Get Your Lost Erection Back with Sildenafil Citrate 100mg

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a sick and naughty male sexual dysfunction to have.  Because of this condition, it inhibits you from having successful intercourse with your female partner.  This is because without an erection, vaginal penetration is not possible.  Fortunately, although only temporary, you can get your erection back using sildenafil citrate 100mg.  Sildenafil citrate 100mg is very effective in providing you the erection you lost due to erectile dysfunction as it is the generic alternative of Viagra, the most popular and highly sought after ED treatment drug.

Sildenafil citrate 100mg is classified as a PDE5 inhibitor drug because it follows the same mechanism of action of drugs belonging to that class.  What PDE5 inhibitor drugs do is that it selectively focuses on the smooth muscles lining the penis.  This smooth muscle relaxes when you are sexually stimulated to allow blood to enter the cavities within the penis so an erection can be achieved.  Once you are no longer sexually aroused, the smooth muscles then contracts back to squeeze the blood out of the penis so the penis becomes limp again.  This is actually what is great about PDE5 inhibitor drugs like sildenafil citrate 100mg because they provide you with a normal-like erection function. Read more…

Cartoon baddies

Concern grows on the use of cartoon characters that entice children to eat badly

Using a generational icon, say, recruiting Shrek to get kids to eat, is not new. The gimmick has worked for years. Doctors and parents have applauded the tactic when, for example, stamped images of Sesame’s Street’s Elmo endorsed packages of broccoli. Controversy arises when licensed characters promote victuals arguably considered to be junk food – those low in nutrients, like gummy bears and graham crackers.

A recent study conducted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University and published in the June 21 issue of Pediatrics (doi:10.1542/peds.2009-3433) confirmed the rationale of many North American retailers – that to spend $1.6 billion annually on wooing children is well worth it – at least when it comes to dollars + cents. Nutritionally, it’s another matter. When pre-school and Grade 1 kids were asked to choose foods showing Shrek, Dora the Explorer and Scooby Doo on the packaging compared to unadorned choices, not surprisingly, most opted for the boxes with the cartoon characters, despite the identical content.

This trend had certain groups up in arms. Corporate Accountability International, an advocacy group out of Boston, has begun the “Retire Ronald” campaign. Rather than symbolizing Ronald McDonald House of Charities, the 50-year-old clown these days appears to promote poor nutrition and food choices, according to the organization. “Ronald McDonald is a pied piper drawing youngsters all over the world to food that’s high in fat, sodium and calories,” says retired physician and volunteer Alfred David Klinger.

Happy Meals – food geared to the under 12-year-old set – are also under the gun. Historically, McDonald’s has used toys and games to attract their youngest clientele. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is planning to wage a lawsuit against McDonald’s for selling toys. “McDonald’s marketing has the effect of conscripting children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald’s,” says organization member Stephen Garner.

In 2006, their first lawsuit against mega-chain Kellogg for promoting poor quality nutrition to children resulted in products with higher nutritional value.

Even Disney, who partnered with McDonald’s from 1997-2006, allowing the food chain to use their cinematic characters in their toy line, eventually had second thoughts and ended that tie, in order to endorse healthier choices.

So, where are Mom and Dad in all this? Everyone agrees that they should be doing more to guide their children towards healthier eating habits. But in many cases, they themselves are eating as badly, if not worse – with no need for encouragement from SpongeBob SquarePants, Buzz Lightyear, Diego, or that irritating little red racecar Lightning McQueen. We can make junk food less enticing, but kids won't eat healthier food unless it's served at home. Such a reminder by physicians will be much appreciated down the road, by the kids as adults, and our healthcare system.

2 comments:

sharon(aka Purley Quirt ) said...

Why strain at a gnat...when we can swallow a camel?

Parents train their children with "life
threatening" allergies what to eat and not to eat with great success.
[ Even peanut butter is banned by the many for the safety of the few ]

The real camel that we need to face is broader banning than just allergies ..... for many foodstuffs are " life threatening" in slower ways than anaphylaxis ( but equally terminal)

said...

I truly agree with sharon.Nice thought shared.