SAN FRANCISCO (MedPage Today) — Dramatically condensing radiation treatment for early prostate cancer into just five fractions produces good results without much toxicity, an early-phase study suggested.Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/rss/Urology.xml
Generally, once we speak of male enhancement, the primary element that comes to our mind is the length of the male member. The truth is, nonetheless, it’s not just the length of your penis that counts. The truth is, health gurus now consider that with regards to the actual act of sexual intercourse, penetration and satisfaction received by the feminine passive woman, it is the girth of your penis that matters probably the most.
Understanding the member girth. Penile circumference can be explained as the evaluation of thickness of your manhood. In simple words, penis thickness is the measurement of the circumference of the completely erect male organ. It is variously quoted as an average of three measurements: just beneath the glans penis, within the center of the shaft, and at the base.
Does male member have any normal girth? Simply speaking, researchers make use of the term average for penis thickness rather than using the term normal. Based on the Kinsey Institute and also other human sexuality researchers, the average male member size is 5.5 to 6.5 inches and the average male organ width (circumference) is four to five inches. After unit conversions, basic calculations show that to be a diameter (distance across) of about 1.25 to 1.6 inches, a width comparable to an empty roll of scotch tape is needed.
The reason why penile width is so crucial? It must be kept in mind that a woman’s vagina is the muscle that may be extended to significant dimensions: It is formed to fit entire babies, so there is no issue to fit any male member at the same time. When a penis enters vagina, it stretches vaginal wall, exciting the nerves inside, this is what can make women really get pleasure from. This is because most of the nerve fibers that are aroused throughout sexual penetration (both the genital and rectal kinds) are located close to the entrance of the vaginal canal and anus. This causes length less important and girth that much significant a factor because it is the stretching of the genital or rectal areas that fuels the nerve fibers. Consequently, penis width is important and can improve intercourse quality, purpose and satisfaction for both partners.
Some 100 % pure solutions And devices to enhance penis width. Almost all the penile enhancement solutions, devices and strategies you can find currently usually are meant to develop merely the size of the male organ which often ends in a long but thin member. As opposed to making use of these conventional strategies, a thought really should be given to try new, clinically tested paths that have shown to contribute to boost in each length and girth of the penis. A number of these devices involve penis stretchers, extenders and some recommended male enlargement workout routines. These gizmos (especially these distributed by some reputable, trust worthy manufacturer such as connected with SizeGenetics) have been testified to naturally and once and for good increase the girth of the penis for promising pleasure, passion and gratification throughout intimate intercourse.
SAN FRANCISCO (MedPage Today) — The immunotherapy agent sipuleucel-T (Provenge) appears safe for use earlier in prostate cancer, researchers found.Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/rss/Urology.xml
(MedPage Today) — SAN FRANCISCO — Denosumab (Xgeva) delays onset of bone metastases for even the highest risk prostate cancer patients, researchers found.Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/rss/Urology.xml
13-01-2012 09:23 Andrew G. Bostom, MD, speaks about extended-release niacin/laropiprant and serum phosphorus levels in dyslipidemic patients who have stage 3 chronic kidney disease. bit.ly
A PREGNANT woman who miscarried after the cruise ship wreck off the coast of Italy last month is set to sue the vessel's owners for one million euros ($A1.2 million) in damages, Italian media says.
The crippled Costa Concordia lists as passengers take to its lifeboats. Picture: AP Source: AP
Woman sues over Costa cruise miscarriage Seeking $1.4 million in damages from company Up to 32 people are feared to have died in the disaster
A PREGNANT woman who miscarried after the cruise ship wreck off the coast of Italy last month is set to sue the vessel's owners for one million euros ($A1.2 million) in damages, Italian media says.
The 30-year-old Italian, identified only as Cristina M, was four months pregnant when she set off on the Costa Concordia cruise on January 13. Though she escaped the sinking ship in a lifeboat, she was admitted to hospital last week with a miscarriage.
Her doctors said she likely lost her baby because of the intense psychological stress suffered both during the night-time evacuation and when her lifeboat smashed up against rocks as it headed for the nearby shore.
Christina M's lawyers will add her to a class action against Costa Crociere and seek one million euros ($A1.2 million) in damages for the miscarriage, reports said.
The 114,500-tonne liner with more than 4200 people aboard ran aground on rocks off Tuscany's Giglio Island and lurched on to its side as passengers were settling down to dinner shortly after the start of a Mediterranean cruise.
Up to 32 people are feared to have died in the disaster, which has led to a host of legal claims against the stricken ship's parent companies.
Costa Crociere and advocacy groups representing survivors have struck a deal in which around 3000 survivors are to receive 11,000 euros ($13,500) each plus the cost of the cruise and expenses.
Six passengers in the United States however are suing Carnival Lines, Costa Crociere's parent company, demanding compensation totalling $US460 million ($430 million).
In France a number of passengers have rejected the deal and filed legal complaints with the French courts, and in Germany, a group of 19 tourists have filed criminal charges against the captain Francesco Schettino.
The crippled Costa Concordia lists as passengers take to its lifeboats. Picture: AP Source: AP
Woman sues over Costa cruise miscarriage Seeking $1.4 million in damages from company Up to 32 people are feared to have died in the disaster
A PREGNANT woman who miscarried after the cruise ship wreck off the coast of Italy last month is set to sue the vessel's owners for one million euros ($A1.2 million) in damages, Italian media says.
The 30-year-old Italian, identified only as Cristina M, was four months pregnant when she set off on the Costa Concordia cruise on January 13. Though she escaped the sinking ship in a lifeboat, she was admitted to hospital last week with a miscarriage.
Her doctors said she likely lost her baby because of the intense psychological stress suffered both during the night-time evacuation and when her lifeboat smashed up against rocks as it headed for the nearby shore.
Christina M's lawyers will add her to a class action against Costa Crociere and seek one million euros ($A1.2 million) in damages for the miscarriage, reports said.
The 114,500-tonne liner with more than 4200 people aboard ran aground on rocks off Tuscany's Giglio Island and lurched on to its side as passengers were settling down to dinner shortly after the start of a Mediterranean cruise.
Up to 32 people are feared to have died in the disaster, which has led to a host of legal claims against the stricken ship's parent companies.
Costa Crociere and advocacy groups representing survivors have struck a deal in which around 3000 survivors are to receive 11,000 euros ($13,500) each plus the cost of the cruise and expenses.
Six passengers in the United States however are suing Carnival Lines, Costa Crociere's parent company, demanding compensation totalling $US460 million ($430 million).
In France a number of passengers have rejected the deal and filed legal complaints with the French courts, and in Germany, a group of 19 tourists have filed criminal charges against the captain Francesco Schettino.
More often than not, Indigenous disadvantage puts Australia on the international news media radar. Local commentators on the Tent Embassy protest have chosen to look away, writes Hamish Ford
On Australia Day in Canberra this year two stark effects of an intertwined political and mainstream media narrative were revealed.
First, that protests, no matter how small, are increasingly portrayed as security threats.
Second, the way the events were relayed at the time and then over ensuing days illustrates how historical and ongoing Indigenous disadvantage — despite being an international scandal — is treated here with a mix of dishonest platitudinal concern and “move-on” belligerence.
Escalating very visibly during the Howard period, rallies and protesters have increasingly been portrayed over recent years as either vaguely unnerving or as violent threats. When it comes to hosting big regional and international forums, this can be partially explained away as the government and PM of the day not wanting to be embarrassed in front of global leaders. However, why visible protest is embarrassing or dangerous for a purportedly freedom-of-speech-loving democracy — after all, we go to war against nations vilified for lacking such things — is never properly explained.
Last Thursday in Canberra, with no need to protect visiting dignitaries from the messy democratic spectacle of dissent, we saw the absurd limit point reached in the ‘protest as security threat’ narrative.
No wonder the spectacle of our first female prime minister being “saved” by a dashing security officer made international news. But people overseas — especially in countries characterised by much more rancorous and ideologically diverse extra-parliamentary political argument — may have been left confused by the story behind the dramatic images. Were Australia’s Prime Minister and Opposition Leader really fleeing a restaurant accompanied by a security detail just because a small and unarmed group of activists with a globally recognised cause had noisily decamped outside?
In addition to protest organisers disputing police and media claims that activists engaged in violence, an independent eyewitness has since written that the whole threat and behaviour of this small group was at best exaggerated or at worst an outright lie.
Some people undoubtedly wondered why the police reacted as they did, but excessive actions are crucial if protests are to be construed as real threats. Rather than a strange aberration, overreactions are also far from unfamiliar.
Yet rather than examining the behaviour of the cops and questioning whether the media got the story right on the day (as Ben Eltham did in New Matilda), the main emphasis in subsequent reporting remains on what the event means for the only game in town that matters.
And so we are told the restaurant rescue was bad for Gillard because she looked “weak” being ushered away. Media outlets then obsessed over the trivial and distracting he said/she said fight resulting from the Opposition’s claims of collusion by the Prime Minister’s Office and the risible demands for a Federal Police inquiry. (The AFP has responded that there is no evidence to go ahead with any prosecutions.)
But what about the absurdity of the two most powerful politicians in Australia fleeing a small gaggle of unarmed activists concerned about a serious, historically wretched and ongoing situation?
In many other countries, when Australia is in the news it is often in connection to the appalling situation in which many Indigenous Australians live. If our media only sporadically reports this international criticism, it virtually never mentions that despite some small improvements, this country ranks at or near the bottom of first-world nations in disparity of wealth and opportunity for the Indigenous population as compared to other citizens.
We also remain behind countries like New Zealand, Canada and Sweden when it comes to both successful mechanisms of political self-determination and a broad cultural reckoning with our history of colonial dispossession and violence.
Instead, Australians get fed entirely deceptive mantras such as, “we have thrown buckets of money at the problem”. When it comes to total government expenditure per head of the population, you are far better off not being a member of the most unambiguously disadvantaged (pdf) group of Australians. Better the comforting, self-aggrandising lie — which directly or by association basically means it is their fault — than the awkward and frequently awful truth.
For the likes of Tony Abbott, Bob Carr, and Mal Brough to imply or quite bluntly declare the Aboriginal tent embassy should be shut down because its primary cause has been overcome displays staggering dishonesty, patronising arrogance and knowingly insensitive timing. If elite voices and representatives, be they white or black, are embarrassed by the tent embassy, what then should replace it?
“Maybe Abbott is right and it is time for the tent embassy to go”, NSW Aboriginal Council member Roy RC said on the day, adding that in which case “it is time to erect a black Parliament with politicians we can choose”. Such ideas no doubt cause howls of “separatism” across large swathes of white Australia and on talkback radio. But when the grand total of Aboriginal MPs ever to sit in the House of Representatives or the Senate is three, it is clear that our established political institutions and parties have abjectly failed to include representative Indigenous voices in national decision-making.
As beneficiaries of a two-party system deeply unrepresentative of Australia’s actual population, that Abbott, Carr, Brough and others made their comments on what the unquestioned rulers of this land call Australia Day but which many Indigenous Australians and a notable minority of others call Invasion Day quite fittingly tops off the insult.
It’s bad enough that this country has been repeatedly censured by the UN for the entrenched disadvantage suffered by Indigenous people. This festering sore at the repressed heart of our nation also results in an increasingly absurd and disingenuous series of disavowals — and they are now gathering steam afresh in response to the very mild proposed referendum to recognise Aboriginal Australians’ unique status in the Constitution.
Australia Day 2012 marked only the latest chapter in this depressingly continuous story. It tells of how those directly affected by the nation’s desultory record — both through their everyday lives and a strongly felt sense of historical injustice — are treated, alongside non-Indigenous Australians outraged by the ongoing scandal, as threats to “national security”. In the most unattractively revealing way imaginable for this country, that is exactly what they are.
Two people were arrested in relation to Friday's Lockerby Confectionary robbery. During the robbery, a female came in with a knife and fled with an undisclosed amount of money.[...]
Amid a landscape of tragedy great and small, from divorce to murder to traffic tickets, the Vista Courthouse becomes the happiest place in town for a handful of families on Wednesdays —- adoption day.
Once a week at the courthouse, families who have reached the end of the long adoption process gather to make it official. Toddlers and teens alike dress up. Everyone is smiling.
“I get a kick out of it,” said Judge Harry Elias, who handles uncontested adoptions in Vista. It's a nice change, he said, from his usual business handling criminal cases.
By the time the adoption file lands in front of Elias, the heartache and paperwork are done, and all that's left is signing the forms to make the adoption official.
Each Wednesday, Elias brings gleeful families —- Mom, Dad, kids, aunts, grandpas and others —- into the chambers behind his courtroom.
At his desk, as the families watch, Elias signs three papers. One OKs the adoption, and a second one makes it official. The third is not really an official document, but more of a frame-ready certificate for families to display if they choose.
Last Wednesday, Malachi Moimoi joined the ranks of children whose adoptions became official with the stroke of Elias' pen.
The toddler didn't understand the significance of what was happening at a desk he was too small to see over. But his adoptive father did.
“Today is your day, buddy,” Sal Moimoi said, his voice tinged with excitement.
Last year, the San Diego Superior Court made 999 adoptions official across the county, including 394 in North County, according to numbers provided by court officials.
There are generally four kinds of adoption situations: foster children, stepchildren, private adoptions and the adoptions of adults, including those who are developmentally challenged, Elias said.
On a recent Wednesday, Heather and Brett from Riverside County came to Vista to make official their adoption of three siblings —- ages 11, 13, and 15 —- out of San Diego County's foster care system. They asked that their last names not be published out of concern for their children's safety.
“I can't have kids —- so here we are,” Heather said. “(God's) hand was in this.”
The couple met the siblings in May 2010 at a picnic to introduce foster kids to would-be adoptive parents. Heather said she and her husband were looking for elementary-school-age children, but that changed when they met the trio.
The process took nearly two years; the adoptions became official two weeks ago.
“It's finally here,” said 15-year-old Jorden, who changed his first name when he moved in with his adoptive parents. “For a couple of years, I wanted to go back to my mom. But when (county officials) said I couldn't go back to her, I wanted to get adopted.”
His youngest sister, who is 11, changed her name to Aspyn with the adoption. The middle child kept her birth name.
Like all the children at the adoption ceremonies, each of the three walked out with a teddy bear. The stuffed animals are donated so that every kid gets one. And every child, even the teenage boys, seems to want it.
Private adoption, also known as independent adoption, was the route taken by Joy and Chuck Caughey, a San Diego couple who agreed to adopt their grandson, Kingston, when he was born two years ago. Joy Caughey picked him up from the hospital when he was 2 days old and took him in as a foster child.
After the baby's parents lost their fight with the county to win back custody, the Caugheys started the process to officially adopt their grandson.
It took 14 months of paperwork and monthly visits by social workers before the adoption could become official, Joy Caughey said.
At the end of the process, Caughey said, she was given only a six-day notice to be at court to sign the papers to adopt the little blond boy.
“Of course, you jump through hoops to be here,” she said.
And last week, Yvonne and Sal Moimoi of Oceanside officially became what in practical terms they have been for nearly two years: Mom and Dad to little Malachi.
“Seemed like forever to do it, and then two minutes to finalize,” said Sal Moimoi, 42.
The couple agreed to take in the child before he was born, which happened early. Malachi, the son of one of Sal Moimoi's family members, was born three months premature. The baby weighed just 2 pounds, Moimoi said.
Malachi spent three months at Tri-City Medical Center before heading home with the Moimois.
Even though the adoption was uncontested, it still took well longer than a year. The couple said they spent thousands of dollars but declined to specify a particular amount other than Sal Moimoi's comment that “It was a lot.”
“Something as precious as this —- you don't put a price tag on it,” he said.
As his dad spoke, Malachi played, his diaper rustling underneath his pinstriped suit pants as he paused momentarily for a picture and then crawled under a bench in the courthouse hallway.
“This is a special day for him,” Sal Moimoi said. “Actually, for us, too. It's gonna be another chapter in our lives.”
For a process as delicate as adoption, couples should be prepared. A social worker said that children who end up with foster parents without the legal process of adoption are prone to physical abuse.
Modamily, a New York-based site, started up last week and bills itself as the “first community to facilitate introductions between responsible, like-minded adults committed to co-parenting a child”
The Obama administration's decision requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control was bound to cause an uproar among Roman Catholics and members of other faiths, no matter their
A link to this page will be included in your message
Whenever abortion becomes a heated political issue, you can be sure that religion is involved. The reverse also is true. Such is the case with the 2012 election season.
Decisions the Obama administration has made regarding abortion have been targeted by Republican presidential candidates vying for the votes of social conservatives, including evangelical Christians. So too has the administration’s recent move on contraception, some kinds of which are considered by opponents to be a form of abortion.
Newt Gingrich accuses President Obama of waging a “war against religion” – specifically that it has “declared war” on the Roman Catholic Church – for (among other things) requiring Catholic hospitals and universities to provide contraception as part of employee health plans.
The Monitor's Weekly News Quiz for Jan. 27-Feb. 3, 2012
Employees at many of the church’s hospitals and universities are not Roman Catholic, and most Catholic women in the United States disagree with the church’s official opposition to the use of condoms and birth control pills. Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill, or an IUD, the Guttmacher Institute reported last year.
“No one is forcing Catholics to take contraceptives,” writes Keith Soko, associate professor of religious ethics and moral theology at St. Ambrose University in Davenport, Iowa, in a CNN opinion column. “It is a question of access, and hence, of justice.” (Professor Soko describes himself as “a Catholic theologian and lifelong Catholic.”)
But Mitt Romney says the Obama administration’s decision regarding Catholic hospitals and universities and contraception amounts to ordering religious organizations to “violate their conscience.” Priests around the country have read bishops’ letters at mass urging parishioners to object to the administration’s action, some warning that universities and hospitals affiliated with the church might have to close.
But the GOP front-runner’s position on birth control and abortion are a problem for him too.
As CBS’s Political Hotsheet reported last week, in 1994 Romney said “abortion should be safe and legal in this country,” and in 2002 he said “I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.”
Gingrich and Rick Santorum (both of whom are Roman Catholic) have gone after Romney on the issue. A Gingrich campaign spot claims that as governor of Massachusetts Romney “signed government-mandated health care with taxpayer funded abortions.”
The Boston Globe reported Friday that as governor, “Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.”
“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, told the Boston Globe. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’
The connection between forms of birth control and abortion was sharply seen in the controversy involving the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood.
Earlier this week, the breast-cancer charity announced that it was ending grants to Planned Parenthood for breast-health services on grounds that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by a congressional subcommittee for improperly using federal money to fund abortions.
Planned Parenthood denies that taxpayer money has been used for abortions; overall, abortions account for only 3 percent of the organization’s activity.
The Komen Foundation took a lot of heat from critics who said its decision was politically-motivated. By the end of the week, Komen had reversed course and said it would continue funding breast cancer screening at Planned Parenthood.
Obama is taking heat too – from many Republicans and conservative commentators, as well as from the Catholic Church, for his move on birth control and religious institutions, even though most employees at many of the church’s hospitals and universities are not Roman Catholic.
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan says flatly, “President Obama just may have lost the election” because of this issue.
“The church is split on many things,” Noonan writes. “But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.”
She notes that Obama won 54 percent of the Catholic vote in 2008. “They helped him win. They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.”
Anthony Picarello, general counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told the Los Angeles Times his organization would “pursue every legal mandate available to them to bring an end to this mandate.”
”That means legislation, litigation and public advocacy,” he said. “All options are on the table.”
The Monitor's Weekly News Quiz for Jan. 27-Feb. 3, 2012
I’m not surprised that Gwyneth Paltrow is a hands-on parent. She seems like a lot of other working moms, trying to balance her career and still spend quality time with her kids. And in their house, some of that quality time seems to be spent in the bathtub.
