Label

I seldom have a sleepless night but remember an occasion when I had difficulty falling asleep. Being awake when I should have been asleep was very annoying. Since I work at night, the problem may have been too much sunlight coming in through the window when it was time to go to bed. In the winter time the light isn't bright enough to bother me.

Light influences the production of a hormone that regulates when we get that sleepy feeling. Too much light tends to make us wake up. Unfortunately, light is only one of the factors that influences our ability to fall asleep. Stress, caffeine use and a host of other factors can also contribute to a case of insomnia.

Insomnia can be described as the inability to fall asleep, the inability to stay asleep or waking up too early.
There are three categories of insomnia. Chronic insomnia is long term and happens most nights for a month or longer. Two to four weeks of poor sleep constitutes short-term insomnia and the transient form of insomnia lasts but a few nights.

Benzodiazepines could be prescribed to help one fall asleep on a short term basis. Long term use of sleeping pills can become addictive.

Lorazepam is a benzodiazepine used for insomnia and anxiety relief. Lorazepam also goes by the names Lorazepam Intensol, Loraz, Alzapam and Ativan. In Canada you might find the names Nu-Loraz, Novo-Lorazepam or Apo-Lorazepam.

There are a number of side effects that a Lorazepam user might wish to be aware of. Among them are clumsiness, drowsiness and dizziness. Other possible side effects include, decreased sex drive, difficulty urinating, nausea, constipation or diarrhea. There are more potential side effects, ask your pharmacist for more information.

The human body can be viewed as a system made up of other systems. There are a number of systems that work together to make up the miracle of human life. Whenever introducing an external force to one of these systems in the form of a drug, the potential to interfere with or cause problems in other systems always exists. For this reason, you should work closely with your doctor or pharmacist when taking any medication. If you are fortunate to have a doctor who is willing to entertain alternatives, this will broaden the arena of options that are available to you.

Keep in mind that many drugs are synthetic imitations of substances that occur in nature. Sometimes a doctor who is willing to utilize these natural alternatives can be of great benefit.

Consider that this article is for information purposes only. It is not intended to give advice. It is also not intended suggest treatment, diagnosis or prevention of any health condition. Consult your primary care physician for any health related issues you may be facing.

Drugs used in the treatment of hypertension include thiazide diuretics, beta blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers. The newer ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers were promoted as being better for the treatment of hypertension than the older thiazide diuretics and beta blockers, however this was mostly marketing hype since the newer drugs were on patent and made more money for the drug companies. However the studies showed that, at least compared to thiazide diuretics, the newer drugs weren't as good, even they cost much more.

Thiazide diuretic drugs work for hypertension by increasing urine output and decreasing the volume of fluid in your circulation, which they achieve by increasing sodium excretion from the kidney, which drags water along with it. Examples include hydrochlorothiazide (Esidrix, Hydrodiuril, Microzide) and chlorthalidone (Hygroton). Thiazides promote calcium retention and prevent bone loss and fractures. However, they can negatively interact with an extensive list of medications, which are listed in the Physicians Desk Reference.

Their main problem is that they cause is frequent urination, which is inconvenient to say the least. They can also be associated with a loss of potassium Low serum potassium, or hypokalemia, is a potentially fatal condition, that can be associated with symptoms of muscle weakness, confusion, dizziness that can lead to falls, and heart arrhythmias. For people with a healthy diet, this is not a problem. You can also possible to take potassium supplements by mouth every day, to avoid the problem of potassium depletion with diuretics. A sub-category of these drugs, the so-called thiazide-like diuretic indapamide (Lozol) can cause life-threatening drops of sodium in the blood. In 1992 the Australian authorities reported 164 cases of this potentially life threatening condition, which is associated with confusion, lethargy, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, loss of appetite, fatigue, fainting, sleepiness, and possible convulsions. Since it doesn't work better than hydrochlorothiazide, and is potentially dangerous, it should not be used.

ACE inhibitors are one of the newest types of hypertension drugs. They act on the renin-angiotensin system that regulates blood pressure and kidney function. Normally, the molecule angiotensin I is converted to angiotensin II by the angiotensin-converting enzyme. Angiotensin II is a potent vasoconstrictor that makes your blood vessels close down. By blocking the angiotensin-converting enzyme, you make the blood vessels relax, decreasing blood pressure. Examples of this type of drug include lisinopril (Prinivil), enalapril (Vasotec), ramipril (Altace), benazepril (Lotensin), fosinopril (Monopril), and captopril (Capoten). Side effects of ACE inhibitors include headache, flushing, diarrhea, rash, and more rarely dizziness, heart failure or stroke. One of the most annoying side effects is a dry persistent cough. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), like valsartan (Diovan), irbesartan (Avapro), olmesartan (Benicar), candesartan (Atacand), and losartan (Cozaar; Hyzaar when combined with hydrochlorothiazide) act on the angiotensin receptor to block its effects, thereby reducing blood pressure. Side effects include dizziness, diarrhea, rash, and more rarely anxiety, muscle pains, upper respiratory track infection, low blood pressure or elevations in potassium.

Calcium channel blockers act on the lining of the blood vessels. When these channels let calcium in, the blood vessels constrict. By blocking the calcium channels, these drugs cause the vessels to relax, as a result blood pressure goes down. Examples of this type of drug include amlodipine (Norvasc), verapamil (Calan), nifedipine (Procardia, Adalat), and diltiazem (Tiazac). Side effects include constipation, dizziness, headache, nausea, and more rarely low blood pressure, heart failure or arrhythmias.

Calcium channel blockers have not been found to prevent heart attacks better than diuretics (ALLHAT 2002; Black et al 2003; Brown et al 2000; Hansson et al 2000). In fact, one study showed that calcium channel blockers (nifedipine) did not prevent heart attacks or chest pain (angina) any better than a placebo, or sugar pill (Poole-Wilson et al 2004). A meta analysis of all studies combined showed that treatment with calcium channel blockers did not improve mortality more than a placebo, although ACE inhibitors did (BPLTTC. 2000). Another meta analysis found that treatment with calcium channel blockers when compared to other medication treatments for high blood pressure was associated with a relative 26% increase in heart attacks, 25% increase in heart failure, and 10% increase in major cardiovascular events (Pahor et al 2000). Furthermore, for women calcium channel blockers increased the risk of heart attack or stroke by 18% (Poole-Wilson et al 2004). Calcium channel blockers have been found to increase the risk of heart failure relative to other antihypertension drugs in several studies,(Black et al 2003; BPLTTC. 2000; Pahor et al 2000; Pepine et al 2003) overall by about 20% (BPLTTC 2003). In spite of this, one of the calcium channel blockers, amlodipine, continues to be a blockbuster drug, with 2 billion dollars a year in sales reported in 2003, a year after the troubling reports of heart failure with calcium channel blockers was published.

In the NIH-sponsored Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). In ALLHAT, the largest study of antihypertensive medications ever performed, different types of antihypertensive treatments were compared in 33,357 patients with high blood pressure and one other risk factor for heart disease were randomly assigned to the "old" drug chlorthalidone (diuretic), or the "new" drugs amlodipine (calcium channel blocker), or lisinopril (ACE inhibitor). Rates of fatal and nonfatal heart attacks were essentially the same between the three treatments (ALLHAT 2002). There was a 38% increase in heart failure with amlodipine compared to chlorthalidone. For lisinopril there were increased rates of total cardiovascular disease outcomes (10%), stroke (15%) and heart failure (19%) compared to chlorthalidone.

Since the time of ALLHAT other studies have not shown that ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers work better than diuretics, even though they cost more. And like ALLHAT, some of these studies show cause for concern.

As I mentioned above, many of the studies involved a comparison of "old" and "new" drugs, showing no difference in heart attacks and strokes for the two types of drugs. For the old drugs the studies often lumped together atenolol and a diuretic. However as I will explain later in more detail atenolol is probably not a very good drug, so these studies may have hid the fact that diuretics are better! In any case they show that there is no reason to spend more money on the new drugs. Follow along now while I spell out some of those studies.

For instance, in the NORdic DILtiazem (NORDIL) study, (Hansson et al 2000) which compared diltiazem (calcium channel blocker) to diuretics and/or beta blockers in 10,881 patients from Norway and Sweden, there were no differences in rates of fatal or non-fatal heart. Other studies which showed essentially identical rates of heart attack or stroke included The Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of Cardiovascular End points (CONVINCE) Trial, a study of 16,602 patients who received verapamil (calcium channel blocker), or atenolol (beta blocker)/hydrochlorothiaz ide (diuretic) (Black et al 2003). The INternational VErapamil trandolapril STudy (INVEST), which compared the calcium channel blocker verapamil to the beta blocker atenolol in 22,576 patients (Pepine et al 2003). The Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension 2 (STOP-2) (Hansson et al 1999a) study, which randomised 6614 patients age 70-84 to either "new" drugs like calcium channel blockers or ACE inhibitors, or "old" drugs diuretics and beta blockers, and the CAptopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) as study of captopril (ACE inhibitor) versus diuretics and/or beta blocker in 10,985 patients (Hansson et al 1999b).

Not only was it difficult to show that the new drugs were better than the old (the marketing goal that drove the design of the studies), it wasn't easy to show that taking the drugs was better than doing nothing. For instance, in the ACTION Study (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine), 7665 patients with stable angina received the calcium channel blocker nifedipine or placebo in a randomized trial (Poole-Wilson et al 2004). There was no difference in a combined measure of fatal and non-fatal heart attack or stroke, revascularization, or heart failure. Death from heart disease was equal in the groups, and there was a 16% increase in non-cardiac deaths with nifedipine that was not statistically significant. Women on nifedipine had an 18% increase in this measure of cardiac events, although the difference was not statistically significant. In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study, 9297 patients at high risk for heart disease were randomized to the ACE inhibitor ramipril or placebo in addition to their usual treatment (HOPE 2000). A fatal or non-fatal heart attack or stroke was seen in 14.0% of the ramipril patients compared to 17.8% on placebo, a difference that was statistically significant. In the Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition (PEACE) Trial, a study of 8290 patients with heart disease, the addition of the ACE inhibitor Trandolapril had no effect on reducing heart attacks and coronary revascularization procedures compared to a placebo (PEACE 2004). These results led to an editorial called "ACE inhibitors in Patients with Stable Heart Disease-may they rest in Peace?"

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long term Use Evaluation (VALUE) study compared the ARB valsartan to the calcium channel blocker amlodipine in 15,245 patients over age 50 with high blood pressure and a high risk of heart disease (Julius et al 2004). The study found no difference between the two drugs in fatal and non-fatal heart attacks and other cardiac events. More non-fatal heart attacks were seen with valsartan, but there was also less development of diabetes. This study led to an editorial called "Is there Value in Value?"

When new drugs were compared to diuretics alone, their performance was worse. For instance, the Multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS) compared the calcium channel blocker isradipine to the diuretic chlorthalidone in 883 patients with high blood pressure. Twenty five patients on isradipine had a major cardiovascular event (heart attack, stroke, heart failure, death or angina) compared to 14 on diuretic, a difference which was statistically significant (Borhani et al 1996). In the International Nifedipine GITS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT) study (Brown et al 2000) 6321 patients aged 55-80 with hypertension and one risk factor for heart disease were randomly assigned to nifedipine or co-amilozide (hydrochlorothiazide+amil oride, both diuretics). In the nifedipine group, 200 had cardiovascular death, heart attack, heart failure or stroke (combined) versus 182 in the diuretic group, which was not statistically significant. The nifedipine group did have significantly more fatal heart attacks (16 versus 5) and non-fatal heart failure (24 versus 11).

Dr. Bruce Psaty and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle looked at all of the data from trials that had been published up to 2003. Overall they found that diuretics were superior to all other treatments (Psaty et al 2003). Compared to placebo diuretics reduced the risk of heart disease by 21%, heart failure by 49%, stroke by 29% and total mortality by 10% (all significant). Diuretics compared to calcium channel blockers had 6% fewer cardiovascular disease events and 26% less heart failure; compared to ACE inhibitors there was 12% less heart failure, 6% less cardiovascular disease events and 14% less stroke. Diuretics compared to beta blockers had 11% less cardiovascular disease events. All treatments were similar in their ability to lower blood pressure. The authors concluded that diuretics (but not beta blockers, as was the recommendation at the time) should be the first line of treatment for high blood pressure.

Most of the studies of antihypertensive medications have been done in men. In the only study focused on women, 30,219 women with hypertension without heart disease were assessed for the relationship between anti-hypertensive therapy and outcome. Use of calcium channel blockers compared to diuretic was associated with a 55% increased risk of cardiovascular death, diuretic plus calcium channel blocker was associated with an 85% increased risk of cardiovascular death compared to diuretic plus beta-blocker. The risk increased to 2.16 when women with diabetes were excluded (Bhatt et al 2006; Wassertheil-Smoller et al 2004).

The alpha-blockers block the alpha noradrenergic receptor in the heart and blood vessels, and include doxazosin (Cardura), prazosin (Minipress) and terazosin (Hytrin). A related drug called Labetalol (Normodyne) blocks both alpha and beta-receptors. The Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) Study showed that the alpha blocker Cardura doubled the risk of heart failure and increased the risk of stroke and all cardiovascular disease when compared to diuretic. This led to the study being stopped early; the authors of ALLHAT concluded that alpha-blockers should not be used in the treatment of hypertension (Davis 2000). Based on this I believe that there is no role for alpha-blockers in the treatment of patients with hypertension.

What is the bottom line for the treatment of hypertension? First things first. Cut sodium from your diet. That means making your own dinner whenever possible, since processed, canned and frozen foods are full of sodium, as food meals. Exercise by moderate walking for 30 minutes three times a week. Try stress reduction or meditation. Stop smoking. Do not drink alcohol in excessive amounts.

If these changes fail to lower your blood pressure, you may need medication. Work with your doctor to find out what works best for you. You may need to be started on the standard and least expensive treatment, diuretics. They work better than the newer drugs, based on the research I outlined earlier, and they have fewer side effects overall than the newer medications. This is especially true if you are African-American. You should definitely not take an ACE inhibitor or calcium channel blocker if you are not taking a diuretic.

Alpha-blockers should not be taken under any circumstances. These drugs seem to cause more heart problems than conventional diuretic treatments. Potassium sparing diuretics are dangerous and should be avoided.

If your blood pressure is not controlled with a diuretic, you may need to add another medication. This means going to a beta blocker, ACE inhibitor or calcium channel blocker. I do not recommend atenolol; you can use another beta blocker like metoprolol. Women should not take a calcium channel blocker. ACE inhibitors or ARB drugs can help whites with left ventricular (heart pump) failure.

ALLHAT (2002): Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). Journal of the American Medical Association 288:2981-2997.

Bhatt D, Fox KAa, Hacke W, et al (2006): Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events. New England Journal of Medicine 354:1706-1717.
Black HR, Elliott WJ, Grandits G, et al (2003): Principal results of the Controlled Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular End Points (CONVINCE) Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 289:2073-2082.

Borhani N, Mercuir M, Borhani PA, et al (1996): Final outcome results of the Multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS): A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 276:785-791.

BPLTTC (2003): Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 362:1527-1535.

BPLTTC. (2000): Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists Collaboration. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 355:1955-1964.

Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, et al (2000): Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet 356:366-372.

Davis BR (2000): Major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients randomized to doxazosin ver chlorthalidone: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Journal of the American Medical Association 283:1967-1975.

Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al (2000): Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet 356:359-365.

Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekborn T, et al (1999a): Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet 354:1751-1756.

Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, et al (1999b): Effect of angiotensin-converting-en zyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captropril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet 353:611-616.
HOPE (2000): Effects of an angiotensin-converting-en zyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. New England Journal of Medicine 342:145-153.

Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber B, et al (2004): Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet 363:2022-2031.

Pahor M, Psaty BM, Alderman MH, et al (2000): Health outcomes associated with calcium antagonists compared with other first-line antihypertensive therapies: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 356:1949-1954.

PEACE (2004): The PEACE Trial Investigators. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine 351:2058-2068.
Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al (2003): A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease: The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 21:2805-2816.

Poole-Wilson PA, Lubsen J, Kirwan B-A, et al (2004): Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364:849-857.

Psaty BM, Lumley T, Furberg CD, et al (2003): Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: A network meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 289:2534-2544.

Wassertheil-Smoller S, Psaty B, Greenland P, et al (2004): Association between cardiovascular outcomes and antihypertension drug treatment in older women. Journal of the American Medical Association 292:2849-2859.

You'd practically think doctors had discovered vitamin L.

Almost every doctor who treats diabetics in the USA will recommend treatment with the cholesterol-lowering drug atorvastatin, also known as Lipitor, the moment an LDL test comes back with a reading higher than 120 mg/dl.

This is wrong on many levels.

Even if there were no side effects of Lipitor, if it never caused potentially fatal rhabdomyolysis, an extreme form of muscle pain and soreness from taking Lipitor, if no one ever noticed a relationship between constant throat clearing and Lipitor, if there were no connection between Lipitor and forgetfulness, automatically prescribing this statin drug to just about everyone who has diabetes would be bad medicine.

First of all, the test your doctor gives you usually doesn't measure LDL. It's a "guestimate" of "bad" cholesterol from your total cholesterol, HDL, and trigylceride levels--and LDL and HDL are not the only kinds of cholesterol. A direct measurement of low-density lipoprotein is probably more expensive than every other test your doctor will order for your diabetic checkup.

And if you've been careful to get your sugars under control, lowering your triglycerides, guess what? Your LDL number will be higher! This is the case whether or not the actual concentration of this form of cholesterol has gone up.

Secondly, there's more than one kind of LDL. Apo-A is not associated with cardiovascular risk. Apo-B is associated with cardiovascular risk. If your LDL is really apo-A, Lipitor is not going to protect you against having a heart attack.

But suppose your doctor argues that, yes, you're right, the tests the doctor ordered don't really measure any kind of cardiovascular risk factor, but "we" know that Lipitor and other statins are anti-inflammatory and its stopping inflammation that really does you good. After all there was the famous TNT study.

What was the TNT study? Does your doctor think it was dynamite?

The Treating to New Targets study was a South African clinical trial that found that diabetics given a high dose of Lipitor were 25 per cent less likely to have a fatal heart attack, non-fatal heart attack, fatal stroke, or non-fatal stroke, than diabetics given a lower dose Lipitor.

So the scientists weren't studying 1,501 diabetics, some of whom weren't already on Lipitor. Everybody in the study was on at least 10 mg of Lipitor a day. Some just got more, 80 mg a day.

And that 25 per cent figure is misleading. The scientists really mean that 13 per cent is 25 per cent lower than 17 per cent.

The study found that 13 per cent of diabetics on high-dose Lipitor had a heart attack or stroke over the 5 years of the trial, while 17 per cent of diabetic on low-dose Lipitor had heart attack or stroke during the same period. Lipitor is hardly a magic bullet.

And doesn't that 17 per cent figure sound awfully high? Well, there's a reason for that, too.

The TNT study found that additional Lipitor had additional benefit only for South African diabetics who had already developed coronary heart disease before the age of 56.

Now, if you happen to be a South African male diabetic under the age of 56 who has already had a heart attack or stroke and you are already taking Lipitor, maybe you should take more. But what if you are a diabetic, but you haven't had a heart attack or a stroke, and you're not taking a statin drug?

A much larger study in Israel has an answer.

In five years of follow-up of 2,482 diabetics aged 45 to 74, Israeli researchers found that 5 per cent of the diabetics died. Cholesterol, however, was not the predictor of death. Blood pressure was. Israeli doctors found that getting blood pressure under control while diabetes could still be treated with diet was ideal. About 5 per cent of diabetics who had high blood pressure died over the five-year period. About 4 per cent of diabetics who managed to control their blood pressure suffered the same fate.

So what's the bottom line?

Ask your doctor about Lipitor if you are concerned about preventing a second, fatal heart attack or stroke.

Get your blood pressure under control if you are concerned about preventing a first, fatal heart attack or stroke.

In case you didn't know, you need a trailer to transport your snowmobile to where the snow is. Because you only break it out in the winter, you need to check it out and make sure that its in good working order.

There are many snowmobile trailers in the market, which are ideal for transporting your snowmobile to where the fun is. These trailers make transporting the snowmobiles much easier. They are manufactures by various manufacturers using different material. They have different performance values and can be customized to suit any appearance.

Trailers are constructed with either steel or aluminum. The aluminum trailers are hardy and can be hitched to the back of your car, pick up truck or camper to haul your snowmobile. There are about three types of aluminum trailers out in the market, but they all have similar traits. Some of these include a fully welded aluminum alloy frame and rubber grommetted lights which can withstand light impacts.

Some snowmobile trailers have customizations that are unique to that model. Take for instance the ski tie down system. Some trailers have a recessed standard nut system, some have a partial sur-lock system and others have a full length sur-lock system. There are also other options that you can have on your trailer. You could get a guardrail to prevent the snowmobile from jerking around.

There are snowmobile trailers to fit every budget and designs to suit different needs. Always find out f the trailer will safely haul your snowmobile based on information such as weight and distance to haul.

Have you seen the string of recent videos showing Britney Spears' crazy driving antics in her Benz? - Hitting a parked car, rolling over the feet of numerous photographers (including one from TMZ), rolling over a cop's foot, running a red light with her kids in the car and making an illegal U-turn.

But what's the common denominator in all of this, besides Britney? The paparazzi! They were practically in her face at the time of each of these incidents.

Imagine trying to drive with 50 people circled around your car, pushing against it with camera-flashes going off constantly - someone's foot is bound to be in danger, at least. Let's be logical about it.

It's like the paparazzi stand around her car waiting for her to screw up and on the freeway they chase close behind her, hoping something interesting happens - but isn't that pretty much what they did in that Tunnel in Paris in 1997 - when they chased Princess Di.

Sure, she can afford to hire a driver (which she probably should) with her estimated monthly income of close to U.S $800,000.00, but when you've just spent U.S $100,000.00 on a new Benz, won't you want to drive it yourself? Again, let's be logical about it.

The paparazzi always claim they are 'innocent' bystanders with a camera in these situations, but when they deliberately chase down a car with 2 small kids inside on the freeway, who's really 'innocent' there? They should always assume the kids are in the car and respect it as such - afterall, Britney does in fact have kids!

Of course, Kevin Federline's lawyers love these traffic-violating videos! They love them so much in fact that they have called an emergency court hearing to discuss them.

Nobody can really think Britney is a good driver or even a safe driver - texting behind the wheel, having her son on her lap in the driver's seat with no seatbelt, running a red light with her kids, etc - but having 50 paparazzi aggressively follow her every move certainly escalates the danger, to her kids, to herself and to others.

Paparazzi Britney Spears Nude Picture Photo

If this dangerous situation continues, there will be another tragic "Tunnel in Paris".

I admire the paparazzi. They do a difficult job in difficult conditions. Whatever you overall view of them, there are things to be admired.

I know that the right picture will net them enough money to retire twice over. But, in reality, the majority of images will just about bring in enough cash to feed the kids and perhaps go out to the theatre once in a while.

For every one paparazzi stealing a quick candid, there are twenty others and you can be sure that the most sought after images will be also sought after by your peers and rivals.

Then there’s the waiting. Standing in the baking sun or howling gale, being soaked to the skin or burnt to the core, that picture has to come otherwise the kids don’t get their nourishment.

Images of celebrities sell, of course. But images that are out of the ordinary sell faster and for more cash. For the right image you have to wait. You must know your subject, study them, follow them, be with them and be at the ready to snap the shutter when the time is just right.

You may have to miss a few meals or bathroom breaks to be sure that the images you take will adorn the pages of widely sold glossy magazines or newspapers the next day.

It would help if your subject would obligingly show a part of their anatomy that would otherwise be hidden. Or perhaps snort a few drugs, be sick, stumble, fumble or kiss. It would also help if they could do these things in open spaces and not in crowded nightclubs, concerts or bars.

And it would help if either they or their minders would refrain from verbal and physical abuse.

As I said, the life of a paparazzi is not an easy one.

If anyone asked me what to look for in the best online casino site - it would be quite simple to give them my main priorities.  I love gambling online and have played at good, bad and basically crooked sites.  Playing in an online casino can be great fun but there some disadvantages as well.

Below is some points to think about when choosing a service for you.

• There aren't many crooked online casinos about but they do exist - if a website doesn't feel professional or gives you a bad feeling - leave
• Always look for decent contact details - a support phone number and a contact email address
• Try out the free games - check the quality of the software
• If the free games make you win easily - I would always leave - rigging doesn't inspire me with confidence even in a free game
• Check for responsible gambling links - the professional firms want responsible gaming
• check out the rules for all the games are displayed somewhere
• Do you feel comfortable with a particular casino - many people prefer to deal with a company they recognise
• Check for sign on bonuses - some casinos will give you a bonus when you first sign up

If you look at the above points you should find yourself a good online casino and gambling site.  I would always try and find one with a large selection of games - although I usually play poker or roulette it's nice to have some decent slots or fun games.  This also means you don't end up with loads of accounts from different casinos.

Now the sensible stuff - when you've found yourself a decent casino and signed up for an account - remember that gambling is entertainment and should be fun.   Blowing your entire salary on an evenings reckless gambling is not fun and you won't enjoy any part of it.   Always play to your bankroll and plan how much you have to play with - if you lose it quickly then quit - chasing your losses isn't fun and you will end up playing recklessly. 

It's that time of year when my loved one and myself set aside an evening to open a bottle of wine and discuss one of the most significant events in the Egger family calendar, to whit, the Great Annual Holiday.

As always, the first decision we have to make is whether we choose nude or not. As confirmed nudists, we naturally favour a naturist vacation, or at least a vacation during which we can get naked for part of the time. However it's not an automatic choice and this year there is a particularly tempting selection of textile holidays on offer. There's a Mediterranean cruise that looks appealing, and the Rocky Mountain Rail Adventure takes my eye. Maybe we should support one of the Indian Ocean countries devastated by the Boxing Day Tsunami, or stay at home and redecorate (ugh!) However, we'll probably choose nude, and here's six reasons why.

Reason # 1

Getting naked, even for a short time, can help save your life!

I'm not being overly dramatic here. It really seems that divesting yourself of tight, restrictive clothing that impedes the natural flow of blood and lymphatic fluid may be a real life-saver.

According to researchers, wearing a bra can cause all manner of unpleasantness, including soreness and even breast cancer. The (admittedly preliminary) research suggests that ladies who wear bras for more than twelve hours each day except for bed, are 21 times more likely to get breast cancer than those who wear bras less than twelve hours per day. And listen to this- those who wear bras even in bed are 125 times more likely to get breast cancer than those who don't wear bras at all! In cultures where ladies don't wear bras, the incidence of breast cancer is about the same as it is for men - virtually zero!

And it's not only the ladies who are at risk. The same research suggests that testicular cancer in men may be caused by tight briefs.

So, divesting yourself of bra and briefs, even for the short period of your vacation, could keep you much healthier.

Reason # 2

Less clothes = less luggage = less hassle.

Have you ever noticed how when you're packing for a holiday you can never seem to have enough clothes? And how you'll then spend the equivalent of the cost of the vacation on essential garments brought especially for the holiday? Yet, during your stay you find you've ended up with twice the clothes you need? It's spooky isn't it? Don't ask me why it works that way - probably some unexplained Law of Nature - but it happens EVERY TIME.

Except on a nudist holiday.

It's as if nudist holidays turn natural laws on their head. The scramble to cover every eventuality clothes-wise is replaced by a disdain for apparel bordering on the obsessive. My normal textile two page-packing list is reduced to just four lines, viz:

· Suitable clothing for travelling.

· Sufficient smart slinky dresses for evening wear.

· Shorts/skirt/tee -shirt for any non-nudist (referred to in nude-speak as "textile") excursions.

· And, ummm... well that's about it really.

The immediate effect of this textile trimming is that my luggage, which is normally equal in volume to a medium-sized car, consists of just one small suitcase. (OK, two, if you count the other one which contains life-saving items such as hairdryer, make-up, skin creams, lipsticks, jewellery etc - gosh, a girl has to look her best, even in the buff hasn't she?) Not only does this make for easier carrying and a swifter get-away from the luggage carousel, it also saves on tips. The largesse I would otherwise have to distribute just to transport my baggage train to the hotel would feed a family of five for a month. A spin off from this is that less clothing also means less packing and unpacking, leaving more time for drinking wine and dozing by the pool, which is the whole idea of a holiday in the first place.

Well it's mine, anyway

Reason # 3

Skin doesn't stain.

Our skin is wonderful. Not only is it the largest organ of our body, but it always fits perfectly (OK. Sometimes some of us may have a just a little more than is necessary, but you know what I mean.)

Happily, it's also easier to keep clean than fabric. My husband has a particular fondness for crépes - you know, those pancake things with fillings you can buy from roadside kiosks around the Med? He'd eat 'em all day if I let him. Unfortunately he also has a tendency to lose the syrup filling down his front, which has led to more ruined shirts than would fill a steamer trunk.

A nudist holiday neatly sidesteps this problem. Whilst maple syrup may not be particularly easy to remove from a naked chest - especially a hirsute male one - it 's a whole lot easier than washing it out of a silk or cotton shirt. Nor does it leave a stain, except for a livid red mark across the torso after the treacle has been scrubbed from the chest hair, but that's the price men pay for being so clumsy. (In the interests of equality, I have to concede that this is not just a male quirk. After a bottle or two I have been known to distribute red wine down my bosom with something approaching gay abandon, rendering any affected clothing null and void in the process. However I insist that this is not clumsiness on my part, but merely the result of my being tired and emotional. So there.)

Reason # 4

It makes more sense to be naked on a beach than to wear a bathing costume.

Let's face it. A bathing costume serves no useful purpose. It doesn't keep us dry, or warm, and doesn't even help us to swim: studies by the West German Olympic swim team showed that swimsuits actually hamper a swimmer. They're not even healthy. Ticks and sea lice that bite or sting and which find nowhere to hide on a nude body are easily trapped in a bathing suit.

So why do we wear 'em

To preserve one's modesty? Hardly. These days mens' costumes are brief enough but ladies bathers are positively miniscule, containing less fabric than a small handkerchief. Bikini tops afford less coverage than two postage stamps on a string, and in any case are rarely worn on European beaches. Bikini bottoms just cover the genitals but often leave the bottom exposed.

Which also means they don't protect you from the sun's harmful UV rays.

Yet according to a survey carried out by the Ladies' Home Journal Americans spend $900,000,000 each year on bathing costumes, although eighty-five percent of all swimsuits purchased never touch the water.

Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Reason 5

Nudist resorts are nice places with nice people

Every nudist knows that genuine nudists are very nice people. What makes nudist especially nice remains a mystery. Perhaps nudism attracts the pleasantest individuals in the first place, or maybe the practice of nudism somehow improves people. Who knows? And really, who cares? Let's just enjoy the situation. You can leave an unlocked car at a nudist resort and nothing will be taken. Nudist resorts and beaches tend to be orderly, well behaved places. Even at a nudist holiday city such as Cap d'Agde, containing some 40000 people at the height of the season, there is none of the threatening atmosphere, violence and general loutishness that disfigures other holiday hot-spots. Any sort of crime is almost non-existent, and most large complexes, even Cap d'Agde, need no more than minimal security.

You don't get that at Benidorm or Palm Springs!

Reason #6

Nudist entrepreneurs need our support.

Despite estimates that the world nude travel business is worth some four hundred million USD annually and growing fast, the nudist holiday industry is still a fragile plant that needs encouragement and support. The fine nudist resorts that cater to the nudist holidaymaker today are a far cry from the primitive camps that were available in the not too distant past, and by attracting the new generation of vacationers who demand a certain standard of comfort, are in a large part responsible for the growth of the nude leisure industry. However, quality costs money, and these resorts are businesses, not charities. Unless we continue to support them they'll close, and we'll return to the old clapped out, run down, make-do-and-mend compounds of yesteryear. As the old saying goes, you have to use 'em or lose 'em

So, it looks as if we'll choose nude again this year. All we have to do is to decide where. Wait a minute. I've just had a wonderful idea. Perhaps we can support the Tsunami appeal and please ourselves at the same time by going nude in Thailand. That's it! Brilliant. Now, then, where are those brochures...?

The style of Nude photography is one of the most popular types of photography with professionals and amateur photographers! A newbie can be at times motivated by lust to mask a true photographic career!

If you are an amateur photographer, hire an experienced nude model; it can be enormously helpful when starting out. An experienced model will not need a lot of directions or tips. They know how to pose, and/or move their body in ways that are flattering to them, and will help you look good also.

Whenever I shoot an experienced model, I have pre-determined my lighting, and backdrops I intend to use, and have gone over the shoot in my head many times! Trust me this is not the time for trying out new equipment, ideas or not having a plan!

If you are working with a model that does not have Nude experience, it is your job to give direction, posing, support, and suggestions. I will ask if they had any poses in mind. I feel it's my job to keep the model comfortable; I never start out with her naked on the first shot. It's important to tell a model to bring with them something they feel comfortable in, a bra and panty set, a teddy, or some piece of lingerie or swimwear.

In working with a model who has told you she has never posed nude before is more than likely telling a little white lie. It may be true that she never posed nude with a professional photographer, but what about those pictures her boyfriend took? Also the photos she may have had a friend snap "just to see how see looked" or were going to be a surprise for someone very special!

My only point is the model has been naked before, and maybe she was using her bedroom, the basement, or even outdoors in the woods down the lane... It's your job when you interview her to find out what makes her comfortable, is it a person, place, or item of clothing?

Great, now I have something to help me, help her to feel more comfortable with me! I will also ask a model to bring a few of their favorite images of themselves to the shoot so I can ask what it is about that picture they liked. This is also a great opportunity to have them tell me what the outcome they are hoping for is. When you add all this together, it will help you determine the type of poses that will work best to fit with your overall plan. This should help the photo shoot go with ease.

Many women will have different reasons they want a nude portfolio done! Regularly, it's to visually document this period in their lives. Many women will regret not having photos taken when they were younger. Conversely, they realize now having this photo shoot will prevent greater regret later. The wish to have a nude portfolio done is becoming more and more a desire women want to do for themselves! It's true, women want to feel beautiful, a portfolio can help them recall this moment in time.

Photographers, please remember the best manner to learning the techniques for producing a quality nude portfolio is to study the masters! There are many... Studying references and books from a master photographer will be one of the most important lessons you can learn anywhere. Also practice, practice and more practice!

A true quality nude portfolio starts with trust. The client has to trust you the photographer, to make them look sexy, desirable, forever young, and feminine. Remember all women are beautiful, and should be respected by their photographer first and foremost! Respect will build trust; it relaxes the client, and draws out their confidence.

I cannot ever imagine myself getting tired of the sight of a woman in all her glorious nudity and the language of her body. To me, the female body is fascinating, tantalizing, seductive, mysterious, and desirable! I simply hope that I can sufficiently capture and display their beauty in a manner she deserves.

Like the beauty of flowers, photographing a nude woman will need the proper surroundings to reach the height of her beauty!