There are many ways to treat acid reflux syndrome, and one of the things you might hear about the most are proton pump inhibitors (PPI's). These are the most commonly advertised types of medications, and they come in both OTC (over-the-counter) and prescription strength. These are really great for those who have a lot of problems with their reflux recurring day in and day out. However, they might not be needed for everyone all of the time. You should talk to your doctor about how often you have pain, and what they think would be the best for you.

Proton pump inhibitors do more than just help soothe pain. They do something to reduce the pain and keep the levels of acid down in the stomach. These medications will actually stop many of the acid pumps in the stomach from producing acid.

The idea is if you have less acid production in your stomach, you won't have the problem of the acid backing up into the esophagus. When this happens, the damage from acid reflux has time to heal. PPI's can also be used for people who have ulcers in their stomachs.

Those who have had damage to the esophagus might have to take a prescription proton pump inhibitor to give the tissues time to heal. These are prescribed by a doctor, and they will need to be taken anywhere from two weeks to two months.

Because the amounts of acid are reduced, you will feel relief from your bouts of heartburn, and all tissues have breathing room to heal as they should. After the prescription has run out, you can probably take the OTC version of proton pump inhibitor. They aren't as strong, but if the tissues have healed, you don't need the prescription strength any longer.

There are some side effects with proton pump inhibitors that you do have to watch out for. If something is giving you problems, you may have to try a different medication. The goods news about this is that there are many different PPI type medications that you can try until you find something that does not bother you.

Some of the most common side effects are diarrhea, gas, and upset stomach. Occassionally people report experiencing dry mouth and headache. These are pretty rare though, and most won't have problems with them.

Make sure you talk about all of your symptoms with your doctor so they can recommend the best medication for your acid reflux syndrome. If you are taking any other type of medication, either OTC or prescriptions, ask about drug interactions to be sure you will be safe.

You should be sure to let them know if you are pregnant, nursing, or have kidney problems. They may want to give you something else any of those are true for you. Also ask if there is anything else you can do to help your acid reflux syndrome. They might give you a food list, or recommend stress reduction to help with healing and to offer more relief.

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program", the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic. Shortly before Congress passed a new law in August of 2007 that legalized warrantless surveillance, the Protect America Act of 2007, critics stated that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,. The Bush administration maintains that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF). FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both. In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed the existence of the program, first reported in a December 16, 2005 article in The New York Times. The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication. Critics of The Times have openly alleged that executive editor Bill Keller had knowingly withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential election, and that the story that was ultimately first published by The Times was essentially the same one that reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had first submitted at that time. In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times.

Gonzales stated that the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government "has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." and that one party to the conversation is "outside of the United States". The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy has expanded to include the press's role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of Presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.