RFFM.ORG

Hospice Care Horror Stories: Anecdotal Accounts Of How America's Health Care System Often Hastens Death, According To the Fiscal Bottom Line

Sarah Palin's Warnings About Death Panels Way Behind The Curve

Some Health Care Providers Are Literal Purveyors of Death

Note from Daniel T. Zanoza, Founder & Executive Director, RFFM.org:  
 
Approximately two years ago, I became aware of other right to life concerns, including what is taking place in America's health care system regarding end of life issues.  I wrote a story for the Illinois Family Institute, titled "Hospice, Living Wills, Futile Care: Hospice, Hospitals & Nursing Homes Have License To Kill" which was posted on October 5th, 2010 http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=35036. 

I also submitted my column to Canada Free Press (CFP), an influential Internet blog for which I am a frequent contributor.  My column is posted on CFP at this link:  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28481 

My piece related the story of how the culture of death has permeated America's health care system.  The death panels former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin warned us about regarding what was included in President Barack Obama's health care reform law have actually been in place and are entrenched in the delivery of health care services for the elderly and all Americans whose health care may now be dependent on solely economic issues.  I wrote about how some hospitals, nursing homes and hospice care providers now hasten death for those who may be a drain on the fiscal bottom line. 

However, in my story I made it clear that not all health care facilities are bad. 

The purpose of the column was to inform the public of the dangers in a system which is quickly evolving into death factories where patients become victims, along with their loved ones, who are left with guilt and remorse.

In 20 years of writing articles and columns, I have learned the most effective means to communicate and educate the public is by sharing personal experiences...whether mine or others.  Thankfully, there were those who responded to the above mentioned column and were willing to make their very personal and often tragic experiences public regarding the treatment of their loved ones by a medical system they trusted.

The comments below are not from people with an agenda.  Indeed, it had to be very hard for them to relive and relate their experiences.  Some of these stories literally brought me to tears.  However, I'll let their words speak for themselves. 

******

The following comment is from Christina Bowen and is included in my column "Hospice, Living Wills, Futile Care: Hospice, Hospitals & Nursing Homes Have License To Kill".

I honestly believe with all my heart that if Hospice had not been in charge of my mother's care, that she would still be alive today. My mom was 70 years old and had cancer. We are well aware that this is a terminal disease, yet she was no where near the end of her life.

My mom had bone cancer in both of her upper legs. She was in a wheel chair so it was hard for her to travel. She was also on bottled oxygen. After several months of consideration she decided not to take any more chemotherapy or radiation. The only thing she needed was something to control her pain, because the cancer was not going to go away. On September the first, I took her to see her oncologist for the last time. They decided together that Hospice could provide her with the care she needed from here on out. On that day my mom was of sound mind and doing well. We left the doctor's office and went out to dinner together.

The next day the Hospice nurses came to the house for an evaluation. They took control over all of mom's medications and instructed us not to call 911 in case of an emergency. Everything from here on out was to be determined by the Hospice physician. They immediately increased her fentynol patch from 50mcg to 100mcg. They increased her oral pain medicine from 30mg of oxycodone to 100-120mg oxycodone per day.

The changes started immediately. At first she seemed to be "high". She was sleepier than normal, kind of nodding out all the time. Started being confused, loss of appetite, and had trouble swallowing. We called the Hospice nurses and reported the side effects. My sister and I were convinced that she was receiving too much pain medicine and that she might even overdose from it. They insisted that it was just a part of the final stages of life. Even though no one ever came to the house to check her out.

As time went by the side effects worsened. She started having trouble breathing, sweating, and even hallucinations. She finally went into a coma. We were on the phone with Hospice constantly trying to seek help for our mom. We knew that she was being overdosed, but again was told that it was a normal part of the death cycle.

On Sept. the 8th Hospice finally showed up at the house. Mom was in a coma and unable to take her medicines. They insisted that she was just in her final stages of life and the morphine had nothing to do with what we were seeing. They said she must continue to take her morphine, so they went to the pharmacy and ordered a liquid form to be administered. She died later that evening.

I know cancer kills people. I know that my mom was going to eventually lose her battle and die, too. But I also know that she was not there yet. She was just in pain, she wasn't dying. So in a time span of 5-6 days, our mom went from being an independent, strong willed woman, to a child like infant, and then finally just gone.

I blame myself for allowing this to happen. Looking back I know I could have done something to have prevented this. I should have followed my instincts and removed the patch, stopped the oral drugs, and took her to the hospital against their instructions. But I didn't. I let them kill my mom.

So, for anyone reading this, I beg you to please, please, think long and hard about signing a loved one up for Hospice. And make sure that you are ready to say goodbye when you do.

Christina Bowen

******

Comments to Canada Free Press

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28481

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/hospice-living-wills-futile-care-hospice-hospitals-nursing-homes-have-licen/
 
We had an experience that ended somewhat differently.  My mother fell and was sent to a hospital.  While I wasn't there, she was released to a care center, (we still don't understand how that happened).  Without our knowledge she was placed on many drugs. We watched her decline rapidly while each day she demanded she be allowed to go home.  During this time she developed partial paralysis on one side leading us to conclude she had a stroke.  This was not diagnosed by the doctors.

We were finally able to box them in.  Some years before, she had, in writing through her lawyer, made me responsible for her care if she were ever unable to make her own decisions.  In a meeting with management, we made the point that she wanted to go home.  If she was competent to make that decision, they should obey her demand and release her.  If she wasn't competent, I had the legal responsibility to decide her care and my decision was to let her go home.  They argued for over an hour why she needed to stay and I had to threaten legal action before they finally gave in.

She has been home now for years and caring for her is a struggle, but we believe the alternative results would have been obvious and rapid.  She stopped all drugs after coming home and gradually got better.  She will never be the same but now she makes her own decisions on what care she will accept, (even in her nineties, she has a powerful will).  We know we have her for a limited time but we chose the will of the "patient" and life over the "experts".  As Christians, how could we have chosen any other path?
Posted by rt  on  10/07  at  09:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We, as a nation, have been gradually indoctrinated with the various concepts that lead to death.  Whether it is with abortion or end of life issues - cost vs. benefit, we are being led down a road that has no light at the end.  There are proponents of ridding society of individuals who do not carry their own weight and contribute to society to a level that makes them worth keeping.

We have a right to "life".  It is a gift from God.  When we accept that the determination as to when our life should end should be made by someone else, we give into whatever their agenda might be.
Posted by Mike Foil  on  10/07  at  07:39 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My heart goes out to Ms. Bowen.  Something similar happened to my father.  He had prostate cancer which had spread to his bones.  After being fried from the radiation etc., he too was in pain, but still quite lucid.  He was always a strong man physically and mentally with a heart of gold.  I watched hospice turn this wonderful, witty, beautiful man into a vegetable in a matter of days. He became combative and hallucinated and after a short time his personality was unrecognizable.  The father we had loved was no more.  We took him to the hospital and he died a few hours later.  I remember something my father said to us when he opened the box of drugs hospice gave us with the Oxycodone, etc. in it, "like opening Pandora's box huh?"  How right he was!  I too felt there was something I should or shouldn't have done, that it was my fault.  I realize that God has the final say and we can only do the best we can with what there is to work with.  If we were all doctors, we might stand a better chance of saving our families and make sure that the utmost will be done for them.  Ms. Bowen, like many of us, relied on the medical profession to help her mother.  How very scary things are becoming, huh!  Thank you for this article and the information!
Posted by j  on  10/07  at  03:32 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone noticed the number of times people are blaming the baby boomers for our current situation?  Could this be deliberate, so that when the time comes, our children and grandchildren will feel no guilt as we are dumped in the nearest home and forgotten?  They are no longer taught to respect the elderly, they are taught the elderly are stealing from them and destroying their future.  Could it be the baby boomers were cheated and lied to?  Are they to be held responsible when they paid into Social Security their entire working lives, only to have it looted by a crooked Congress?  Yes, the boomers were conned.  Yes, they made the mistake of working hard so their children wouldn't have to.  They were horribly scammed by a Ponzi or Madoff government.

The end goal is to make the youth despise boomers.  Until this changes and the children of this nation are taught to love and respect their elders, the sick and disabled and to realize they were fooled, just like everyone else, there is no hope for change.  Life is no longer a gift, it has become a cost ratio and a burden.
Posted by PJPony  on  10/07  at  07:29 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I worked in the healthcare field for over 35 years and know for a fact that this goes on with hospice.  I have seen it over and over again.  But, I do know there are families who grow tired of caring for sick elderly parents and just wants the end to come . I also know from personal experience that I would not except any part of hospice care.  My husband was real sick 4 years ago and went from 190 pounds to 125 pounds in a few months while in the hospital. When the time came for his discharge they wanted him placed in a nursing home under hospice care.  I told them no.  The doctor got mad and hung up the phone on me.  To make a long story short my husband is doing great now.  Has gained weight and is able to care for himself.  He has enjoyed 4 years of life that he would not have had if I had placed him under hospice care.
Posted by Norma Hughes  on  10/07  at  06:50 AM

RELATED ARTICLES:

Some Hospice Care Providers Enforcing State-Sanctioned Euthanasia Through Illinois Probate Courts by Daniel T. Zanoza posted on August 13, 2010
at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/08/some-hospice-care-providers-enforcing-state-sanctioned-euthanasia-through-probate-courts.html
 

The following series of columns related to end of life issues were posted on RFFM.org in 2008 and written by:

Bill Beckman, Executive Director, Illinois Right to Life Committee:  http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org

Stephen Bloom, a Christian Attorney at Law and an expert on living wills http://www.istherealawyerinthechurch.com/ and 

Daniel Zanoza, Executive Director, RFFM.org 

Part I The Myth Of Living Wills:  You Are Actually Signing Your Life Away by Bill Beckman posted August 11, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/the-myth-of-living-wills.html
 
 
Part II How a Living Will can bring about your premature death by Bill Beckman posted on August 12, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/how-a-living-will-can-bring-about-your-premature-death.html 
 
 
Part III Futile Care--Knowing What It Is May Save Your Life Or The Life Of A Loved One by Bill Beckman posted August 13, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-iii-futile-care--knowing-what-it-is-may-save-your-life-or-the-life-of-a-loved-one.html
 
 
Part IV Research on "brain dead" and "almost dead" patients declared "ethical" by Bill Beckman posted August 14, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-iv-research-on-brain-dead-and-almost-dead-patients-declared-ethical.html
 
 
Part V Choose Hospice Care Provider Carefully: Using Hospice Care To Hasten Death Declared "Ethical" by Bill Beckman posted August 15, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-v-choose-hospice-care-provider-carefully-using-hospice-care-to-hasten-death-declared-ethical.html
 
Part VI Some Hospice Care Providers Hasten Death Through Use Of Morphine Overdoses + Other Means? by Bill Beckman posted on August 16, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-vi-some-hospice-care-providers-hasten-death.html
 
 
Part VII Culture Of Death Taking Toll On Those Nearing Life's End:  Overview -- by Daniel T. Zanoza posted on August 17, 2008 at
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-vii-culture-of-death-taking-toll-on-those-nearing-lifes-end.html
 
 
"Living Will" Becomes a License to Kill: The Horror Goes On In 2008 by Bill Beckman posted on August 18, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/living-will-becomes-a-license-to-kill.html
 
 
Living Wills: Signing Your Own Death Warrant? A Christian Lawyer’s Perspective by Stephen Bloom posted on August 19, 2008 at
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/living-wills-signing-your-own-death-warrant-a-christian-lawyers-perspective.html

******

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected] 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM, please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

Social Security Benefits Will Be Used By Obama In An Attempt To Buy Back Votes Of Angry Senior Citizens

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

With one swipe of his pen, President Barack Obama signed into law a health care reform bill that will cut Medicare's budget by $500 billion over the next ten years.  In addition, late in the first year of his presidency, Social Security recipients received a letter notifying them that they would not be receiving a Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) starting January 2010.  Since this announcement, there are reports seniors and the disabled will not receive a COLA for two years or more beyond the current year.

Yes, the Dept. of Labor's statistics, gleamed from the Consumer Price Index (CPI), reflected seniors and the disabled were not entitled to a COLA to their Social Security checks because there was no inflation.  Yes, you read that correctly…there is NO inflation, according to CPI.  But the truth of the matter is the Dept. of Labor, whose Secretary is appointed by the President, helped Mr. Obama find another way to take the sting out of the massive spending which has plunged the U.S. economy into historical levels of debt.

It has become apparent, Social Security recipients, including seniors, the disabled and those receiving survivor's benefits, etc. were seen as being politically expendable--at least at the time when Obama was ramming the health care reform legislation through Congress.  You see, $500 billion more would have put the price tag for the health care reform legislative package over $1 trillion and many so-called conservative Democrats found political cover by keeping the bill we, our children and our children’s children will have to pay under a mere trillion bucks.

Remarkably, $500 billion sounds like a mere pittance compared to the massive debt Obama has compiled during his presidency.  However, Medicare's budget for one year alone is $500 billion.  Subsequently, these numbers do have meaning, if they are put into perspective.  Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed the half-trillion dollar cuts in Medicare would be saved through the elimination of fraud and waste in the program.  But, by now, even the Democratic leadership in Congress admits the massive chunk taken out of the Medicare budget will result in the rationing of health care services, not only for seniors and the disabled, but for anyone who qualifies for Medicare benefits.

Also, many states are cutting programs which were designed to benefit seniors and the disabled...middle-class and poor alike.  For example, in Illinois, the Circuit Breaker program--which provides property tax relief for the elderly and disabled who qualify--was cut in half for Fiscal Year 2010, as it was in Texas and other states across America.

DEMAGOGUERY AT ITS FINEST OR …

After decimating programs which benefited seniors and the disabled, during his weekly radio address to the nation (which was broadcast on Saturday, August 14, 2010), Obama seemed to catch wind of the fact a group of Americans who had voted Democratic for decades was in an uproar regarding many of the issues related above.  Subsequently, in his radio address, Obama started down the long political comeback trail with senior citizens by asserting if Republicans achieved control of Congress after the upcoming midterm election, the GOP-controlled House and Senate would privatize the Social Security system.  In essence, the message from Obama to seniors was that a vote for a Republican in November would be a vote for the end of Social Security as we now know it.

Of course, there is no major Republican political agenda that would lead to the privatization of Social Security, but Obama needed a straw man to frighten Social Security recipients.  Therefore, he yanked this prediction of pending doom and gloom out of mid-air.

However, there is a way the President can use politics to try to buy back the senior voting bloc.  In 2009, Obama suggested a one-time payment of $250 would be provided to Social Security recipients to offset the COLA freeze.  Republicans said this was a good idea--as long as the money came out of Obama’s $862 billion stimulus political war chest.  But Obama balked at that idea and the $250 buy-off of seniors and disabled was taken off the table.

But the political season running up to one of the most important mid-term elections in American history has just begun.  Some predict Obama will suddenly put the $250 one-time payment to Social Security recipients back on the political table before November.  It will be a blatant attempt to make Republicans look like the bad guys and paint Democrats as the Party that cares about those who are entitled to Social Security.

My prediction is Obama will again refuse to take the funds out of the roughly $400 billion that's left in stimulus money.  If Republicans don't buy into a Democratic ploy that would increase the deficit and the national debt that is strangling our nation’s economy, Obama will achieve his goal--one way or the other.  I think senior citizens are smarter than that and buying them off won't be that easy.

But this administration won't defend America's borders, it wants to give amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million individuals who are in America illegally, it favors a Mosque being built near Ground Zero and it passed a health care reform bill that a vast majority of U.S. citizens opposed.  Therefore, it is possible the Obama administration thinks it can pull a rabbit out of its political hat.  But the last information I had is "the rabbit done died."

RELATED COLUMNS:

Social Security COLA: Congress Gets Pay Raise, Seniors & Others Did Not by Daniel T. Zanoza posted January 22, 2010 at: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/social-security-cola-congress-gets-pay-raise-seniors-others-did-not.html

Obama Promised Social Security Recipients $250 To Offset COLA Freeze: Where Is It? by Daniel T. Zanoza posted June 4, 2010 at: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/06/obama-promised-social-security-recipients-250-to-offset-cola-freeze-where-is-it.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM, please go to: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

Some Hospice Care Providers Enforcing State-Sanctioned Euthanasia Through Illinois Probate Courts

Letter to the Editor by "G"

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  In 2008, RFFM.org ran a series of columns dealing with end of life issues, including the dangers presented by living wills and information regarding how some hospice care providers are hastening deaths of the elderly [see links below].  RFFM.org has received numerous firsthand accounts which confirm the information offered in the series and the following letter to RFFM.org illustrates how the state may be complicit in the euthanasia of the aged with the assistance of Illinois courts.  This situation may also be occurring outside of Illinois as well.  It is a must read for senior citizens, their families and loved ones.  It also points out every American should be vigilant of an anti-life agenda which is being advanced, for the most part, without the public's knowledge.  The letter below is not a piece of literary perfection, but it is an articulate description of what is happening, all to often, across the state of Illinois and possibly our nation. 

 

RFFM.org strongly suggests, in place of a living will, all Americans should go to the Illinois Right to Life Committee's web site and download the Patient Self-Protection Document at this link: http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/pspdoc.htm.  One day, it may save your life or the life of a loved one.  

 

 

My Dad just passed away while under hospice care.  I believe they killed him.  After leaving the hospital to go into a nursing home--because the hospital said he was not ready for hospice--he was very alert and had a strong drive for life.  He'd whisper to me about others that were dying when, in fact, my siblings had planned an end to his life.  My Dad refused physical therapy and was then put into hospice.  Since I spent a lot of time with him--and not the usual 45 minutes once a week as my siblings would do--I know that if he was tired from a poor night's sleep (up to urinate a lot) then therapy and food intake would be affected, as it would be with any of us.  My brother and my sister were his proxy and acting as his proxy before he was declared incapable of taking care of his own affairs.  He tried to contact his lawyer to be his own proxy  and in a meeting at the nursing home he said he wanted to be his own proxy, but it was too late, they already decided to end his life.  Again, ignoring his wishes when, in fact, they were not legally his proxy at that time.

 

I was constantly threatened by my siblings as I tried to help my Dad speak for himself, i.e., be at his own meeting, to which they had another meeting immediately after the one he was at, in order to arrange his death.  My Dad was an inconvenience to my siblings--their time share properties, their retirement days, etc. and the money from his will would become less for them to have if he went on living with the nursing home costs.  My Dad had COPD and was on oxygen, but he was in no pain.  He was in a wheelchair, but wanted to keep using his legs to maneuver himself and he wanted to go to the bathroom himself, get himself into bed, dress himself, etc. but he was told they'd bring in the police--if he kept trying to do these things for himself.  He became very intimidated, having to wait 20 minutes or more to go to the bathroom and would sometimes mess his pants while waiting for an attendant and be embarrassed.  He'd tell me how he had to wait to go to bed, one night from 7:50 until 9:40 to get into bed.  He was nervous that, if my visits were long, they'd make him wait even longer for his needs to be met and he would draw further ire from those in the hospice care facility.  My Dad was taking eight pills or more, all at once, no throat closing up (as they said it would), in order to justify the need to prescribe him morphine.  One Monday, I was going to take him to his favorite place to eat and I was told I could not take him, although my siblings were not yet declared his proxy--one week later, my Dad is dead. 

 

I consistently found his oxygen would be on 0 or not hooked up after a nebulizer treatment, and he would then be without oxygen for hours before my discovery.  I found the nebulizer cartridge filled on the floor near his bed.  With these constant errors, I wonder what else was done to him which hastened his death.  I was not allowed to see his medication, and then they were taken away and he was sedated to sleep and morphine was administered--when, in fact, he explicitly told the staff he did not want no morphine.  I wish I had pursued an autopsy to verify my Dad died from a morphine overdose, but feeling threatened just by visiting him, made me fear to pursue what was the right thing to do--when wrong had been done.

 

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

 

The following series of columns related to end of life issues were posted on RFFM.org and written by:

 

Bill Beckman, Executive Director, Illinois Right to Life Committee http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org ;

 

Stephen Bloom, a Christian Attorney at Law and an expert on living wills http://www.istherealawyerinthechurch.com/; and

 

Daniel Zanoza, Executive Director, RFFM.org

 

Part I The Myth Of Living Wills:  You Are Actually Signing Your Life Away by Bill Beckman posted August 11, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/the-myth-of-living-wills.html

 

 

Part II How a Living Will can bring about your premature death by Bill Beckman posted on August 12, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/how-a-living-will-can-bring-about-your-premature-death.html 

 

 

Part III Futile Care--Knowing What It Is May Save Your Life Or The Life Of A Loved One by Bill Beckman posted August 13, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-iii-futile-care--knowing-what-it-is-may-save-your-life-or-the-life-of-a-loved-one.html

 

 

Part IV Research on "brain dead" and "almost dead" patients declared "ethical" by Bill Beckman posted August 14, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-iv-research-on-brain-dead-and-almost-dead-patients-declared-ethical.html

 

 

Part V Choose Hospice Care Provider Carefully: Using Hospice Care To Hasten Death Declared "Ethical" by Bill Beckman posted August 15, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-v-choose-hospice-care-provider-carefully-using-hospice-care-to-hasten-death-declared-ethical.html

 

Part VI Some Hospice Care Providers Hasten Death Through Use Of Morphine Overdoses + Other Means? by Bill Beckman posted on August 16, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-vi-some-hospice-care-providers-hasten-death.html

 

 

Part VII Culture Of Death Taking Toll On Those Nearing Life's End:  Overview -- by Daniel T. Zanoza posted on August 17, 2008 at
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/part-vii-culture-of-death-taking-toll-on-those-nearing-lifes-end.html

 

 

"Living Will" Becomes a License to Kill: The Horror Goes On In 2008 by Bill Beckman posted on August 18, 2008 at http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/living-will-becomes-a-license-to-kill.html

 

 

Living Wills: Signing Your Own Death Warrant? A Christian Lawyer’s Perspective by Stephen Bloom posted on August 19, 2008 at
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/08/living-wills-signing-your-own-death-warrant-a-christian-lawyers-perspective.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

 

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM, please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

Open Borders Creates Severe Health Concerns: Illegal Immigration, The Unwanted Gift That Keeps Giving

by Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

Editor's Note:  Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. is a frequent contributor to RFFM.org.  Rapacki is an independent intelligence analyst.  The head of SENTINEL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, LLC,  Rapacki receives and disseminates critical intelligence and policy information from and to law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials, and government and community leaders; Rapacki is the author of dozens of white papers, bulletins and briefings, and he is frequently called on to share his expertise with public and private security directors and organizations.

Unchecked Immigration Promotes Serious Health Concerns For All Americans

 

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: 

 

The content of this briefing is deliberately intended to stimulate thought and discussion, as well as to inform.  As with all my reports and briefings, whether Classified and Restricted or Not Classified informational analysis comprising global security, national security of the sovereignty of the United States of America and the Great State of Arizona, economic forces as a dimension to national security, culture, freedom in human rights, defense, and the rule of law are considered within the framework of this treatise. 

 

OVERVIEW:

While political and verbal posturing shamelessly continues by Mr. Obama and associates in the border saga, an on-going border “war” rages.  Not only are brave law enforcement professionals at risk by standing in the gap between illegal aliens, drug thugs, escaped and released criminals, terrorists, mentally ill, and America’s well-being, but an insidious health crisis is also flowing across the southern border of America.  You will rarely hear a liberal politician (in either political party) talk about the criminals being released from Mexico, Honduras, South and Central America plus other country’s jails and prisons and sent north to America.  You, WILL NOT hear liberal politicians talk about the serious and potentially devastating medical problems heading America’s way (and are already here) by the unchecked flow of illegals coming into our nation.  There are medical pandemics waiting, incubating and becoming highly resistant to treatment, brought here by illegal aliens who had no contact with quality health care, and are walking medical “time bombs.”  Mr. Obama and the elites know this to be a fact, and have shunned their responsibility to protect and defend Americans.  Americans better come to know this potentially horrible fact and prepare to care for themselves.

 

Medical professionals in Arizona already are acutely aware of the disease epidemics lingering just below the public and media radar screens.  Furthermore, Arizona health-care providers know Federal Emergency Management folks, the politically correct Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security have no intention bringing Illegal Alien Health Care into the public arena, or for that matter, into any arena where it can be examined.  The harsh truth is that dreaded Third World diseases are making their way into America along with illegal aliens.

 

Hospital Emergency Departments in border cities are having to battle with new strains of antibiotic resistant infections, and diseases America basically eradicated many years ago; diseases like: tuberculosis, pneumonias, staph, parasitic Chagas disease, and leprosy.  Some American cities have prided themselves in becoming “sanctuary cities” opening their communities to any and all illegal aliens.  These cities are also opening themselves up to insidious germs that are not discriminatory – they will attack anyone and everyone regardless of country of origin.  I mentioned a couple of them so let’s look a little closer at these potentially devastating diseases that are streaming across our borders, along with humans from a variety of impoverished, Third World countries.

 

Chagas:  A devastating parasite that was primarily relegated to Latin America; now prevalent in Los Angeles, California and spreading.

 

Cysticercosis:  Latin America brainworm, and as The Wall Street Journal reported, “In recent years, as the immigration population has spread…cysticercosis has cropped up in states that have never had to deal with it before, including Iowa, Ohio, Missouri and Oregon.”

 

Necrotizing fasciitis:  Basically a flesh-eating bacterium.

 

Leprosy:  Difficult to believe, but health officials in Maryland, Florida, California, Louisiana, Texas, New York City, Hawaii are having to battle this heinous disease.

 

Bedbugs:  New strains which are resistant to fumigation.  The New York Times reported, “…bedbugs are spreading throughout New York City like a swarm of locusts…even in top addresses on Park Avenue, Riverside Drive and Helmsley Park Lane.”  These bugs are terrible, they hurt, they suck your blood, and they leave discoloration and soreness.  They are spreading into hospitals!

 

Toxocara roundworm parasite:   Can cause blindness and epilepsy.  This parasite is on a dramatic increase, and is being found in many playgrounds.  Multiple hospitals in Los Angeles are reporting rapid increases of seizures and other neurological events caused by tapeworms and related parasites. 

 

The above diseases and ailments historically have been kept from our shores by aggressive screening methods to assure public health.  Not any longer.  Overwhelmed, under staffed, under funded, and with an “unofficial policy” by the federal government to blur the southern borders of the United States, and to promote free entry
by those who can hop-skip-or jump over the border once declaring American sovereignty, these diseases are spreading rapidly toward heartland America.  In addition, newer and stronger, medically more resistant forms of head lice, mononucleosis, diarrhea, and flu are also taking up residence in hospitals, schools, day care centers and fast food stores in Border States.  As Arizona’s new Anti-illegal Immigration Law (which mirrors the Federal law) takes effect, many illegal’s are vacating Arizona and going elsewhere – where; to a publicly proclaimed Sanctuary City or maybe a less visible city or town?  The infections and diseases are carried with the illegal alien who avoided detection and screening. 

 

Mr. Obama and any government official who proclaims the border fence is complete and solid are blatantly telling a falsehood.  Well defined pathways are known to smugglers of all persuasions – from drug to human, and worse.  One of the little talked about but fully known secrets is that aliens from other countries, including Middle Eastern, have come across the border and up through Arizona’s vast desert smuggling highways.  Besides the criminal and terrorist element, we have a medical stew of health concerns the likes our Nation has not seen or had to deal with in many years.  Diseases and health issues known only in other regions of the world are now being introduced to America. 

 

The hospitals are inundated in Border States to the point of turning away emergency arrivals from ambulances, there are not sufficient health care providers, and the funds simply are not available to treat the onslaught of arrivals.  The new strains of disease and drug resistant maladies will become similar to a catastrophic biological event.  I am not even discussing those who are illegal and remain clear of hospitals for fear of being reported, but hide-out under bridges with other homeless; or set-up camps in the various remote sections of land well within Border States close to municipalities and major cities so they can benefit from the services local government and communities offer.  The chance for cross contamination and communicable spread of illness is a clear and present danger Obama and associates do not want to discuss.

AUTHOR'S NOTE:  Some of the above information is held in public domain having been released for various purposes; therefore, nothing contained in this briefing violates any sanctions for dissemination, but does provide the reader with vetted material.  I encourage you to subscribe to: Independent Living with Lee Bellinger Publisher for continuing current medical and alternative treatment information.  Some of the following information comes from this source; some comes from discussions with State of Arizona health officials, as well as health-care providers on the front lines.

 

 

Contact Lyle Rapacki at:  [email protected]

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM.org please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

The Pill As A Contraceptive: Mainstream Media Misrepresents Its Danger

U.S. Journalists 'Celebrate' a Carcinogen's Birthday / British Scientists Shill for the Pill 

 

by Karen Malec, President, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer *

Karen Malec is a frequent contributor to RFFM.org.  Malec is the Founder and President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. 

 

A free press and the dissemination of accurate information are among the elements needed for the continuation of a democratic republic. A free people must be educated and have access to truthful information in order to make decisions about the issues of the day, choose worthy candidates for office, participate in the legislative process and promote the common good.

One of the marks of a totalitarian government is one in which the flow of information is tightly controlled so that the attitudes and beliefs of citizens can be formed in a way that benefits the powerful. When journalists in a free society omit or misrepresent scientific evidence that is critical for making life-or-death health decisions, they violate a fundamental human right. Indeed, having the right to protect one's own life trumps every other right.

News stories "celebrating" the birth control pill's birthday - also known as "oral contraceptives" - raise troubling questions about the dedication of journalists in the mainstream press to the democratic ideal and their traditional roles as defenders of civil liberties and watchdogs of government.

When feminist ideology, left-wing politics, corporate agendas or even keeping one's job supersede women's lives in importance, journalists abandon their professional responsibilities and become complicit in the abuse of power exercised by governments and wealthy men striving to reduce the populations of nations around the world.

When journalists tout pro-pill studies funded by pharmaceutical companies - as they have done with the recent study in the British Medical Journal, Hannaford et al. 2010 - or when they promote studies that receive heavy criticism from researchers' peers in medical journals (also like Hannaford et al. 2010), they become instruments of corporate greed, perhaps unknowingly. [1]

Here is a glimpse of a few "news stories" celebrating the 50th birthday of a carcinogen.

Associated Press: "'The health benefits are tremendous,' said Dr. Melissa Gilliam, chief of family planning contraceptive research at the University of Chicago Medical Center. 'It decreases the risk of ovarian cancer and uterine cancer. If we called it "the cancer-preventing pill," it would have far better traction. It's a real success story.'" [2]

Response: There was not even a veneer of objectivity here. Why didn't the author, Carla Johnson, bother to interview researchers whose studies show that the pill raises the risk of cancers of the breast, liver and cervix? Why only interview a family planning contraceptive researcher?

The World Health Organization (WHO) assigned combined (estrogen + progestin) oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy the highest level of carcinogenicity as Group 1 carcinogens in 2005. [3] These drugs are on the same list as benzene, tobacco, asbestos and cadmium.

The WHO's press release in 2005 said combined oral contraceptives raise the risk of cancers of the breast, liver and cervix, but reduce the risk of cancers of the endometrium and ovaries. [4] Incredibly, some softheaded doctors tell women to take a carcinogen (the pill) to prevent cancer. The truth is that more than twice as many American women die every year from the cancers that the pill causes than the cancers it prevents.

Combined oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy contain the same type of drugs, but the former have a larger dose of those drugs. Unlike combined hormone replacement therapy, women often use the pill during the most cancer-susceptible time of their lives - before the birth of a first child.

In April, Dr. Gerard Nadal, a microbiologist, explained on his blog, Coming Home, that combined hormone replacement therapy, combined oral contraceptives and abortion share the same biological mechanism for cancer production. [5] All three risks have to do with the negative effect of estrogen overexposure, while in the presence of progesterone, on immature, cancer-susceptible breast lobules.

Only eight years ago, researchers stopped a large study - the Women's Health Initiative - because study subjects using these steroidal hormones - combined estrogen and progestin - were at risk for stroke, heart attack, breast cancer and blood clots. [6] One year later, after thousands of women had stopped using combined hormone replacement therapy, there were 14,000 fewer U.S. cases of breast cancer.

Beyond all reason, mainstream journalists unconscionably ignored last year's monumental study on oral contraceptives and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with a high mortality rate. Led by Jessica Dolle, the study included as co-author Dr. Louise Brinton, a U.S. National Cancer Institute branch chief. [7] The authors reported that recent users of the pill within the last one to five years multiply their risk of TNBC - by 4.2 times. Women who started using the pill before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times. Women with abortions in the study had a statistically significant 40% increase in risk for breast cancer, whether or not it was TNBC.

Other than the Chicago Tribune's Dennis Byrne, what American mainstream journalists cared enough about women to inform them about these findings - especially those who develop TNBC most often, i.e. African Americans and women under age 50?

Researchers' findings contradicted the U.S. National Cancer Institute's official position that the abortion-breast cancer link is "non-existent." They contribute to overwhelming evidence that the agency conned women into believing this blatant falsehood with its sham workshop on the link in 2003. [8] Nevertheless, while Uncle Sam physically abuses women in every country that has made abortion legally accessible, America's mainstream journalists are taking a siesta.

CBS News: "Control your cycle; control your life. What could be more empowering? Plus it made your boobs bigger. Win-win....It may have produced fewer children, but it produced better mothers: fulfilled women who deliberately created families." [9]

Response: Yeah, right. Taking hormonal contraceptive steroids and developing cancers of the breast, cervix and liver makes women feel powerful. How many cancer patients would agree that the pill made them better mothers? This silly pitch for the pill reads like a pharmaceutical ad.

Time Magazine: "One of the world's largest studies of the Pill — 46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years — was released this March. It found that women who take the Pill are less likely to die prematurely from any cause, including cancer and heart disease, yet many women still question whether the health risks outweigh the benefits." [10]

Response: As of April 4, 2010 - eighteen days before Time published its article - the British Medical Journal had published on its website a long list of scientists, who criticized the study, Hannaford et al. 2010, and demonstrated the flaws in the study. [1] Time Magazine might be interested in the fact that at least one letter by Joel Brind, Ph.D. rebutting the findings in the study was published during the week of the pill's birthday in the print version of the British Medical Journal. [11] Professor Brind is Deputy Chair for Biology and Environmental Sciences at Baruch College, City University of New York.  He offered his comments on the Time article by saying:

"Here are some inconvenient truths about Time's statement: They say: '46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years.'

"The truth: Of the 46,000 in the original study, only 10,000 were actually followed up for the whole study, and even at that, the follow up for those 10,000 ended in 1996, i.e., after only 28 years--not 40! When the analysis was restricted to those 10,000 women followed up until 1996, there was no significant difference in longevity between pill users and never users.  Why did the study end so long ago? Because it started long ago, back in 1968, when the average pill user was already 29 and married with children; the type of women whose future health is least affected by the pill.

 

"But now, of course, most pill users are very young--teens and early 20's, unmarried and with no children; the type of women whose future risk of breast cancer and other life-shortening illnesses is most affected by the pill. And if you actually bother to read the whole Hannaford study--which the Time author likely did not--these trends actually show up. For example, here's a sobering quote directly from the results of the paper, where the authors are referring to the subset of younger women (they don't tell you how many), who were under age 45 in 1996:

 

"'The increased rate of death from circulatory disease persisted in pill users five to nine years after stopping use and was accompanied by an increased rate of death from all cancers combined, including breast cancer. This resulted in a significantly increased adjusted relative risk of death from any cause among this group (1.76, 1.27 to 2.45 for all causes; 1.91, 1.18 to 3.07 for all cancers combined), compared with never users.'"

When women choose to take the pill (or have an abortion) is an important piece of information in any study focusing on the link to breast cancer. Women in the 1960s took the pill after they had already had their families. Today, women take the pill before the birth of a first child during the "susceptibility window" - the period between puberty and first full term pregnancy when nearly all of the breast lobules are cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. Ninety-seven percent of all breast cancers develop in Type 1 and 2 lobules (where ductal and lobular cancers arise).

On the other hand, by the end of first full term pregnancy, 85% of the lobules are permanently cancer-resistant. The more carcinogenic time to be exposed to the pill is before first full term pregnancy. Abortions before first full term pregnancy are called "highly carcinogenic." Women who followed the more current patterns of pill use, using before first full term pregnancy at a younger age and for longer periods, have greater health problems, not less.

Hopefully, Time's editors have the integrity to print a retraction.

Chris Kahlenborn, MD, the lead author of a meta-analysis published in 2006 in the journal, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, calls breast cancer "the pill's dirty secret." [12] Kahlenborn and his colleagues' paper included an examination of studies dating from the 1980s. They found that women who used the pill before a first full term pregnancy increased their risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer by 44%.

In a recent commentary "The Pill after 50 Years: The Dirty Little Secret of Contraception"  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/05/the-pill-after-50-years-the-dirty-little-secret-of-contraception.html  Kahlenborn said he was stunned that the meta-analysis brought almost no press coverage, although Mayo Clinic sent a press release to all major media in the country and 40,000 American women develop pre-menopausal breast cancer annually. The mainstream media continue to studiously ignore the meta-analysis, although it remains the most recent one in this area.

There is a simple explanation for the mainstream media's hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil practices. Although the pill is accepted as a risk factor for certain cancers in the highest places of medicine, in feminist theology it (and induced abortion) is a sacred sacrament. Belief in the safety of so-called reproductive rights is an article of religious faith. For true believers, it serves as an impediment to science.

Hopefully, both scientists and journalists dedicated to the cause of "reproductive rights" will ask themselves in good conscience whether it is really worth causing large numbers of women to lose their breasts or cut their lives short. Is it really worth causing children to lose their mothers to cancer?

Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th century political thinker and French aristocrat, used to argue that it is easier for people to believe a simple lie than a complex truth. In the case of the birth control pill, the simple lie is that it is "safe" for women. Keeping women in the dark about the deadly risks of the pill and induced abortion is a form of totalitarianism through science and the mass media.

References:

1. Hannaford et al. British Medical Journal 2010;340:c927.

2. "America's Favorite Birth Control Method Turns 50," By Carla Johnson, Associated Press, May 7, 2010. Available at: http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/93071369.html

3. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

4. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005.

5. Dr. Gerard Nadal, “My interview on abortion-breast cancer link in Fathers for Good,” Coming Home, April 16, 2010. Available at: http://gerardnadal.com/2010/04/16/my-interview-on-abortion-breast-cancer-link-in-fathers-for-good/

6. Writing group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA 2002;288:321-33.

7. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf

8. See the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer's press release, "Groups Request Congressional Investigation of National Cancer Institute's Misinformation on Breast Cancer Risks of Abortion, Oral Contraceptives," January 25, 2010. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/100125/index.htm

9. "Faith Salie: Happy Birthday to the Pill, Says the 'Pro-Choice Contraceptive Empowered Women to Become Better Mothers," CBS News, May 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/09/sunday/main6469959.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsOpinion+%28Opinion%3A+CBSNews.com%29

10. "The Pill at 50: Sex, Freedom and Paradox," By Nancy Gibbs, Time Magazine, April 22, 2010. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1983712,00.html

11. Brind J. Wrong Conclusions Drawn Again. Letter. British Medical Journal 2010;340:c927.

12. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter D, Severs W. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302. 

 

 

* Karen Malec, President
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
[email protected]
1-877-803-0102 (toll free)

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

 

The Pill after 50 Years:  The Dirty Little Secret of Contraception by Chris Kahlenborn, MD posted May 31, 2010 http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/05/the-pill-after-50-years-the-dirty-little-secret-of-contraception.html

 

Birth Control Pill:  50 Year Legacy Of A Carcinogen:  No Cause For Celebration by Karen Malec posted September 10, 2009: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/09/birth-control-pill-50-year-legacy-of-a-carcinogen-no-cause-for-celebration.html

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

The Pill after 50 Years: The Dirty Little Secret of Contraception

by Chris Kahlenborn, MD *

Dr. Kahlenborn is the lead author of the Mayo Clinic Proceeding’s article cited below.  Kahlenborn testified before the FDA in June of 2000 regarding the link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer.

 

May 2010 marked the 50th anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the birth control pill in the United States.  Newspapers and magazines around the country ran stories on this, mostly extolling the social and medical benefits of the pill.  This theme was bolstered by a recent communiqué from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) which noted: “The pill remains one of the safest and most popular forms of contraception in the U.S.” (Office of Communications, ACOG, May 6, 2010 http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr05-06-10.cfm)

I find it disturbing that after nearly 50 years, both the media and the medical establishment have failed to give a true airing to one of the pill’s most dangerous side effects; namely, that “dirty little secret.”  What’s that?  One need only check the Mayo Clinic Proceedings-the major medical publication of the Mayo Clinic-to find our little-known study, which showed that the pill increases the risk of premenopausal breast cancer substantially when taken at a young age (see Mayo Clinic Proceedings: October, 2006: available to the public on line).  In October, 2006, we reviewed the medical literature and combined data in an analysis (referred to as a meta-analysis): we found that 21 out of 23 studies showed that using oral contraceptives prior to a woman’s first birth resulted in a 44% increased risk in premenopausal breast cancer.  Our meta-analysis remains the most recent study in this area and updates the previously analysis (the Oxford-analysis published in 1996) which relied on older data with older women (two-thirds of whom were over age 45); unfortunately, the Oxford study continues to be quoted by ACOG, textbooks, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and most researchers and obstetricians, claiming that oral contraceptives carry little breast cancer risk especially ten years after last use.

I continue to be amazed at the discordance between the medical literature and public/medical awareness.  To my dismay, after our meta-analysis was published, the Mayo Clinic sent out a press release to all major media in the country.  The response?: (   ).   The blank space between the parentheses is purposeful.  Although our meta-analysis received scant internet coverage, almost no major media covered this study, which is shocking, given the fact that about 40,000 women in the U.S. get premenopausal breast cancer annually, oral contraceptives are an elective risk factor and our study is the most recent meta-analysis to date on the oral contraceptive-breast cancer link. 

In addition to our meta-analysis, it’s important to note that the World Health Organization classified oral contraceptives as a Class I carcinogen in 2005 (i.e., the most dangerous classification).  Even more data has come forth recently in a paper by several researchers-one of whom is a major researcher of the National Cancer Institute-which not only cited our meta-analysis, but found that oral contraceptives increase the risk of triple-negative breast cancer in women under forty by 320 percent (triple-negative breast cancers are extremely aggressive) (Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention; April, 2009).

Few in the medical establishment or the public are aware of these data, or if they are, young women almost never hear about them.  It’s been almost four years since the publication of our study in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings; I am beginning to think that our study has been effectively “buried.”  Breast cancer and the pill-that dirty little secret?  Some day perhaps someone in the media and/or medical establishment will dust a little dirt off those pink ribbons and let young women hear all the facts so they can finally make truly informed decisions.

* Chris Kahlenborn, MD
The Polycarp Research Institute                                
Box 105                                               
Enola, PA 17025                      
717-732-4904    
[email protected]
http://www.polycarp.org/

RELATED ARTICLE: 

The Pill As A Contraceptive:  Mainstream Media Misrepresents Its Danger:  U.S. Journalists 'Celebrate' a Carcinogen's Birthday / British Scientists Shill for the Pill by Karen Malec posted June 1, 2010 http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/06/the-pill-as-a-contraceptive-the-mainstream-media-misrepresents-its-danger.html

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

Feinstein's Bill To Cap Healthcare Insurance Rates Will Lead To Eventual Demise Of Private Insurance Companies: Goal, Single-Payer System

by Donna Garner

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Donna Garner is a frequent contributor to RFFM.org.  Garner resides in central Texas and was an educator for 33 years before her recent retirement.  Garner was appointed by President Reagan and re-appointed by President Bush to serve on the National Commission on Migrant Education in the late 1980's through the early 1990's.  Garner was chosen to serve on the English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) writing team for Texas when the TEKS education standards were developed for the public schools (1995-97).   

 

Garner was also the lead writer of the Texas Alternative Document (TAD) for ELAR when educators grew concerned about the lack of explicitness, grade-level specificity and measurability in the TEKS.  As a volunteer, Garner worked closely with Texas State Board of Education members and the Texas Education Agency to write new ELAR standards that were adopted in May 2008.  Garner was a writer/researcher for Scott & White Hospital's Worth the Wait abstinence education program.  

 

Almost five years ago, she became the writer/consultant for MyStudyHall.com which is an online tutorial to help students ages 10 through 100 learn English skills.  Garner is currently a researcher and author involving political, social and education issues and she is an advocate for many pro-family, pro-life organizations.

Researcher Says Don't Stand Up And Cheer Yet:  Democratic-Supported Legislation Will Lead To Eventual Government Take-Over Of Healthcare In America

Before you stand up and cheer for U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) bill that is meant to set federal caps on insurance rates, let’s look at the issue a little more carefully (Note: See New York Times article titled "Senate Bill Sets a Plan to Regulate Premiums" by Robert Pear:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/health/policy/21health.html

 

Fact:  The Democrat-passed healthcare bill does nothing to control healthcare costs.  In truth, it was never meant to do so.  The intent of the healthcare bill was to eventually implement a single-payer system by way of little baby steps -- “incrementalism.” The end result is to put the federal government in charge of everyone’s healthcare so that everyone can easily be controlled by the federal government.

 

To get to the single-payer system, the idea is to drive insurance companies out of business. Those companies, to survive the onslaught of new insureds, including those with expensive pre-existing conditions, are presently being forced to raise their premiums in order to get ready for the future federal mandates.  

 

Insurance companies are trying to build up a backlog of finances to carry them through the 2014 flood of newly insured people.  Because many of these people will pay nothing out of their own pockets for healthcare, but will rely upon taxpayers to pay it for them, the tendency will be for these uninvested people to run to the doctor even when they have a sniffle.  This will put a tremendous strain on insurance companies and upon the entire healthcare system. 

 

Now Sen. Feinstein is trying to put the nail in the coffin by passing a bill that will cap those insurance premiums in hopes that insurance companies will go belly up.

 

In other words, Feinstein and the other Democrats are trying to tighten the screws at either end until the insurance companies are pressured out of business which is exactly what the Democrats want to happen.

 

The Democrat-passed healthcare bill must be repealed, piece by piece; and the appropriations for each part of it must be voted down.  No appropriations…no healthcare bill. 

 

This is why the November 2010 election is so very important.  Before we vote for any candidates in that election, we must find out if they genuinely have the courage and fortitude to vote against the implementation of the healthcare bill.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected] 

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.
 
How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Health Care Reform: Doctors Fix Has Potential To Damage GOP

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

As Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promised, Americans would learn more about the health care reform bill after it was passed.  Yes, most have learned about the 16,500 new IRS agents who will be hired to act as the health care police.  Seniors are learning more about the drastic cuts to Medicare, including the decrease in funding of home health care, hospice care and funding for medical equipment.  In fact, there were so many terrible things in the thousands of pages this bill entailed, opponents didn't know where to begin to fight it.

 

Most Americans were clearly against the Democratic version of health care reform.  Republicans were grossly outmanned in their unified opposition to the bill and it was also hard to choose what aspects of the legislation to focus on.  Should the GOP have concentrated on the budget-busting impact this new law would have on the nation for generations to come?  Should Republicans have zeroed in on the decrease in the quality of health care that would be provided to most Americans, if the bill was passed?  Or possibly the way to have fought the bill was to point out that comprehensive health care reform had nothing to do with health care, but was all about control of a significant portion of the public?

 

However, President Barack Obama's strategy regarding health care reform is consistent with his radical political agenda.  The modus operandi was, and is, to throw everything against the political wall and see what sticks.  Obama began with the stimulus package which we were told was necessary to save the struggling American economy.  Congress passed the legislation which we are now learning is filled with waste and pork-filled projects totaling billions of dollars.  Then came Cap and Trade which, if passed into law, would have resulted in drastically higher energy costs for every American.

 

But the country quickly caught on.  It took the entire first year of Obama's administration to pass health care into law and, hopefully, this has put a crimp in a leftist vision that many in our nation are now rejecting.  In fact, the Cap and Trade bill, also referred to as Cap and Tax, was never taken on by the U.S. Senate (after the U.S. House of Representatives passed it) because it was so politically toxic. 

 

With the midterm elections coming up in November, the far left wing of the Democratic Party has been stymied in their efforts to pass bills, including comprehensive immigration reform, card check and gays in the military, which are high on their list of priorities. 

 

But Republicans have to be very careful regarding a political trap which has been set for them.  In order to pass the health care reform bill, so-called blue dog Democrats had to be convinced the health care reform legislation would reduce the national debt during the next ten years.  The argument was:  If nothing was done, rapidly escalating health care costs would far exceed the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) calculated cost of Obamacare, which was projected to be $940 billion for the next decade.  However, most economists realize the cost of adding 30 million Americans to the rolls of those to be covered by mandatory health care will probably by closer to $2.4 trillion.  But the Democrats played a very skillful game which had an impact on the CBO's original projections because the majority party left out something called the "Doctors Fix" in this equation. 

 

Physicians will have to be paid for their services to include the expanding rolls of those on Medicare and Medicaid.  Money was not allocated for this provision in the health care reform law.  The Democrats left these costs out of the bill on purpose.  They knew if the "Doctors Fix" was included in the new law, the true costs would rise between $150 billion and $200 billion for the next decade.  But leaving the "Doctors Fix" out of the equation gave so-called conservative Democrats political cover, leaving them able to vote for the bill's passage.  

 

Here's the catch.  The "Doctors Fix" and the money needed to fund it will have to be passed by Congress.  In a way, Republicans have been painted into a corner.  They can't oppose the "Doctors Fix" because the Democrats would scream from the rooftops that members of the GOP are against paying physicians the money they deserve for services rendered under the new law.  Republicans will have to go along with the expenditures that should have been included in the costs of the original health care bill.  The sad fact is the establishment media knew the "Doctors Fix" was necessary in order to make health care reform viable; yet the press paid little, if any, attention, to the issue.

 

So, essentially, Republicans will have to swallow a spoonful of medicine which has a terrible taste.  The only strategy Republicans now have is to point out the American public was duped by Obama, Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic Party who did anything and everything to pass health care reform, the least of which was fudging the numbers on its true costs.  Perhaps from the beginning the GOP should have focused more on the fact the cost of the "Doctors Fix" was not written into the original health care reform legislation which was passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama, but it's too late to do so now. 

 

The worst thing Republican legislators could do would be to fight against the "Doctors Fix" on principle.  The only thing members of the GOP can say is the Democrats intentionally deceived the country.  But what else is new? 

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

 

Health Care Reform: Nothing To Do With Health Care: It's About Control by Daniel T. Zanoza [March 12, 2010] http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/03/health-care-reform-nothing-to-do-with-health-care-its-about-control.html

Food, Water and Energy = Control of Americans by Joyce Morrison [July 18, 2008]
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/07/food-water-and-energy-control-of-americans.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected] 

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

 

Health Care is NOT a "Right"

by David E. Smith, Executive Director, Illinois Family Institute

Like many Americans across the nation, I watched intensely as Congress debate and ultimately pass the onerous health care "reform" bill Sunday evening. One main point of contention is the idea -- affirmed by some radically "progressive" lawmakers -- that health care is a "right." This is nothing short of socialistic propaganda. The implicit claim in the assertion that health care is a "right" is that it is a constitutionally protected right. All experts agree that health care is neither a constitutional nor a legal right. In America we understand that our rights to the free exercise of religion, to speak freely, to bear arms and to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure come from God. 

To see the difference in government-mandated health care and real rights, look at how they are exercised. Historically, American citizens have been free to exercise their real, constitutionally protected rights or not as they see fit. The government does not compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom. The government does not compel citizens to own a gun in the name of the Second Amendment. And the government does not force citizens to engage in the political process in the name of free speech. In contrast, our radically "progressive" friends are eager to compel every American using the heavy hand of government to exercise their so-called right to health care. Should we celebrate the passage of a bill that in the service of non-existent rights actually diminishes our liberty?

What is really at issue is not whether health care is a "right" but whether citizens have a right to taxpayer-funded health care. What other cherished American "right" has ever required that we diminish another's liberty? Does the right to free speech require newspaper owners to print every op-ed and editorial? Does the right to bear arms require the government to arm its citizenry? Does the freedom of religion require government-funding of churches, mosques and synagogues? Why then, does this "right" to healthcare require the government to take from some to give to others? When in the history of our country have we had to secure a right by trampling on the liberties of others? 

Make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening with this government takeover of the healthcare industry. This new health care "right" will be forced on every American, and it will be made possible by taking from citizens "according to their ability" and giving to others "according to their needs" (Karl Marx, 1875).

According to U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-OH), this legislation will create 160 new governmental boards, commissions and mandates and require $500 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Of course, that will be only the beginning, as additional taxpayer funds will most certainly be needed. 

Health care lawyer and policy analyst John S. Hoff illuminates the troubling questions left unanswered by the phrase "right to health care," which he argues "does not address the relevant issues that must be considered in considering taxpayer subsidies for health care":

 

How much health care is to be paid for by the taxpayer, for what beneficiaries, and under what circumstances? Does it include the most advanced or experimental treatment? Indeed, what is health care? Long term care? What are the parameters of self-responsibility? Should there be taxpayer subsidies for smokers, drug abusers, and dare-devils? And which taxpayers should be paying? Should the working young and low-income workers subsidize the health care costs of those who are wealthier and sicker? These are political judgments that we have barely addressed, and they are camouflaged by invocation of a broad principle of a right to health care.

 

President Obama and many in Congress are celebrating the passage of this ominous legislation -- legislation that forces American citizens into the newly created socialized health care system. Sadly, the costs of this new government program are much higher than we think. Although, the financial cost to taxpayers is substantial, the cost to personal liberty is incalculable. 

Above also posted at: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34804

Visit Illinois Family Institute at:  http://www.illinoisfamily.org/

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]  

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

 

Health Care Reform: Government To Have Access To Americans Medical Records

Private Medical Information Will Eventually Be Made Available To Government Bureaucrats In Charge Of Health Care

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

If anyone has time to go through the more than 2,700 pages in the Senate version of the current health care reform bill, there are some aspects of this legislation that should send a chill down the spine of any American.  But, for a moment, let's take time to review how medical records have been shared in the past.

 

Whenever you saw a new physician, one of the first things they needed was your past medical history, specifically related to what a doctor might need to know about your treatment.  This new doctor would ask you to sign a release form to be sent to a physician who treated you previously to share specific information.  These forms were only good for a prescribed period of time and detailed exactly what information you did and did not want shared with the new doctor.  For example, a specialist might need to know about any pre-existing conditions which might have an impact on a medical procedure he or she might perform.

 

Also, you simply might be seeing a new general physician who would need access to your past medical history.  The bottom line is medical information was always kept in-house, unless the patient requested their medical records be sent to a new health care provider.

 

As a journalist, I have found that relating information from an anecdotal perspective is the best way to get a point across.  Therefore, let me share a recent experience I had during a visit to my family doctor, who I have been seeing for over five years, who works at a medical center which serves a small town in central Illinois.  I struck up a conversation with one of the nurses who collected data, including my weight, blood pressure, what medications I was currently taking, etc.  "We are putting all of our medical records into a database," the nurse told me.  Immediately a red flag went up, so I asked her who will have access to this information?  "Oh, all your medical records will be on a computer, but no one outside this facility will have access to your private records."

 

Now anyone who knows the least bit about computers understands full well once information is downloaded into such a system, it can be readily shared with others, accessed by hackers or find its way into the hands of those who should not be privy to such information.

 

But let's get back to Obama's health care reform plan.  One of the provisions within the bill is that all Americans medical information should be compiled and stored electronically.  Supposedly, this data will strictly be meant to stay in-house, as my nurse ensured me it would be.  However, if health care reform becomes law, if it desires, the government will have access to the medical records of every American citizen.  Of course, those who support health care reform will say nothing will change regarding privacy laws.  But the simple fact medical providers will have this data on their systems will make it that much easier for the government to further intrude in our private lives.

 

For example, the government could compile data on what ethnic groups experience the most heart attacks.  Or, even more intrusive, health care reform could open up records regarding an individual's psychiatric history or whether a patient went through an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program.  Our medical lives could become an open book.  And, most assuredly, the government would find reasons why such data would serve the greater public good.

 

The information obtained by the government could and probably would be used to determine whether a patient "deserved" care in their later years, i.e., was an individual a smoker?  If so, should they be entitled to extensive care concerning conditions related to the fact they smoked?  This analogy could be drawn out to include any and every possibility, in order to eventually ration health care to those who deserve it because they led healthy lives and those who did not.

 

It has already been demonstrated health commissions will be created under Obamacare which will determine who will be entitled to medical services.  Last year, a federal panel came out with a finding which said women ages 40 - 49 did not need yearly mammograms.  This contradicted past medical findings which clearly indicated women in this age group should have mammograms annually in order to detect breast cancer in its early stages.  Unbelievably, one of the panel's rationale regarding their decision suggested annual mammograms for women 40 - 49 subjected them to greater stress and anxiety.  Of course, the federal panel's decision was met by a firestorm of criticism from experts in the field of breast cancer and psychologists who pointed out the obvious regarding the fact women not having mammograms in this very important period of their lives would indeed suffer through more anxiety and trepidation concerning their health.

 

Under Obamacare, there would be similar panels, staffed by government bureaucrats and statisticians who would hand down decisions based on information other than data provided by medical experts, as was the case with the decision made by the federal panel regarding mammograms.  The bottom line here would be the rationing of health care services to save money, ultimately excluding groups which did not fall within a statistical matrix.

 

Without a national database which included detailed information about the medical status of all Americans, these panels would not be able to function.  Therefore, ultimately, information--compiled in good faith by doctors who have private practices or physicians who work for larger medical centers--will be made available to the government whose intentions may not be in the best interest of a patient.

 

The passing of comprehensive health care reform may be decided within days.  There is much more at stake here than meets the eye of the casual observer.  A database containing the medical records of every individual in the United States will be a treasure trove for those who believe government has all the answers.

 

 

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.