PLEASE FOLLOW HOODTUBE TWITTER
FOLLOW US
Friday, October 28, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Shaquille O'Neal Wins Huge Victory In Sex Tape Case
Shaquille O'Neal indirectly won an enormous victory today ... after a judge threw out a case against 7 gang members who were accused of kidnapping a man in order to retrieve a sex tape of Shaq.
Robert Ross -- the alleged victim -- claimed he had a sex tape showing Shaq with multiple women at different times while he was still married to Shaunie O'Neal.
Ross claimed 7 gang members kidnapped him at the direction of Shaq and tried to beat him into submission so he would cough up the video.
Today in court -- in the middle of the preliminary hearing -- the D.A. shocked the courtroom, stating they no longer had confidence in Ross based on his testimony and his actions outside of court.
Lawyers for the 7 defendants asked the judge to immediately dismiss the case -- which is exactly what the judge did.
As for why the D.A. lost confidence in Ross, for starters, during his testimony in the prelim, he admitted he had lied about having a sex tape -- something Shaq had denied all along.
Robert Ross -- the alleged victim -- claimed he had a sex tape showing Shaq with multiple women at different times while he was still married to Shaunie O'Neal.
Ross claimed 7 gang members kidnapped him at the direction of Shaq and tried to beat him into submission so he would cough up the video.
Today in court -- in the middle of the preliminary hearing -- the D.A. shocked the courtroom, stating they no longer had confidence in Ross based on his testimony and his actions outside of court.
Lawyers for the 7 defendants asked the judge to immediately dismiss the case -- which is exactly what the judge did.
As for why the D.A. lost confidence in Ross, for starters, during his testimony in the prelim, he admitted he had lied about having a sex tape -- something Shaq had denied all along.
Sony Making Classified Osama Bin Laden Movie
WASHINGTON - Rep. Pete King knocked President Obama over reports he green-lighted unprecedented access of the Navy SEALs crew who killed Osama bin Laden to Hollywood filmmakers.
Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, who made 2008's Iraq war drama "The Hurt Locker," are behind the planned picture of the risky May raid.
The movie is scheduled for release on Oct. 12, 2012, less than a month before next year's general election - an October surprise blown this week by the New York Times.
King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has demanded that Pentagon and CIA inspectors general investigate their access. He cited reports that Boal was on hand for a closed-door intel agency ceremony honoring the Bin Laden team, raising eyebrows in the room.
The schmoozing could risk lives and imperil the fight against an Al Qaeda that's on the ropes, King wrote in a letter to the watchdogs.
The "alleged collaboration belies a desire for transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history," King wrote.
Leaders in the intelligence and defense communities often complain that while the presidential administration demand agencies shore up leaks, selected journalists get high-level access so politicians can craft public perceptions, and their legacies.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
via: jstraw@nydailynews.com
Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, who made 2008's Iraq war drama "The Hurt Locker," are behind the planned picture of the risky May raid.
The movie is scheduled for release on Oct. 12, 2012, less than a month before next year's general election - an October surprise blown this week by the New York Times.
King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has demanded that Pentagon and CIA inspectors general investigate their access. He cited reports that Boal was on hand for a closed-door intel agency ceremony honoring the Bin Laden team, raising eyebrows in the room.
The schmoozing could risk lives and imperil the fight against an Al Qaeda that's on the ropes, King wrote in a letter to the watchdogs.
The "alleged collaboration belies a desire for transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history," King wrote.
Leaders in the intelligence and defense communities often complain that while the presidential administration demand agencies shore up leaks, selected journalists get high-level access so politicians can craft public perceptions, and their legacies.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
via: jstraw@nydailynews.com
Jennifer Hudson Has Intense Twitter Beef!
Who knew that Jennifer Hudson was a thug! She was engaged in a pretty intense Twitter Beef with one of her followers/haters. According to MediaTakeOut.com, @1984Lips4Daze asked J. Hud a question on the social network and Jennifer responded with “lol u funny! Thank you for your hate n clearly the gym ain’t working for u cuz u look a mess.” That’s when all hell broke loose and @1984Lips4Daze pulled a Nas “Ether” move. She began to attack Jennifer’s husband claiming he was gay, called Jennifer “malnutritioned” and said she had stretch marks on the cover of Essence Magazine! Jennifer responded with “watch what u say cuz i might have to buy a plane/flight n show u some of my southside”
Gaga Goes Glam-- Born This Way Singer Steps Out In Style
Lady Gaga -- perhaps best known for her outrageous outfits -- looked unusually glam as she left a recording studio in Los Angeles early Friday.
Gaga -- real name Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta -- rocked an extremely stylish black cocktail dress with a purple rose and winding yellow stem. And check out those oversized boxy sunglasses and her long, long fire-engine red fingernails!
Gaga, 25, has said that fashion is a major influence in her life. She considers Donatella Versace her muse and has her own creative production team called the Haus of Gaga, which she handles personally. The team creates many of her clothes, stage props, and hairdos.
Her love of fashion came from her mother, who she stated was "always very well kept and beautiful.
"When I'm writing music, I'm thinking about the clothes I want to wear on stage. It's all about everything altogether -- performance art, pop performance art, fashion. For me, it's everything coming together and being a real story that will bring back the super-fan. I want to bring that back. I want the imagery to be so strong that fans will want to eat and taste and lick every part of us."
Gaga has been unusually quiet on Twitter for the past week, and she's been teasing us with this little jem she posted on August 2: "The Music Video for "Yoü and I" will be my 1000th
NBA Dewayne Wade gives tithes 10% of his Salary and Endoresements to his church
According to a person "in the know" NBA superstar Dwyane Wade tithes 10 PERCENT of his NBA salary, plus all his endorsement deals (Nike, Hublot etc) to his church in suburban Chicago, Temple of Praise Church.For those wondering HOW MUCH that is. Word is Dwayne makes in excess of $25 MILLION a year.
The Eviction Process
First Step - Get out of Victim Mode
Chances are, you're panicked at the moment because the landlord has started evicting you. You feel like a victim. If you feel intimidated or threatened by the process, you're normal. You don't know what to expect, and the landlord acts like he's holding all the cards. You've heard rumors about how it goes. It's like walking in the dark, and things are hitting you in head. We're going to turn on the floodlights, give you a map, show you where the safe spots are and how to avoid the danger zones, and get you where you want to be.
You can't have fun doing this if you're intimidated. The goal here is to replace your fear and anxiety with knowledge, a strategy, a clear plan, and enjoyment of the game you've just been invited to play. Yes, it's a game, and one that you can win in real terms. The downside is real, certainly, but not the end of the world. Usually, your worst case scenario is that you have to move to another location, and continue with life there. Yes, having to move is such a hassle, sometimes an expensive one. Nobody likes moving. However, it's not something you couldn't have chosen to do, in your own sweet time. And there we are: you might want to move, but just not yet. Most clients have lots of fun doing this, driving the landlord crazy.
The Eviction Process
Eviction is the means by which a landlord can legally get you to move out. If you win, you stay put. If you did nothingto stop it, you would lose but have about a month from the filing of the eviction lawsuit before you would be locked out by the Sheriff. If you fight it, getting 2-3 months more time [even if you lose] is easy. My record is 14 months, and it could have been longer. That landlord gave up over $10,000 in back rent just to have the tenant leave, so we settled for that.
As shown in the diagram below, eviction usually starts with a notice, then goes to a lawsuit called an "unlawful detainer", or "UD" for short. If you win, you stay in possession and the landlord has to reimburse you for your legal costs. If you lose, the Sheriff has to give you a 5-day notice before a lockout, and finally you leave. You can go back and get your stuff after being locked out. While you're in this process, you pay no rent; you still owe it, but it stays in your pocket. You can use that money to pay for legal expenses to fight the eviction [thanks, Mr. Landlord!] and to pay for moving, if you choose to do that.
Landlords try to scare you into moving, and not fighting it, because they know how much hassle you can give them, and how expensive it can be to get you out. Here are the common myths:
(1) The landlord CANNOT lock you out, remove your property, remove doors or windows, or turn off utilities to get you out, in lieu of court; Civil Code 789.3 prohibits that [for residential tenants] and makes the landlord liable to you for actual costs plus $100 per day that it continues, and the police will back you on this one [Penal Code 484].
(2) The landlord CANNOT have the police or Sheriff arrest you for overstaying your welcome, instead of going to court. The Sheriff may be used to serve the eviction papers, but anything beyond that awaits the court's determination, first.
(3) The landlord CANNOT barge in and start doing major construction to make it impossible to live there, or otherwise interfere with your quiet enjoyment to force you out; Civil Code 1940.2 prohibits that, and makes the landlord liable for $2000 for each such attempt, in addition to your actual losses. The police will back you on this one, too [Penal Code 484].
(4) The landlord CANNOT threaten to report you to immigration authorities or other law enforcement, nor make any other threat to get you out. Civil Code 1940.2 prohibits that, and makes the landlord liable for $2000 for each such attempt, in addition to your actual losses. The police will back you on this one, as well [Penal Code 518].
Foreclosures
If you are a homeowner or the tenant of a property owner who is facing foreclosure, or has lost the property through foreclosure, there are thousands like you through California faced with the same dilemma. Under the law, you are entitled to no special treatment because you used to be the owner, now because you had a lease with the owner. You are basically treated the same as any apartment tenant being evicted for no reason.
The bank does not have to talk to you, work with you, consider your family or children's education, or even try to sell the property to you. Junk yard dogs seem to have more manners and common sense than the people you will probably meet to tell you to get out. You can't pay them for more time, or even expect courtesy when they want to show the property to new buyers or realtors while you're still living there. Out! Out! Out! is what you get, in most instances.
Occasionally, a bank will offer "cash for keys," where they tend you some money to move out without a fuss. Sounds good up front, but what if you move and they don't pay you? Even agreements looking like they promise payment can be invalidated by having you sign, but they don't, or by having someone sign who doesn't have authority, or can't be found later, or not giving you a copy. The real zinger for tenants of the former landlord is that you sign off your rights in exchange for the money. What rights? You have the right to get your full security deposit back from the bank, because it is the new owner and the current owner owes you your deposit, even if they never got it from the old owner. [The exception is where the former landlord pays you the full deposit beforehand.] The "cash" that you're getting is almost always less than the full deposit, so that when you sign the agreement, you give up the bird in your hand for two in the bush. The bank has the obligation to pay you the full deposit, not just a part, so your "cash for keys" agreement has you giving up the rest of your deposit, and then you have to find your former landlord, who may very well have filed bankruptcy. All that glitters is not gold.
Another quirk in the legal system is where a desperate property owner is met by the vultures who have seen the recorded Notice of Default indicating a pending foreclosure. They prey upon the desperate and often use "we can help" devices like an "equity purchase" where they "buy" your interest in the property under the guise that they will cover your mortgage payments for a while until you can financially recover, and you pay them "rent." As you can expect, they don't pay the mortgage, but just collect your "rent," and let the property continue through foreclosure. If you are one of those, you have the right to sue them but the bank's foreclosure will probably continue.
The time line on a foreclosure is this: Usually after a few months of mortgage delinquency, the bank records. posts, and mails a Notice of Default, giving the owner 90 days to bring the account current. If that doesn't happen, the next step is the bank giving a 30-day Notice of Trustee's Sale, which is also recorded, posted, and mailed. The trustee's sale is the auction where the property is sold to the bank or a new buyer. Just before the trustee's sale is the time when many property owners file for bankruptcy, because they will be hit with a huge tax bill when their mortgage is no longer their debt - the IRS sees it as "income." Therefore, owners file bankruptcy, which stalls the eviction for about a month or so until the bank can get the bankruptcy judge to let them proceed with the foreclosure and eviction.
The time line on the eviction is this: After the foreclosure sale, it takes a few days to record the deed, and then a Notice to Quit [or similar title] is given to the occupants of the property. The notice gives 3-days to the former owner, but often includes a separate Notice to the tenants, giving the statutory 30 days to move out. This is like any other eviction notice, in that it has to expire before they can file the eviction case.
If the local rent control applies to your dwelling, and you are a tenant, it may prohibit your eviction due solely to the foreclosure. Los Angeles has such protections for its tenants. The fact the the bank starts the eviction, and seems to have a clear-cut case is not necessarily the situation. Due to the large volume of foreclosure evictions, the eviction firms often hire temporary staff who are poorly trained and make all kinds of mistakes in the eviction paperwork and process. Therefore, if you stay and fight the eviction lawsuit, you can stay in possession for a longer period of time, often months, and even work out a settlement where, if you just go, you owe nothing for all that time.
Chances are, you're panicked at the moment because the landlord has started evicting you. You feel like a victim. If you feel intimidated or threatened by the process, you're normal. You don't know what to expect, and the landlord acts like he's holding all the cards. You've heard rumors about how it goes. It's like walking in the dark, and things are hitting you in head. We're going to turn on the floodlights, give you a map, show you where the safe spots are and how to avoid the danger zones, and get you where you want to be.
You can't have fun doing this if you're intimidated. The goal here is to replace your fear and anxiety with knowledge, a strategy, a clear plan, and enjoyment of the game you've just been invited to play. Yes, it's a game, and one that you can win in real terms. The downside is real, certainly, but not the end of the world. Usually, your worst case scenario is that you have to move to another location, and continue with life there. Yes, having to move is such a hassle, sometimes an expensive one. Nobody likes moving. However, it's not something you couldn't have chosen to do, in your own sweet time. And there we are: you might want to move, but just not yet. Most clients have lots of fun doing this, driving the landlord crazy.
The Eviction Process
Eviction is the means by which a landlord can legally get you to move out. If you win, you stay put. If you did nothingto stop it, you would lose but have about a month from the filing of the eviction lawsuit before you would be locked out by the Sheriff. If you fight it, getting 2-3 months more time [even if you lose] is easy. My record is 14 months, and it could have been longer. That landlord gave up over $10,000 in back rent just to have the tenant leave, so we settled for that.
As shown in the diagram below, eviction usually starts with a notice, then goes to a lawsuit called an "unlawful detainer", or "UD" for short. If you win, you stay in possession and the landlord has to reimburse you for your legal costs. If you lose, the Sheriff has to give you a 5-day notice before a lockout, and finally you leave. You can go back and get your stuff after being locked out. While you're in this process, you pay no rent; you still owe it, but it stays in your pocket. You can use that money to pay for legal expenses to fight the eviction [thanks, Mr. Landlord!] and to pay for moving, if you choose to do that.
Landlords try to scare you into moving, and not fighting it, because they know how much hassle you can give them, and how expensive it can be to get you out. Here are the common myths:
(1) The landlord CANNOT lock you out, remove your property, remove doors or windows, or turn off utilities to get you out, in lieu of court; Civil Code 789.3 prohibits that [for residential tenants] and makes the landlord liable to you for actual costs plus $100 per day that it continues, and the police will back you on this one [Penal Code 484].
(2) The landlord CANNOT have the police or Sheriff arrest you for overstaying your welcome, instead of going to court. The Sheriff may be used to serve the eviction papers, but anything beyond that awaits the court's determination, first.
(3) The landlord CANNOT barge in and start doing major construction to make it impossible to live there, or otherwise interfere with your quiet enjoyment to force you out; Civil Code 1940.2 prohibits that, and makes the landlord liable for $2000 for each such attempt, in addition to your actual losses. The police will back you on this one, too [Penal Code 484].
(4) The landlord CANNOT threaten to report you to immigration authorities or other law enforcement, nor make any other threat to get you out. Civil Code 1940.2 prohibits that, and makes the landlord liable for $2000 for each such attempt, in addition to your actual losses. The police will back you on this one, as well [Penal Code 518].
Foreclosures
If you are a homeowner or the tenant of a property owner who is facing foreclosure, or has lost the property through foreclosure, there are thousands like you through California faced with the same dilemma. Under the law, you are entitled to no special treatment because you used to be the owner, now because you had a lease with the owner. You are basically treated the same as any apartment tenant being evicted for no reason.
The bank does not have to talk to you, work with you, consider your family or children's education, or even try to sell the property to you. Junk yard dogs seem to have more manners and common sense than the people you will probably meet to tell you to get out. You can't pay them for more time, or even expect courtesy when they want to show the property to new buyers or realtors while you're still living there. Out! Out! Out! is what you get, in most instances.
Occasionally, a bank will offer "cash for keys," where they tend you some money to move out without a fuss. Sounds good up front, but what if you move and they don't pay you? Even agreements looking like they promise payment can be invalidated by having you sign, but they don't, or by having someone sign who doesn't have authority, or can't be found later, or not giving you a copy. The real zinger for tenants of the former landlord is that you sign off your rights in exchange for the money. What rights? You have the right to get your full security deposit back from the bank, because it is the new owner and the current owner owes you your deposit, even if they never got it from the old owner. [The exception is where the former landlord pays you the full deposit beforehand.] The "cash" that you're getting is almost always less than the full deposit, so that when you sign the agreement, you give up the bird in your hand for two in the bush. The bank has the obligation to pay you the full deposit, not just a part, so your "cash for keys" agreement has you giving up the rest of your deposit, and then you have to find your former landlord, who may very well have filed bankruptcy. All that glitters is not gold.
Another quirk in the legal system is where a desperate property owner is met by the vultures who have seen the recorded Notice of Default indicating a pending foreclosure. They prey upon the desperate and often use "we can help" devices like an "equity purchase" where they "buy" your interest in the property under the guise that they will cover your mortgage payments for a while until you can financially recover, and you pay them "rent." As you can expect, they don't pay the mortgage, but just collect your "rent," and let the property continue through foreclosure. If you are one of those, you have the right to sue them but the bank's foreclosure will probably continue.
The time line on a foreclosure is this: Usually after a few months of mortgage delinquency, the bank records. posts, and mails a Notice of Default, giving the owner 90 days to bring the account current. If that doesn't happen, the next step is the bank giving a 30-day Notice of Trustee's Sale, which is also recorded, posted, and mailed. The trustee's sale is the auction where the property is sold to the bank or a new buyer. Just before the trustee's sale is the time when many property owners file for bankruptcy, because they will be hit with a huge tax bill when their mortgage is no longer their debt - the IRS sees it as "income." Therefore, owners file bankruptcy, which stalls the eviction for about a month or so until the bank can get the bankruptcy judge to let them proceed with the foreclosure and eviction.
The time line on the eviction is this: After the foreclosure sale, it takes a few days to record the deed, and then a Notice to Quit [or similar title] is given to the occupants of the property. The notice gives 3-days to the former owner, but often includes a separate Notice to the tenants, giving the statutory 30 days to move out. This is like any other eviction notice, in that it has to expire before they can file the eviction case.
If the local rent control applies to your dwelling, and you are a tenant, it may prohibit your eviction due solely to the foreclosure. Los Angeles has such protections for its tenants. The fact the the bank starts the eviction, and seems to have a clear-cut case is not necessarily the situation. Due to the large volume of foreclosure evictions, the eviction firms often hire temporary staff who are poorly trained and make all kinds of mistakes in the eviction paperwork and process. Therefore, if you stay and fight the eviction lawsuit, you can stay in possession for a longer period of time, often months, and even work out a settlement where, if you just go, you owe nothing for all that time.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
Sunday, August 7, 2011
16-Year-Old Bride’s Mom On Daughter’s 51-Year-Old Husband: ‘He’s Not Creepy
16-year-old Courtney Stodden is happily married to her 51-year-old actor husbandDoug Hutchison, and while critics are slamming the marriage, her mother is speaking out in defense of her son-in-law.
“He’s not creepy,” Courtney’s mom Krista Stodden. “He is such a great guy, he’s so intelligent.”
The pair has a 35-year age difference, and Krista said she understands why people don’t get their relationship, but explains that it works just fine for them.
“I see why they’re together, he looks like he’s in his early 30s, and Courtney looks like he’s in her late 20s,” she says.
And the protective mom warns that people who don’t know the couple shouldn’t criticize them. “Hold your judgment back, the goodness comes and overwhelms people who meet them.
“It’s like they’re talking about someone else when they say bad things about Doug,” Krista said. “He’s with my daughter and I wouldn’t want a creepy guy with my daughter.”
Meanwhile, she insists that Courtney has made a sound decision in becoming Doug’s teen bride. “He’s a wonderful, great man,” she says.
Stodden is a former beauty queen and aspiring actress and pop singer.
Hutchison is an actor best known for appearing on ABC’s Lost and for playing the abusive prison guard in the Oscar-nominated movie, The Green Mile, starring Tom Hanks.
The couple married this past May.
California Mother Charged With Murder After Breast Feeding On Meth
Charges against a California mother have been upgraded from manslaughter to second-degree murder this week after evidence at preliminary hearings suggested that she knowingly endangered her infant's life by breast-feeding while using methamphetamine.
Six-week-old Anthony Acosta III died last year after an allegedly lethal amount of the drugwas passed to him when his mother, Maggie Jean Wortman, 26, continued to breast-feed despite her meth habit.
Wortman is pleading not guilty to charges of murder, arguing that it was not the meth in the infant's bloodstream that resulted in his death, Wortman's attorney, M.C. Bruce, told ABC News.
According to court documents, Wortman tested positive for methamphetamine use while six months pregnant with Anthony and also admitted to investigators that she used the drug during pregnancy and approximately three times after Anthony was born, the Times-Standard of Eureka, Calif., reported.
Wortman reported to police that she used meth as recently as two days before Anthony's death, but because meth supposedly has a half-life of only 11 hours, Bruce said the idea that the meth killed Anthony "does not compute."
While meth's half life -- the time when a drug is considered active -- is nine to 12 hours, it remains detectable in the saliva for as long as three days and in the urine for up to five days. Also, infants are much more sensitive to low levels of meth than adults are, according to toxicologists, and breast milk tends to concentrate the drug.
"Mothers who are abusing amphetamines through any route -- smoking, snorting, swallowing, injecting -- can pass amphetamines to their babies via breastfeeding," said Dr. Marcel Casavant, chief of Pharmacology and Toxicology at Nationwide Children's hospital. "In fact, amphetamine is concentrated into breast milk, which means breast tissue takes amphetamine from the mother's bloodstream and actively moves it into the milk."
It is also possible that the infant died from other causes, however, said Casavant, as some studies have shown that infants nursing from mothers on meth do not show adverse effects.
Wortman claims that she had no knowledge of the fact that using meth while breast-feeding could be dangerous to her baby.
"I don't know what in the preliminary hearing made them decide to charge her with murder," Bruce said.
He suspected the prosecution may have changed the severity of the charges because of a policeman's testimony that Wortman was given a pamphlet on the dangers of breastfeeding while using meth.
Wortman's 19-month-old daughter also tested positive for methamphetamine and is reportedly in protective custody.
The Dangers of Passing on Substances Through Breast Milk
Wortman's case is one of at least four court cases in California that have been brought against mothers who allegedly killed or injured their infants by breastfeeding while taking methamphetamine. Only 31-year-old Amy Lieanne Prien was actually convicted of murdering her baby, a 3-month-old son named Jacob, back in 2003, but the conviction was later appealed and overturned. All other convictions have been of child endangerment, not murder.
Nationwide, there have been dozens of cases of infant deaths associated with overdoses of cocaine, meth and other illegal substances via breast milk. Adverse effects are also possible in cases where prescribed doses of legal drugs, such as painkillers, are taken by the mother while breastfeeding.
"Some people think that using drugs and nursing won't affect the child, but that's not true at all," said Bruce Goldberger, director of toxicology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville. "There have been hundreds of studies with pharmaceutical drugs that show that these substances are delivered to the child through breast milk.
"Children are very fragile beings," he added. "It doesn't take very much drug to alter their physiology and have a bad effect."
"Many antidepressants or psychotropic drugs will be distributed to breast milk and expose the nursing infant," said Luann White, director of the Tulane Center for Applied Environmental Health. "An infant is very tiny and cannot metabolize the drug as quickly as an adult, so a lethal dose would be much smaller for the infant than for the mother."
For that reason, mothers should always be careful about taking any drug, whether recreational or prescription, while nursing, toxicologists say.
Nursing mothers, Casavant said, should review all their medicines, even over-the-counter medicines, with their physicians, the child's pediatrician or their pharmacists.
via:ABC News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)