The sudden death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has dealt a gut punch to the Republican Party. It is something they couldn't wait minutes before announcing that President Obama cannot replace him on the nation's highest court. Why? Because he's a lame duck. Didn't Ronald Reagan nominate Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court when he was a lame duck? (Let's check the record.)
I find that ironic, since Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution enumerates that it is the president's expressed power to nominate Supreme Court justices (how about that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)?). Of course, that is with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY, by way of Alabama), is sure that he can mire any Obama nominee in senatorial minutiae, until Hillary Clinton is sworn in as president on January 20, 2017. (Wouldn't that be ironic and just desserts?)
Until then, the U.S. Supreme Court may divided in its votes on important court issues facing it, with only eight members. In such a case, the court could be divided by series of 4-to-4 votes.
On another note, why would a sitting United States Supreme Court justice be visiting a luxury Texas hunting lodge (or ranch) with people flying in on private jets? That seems like a prime recipe for ex-parte discussions about cases that may be facing the court. Republicans, however, may argue that since he was an appointment of Ronald Reagan, he is immune from such impunity.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Ben Carson Second Opinion
While watching tonight's Republican debate, if I had had an operation by Dr. Ben Carson I'd probably go in for a follow-up and second opinion. I'm not sure that guy is stable.
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead
It would appear as if one of the Republicans' worst nightmares has come true. President Obama gets to add a liberal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the passing of Justice Scalia today in Texas. The passing of Scalia leaves only Justice Anthony Kennedy to carry on the Reagan-era legacy of the Supreme Court.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
America's First Prime Minister?
Donald Trump is right about Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). (I also asked this question some time before.)
Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada...not the United States. While his mother was born in the United States, his father was born in Cuba. He asserts that his mother is enough to cover the "natural born" citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution. I think the Constitution is rather clear on this issue. It would be up to the Supreme Court of the United States to finalize the position.
In 2008, the United States Senate, however, passed a resolution to give Senator John McCain (R-AZ) the status of natural born citizen, since he was born outside the United States, while his father was on active military service in Panama. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that the Senate would not consider a similar resolution for Ted Cruz.
What's that all aboot, eh?
Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada...not the United States. While his mother was born in the United States, his father was born in Cuba. He asserts that his mother is enough to cover the "natural born" citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution. I think the Constitution is rather clear on this issue. It would be up to the Supreme Court of the United States to finalize the position.
In 2008, the United States Senate, however, passed a resolution to give Senator John McCain (R-AZ) the status of natural born citizen, since he was born outside the United States, while his father was on active military service in Panama. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that the Senate would not consider a similar resolution for Ted Cruz.
What's that all aboot, eh?
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Soolantra Topical Cream (Day 9)
After using Soolantra (ivermectin 1%) for nine days, I have decided to offer a follow-up.
I have found this medication to be quite beneficial. I have used it daily (a.m. application) with much success. I have noticed a decrease in overall redness and pustules, which are often associated with rosacea. Additionally, the overall appearance of my face is more uniform, which is always a good thing! Unlike Mirvaso, my face maintains its natural color with a matte appearance.
The topical cream goes on well and is absorbed by my skin without leaving a greasy residue behind. Initially, I was afraid that it may increase acne flare-ups, but it has not created that reaction. I will continue to use this medication on a daily basis and offer additional updates.
I have found this medication to be quite beneficial. I have used it daily (a.m. application) with much success. I have noticed a decrease in overall redness and pustules, which are often associated with rosacea. Additionally, the overall appearance of my face is more uniform, which is always a good thing! Unlike Mirvaso, my face maintains its natural color with a matte appearance.
The topical cream goes on well and is absorbed by my skin without leaving a greasy residue behind. Initially, I was afraid that it may increase acne flare-ups, but it has not created that reaction. I will continue to use this medication on a daily basis and offer additional updates.
Friday, July 17, 2015
From Mirvaso to Soolantra
Yesterday, I had an appointment with my dermatologist. During the appointment, my doctor revisited my "rebound effect" from having used Mirvaso. She asked me to pilot another topical rosacea treatment, called Soolantra. (Soolantra, like Mirvaso, is manufactured by Galderma Laboratories.) She said that it was different from Mirvaso in that it treats a skin mite, called demodex, which is thought to be a contributing cause of rosacea (gross!). My doctor also explained that it has an anti-inflammatory property that would be beneficial to my overall skin health.
My rosacea is fairly mild, and it contributes to periodic pustule breakouts on my face, in particular around my nose, cheeks, and jawline-area.
Now, I try to be an informed patient, so I did a little research on Soolantra before taking the prescription to my pharmacy. It turns out that the chemical in Soolantra, called ivermectin, is indeed a parasitic treatment! In fact, it is used as a topical treatment for scabies and lice. I was mortified with the prospects of asking my pharmacy to fill the prescription, with the thought someone working there may think I'm receiving treatment for such conditions. After looking at the Galderma website for Soolantra, however, I discovered that this particular formulation is strictly for the treatment of rosacea, which means no one there should attribute my use of it as having lice...or scabies (crabs, O-M-G).
With that said, today is my first treatment with the medication. I am excited (yet cautious) about the results. Galderma states that I should see noticeable results in the next two weeks, so we shall see! In the meantime, I am not receiving treatment for scabies or lice. :)
My rosacea is fairly mild, and it contributes to periodic pustule breakouts on my face, in particular around my nose, cheeks, and jawline-area.
Now, I try to be an informed patient, so I did a little research on Soolantra before taking the prescription to my pharmacy. It turns out that the chemical in Soolantra, called ivermectin, is indeed a parasitic treatment! In fact, it is used as a topical treatment for scabies and lice. I was mortified with the prospects of asking my pharmacy to fill the prescription, with the thought someone working there may think I'm receiving treatment for such conditions. After looking at the Galderma website for Soolantra, however, I discovered that this particular formulation is strictly for the treatment of rosacea, which means no one there should attribute my use of it as having lice...or scabies (crabs, O-M-G).
With that said, today is my first treatment with the medication. I am excited (yet cautious) about the results. Galderma states that I should see noticeable results in the next two weeks, so we shall see! In the meantime, I am not receiving treatment for scabies or lice. :)
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Marriage Equality for the USA
Ah, yes! The sweet sound of diversity being embraced in the world's oldest democracy: America.
As a gay man, I am finally happy to say that I can marry the individual of my dreams without worrying about being judged unworthy by my government. I kept a list of the states that legalized marriage equality, but I have since torn it up, because it is now moot. Each state is legally bound to accept the marriage of a man to a woman, a man to a man, and a woman to a woman.
What does it mean to me?
A few weeks ago, I watched my brother marry the girl of his dreams in a full wedding that was sanctioned by the government of our state. I was teary eyed for multiple reasons. I never thought I could have the same experience in my home state. Instead, I envisioned a ceremony in a state or country I never had called home. Ironically, and true to form, my brother's marriage wasn't a religious ceremony. It had those tones, but it was civil in nature. They exchanged vows and rings, kissed, held hands, and faced the audience for the first time as husband and wife. There were no gold or rugged crosses or prayers for blessing. It wasmy their style.
What does it mean to religious individuals?
Nothing. I once heard an individual state that their church would have to change its by-laws to preclude same-sex marriages from being performed. Well, goodness gracious. The religious people get their panties in a wad about the whole affair when it doesn't apply to them. I wouldn't want to get married in their stuffy, hating church in the first place. They place too much premium on "outsiders" wanting what they have. If I want, I'll create my own church and call it the First Church of Same-Sex Love and we'll put in its by-laws that mixed-sex marriages may not be performed. And the person I was eavesdropping on is correct. There is nothing about marriage equality that demands or requires anyone to change their viewpoint of the issue. It is a First Amendment liberty! In short, no one is requiring all the heteros to become homos. Jeez! We don't want you at our party drinking our booze, anyhow.
What does it mean to the hypocrite?
The endless lectures on Facebook and in-person about the Biblical morality of it all. Come on, your argument holds no water. I don't care what Leviticus says. Basically, you may as well pull out HansChristian Andersen and quote from his works. That's the same level of credence I give your religious arguments. Ironically, many of these sanctity of marriage arguments are being extolled by individuals who have been divorced! In fact, I may have lost a "friend" who argued for marriage's sanctity, considering I couldn't consolidate his argument with the fact that he had divorced his second wife. Where does God fit into that argument? No one wants to talk about that. Instead, he wanted to point out the principles of Christianity that he believed upheld his personal viewpoints. I'm sure he wouldn't have been as comfortable receiving a lecture on divorce and fornication. (Gosh, I may have to ask for an amen on that!)
Finally, I will fly my flag a little higher today with pride and acceptance of all who walk beneath it. It won't be a rainbow flag or Confederate flag. It will be the flag of the United States of America. It will represent the country that underscored the value of human dignity and ratified our nation through the words scrawled by James Madison, "We, the People..."
As a gay man, I am finally happy to say that I can marry the individual of my dreams without worrying about being judged unworthy by my government. I kept a list of the states that legalized marriage equality, but I have since torn it up, because it is now moot. Each state is legally bound to accept the marriage of a man to a woman, a man to a man, and a woman to a woman.
What does it mean to me?
A few weeks ago, I watched my brother marry the girl of his dreams in a full wedding that was sanctioned by the government of our state. I was teary eyed for multiple reasons. I never thought I could have the same experience in my home state. Instead, I envisioned a ceremony in a state or country I never had called home. Ironically, and true to form, my brother's marriage wasn't a religious ceremony. It had those tones, but it was civil in nature. They exchanged vows and rings, kissed, held hands, and faced the audience for the first time as husband and wife. There were no gold or rugged crosses or prayers for blessing. It was
What does it mean to religious individuals?
Nothing. I once heard an individual state that their church would have to change its by-laws to preclude same-sex marriages from being performed. Well, goodness gracious. The religious people get their panties in a wad about the whole affair when it doesn't apply to them. I wouldn't want to get married in their stuffy, hating church in the first place. They place too much premium on "outsiders" wanting what they have. If I want, I'll create my own church and call it the First Church of Same-Sex Love and we'll put in its by-laws that mixed-sex marriages may not be performed. And the person I was eavesdropping on is correct. There is nothing about marriage equality that demands or requires anyone to change their viewpoint of the issue. It is a First Amendment liberty! In short, no one is requiring all the heteros to become homos. Jeez! We don't want you at our party drinking our booze, anyhow.
What does it mean to the hypocrite?
The endless lectures on Facebook and in-person about the Biblical morality of it all. Come on, your argument holds no water. I don't care what Leviticus says. Basically, you may as well pull out Hans
Finally, I will fly my flag a little higher today with pride and acceptance of all who walk beneath it. It won't be a rainbow flag or Confederate flag. It will be the flag of the United States of America. It will represent the country that underscored the value of human dignity and ratified our nation through the words scrawled by James Madison, "We, the People..."
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Our First Canadian President, eh?
In February, 2014, I published my thoughts on Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) running for president.
It would seem that Senator Cruz is going to announce his candidacy for the nation's highest office in the near future, despite constitutional reservations about his ability to serve.
Unlike Barack Obama, Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. His father was a Castro-sympathizing Cuban, while his mother is his only birth connection to the United States, since she was born in Delaware.
How can Republicans not criticize Cruz legitimately for the very thing they illegitimately criticized Obama for in 2008 and 2012? Will Donald Trump parade Cruz's Canadian birth certificate for the whole world to see? Will Cruz publish his birth certificate? Will he acknowledge his Canadian roots at all?
I have reservations about people who claim they are natural born Americans, when in fact they were born on foreign shores. That applies to John McCain (R-AZ), despite the fact his father was on active military service which led to his birth in Panama. Let me go a step further, would I have berated the issue if Barack Obama had been born in Hawaii prior to 1959? The answer is an astounding yes! Considering, Hawaii was not a state until 1959. (Obama was born in 1961.)
With that said, Obama's father was born in Kenya, while his mother was born in Kansas. (If we want to draw parallels to Cruz and Obama's American pedigrees.)
Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution very clearly states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President." While it may seem ludicrous to have this conversation in the 21st century, it was an important principle for the individual holding the highest political office in the land to have no allegiance by birth, or claim thereby, to another sovereign nation.
It will fall to the United States Supreme Court to decide if that portion of the Constitution allows for naturalized citizens as well. Of course, there's the constitutional amendment option, but I doubt that will happen before 2016 (or ever).
It would seem that Senator Cruz is going to announce his candidacy for the nation's highest office in the near future, despite constitutional reservations about his ability to serve.
Unlike Barack Obama, Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. His father was a Castro-sympathizing Cuban, while his mother is his only birth connection to the United States, since she was born in Delaware.
How can Republicans not criticize Cruz legitimately for the very thing they illegitimately criticized Obama for in 2008 and 2012? Will Donald Trump parade Cruz's Canadian birth certificate for the whole world to see? Will Cruz publish his birth certificate? Will he acknowledge his Canadian roots at all?
I have reservations about people who claim they are natural born Americans, when in fact they were born on foreign shores. That applies to John McCain (R-AZ), despite the fact his father was on active military service which led to his birth in Panama. Let me go a step further, would I have berated the issue if Barack Obama had been born in Hawaii prior to 1959? The answer is an astounding yes! Considering, Hawaii was not a state until 1959. (Obama was born in 1961.)
With that said, Obama's father was born in Kenya, while his mother was born in Kansas. (If we want to draw parallels to Cruz and Obama's American pedigrees.)
Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution very clearly states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President." While it may seem ludicrous to have this conversation in the 21st century, it was an important principle for the individual holding the highest political office in the land to have no allegiance by birth, or claim thereby, to another sovereign nation.
It will fall to the United States Supreme Court to decide if that portion of the Constitution allows for naturalized citizens as well. Of course, there's the constitutional amendment option, but I doubt that will happen before 2016 (or ever).
Monday, January 19, 2015
Mirvaso, Onreltea Follow-Up
After a bad experience with Mirvaso (Onreltea in Canada) on my face, I recently discovered another use for it. I have eczema, which shows up on my hands often as itchy, red spots. I have had persistent spots on two knuckles on my left hand. I had used prescription strength topical steroids with no success. I thought about redness and what Mirvaso was supposed to be able to control. I decided to apply a small dab of brimonidine to each of my persistent eczema spots. I am happy to report that it remedied the redness!
One spot is completely gone and the other one is fading fast. I'm sure this is an off-label use of this medication, but that's what we do by nature: experiment. I wonder what the implications of its use might be on scars, etc.?
Galderma, if you use this idea, I expect complete compensation.
One spot is completely gone and the other one is fading fast. I'm sure this is an off-label use of this medication, but that's what we do by nature: experiment. I wonder what the implications of its use might be on scars, etc.?
Galderma, if you use this idea, I expect complete compensation.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
"The Interview" Conspiracy Theory
Am I the only person who thinks that Sony "hacked" itself?
How can you take an otherwise bland comedy about a reclusive third-world country and turn it into an international "I've-gotta-see-it" sensation? I think the facts speak for themselves.
1. Does North Korea really have the infrastructure to launch a hack?
2. How else can you get the President of the United States to endorse a movie?
3. How can you get the FBI to finger the object of the movie?
4. Can you get the theaters where it was to be debuted on Christmas Day to pull it from their screens?
5. Rehash the movie in the media over-and-over again, by playing the blame game.
6. Decide to release the movie AGAIN in theaters, but, also, let's add an online release, through Google's YouTube and Apple's iTunes.
As I write this blog, I am on the verge of watching the movie online. Would I have watched the movie in theaters, otherwise?
Lord, no! I just don't watch movies in theaters. But I'm sort of interested in seeing what this movie is about, but not so much as I'd grace the doors of a who's-that-getting-a-blowjob-down-front, sticky, icky movie house.
Perhaps, Sony is testing the waters of the "at-home" audience for future reference.
I may be wrong, but I smell an international I Love Lucy-worthy publicity stunt! (That may just be working on me.)
How can you take an otherwise bland comedy about a reclusive third-world country and turn it into an international "I've-gotta-see-it" sensation? I think the facts speak for themselves.
1. Does North Korea really have the infrastructure to launch a hack?
2. How else can you get the President of the United States to endorse a movie?
3. How can you get the FBI to finger the object of the movie?
4. Can you get the theaters where it was to be debuted on Christmas Day to pull it from their screens?
5. Rehash the movie in the media over-and-over again, by playing the blame game.
6. Decide to release the movie AGAIN in theaters, but, also, let's add an online release, through Google's YouTube and Apple's iTunes.
As I write this blog, I am on the verge of watching the movie online. Would I have watched the movie in theaters, otherwise?
Lord, no! I just don't watch movies in theaters. But I'm sort of interested in seeing what this movie is about, but not so much as I'd grace the doors of a who's-that-getting-a-blowjob-down-front, sticky, icky movie house.
Perhaps, Sony is testing the waters of the "at-home" audience for future reference.
I may be wrong, but I smell an international I Love Lucy-worthy publicity stunt! (That may just be working on me.)
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Mirvaso Topical Gel, Part 4
Last week, was the "healing week." On Monday, I experienced another embarrassing flare-up on my cheeks, but it was short lived, compared to the previous episode of flushing. Monday was my last visit from the complete face redness.
Last week, I did notice that my face is very dry. My skin is sensitive and I have been using products to correct that issue. As of this posting, my face feels rather normal compared to where I was at last week. Before, I had pain, then stinging, and now all of that has subsided. I think once the dryness is alleviated, then my red-face will be done. I'll see where I am at in the coming weeks.
I have done research online and noticed there are few resources about Mirvaso and Onreltea. I did see the big, red banana in a Mirvaso commercial posted on YouTube. Yes, that was my face after using Mirvaso! Geez!
I would be interested in receiving comments from other people who have used it and are experiencing positive results from its application. I want to use it and have the beneficial results remain. I am tempted to try it again over my Christmas holiday break, but I am not so sure. Perhaps, if I used moisturizers with it to abet the dry skin. Also, I wonder if using a single pea-size on my face would alleviate the extreme reaction?
It's under consideration! Until then, enjoy the red banana. Ha! Ha! It looks wrong!
Last week, I did notice that my face is very dry. My skin is sensitive and I have been using products to correct that issue. As of this posting, my face feels rather normal compared to where I was at last week. Before, I had pain, then stinging, and now all of that has subsided. I think once the dryness is alleviated, then my red-face will be done. I'll see where I am at in the coming weeks.
I have done research online and noticed there are few resources about Mirvaso and Onreltea. I did see the big, red banana in a Mirvaso commercial posted on YouTube. Yes, that was my face after using Mirvaso! Geez!
I would be interested in receiving comments from other people who have used it and are experiencing positive results from its application. I want to use it and have the beneficial results remain. I am tempted to try it again over my Christmas holiday break, but I am not so sure. Perhaps, if I used moisturizers with it to abet the dry skin. Also, I wonder if using a single pea-size on my face would alleviate the extreme reaction?
It's under consideration! Until then, enjoy the red banana. Ha! Ha! It looks wrong!
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Mirvaso Topical Gel, Part 3
Okay, today has been extremely better! My skin didn't have a major meltdown today. The only redness I have noticed is in the last hour. It is on my right cheek next to my nose. Instead of heat, it is mildly warm and it has a tingly sensation, which is new.
I was thinking last night, after my last post, that it is interesting that my forehead and chin never displayed the same symptoms of the skin on my nose and cheeks. Both forehead and chin received a pea-sized application of Mirvaso. When I was having my 10 hour reaction, those parts of my face returned to their regular skin tone and color. It's too bad that my cheeks and nose didn't follow suit; otherwise, I could have continued on the Mirvaso treatment.
Hopefully, tomorrow I will be asymptomatic!
I was thinking last night, after my last post, that it is interesting that my forehead and chin never displayed the same symptoms of the skin on my nose and cheeks. Both forehead and chin received a pea-sized application of Mirvaso. When I was having my 10 hour reaction, those parts of my face returned to their regular skin tone and color. It's too bad that my cheeks and nose didn't follow suit; otherwise, I could have continued on the Mirvaso treatment.
Hopefully, tomorrow I will be asymptomatic!
Friday, December 05, 2014
Mirvaso Topical Gel, Part 2
It has now been 3 days since I last applied Mirvaso to my skin. As I outlined in my previous blog, my dermatologist prescribed Mirvaso for rosacea. Unfortunately, for my skin, it did the exact opposite. It works well when applied, but after about 10 hours it loses its effectiveness. At that point, I say hello to the redness.
Today, you would think, would be a normal day. It was not. Today was a bad day for my skin. After my lunch, my face began its transition from its everyday appearance into its new red version. It started with my nose. I didn't realize it was happening at the time. Someone commented that my nose looked really red! I looked in the mirror and I could have been Rudolph's twin nosed brother. It was glowing, and yes, I mean glowing! My nose has never done that before. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, it began to spread to my cheeks. My nose turned to its normal color as my cheeks lit up. By the end of the work day, I was no longer Rudolph, but Bashful, from the Seven Dwarfs. (To tell you the truth, I think I had bashful beat, because my cheeks were rocking a full flush.)
Yes, people laughed at me. I heard comments like "Are you feeling bad?" "Do you have a fever?" "Ohmygosh, what is wrong with you?!" I was almost tempted to put the gel on my face to get the redness gone, but I resisted the temptation, and accepted the unsolicited ridicule that it brought.
So, it wasn't awkward at all. Thanks, Mirvaso.
As I write this entry, My nose is red, my jaw-line on the right side of my face is scarlet, but the middle of my cheek is pale white. It would make the birthmark on Mikhail Gorbachev's head jealous. If someone saw me right now, they would think I am a burn victim. My left cheek is its normal color at this time. It's cool to the touch, and the right is burning up. Is that normal?
I am thankful that it is the weekend. It is my sincerest hope that it will subside shortly. I don't know why the effects of this medication are lasting so long. I would have thought it would wear off by now. My body is on overdrive, it would seem. I'm not sure if this is an allergic reaction or just a symptom of withdrawal. I was just on the stuff for about a week! It's a topical gel, not cocaine. I think the FDA has a website for reporting adverse drug reactions. I may go there, because people need to know this stuff isn't benign. I'm sure many people use it without a reaction, but I'm in the minority (as usual).
As for pictures, I will probably take some for my dermatologist so she can have a reference for what I am currently going through. If it isn't better by Monday, I will have to call or go back to the dermatologist's office, because I can't function in this condition.
I think Galderma markets this drug as Onreltea in Canada.
Today, you would think, would be a normal day. It was not. Today was a bad day for my skin. After my lunch, my face began its transition from its everyday appearance into its new red version. It started with my nose. I didn't realize it was happening at the time. Someone commented that my nose looked really red! I looked in the mirror and I could have been Rudolph's twin nosed brother. It was glowing, and yes, I mean glowing! My nose has never done that before. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, it began to spread to my cheeks. My nose turned to its normal color as my cheeks lit up. By the end of the work day, I was no longer Rudolph, but Bashful, from the Seven Dwarfs. (To tell you the truth, I think I had bashful beat, because my cheeks were rocking a full flush.)
Yes, people laughed at me. I heard comments like "Are you feeling bad?" "Do you have a fever?" "Ohmygosh, what is wrong with you?!" I was almost tempted to put the gel on my face to get the redness gone, but I resisted the temptation, and accepted the unsolicited ridicule that it brought.
So, it wasn't awkward at all. Thanks, Mirvaso.
As I write this entry, My nose is red, my jaw-line on the right side of my face is scarlet, but the middle of my cheek is pale white. It would make the birthmark on Mikhail Gorbachev's head jealous. If someone saw me right now, they would think I am a burn victim. My left cheek is its normal color at this time. It's cool to the touch, and the right is burning up. Is that normal?
I am thankful that it is the weekend. It is my sincerest hope that it will subside shortly. I don't know why the effects of this medication are lasting so long. I would have thought it would wear off by now. My body is on overdrive, it would seem. I'm not sure if this is an allergic reaction or just a symptom of withdrawal. I was just on the stuff for about a week! It's a topical gel, not cocaine. I think the FDA has a website for reporting adverse drug reactions. I may go there, because people need to know this stuff isn't benign. I'm sure many people use it without a reaction, but I'm in the minority (as usual).
As for pictures, I will probably take some for my dermatologist so she can have a reference for what I am currently going through. If it isn't better by Monday, I will have to call or go back to the dermatologist's office, because I can't function in this condition.
I think Galderma markets this drug as Onreltea in Canada.
Thursday, December 04, 2014
Mirvaso Topical Gel
My dermatologist recently prescribed a medication, Mirvaso, for the treatment of facial erythema, which is better known as rosacea. I am of northern European ancestry, which means that my skin is quite light and prone to redness around my nose, forehead, and chin. I was very excited when my dermatologist suggested this medication, because my face is never a single color. There are usually red blotches, which range in size.
After my first application of this gel, I was able to see an evenness in my skin tone. The redness was gone and my skin looked smooth as if I were wearing foundation. It was a truly exciting time for me!
Galderma Laboratories, which manufactures Mirvaso, suggests that a pea-size amount be applied to the forehead, nose, each cheek, and the chin. Of course, you work the gel into your skin. My skin quickly absorbed the gel, which I liked.
As I said before, my skin usually exhibits signs of redness, but it's not readily noticeable to other people. I don't have the jolly cheeks of Santa Claus...until now. That's right. The drug, brimonidine, wears off after about ten hours. It's not that my skin simply goes back to the way it was before I applied the medication. Instead, my skin went bright red. In fact, my cheeks looked almost purple! And the unsightliness of my appearance wasn't enough. It literally hurt. My cheeks, especially, felt as if they were on fire. I was at the point where I was applying the gel twice a day to keep the redness and pain under control.
After a week of regular use, I have quit this medication, because of the side effects. Unfortunately, I am still experiencing the side effects. After almost 48 hours of being Mirvaso free, my skin is still prone to breaking out in random, fiery redness. I am using cold compresses and ibuprofen to counteract the effects of the medication. As I write this, my face looks fairly normalized in appearance. My skin has a "just got back from the beach" look to it. Happily, the pain is gone.
I hope that my skin will return to its "old ways" in the next 24 hours. I can handle that!
My suggestion for using Mirvaso is to make sure that you suffer from severe facial erythema. If not, I would not recommend using this medication. It is certainly meant for people who have heavy duty skin redness, and not for casual use.
After my first application of this gel, I was able to see an evenness in my skin tone. The redness was gone and my skin looked smooth as if I were wearing foundation. It was a truly exciting time for me!
Galderma Laboratories, which manufactures Mirvaso, suggests that a pea-size amount be applied to the forehead, nose, each cheek, and the chin. Of course, you work the gel into your skin. My skin quickly absorbed the gel, which I liked.
As I said before, my skin usually exhibits signs of redness, but it's not readily noticeable to other people. I don't have the jolly cheeks of Santa Claus...until now. That's right. The drug, brimonidine, wears off after about ten hours. It's not that my skin simply goes back to the way it was before I applied the medication. Instead, my skin went bright red. In fact, my cheeks looked almost purple! And the unsightliness of my appearance wasn't enough. It literally hurt. My cheeks, especially, felt as if they were on fire. I was at the point where I was applying the gel twice a day to keep the redness and pain under control.
After a week of regular use, I have quit this medication, because of the side effects. Unfortunately, I am still experiencing the side effects. After almost 48 hours of being Mirvaso free, my skin is still prone to breaking out in random, fiery redness. I am using cold compresses and ibuprofen to counteract the effects of the medication. As I write this, my face looks fairly normalized in appearance. My skin has a "just got back from the beach" look to it. Happily, the pain is gone.
I hope that my skin will return to its "old ways" in the next 24 hours. I can handle that!
My suggestion for using Mirvaso is to make sure that you suffer from severe facial erythema. If not, I would not recommend using this medication. It is certainly meant for people who have heavy duty skin redness, and not for casual use.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Ebola's impact on American healthcare
Out of curiosity: if I travel to western Africa, and subsequently contract Ebola, will Humana PPO pay for me to be airlifted by private air ambulance, with my own uniquely trained medical team and specialized medical equipment, to the United States?
How much is the co-pay? $125? My insurance card is sort of vague on that issue.
I'm thinking I may call Humana to find out. Hmmm.
How much is the co-pay? $125? My insurance card is sort of vague on that issue.
I'm thinking I may call Humana to find out. Hmmm.
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Let's sue the President
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (pronounced "boner") has announced a plan to ask the United States House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against the President, which would require him to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Isn't that a noble concept?
Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.
Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?
No.
Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?
No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)
So, who can help in such a quagmire?
Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?
When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.
In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!
Isn't that a noble concept?
Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.
Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?
No.
Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?
No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)
So, who can help in such a quagmire?
Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?
When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.
In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Hitler in Crimea
Hillary Clinton referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent incursion into Crimea (which is part of Ukraine) to protect Russian minorities as being akin to Adolf Hitler's wolf-in-sheep's clothing declaration of protecting German minorities in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, during the dawn of World War II.
I don't think Hillary Clinton was calling Putin--himself--Adolf Hitler; she was simply stating that his tactics are similar. We can already see that what she said is true. The Crimean parliament has voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. It will put the matter before the people of Crimea in the next ten days.
Secretary Clinton also used an interesting phrase in her speech, in which she stated that President Putin did not simply want to solidify Russia, but he wants something more grand. He is looking to "re-Sovietize" the Russian frontier. Perhaps after bringing Ukraine to heel, he will work on the other former Soviet states. Who's next? Georgia? Armenia? Certainly, they contain Russian minority groups worthy of Mother Russia's very firm protection.
I don't think Hillary Clinton was calling Putin--himself--Adolf Hitler; she was simply stating that his tactics are similar. We can already see that what she said is true. The Crimean parliament has voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. It will put the matter before the people of Crimea in the next ten days.
Secretary Clinton also used an interesting phrase in her speech, in which she stated that President Putin did not simply want to solidify Russia, but he wants something more grand. He is looking to "re-Sovietize" the Russian frontier. Perhaps after bringing Ukraine to heel, he will work on the other former Soviet states. Who's next? Georgia? Armenia? Certainly, they contain Russian minority groups worthy of Mother Russia's very firm protection.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Silly Canadian, you can't be President!
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Canadian born citizen, thinks he can be president of the United States.
Cruz, who is a Tea Party wunderkind, is slated to be one of the top Republican picks for 2016. I truly wonder how the Tea Party could in all clear conscience put forth a candidate who was clearly not born in the United States?
His father was born in Cuba and his mother was born in Delaware, which is his only claim to American citizenship. I'm sure, however, that Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, says only "a natural born citizen" can be considered for Executive. The only other way I can see Ted Cruz being legitimate is if he were living in the United States prior to September 17, 1787. And, with that said, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen his name in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living man.
So, Tea Party members, don't be hypocritical. You raked Barack Obama over the coals for being a black man born in Hawaii. How can you put forward an individual who was clearly not born in the United States?
It's remarkably insane! Gracious!
Cruz, who is a Tea Party wunderkind, is slated to be one of the top Republican picks for 2016. I truly wonder how the Tea Party could in all clear conscience put forth a candidate who was clearly not born in the United States?
His father was born in Cuba and his mother was born in Delaware, which is his only claim to American citizenship. I'm sure, however, that Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, says only "a natural born citizen" can be considered for Executive. The only other way I can see Ted Cruz being legitimate is if he were living in the United States prior to September 17, 1787. And, with that said, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen his name in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living man.
So, Tea Party members, don't be hypocritical. You raked Barack Obama over the coals for being a black man born in Hawaii. How can you put forward an individual who was clearly not born in the United States?
It's remarkably insane! Gracious!
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Hillary for President
I was reading an article on Yahoo! extolling the cautious virtues of declaring a political party front-runner in the modern age of presidential elections, when it dawned on me that Hillary must be really putting the screws to Republicans and to Democrats!
If we could go back in time to 2008, with the knowledge we have today (yes, I know, 20/20 hindsight), I know we would have elected Hillary as president. Barack Obama would have continued as the junior senator from Illinois, and America would have been a much better place because of it!
I'm back up and running for Hillary Clinton for president!
If we could go back in time to 2008, with the knowledge we have today (yes, I know, 20/20 hindsight), I know we would have elected Hillary as president. Barack Obama would have continued as the junior senator from Illinois, and America would have been a much better place because of it!
I'm back up and running for Hillary Clinton for president!
Hillary 2016
Thursday, January 23, 2014
The Celebrity Trend
It would seem that in order to be a successful celebrity in the United States, you must be a terrible human being.
For a pittance of $2,500 I can have my armed security (including my father) seal off a Florida neighborhood, hold its residents hostage, and drag race my Lamborghini (or was it a Ferrari, I forget?) through their streets, while intoxicated on alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs (that my mother helped procure).
After Justin Bieber did it and got out of jail for $2,500, I think other celebrities should follow his example. That much money, in terms of a bond, is a joke to someone with millions of dollars at their disposal.
A slap on the wrist? Hardly! I think it would be a blip that would barely register on his radar.
A $250,000 bond may have been a slap on the wrist. A $2.5 million bond would have truly slowed things down. As the judge, I would have taken into account every person's life and liberty, who lives in that neighborhood, when assigning Bieber's bond amount.
Justice is equitable, not equal. In other words, what is fair to me may not be fair to you. $2,500 is a large sum for the average person. In that case, equal justice would demand that Bieber pay $2,500. But, at the same time, if justice is equitable to the individual, by holding him or her to account for his or her actions, then in this case $2,500 hardly seems justifiable.
For a pittance of $2,500 I can have my armed security (including my father) seal off a Florida neighborhood, hold its residents hostage, and drag race my Lamborghini (or was it a Ferrari, I forget?) through their streets, while intoxicated on alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs (that my mother helped procure).
After Justin Bieber did it and got out of jail for $2,500, I think other celebrities should follow his example. That much money, in terms of a bond, is a joke to someone with millions of dollars at their disposal.
A slap on the wrist? Hardly! I think it would be a blip that would barely register on his radar.
A $250,000 bond may have been a slap on the wrist. A $2.5 million bond would have truly slowed things down. As the judge, I would have taken into account every person's life and liberty, who lives in that neighborhood, when assigning Bieber's bond amount.
Justice is equitable, not equal. In other words, what is fair to me may not be fair to you. $2,500 is a large sum for the average person. In that case, equal justice would demand that Bieber pay $2,500. But, at the same time, if justice is equitable to the individual, by holding him or her to account for his or her actions, then in this case $2,500 hardly seems justifiable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)