Updated informed consent info on birth control meds

 Check this before you decide to take birth control meds!

Before you decide to take the Birth Control pill, you might want to view the following updated information about the risks. And even with all these risks, birth control meds are only 60% effective. Whereas Natural Family Planning is 98% effective and 100% safe. (Billings Ovulation)

1. Estrogen/progestin combination in birth control and HRT, was declared a class one carcinogen by the World Health Organization in 2005. All class 1 carcinogens have been found to cause cancer in both lab and human studies.


2. There are 12,000 lawsuits pending because of serious complications (and death) from the birth control medication, "Yaz", a 4th generation progestin (drospirenone) which has been linked to blood clots, gall bladder disease, stroke, heart attack and death in young women (ref: www.lawyersandsettlements.com)


3. With even low dose birth control, the risk of developing CVD (hypertension and stroke) is 1.9 times greater than those not taking the medication. One study found the risk of thrombosis to be 5 times greater in birth control medication consumers than in non birth control consumers. ref: (BMJ 2009;339:b2921) (British Medical Journal)


4. The birth control patch delivery system causes similar risks to the pill - Ortho McNeil the manufacturer of the patch has paid out so far, 68.7 million to settle more than 4000 lawsuits. Ortho-Evra (the patch) has also been blamed for 20 deaths.
   
   
5. And finally, "Plan B" the so called "emergency contraceptive" delivers a dosage of birth control meds which is 10 times higher, the equivalent of a month's worth of low dose birth control meds. (Polycarp Institute)

And all of this in addition to an up to 25% break through ovulation rate which will abort the embryo because it may not implant in the uterus.  Billings Ovulation (Natural Family Planning) is so easy to learn that it's taught to women in 3rd world countries and other than abstaining a few days a month, there are no pills to remember etc... it's also a mutual choice between you and your spouse which seems more the way it should be ---and safe for you and your future progeny!  Sounds like a win-win to me!

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.
 

New York city not growing in population

Will the familiar skyline which has signaled the excitement of New York City, change as the lights go out, one by one?

Indications are if NY doesn't stop aborting many times more unborn babies than carrying to term, it might indeed change things and not in necessarily a way people will like.

In the past decade, according to statistics, NY has only increased a modest 2.1 percent since over 1 million potential citizens were aborted.

The following were listed in a Molecular Biologist's blog as the repercussion of virtually no population growth:

• NY has lost 2 representatives for the House in Congress so the state has less voting power


• Like Japan which is suffering a similar program, NY is beginning to experience a labor shortage

Scientifically speaking, a society which is not reproducing itself, is a society which will not survive. Of interest to Hispanics and African Americans, statistically, 79 percent of babies aborted are either Hispanic or African American. (And that was actually founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger's original plan - she wanted to eliminate those populations she thought "inferior").

Dr Nadal the blogger concludes by writing "we are dying out".

To read Dr Nadal's blog which is well cited, please click here.

figures, statistics and lies

Today, I got an "alternate health" ad in the mail. It claimed that the number 36,000 deaths a year from flu was a false figure and in fact only about 750 people died a year from the flu and "that was from the CDC".

I didn't believe it. I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu and had quoted the figure myself because it came from the CDC.

But the ad got my curiosity going. Easy enough to look up. I looked up "FLU DEATHS" CDC" and got this page.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

As you can see, it IS on the CDC website. Turns out that the truth (according to the CDC) is no one KNOWS how many die from the flu so the estimations were made from a percentage of those who die from respiratory disease deaths and other mathematical constructs.

The CDC writes:

Does CDC know the exact number of people who die from flu each year?

CDC does not know exactly how many people die from flu each year. There are several reasons for this: First, states are not required to report individual flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications [12]. Third, many flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as a staph infection) [1,8,11] or because influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) [3]. Also, most people who die from flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. Influenza tests are only likely to detect influenza if performed within a week after onset of illness. For these reasons, many flu-related deaths may not be recorded on death certificates. These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical models to estimate the annual number of flu-related deaths. ***

Oh - that's enlightening! No one KNOWS so they use a mathematical model to come up with the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu. Here is it, right from the horse's mouth! But when this figure is quoted, have you ever heard they say they really DO NOT KNOW how many a year die from the flu and that the deaths are usually from something else? hmmmm

This even shocked ME....Somehow I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths they were claiming...

So why DOES the CDC "ESTIMATE" the number of deaths from flu (and puff it up... hmmm)

Here is their answer to that one:

Why does CDC estimate deaths associated with flu?

CDC feels it is important to convey the full burden of flu to the public. Flu is a serious disease that causes illness and deaths nearly every year in the United States. CDC estimates of annual influenza-associated deaths in the United States are made using well-established scientific methods that have been reviewed by scientists outside of CDC [10]. CDC feels that these estimates are a timely representation of the current burden of flu on the United States.

But these numbers are used by the media etc to scare folks into getting the vaccine which is BIG MONEY for the manufacturers....

Enlightening. That's why it's good to read EVERYTHING. I didn't believe the alternate health ad but that claim was bold enough for me to question something I might have never questioned and which, I guess, should have been questioned in the first place.

So let's talk about the proposed Health Care program. Obama tells us that the concerns of the public are all because of the evil Republicans and all a bunch of lies.

For example, abortion won't be paid for in the Health care bill, he tells us. But the bill says different. ALL SURGERIES are paid for and abortion is a surgery. So some Democrats and Republicans tried to introduce amendments that made sure abortion was EXCEPTED out of surgeries. And the amendments failed.

If abortion is not paid for, why didn't the amendments pass? We all remember the youtube video how Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would not deviate from his total abortion stance (from conception to birth).

Seniors are concerned that the Health Care bill might mean rationing of care for seniors. Obama answers us with "there is no rationing in the bill" and that seniors are not to worry but seniors were not born yesterday. Treating seniors is expensive and they suspect unless there is an amendment which GUARANTEES them treatment, they don't trust Obama's reassurance, especially when he admitted that it was right to not give his grandmother a joint replacement and has talked about how expensive it was to treat seniors when they might only have a few years of life left. Seniors know that the expensive health care program has to be paid for in some manner and that in other plans, care IS rationed to save bucks.

This is not the "evil Republicans" or "insurance companies". This is just people finally beginning to do what they should have done in the first place. Question - everything and trust - no one.

You know the old "In God we trust - all others pay cash" idea?

Abortion and Breast cancer

"Abortion does not cause breast cancer" states several news media articles and now, a new health site.

There is one problem with this - it's unproven. In the article I read on the health site, they did not specifically name their cites upon which they are wanting to risk YOUR life but they talked of an (unnamed) 2004 study which is likely the "Melbye study". In this study, Dr Melbye admitted that any woman who had had an abortion before computer records was likely listed as "not having abortion" since ONLY computer recorded abortions were noted in the study AS aborted women. One estimate puts the number of aborted women "overlooked" as 60,000! And these were, of course, the older women who were more likely to have breast cancer. If these 60,000 women were (correctly) recorded as HAVING HAD abortions, the Melbye Study would suggest a STRONGER link between breast cancer than some of the other 38 world wide studies which suggest a link.

Another study they may have used to "prove" that abortion does not cause breast cancer was the Beral study. This study not only used an inappropriate group for comparison (women who had never been pregnant who were known to have a higher risk for breast cancer) but omitted several studies which suggested a link including three of the study author's OWN studies! About this type of study, Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S. wrote:

>>>>Studies that take data from many previous studies and reanalyze” them (or put them into a meta-analysis) need to have sound scientific reasons for excluding some published studies. Without valid exclusion and inclusion criteria, the results can be skewed and inaccurate because they may allow an author’s personal bias to consciously or subconsciously enter the selection process, thus corrupting the conclusion. Undoubtedly, this sort of bias is what has led some observers to call epidemiology a pseudoscience.<<<< (Ethics and Medicine, Vol 29, 11 November 2004)

Just another example of the media perpetuating bad science to the American people to support a billion dollar industry which does NOT care about your body.

More information:
Breast Cancer Faq