Thursday, October 25, 2012

Why did the CEO of Planned Parenthood misrepresent the truth about Obama?

If Planned Parenthood is so great, why does the CEO have to misrepresent the truth?

In a speech which is on the net, the CEO,
Cecile Richards, of Planned Parenthood, largest provider of abortions in the world, spins several myths

Cecile Richards is an attractive looking blond, who is 50ish and sharply dressed.

She has decided to take time off of Planned Parenthood to campaign fulltime, for Obama...Any bets that she's still collecting her salary for Planned Parenthood?  No bets! Richards, in January of 2012, defended her almost half a million bucks a year salary she gets from Planned Parenthood, saying she works hard for the bucks.

"The first act Obama signed," states Richards," was the 'Lily Ledbetter Act' allowing us to make sure that women get equal pay to men."

But this act did nothing of the sort.  It merely increased the length of the statute of limitations, according to the Wall Street Journal, allowing women who felt they were not getting equal pay, to have a longer time to sue their employers.  Most consider it an act to enhance business for attorneys!

"attorney Victoria Toensing, writing in the Wall Street Journal, said the Lilly Ledbetter act was not a big step at all, but rather a "teensy" one."

"Those rights are covered both in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she said. The Democrats' handiwork in 2009 'merely changed how the statute of limitations is calculated.' "

Richards continues, "Under the affordable healthcare act, health care is expanded for millions of women" (right, including coverage of abortion only some of us feel that killing an unborn baby is NOT health care!

"Romney wants to take us back, not only 4 years but 40 years.", says Richards, "He said he'll do anything he can to overturn Roe V Wade."

This, is of course, another baldfaced lie  - Romney and Ryan both believe that abortion is appropriate in cases of rape and incest which means neither favors overturning Roe V Wade which would render abortion illegal in all cases.

Then, Cecile Richards gets to the real issue when she says "of course, Romney wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood which is providing millions of women with affordable healthcare!"

This may be Richards' biggest lie.  First of all, Romney never said anything about getting rid of Planned Parenthood - he only wants to remove some of the tax payer moneys from funding it (Planned Parenthood is, at present, 98% funded by our tax dollars).  He also wants to not fund Planned Parenthood in overseas abortions.

Since Planned Parenthood's profit margin from a $500 abortion which takes all of 5 minutes is obscene, perhaps Romney feels, rightly so, our tax dollars can be better spent, like FEEDING the hungry rather than killing their progeny.

Cecile then makes a plea for campaign help and contribution bucks, reminding us that "our daughters and granddaughters' future depends on it [re-electing Obama]"

Perhaps she is telling the truth here - whom we elect might determine whether our granddaughters get a chance to live or not and whether our daughters lose their children while in the womb.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

The hidden risks of hormonal birth control

The article, link below, below, was written by a nurse who referenced data from the Gullmacher Institute of Planned Parenthood and other scientific sources....

Is hormonal birth control safe?

First of all,read the risks - a 40% greater risk of heart attack, stroke and thrombosis  - that's on the prescribing info, that no one reads!

Secondly, the elephant in the room is that the hormones, all of them, greatly raise the risk for cancer of all kinds especially uterine and breast cancer.  Unless you listen to Dr Oz who now says the birth control meds are cancer protective!  He also advocates gastric bypass, a procedure which has been dropped by many surgeons due to the risks!

Consider the following from scientific sources :

(1)     Since 1975 there has been a 400% increase in in situ breast cancer among pre-menopausal women under 50 years old. This mirrors the increased use of birth control over these same years. In situ is a medical term which means “at the location.”

(2) >     A Mayo Clinic study confirms that any young girl or woman who is on hormonal birth control for 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy increases their breast cancer risk by 52%.

(3)   Women who use hormonal birth control for more than 5 years are four times more likely to develop cervical cancer.
 (4)     The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization, classifies all forms of hormonal contraception as a Group 1 carcinogen. This group of cancer causing agents also includes cigarettes and asbestos.

(5) Why is it that the FDA can require cigarette manufacturers to place warning labels and  real life photos of corpses on cigarette packages to warn consumers of the health dangers yet they, in turn, take an equally harmful substance (hormonal birth control) and force companies to give it away free to young girls without parental consent and woman of all ages?   For high school boys and men to take steroid drugs, it is a crime. Whereas girls and women taking steroid drugs (i.e. hormonal birth control) are now treated as if they are taking a sacred, life preserving vitamin that women cannot live without.

(6)  In October 2010 the NY Times carried an article about Hormone Replacement Therapy drugs. It quoted the America Medical Association (AMA) as warning women that these post-menopausal drugs which were originally marketed as keeping a women “young and sexy” were discovered instead to be more likely to cause advanced and deadly breast cancer.

(7) It stopped short of making one other startling revelation: The only difference between hormone replacement therapy drugs which cause deadly breast cancer and the hormonal birth control drugs (now mandated by the Obama administration) is that the birth control drugs are six times the dosage---and are the very same drug! 

Does birth control cut down the number of abortions?

Nope, not according to statistics... Planned Parenthood reports that 60% of the abortions they sell are due to failed birth control... The pill is only 60-70% effective!

Is the IUD any safer? 

According to this article, besides irritating the womb and causing a fertilized egg to abort, the IUD releases birth control hormones into the body.

Finally what about the so called morning after pill?

Well, it's 6 times the dosage of regular birth control medication.  So do the math!

The only difference between hormone replacement therapy drugs which cause deadly breast cancer and the hormonal birth control drugs ... is that the birth control drugs are six times the dosage---and are the very same drug! 

If you are a medical provider and have prescribed these medications or devices for someone who trusts you and they get a heart attack or stroke or cancer, are they going to thank you then?

This nurse asks why when we warn about cigarettes, we do not warn about the cancer risks of hormonal birth control medication...a question I've often asked also..

"Any way you name it, these hormone drugs dispense poison into a woman’s body."

Click here to read article - note article includes links to scientific sources!

Friday, January 13, 2012

Hormone discovered - now no exercise needed?

Big News flash - the discovery of a hormone which gives the benefits of exercising without exercising.

 "Just take a pill and it will be like we exercised?" asked one newscaster of Dr Steven Garner who was not associated with the study.  The doctor answered affirmatively, explaining that it switches the "bad fat" to "good fat".  "If you want to do without exercise, you would only would take this pill for 10 weeks!" continued the doctor.

"Wouldn't there be other benefits of exercise though that this hormone would not provide?" The newscaster asked.  Dr Garner admitted it did not build up muscle mass.  And when the newscaster asked how much this pill would cost, Dr Garner suggested it might be very expensive because only one pharmaceutical has the patent.

I am a strong believer in "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't" so I investigated.  An article by Bloomberg, admitted the hormone had only been tested in mice.  That definitely, might be a problem as far as it working the same way in humans. For example, giving mice Leptin makes them slim and it was once touted as the magic obesity curing hormone yet it was very disappointing in human trials.  For some reason, Leptin doesn't have the same effect on humans as it did on the mice.  Whatever the case, the announcement that it would even be effective, let alone safe in humans was very premature.

The reality is first of all, it's unproven whether it's safe or effective in humans and Dr Garner on Fox News using buzz phrases like "all natural" and "no KNOWN side effects" is code for "we haven't really tested it and won't know about its safety or effectiveness until we market it and people live or drop dead."  

Secondly, the greatest benefit from cardio exercise is exercising the heart and no pill will do that.

Bottom line, unless you trust the pharmaceuticals with your life, pass on this one and don't throw out your treadmills or bicycles.

More than likely, this headline was more about obtaining funding for the scientists rather than a real breakthrough and nothing does that so well as an eye catching, anti-obesity headline given to the news services.