prevention” goes for men. And how do you obtain condoms? Without a prescription, at any age, at any drug store/convenience store/men's bathroom, and at a fairly reasonable price. And if that condom breaks that you've purchased? Well, it's no longer your problem, is it? You've done your part. You were responsible.

Now, if I am a woman, and I am responsible and have my partner wear a condom and it breaks, it is now my problem.

Morning after pill, you say? Well, here's hoping that I'm over the age of 17, and have a drug store around that isn't staffed by fundamentalist Christians who can “legally” refuse to sell the drug to me even though it is over the counter. Otherwise, I'm screwed.

Maybe I should have been on the pill/ring/shot/iud as a back-up, right? Well, most women do use those methods as back-up . . . if they have health insurance and/or have a planned parenthood clinic nearby that isn't surrounded by fundamentalist nutcase groups that murder doctors that perform legal procedures. Unfortunately, if you live in the midwest, going to PP is REALLY f-ing scary because of this and because of the healthcare debate we know that 46.3 million people are without health insurance right now. (US Census Bureau, Sept. 10, 2009)

Let's just be SUPER conservative and say that 1/3 of that 46.3 million uninsured people are female (even though logic suggests that because health insurance depends largely on the occupations, region, sex, and age that there is a much higher percentage of women and children that are uninsured due to our societal norms and values), that is still 15.43 MILLION women without insurance. Are you familiar with how much the pill costs when you do not have insurance? I can tell you from personal experience that it can range from around $50/28-day pack for a generic brand to almost $75/28-day pack for name brands. If you go with a generic, that is roughly $650/year for adequate birth control. And the price of a doctor's visit to get that prescription for that generic pill for a calendar year? That's roughly $100, without insurance. Maybe I live in the city and there's a free clinic, but I will still need to have the time off work to go to said clinic which is costing me money by my having to schedule my work around it instead of the other way around (which would be the case if I had insurance). If I'm a woman in the suburbs or in a rural area, I hope I have adequate transportation to get me to the “free clinic”. . . and this is all without the price of the condoms, if we are being truly safe and responsible.

Plus, all of this relies on the fact that I am a legal adult with no moral/religious issues with modern birth control methods, have the resources to obtain said birth control, and that I'm not currently taking medications that can interfere with oral contraceptives, the ring, or the patch.

Wanna know what can effect that? Glad you asked!
Antibiotics
Anti-HIV Protease Inhibitors
Anti-Seizure medications
Antidepressants
Anti-Fungal medications
Diabetes medications
Anxiety treatments
Natural supplements like St. Johns Wart
. . . and, of course, grapefruit.

So, if I'm underage? Screwed.
If I've asked to be on birth control and have had parents refuse? Screwed.
Have a religious family? Screwed.
Be socio/economically destitute? Screwed.
Have a fundamentalist pharmacist? Screwed.
On ANY of the medications that can alter the effectiveness of the birth control that I'm being responsible and taking? Screwed.
Have nutcases outside my Planned Parenthood? Screwed.

Are you starting to see a trend here? So, in short, even if women are being truly super-responsible and are using TWO methods of birth control, there are MANY MANY MANY obstacles to clear before we are socially sanctioned to have “the sex”.

THAT is how you can be actively trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and still end up knocked up. I would dare to say that being uninsured and not being able to shell out the cash necessary for a back up contraceptive is exactly TRYING to get pregnant.

Plus, according to the American Pregnancy Association, 47% of the unplanned pregnancies in the U.S. are due to not using birth control. That means that the other 53%, the majority, are conceived while using birth control methods.

And we both know that telling people who are in any of the numerous situations that can hinder your ability to obtain birth control methods to just not have sex is ridiculous and completely unrealistic.

Birth control? Covered it. Now on to “child-birth as a means to a way” as you so eloquently put it. You may want to get some lube for this part.

If you can name for me 5 women that you know personally that have gotten pregnant to keep a man around, I will give you this category. In all of my years, in all of my experiences with women in desperate situations, I have yet to meet a single woman who has “trapped” a man (or tried to) by having his child. Never once. Why?

Well, it's not exactly foolproof. A man can either leave or stay. He's not legally obliged to stay, and if he doesn't he's not even all that responsible for child support. Do you know how many men owe back child support? Please!

Granted, if there is that situation and the man stays, then that makes the woman a bit of a monster . . . and a bit of a sociopath, doesn't it? Not exactly someone you want bringing up a child.

Plus, having a kid to keep a man around is like buying a whole farm to get a glass of milk . . . buying a McDonalds franchise to get a Big Mac . . . bringing a shotgun to a squirrel hunt . . . it's complete and total overkill, and just completely stupid. Nobody with any notion of a cost/benefit trade-off, which would be all rational people as economics taught me, would make that deal. If you are not rational, you probably shouldn't be raising children.

Now on to the excuse of getting pregnant to escape a religiously fanatical family. I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one too. If anything, I have seen more girls get sucked deeper into religiously fanatical families because of this. “You need to beg for God's forgiveness,” kind of mentality.

Sure, I've seen plenty of girls get out from under the thumb of a deeply oppressive religion or family, go a little wild, and end up pregnant, but never the other way around . . . then again, I'm not all that close to many devoutly Mormon families or Scientologists, both religions that (from my understanding, which is limited) will kick you out of the church for such things.

But, again, it's kind of like buying the whole farm just to get a glass of milk.

*Sigh* And now on to the “governmental monetary gains” that you spoke of . . . and this is kind of my specialty.

You know when Reagan came out and said that he was going to hire folks to do social research to find these “welfare queens” that just keep having kids so that they can keep getting government handouts so that they live like queens without having to lift a finger? Yeah, well, the research is in. Do you know what they found? There were none of these “welfare queens”, but rather a community of impoverished women who were (and still are) blamed for their situations.

Aside from the fact that this whole idea is rooted in a whole field of awful stereotypes about women (and their uncontrolled sexuality, which is a problem in a puritanical society) and especially minorities (laziness), it completely bastardizes programs like WIC and TANF.

Monetary gains? Yeah, right.

To be eligible for most government programs (save for TANF, section-8 housing, and Medicaid), your family’s yearly income must be between 100% of the poverty level and 180% of the poverty level. That looks like this:

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

So yes, the bigger your family is, the higher the poverty guideline . . . thus easier to get those monetary gains in the form of government assistance, right? Umm, except for the fact that in order to make $40,000 a year and get those benefits, you will need a family of 7 . . . and that means that when you get those benefits, you still have to house, feed, clothe, provide heat/electricity, bathe, transport, and generally support 7 people. These aren’t Chia pets, they are people, and (believe it or not) it costs a LOT to provide for all those people.

Do you know how the poverty line was created? In 1965, the government adopted the Orchansky model of taking the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s economy food plan for a family of 4 and multiplying that number by 3 . . . during that time, it was found that a family of 4 will spend 1/3 of its income after taxes on food, thus 3 times the bare minimum, economy family food plan would create the poverty guideline. Anyone who fell below that line (made less money than 3 times the amount of money that is the bare minimum for keeping a family fed) was in poverty, anyone above that line was fine.

Do you know that this is still the same model that we use today? Thus, the $33,000 you make in your family of 7 that qualifies you for the programs means that the government assumes that you will spend $11,000/year just to feed your family. That may or may not be a fair estimate, depending on where you live, but then the assumption is that a family of 7 with $33,000 annually will only spend $22,000 on EVERYTHING ELSE. Rent. Electricity. Clothes. School supplies. Hygiene products. Blankets. Toilet paper. Beds. EVERYTHING.

If you do the math, that means that in order to reap these “monetary gains” you have to live like a rat. Again, going back to the rationality model I used several times earlier. . . IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Try to think this to yourself: “I’m going to have a pack of kids and live at the poverty line so that I can get government assistance, but just barely enough to get by.” Is it worth it?

Remember that this is without the hospital bills from having said pack of kids, without the bills from prenatal care for said pack of kids, and without the time/effort/knowledge of the government programs needed to really get everything you can get out of these programs.

For a small percentage of these women in these situations where they have a lot of kids and are on assistance programs, did it ever occur to you that maybe these children are the only thing that brings any joy to the lives of the women? If you had grown up in poverty, were uneducated, working a dead-end job or unemployed, where would you get true joy?

For an even smaller, miniscule percentage of these women, the idea is that with every kid she has, the chances that one will grow up, be successful, and pull them all out of poverty increases. The only problem with this idea is that the woman has not taken into account that it is statistically unlikely that any of her children will rise any further up the socio/economic chain than she is . . . it is unlikely for anyone to do significantly better than their parents. Generational wealth rarely changes.

Lastly, on the issue of abortion: As someone who does not have a uterus, and will never have to face the decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy or not: I feel that you shouldn’t have a voice in the debate. Nobody is telling you what you can and cannot do with your reproductive organs, it’s bullshit that anyone should stand around and tell me what I can and cannot do with mine.

Plus, I find it really shady that women are made to seem like we are incapable of making the decision about what is best for our lives and bodies, but in the same breath told that we are responsible for birthing and raising these children. Usually alone.

*Deep breath in*

In short:
Please do not talk about birth control options for women and whether or not they are getting pregnant on purpose if you have no clue what obstacles women face in getting said birth control.

Please do not talk about women having children to trap men or to reap some monetary gain when you have no real working knowledge of the history of women in poverty, the welfare system, or what it means to truly live at the poverty level.

Please do not talk about the abortion debate, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, since you are clearly ignorant of the issues facing women in our society. Once you have a working knowledge of such things, then you may join the conversation.

Sincerely yours,
Sarah

RT Managing Bipolar Disorder: A Comprehensive Treatment Plan Is Most Successful #depression #anxiety

Here is an email from a reader who is trying to wean off her medications. She asks for any help offered by professionals reading WellPostpartum Weblog. Of course, practitioners are unable to recommend specific dosages, but a general description of the issues may be helpful.

She says:

Here's what I am on (which has been reduced in quantity and will continue to slowly be):
Seroquel- 50 mg/day- used at bedtime to induce sleep (insomnia)
Alprazolam- 1mg/day- used in middle of the night to continue sleep and calm nightime anxiety
Lexapro- 15mg/day- to treat PPD

Here's the supplement I bought and thought I would try- although I read a warning on the label that that concerns me about still be on prescription meds- “This product could potentiate the use of barbituates and central nervous system depressant medications…” Is this referring to illicit drugs or prescription ones and if so, what are the ingredients in the formula that should be avoided?

GABA EaseTM – Calming Support 60 capsules

GABA and L-theanine are two of our best nutrients researched for their promotion of calming effects. Passion flower, skullcap and hops have generations of traditional use in herbal medicine for their calming and nerve tonic support. This formula is an important combination of the results of modern science in natural medicine and the decades of experience in herbal medicine to promote a calming effect during occasional stress, nervous tension and hormonal irritability.*+

Each vegetarian capsule provides: Vitamin B6 (as HCL), GABA (Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid), L-Theanine, Passion flower extract (5:1), Hops flower extract(4:1), Skullcap leaf and stem extract (5:1)

Also, I understand that Tart Cherry and Passion Flower can be good natural anxiety treatments- would those be good choices for me?

From Cheryl- I would establish a relationship with one of the experienced practitioners listed here. Having your neurotransmitters tested is a great first step. Many practitioners can recommend specific amino acids, or blends of aminos and nutrients to address underlying issues.

I agree (with psychiatrist Hyla Cass) that it is very hard to treat a problem without knowing what is happening in the brain. Neurotransmitter testing gives a highly accurate picture of activity- and a road map for recovery.

Trying to figure out the above question without continued professional guidance could absolutely make the situation MUCH WORSE! Amino acid therapy is very powerful, but potentially problematic. Guessing is simply not advised.

I'm glad this reader has the outlet provided here; asking these questions is a great sign of strength and determination. Keep learning and you will find wholeness in the future. Then, staying well can be a fabulous do-it-yourself project!

went 2 the doctor 2day cos I was having heart palpitations, apparently I have a disease, which is actually a virus- thats not confusing!