Archive for complications

Experts address link between abortion and breast cancer in powerful documentary film

Posted in abortion breast cancer link, Breast Cancer with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 14, 2017 by saynsumthn

 

Dr. Angela Lafranchi, Breast Cancer Surgeon

Experts interviewed in the controversial film, “Hush: the Documentary,” which investigates the effects of abortion on women, claim that women aren’t being told the truth about the link between abortion and breast cancer, despite studies that show the claim to be true.

Pro-choice film director Punam Kumar Gill went out of her way to speak with experts on both sides of the debate. “Of all the contested health care risks around abortion, the abortion breast cancer link was especially troubling to me,” she states. According to Gill, at the time the film was produced, there were only five states that required women to be told that there is an increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.

Screenshot via “Hush: the Documentary”

In her team’s attempt to hear all sides, Gill spoke with former abortionist David Grimes, described by her as a “renowned expert” on abortion in the film. Grimes denied a higher risk of breast cancer for women who have had abortions, comparing claims to the contrary to “an old dog that they keep on flogging.” By “they” he means pro-life experts who have published their own studies.

Grimes then claimed that (in his words) the “small group” that “holds these views” tend to “not be physicians” and not “understand what a woman goes through.” He then disdainfully claimed that the “common theme” among these experts is “religiosity.”

Dr Joel Brind

But Grimes apparently didn’t do his homework before making those remarks; as the film also showed, there are several highly credentialed experts who believe that an abortion-breast cancer link is evident.

One of those experts is Dr. Joel Brind, a professor of human biology and endocrinology who has studied the topic extensively. Dr. Brind acknowledged that it is his belief that abortion is not good for women or children, and that although women legally have a choice to have an abortion, the choice should be an informed one.

In his research, Brind reviewed 23 studies (a meta-analysis) and, as the film points out, found a “30 percent increased risk of breast cancer for women with abortion histories.” Dr. Brind, along with three other researchers, published these findings in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in 1996.

Although the group of authors called for additional research on the link, the study concluded in part, “The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy.”

But because Dr. Brind holds a pro-life view on abortion, his work has been largely discounted. “The major criticism against him was because he’s pro-life, his science is questionable, and his findings are part of an anti-abortion agenda to scare women,” the Hush film states.

Dr Joel Brind (Image credit: Hush the Documentary)

But, what isn’t mentioned by critics of Brind’s conclusions on the abortion-breast cancer link is that one of Brind’s co-researchers is pro-choice. Brind says he was unaware of this fact until after the research was published because when they did the research, “their personal views on the subject of abortion never came up,” he explained.

Brind told Gill that author Vernon M. Chinchilli only disclosed his pro-choice views on abortion after the study was complete. Brind explained, “We did all this work together. Hours and hours of working together in studying the data and comparing notes and talking about it, and you know what? Whether he or I or anyone else in the group was pro-life or pro-choice – it never came up.”

“This is about science. This is about the effect on women and whether or not abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Period,” he added.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi and Punam Kumar Gill in Hush the Documentary

Another expert interviewed in the film is Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast surgeon. She pointed to alarming data that shows a drastic increase in breast cancer among young women, something she said was evident in her practice as a breast surgeon. “There was one month where I saw three young women in their thirties with breast cancer and it was very depressing. And I was trying to figure out why that was happening.”

“The textbooks had information… about one of the risk factors being abortion. And I started asking a complete reproductive history.”

Dr. Lanfranchi recounted discovering that patients with “very aggressive forms of breast cancers” had abortions in their history. She then found out about Dr. Brind’s meta-analysis study, recounting, “I said, okay, it’s just not my random clinical experience.” But Lanfranchi pointed out that over the years, she has discovered that this information “was not going to get out.”

Dr. Ian Gentles in Hush the Documentary

Filmmaker Gill also spoke to Dr. Ian Gentles, a professor at Tyndale University College and a co-author of the book “Complications,” described in the film as the “world’s most comprehensive investigation of abortion and women’s health.”

According to a review of the book published by LifeSiteNews, it “[…] includes over 100 interviews with women who have had abortions… using data gathered from over 650 papers, mostly in medical and psychological journals.” It “concludes that abortion is detrimental in all areas of women’s health, and includes substantive evidence demonstrating the link between abortion and a variety of health problems including breast cancer, infertility, autoimmune disease and mental health problems along with a multitude of other complications.”

“The big physical hazard is breast cancer,” Dr. Gentles told Gill. Gentles stated that there have been many studies that show a “real statistically significant link between abortion and breast cancer.”

Studies show link between abortion breast cancer (via Hush: the Documentary)

“In other words,” Gentles said, “if you have an abortion  – you have a 30 or 40 percent increased chance of coming down with breast cancer later. And this has been established in studies all over the world, not just in the United States, but also France, China, Japan, India, which have documented that indeed there is a higher rate of breast cancer among women who have abortions.”

Gill made it clear at the end of her documentary that she remains in favor of abortion, but believes women should be informed about potential risks such as breast cancer. The “Hush” production team claims to have made every effort to speak with experts across the political and ideological spectrum as well as medical organizations which study breast cancer risks. But Gill found that these groups were silent and refused requests to go on film to defend their findings.

“Those who completely deny any long-term risks have artfully shut down the conversation,” Gill concluded in the film. “Because they fear if they conceded the procedure has adverse effects, abortion will be banned. Meanwhile, nonpartisan researchers run for cover from cross fire.”

Gill added, “It’s true the long-term health risks associated with abortion are generally promoted by those who want abortion gone. But this did not make the information untrue.”

The pro-choice filmmaker expressed her desire for women to get all the information they need to make healthy decisions about their own lives. “Although I still believe in a woman’s right to abortion,” she said, “I don’t see abortion as liberating as I once assumed it was. At least not for the women who’ve experienced adverse physical and psychological effects.”

If abortion is going to be legal and women are to have the freedom to choose it, “they should also have the right to know,” Gill stated. “Women facing an unplanned pregnancy deserve health information that is not clouded by religion, fear, or politics.”

Be informed. Review the information for yourself.

Author’s Note: “Hush: the Documentary” is published by Mighty Truth Productions Inc. and is available for purchase here.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Save

Save

HPV Vaccine Gardasil , girl’s dying and getting sick

Posted in Gardasil, Vaccinations with tags , , , , on November 29, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Gardasil Victim Speaks Out After 2 Years, posted with vodpod

Read More here

Dying for the abortion pill !

Posted in Abortion, Abortion complication, Abortion death, Abortion injury, Abortion pill, Morning After Pill, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

This video is from 2005 – since then several more women have died….is abortion worth YOUR life?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Abortion pill warning- too many deaths, posted with vodpod

The Truth About Chemical Abortion and Women’s Health: Updated FDA on RU486

by Jeanne Monahan
July 12, 2011

A summary of adverse event reports (AERS) recently released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and obtained through Sen. Orrin Hatch’s office reveal that in the span of almost eleven years since the approval of the abortion drug, popularly known as RU-486, in the United States, at least 11 women have died as a result of complications related to taking the drug.[1] Internationally, the number of women who have died as a result of RU-486 is at least 17.[2]

That’s not all. The dangerous complications associated with this drug continue include hemorrhaging and infection. In the U.S., at least 612 women have been hospitalized after taking RU-486; and at least 339 women required blood transfusions as a result of serious blood loss after taking the abortion drug.

Clearly highlighting the need for more stringent medical oversight, the report also indicates that 58 women were prescribed RU-486 despite having ectopic pregnancies. Yet, “[a]dministration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy.”[3] To state it more clearly, a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy and takes the RU486 regimen places her life in danger.

It is not only women in the U.S. who are suffering as a result of chemical abortion, it is a worldwide trend. A recent Australian health department audit of nearly 10,000 abortions performed in 2009 and 2010 compared the safety of RU-486 with surgical abortion, with the outcome being in the words of one major media outlet “The Abortion Pill ‘Less Safe than Surgery’”. The Australian report showed that 1 in 18 patients who used RU-486 had to be re-admitted to hospitals (a total of 5.7% of women vs. only .4% of surgical abortions.) The same study revealed that as many as 33% of women who had second trimester RU-486 abortions required some form of surgical intervention.[4]

Marketing the abortion drug as simple and painless, such as taking an aspirin, is dangerously misleading to women. RU-486 is in a class of drugs categorized as selective progesterone receptor modulators, which, in addition to blocking progesterone necessary for the developing baby, also suppresses a woman’s immune system. Additionally, it is sometimes the case that the remains of the pregnancy are not entirely expelled from a woman’s uterus, causing infection and other problems.

Despite the seriousness and intensity of adverse effects related to RU-486, use of this form of abortion is on the rise, and frequently the regimen is dispensed with less medical oversight than surgical abortion. Even more troubling, nationally and internationally, “telemed” dissemination of RU-486 is increasing.[5] Telemed abortions involved doctors proscribing RU-486 through skype or over the internet rather than during a patient visit.

The bottom line is that abortion drugs are not about improving women’s health but are more accurately about advancing a radical pro-abortion agenda regardless of the impact on women’s health, even when it proves deadly.

[1] Food and Drug Administration, “Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary through 04/30/2011” (http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11G29.pdf).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jamie Walker, “Abortion pill ‘less safe than surgery’,” The Australian (May 7, 2011) (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abortion-pill-less-safe-than-surgery/story-fn59niix-1226051434394).

[4] EA Mulligan, “Mifepristone in South Australia” Australian Family Physician Vol. 40, No. 5, May 2011 (http://www.frcblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Australian-AERs_RU486_201105mulligan.pdf).

[5] Michel Martin (host), “Growing Controversy Surrounds ‘Telemed’ Abortions,” National Public Radio (January 24, 2011) (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133182875/Growing-Controversy-Surrounds-Telemed-Abortions).

High Potential for False Safety Concerns with H1N1 Vaccine

Posted in Alex Jones, Civil Rights, Flu Chip, Flu Shot, Glenn Beck, H1N1, Health Care, Homeland Security, Mercury, Population Control, Swine Flu, Vaccinations, Veri-Chip with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 2, 2009 by saynsumthn

From Medical News:

Failure to account for background rates when considering adverse events from pandemic H1N1 flu vaccination could spark public panic, researchers cautioned.
Coincidental cases of dramatic events including sudden death, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and spontaneous abortion can be expected to boost the true incidence of adverse events after immunization, said Steven Black, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and colleagues online in The Lancet.

The public will need frequent reassurance of vaccine safety when events that are temporally associated with vaccination are identified, even when these events have other causes and occur at the expected background rate,” they said.

Widespread belief in spurious associations can disrupt immunization programs, the researchers noted.

They cited the example of four deaths that occurred within 24 hours of seasonal flu vaccination in 2006 in Israel that derailed the program there, even though these were high-risk patients to begin with and the number of deaths was actually lower than expected from chance alone.

The risk is high for a similar situation with the mass vaccination programs underway for H1N1 influenza, they said.

A vaccination campaign in 1976-1977 against “swine” flu was associated with elevated rates of the autoimmune disease Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Since one or two diagnoses of the syndrome per 1 million people would be expected every month, 200 or more cases of Guillain-Barré will occur as background, coincidental events during the current vaccination campaign if 100 million people in the U.S. are immunized.

The reporting of even a fraction of such a large number of cases as adverse events after immunization, with attendant media coverage, would probably give rise to intense public concern, even though the occurrence of such cases was completely predictable and would have happened in the absence of a mass campaign,” Black’s group wrote.

So, the investigators looked into background rates of some events that are most likely to raise concerns with the pandemic vaccination campaign.
A review of data from prior studies and from hospital databases showed that rates varied by year, country, age, and sex.

Overall, 3.58 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome would be expected as background events within seven days per 10 million individuals vaccinated and 21.50 per 10 million within six weeks.

Coincident sudden death would be expected to strike 0.98 people per 10 million vaccinated people within seven days of vaccination and 5.75 cases would be expected to occur within six weeks as background events.

Among women, 14.40 cases of optic neuritis would be expected for every 10 million vaccinated within seven days and 86.30 could be expected for the same population within six weeks.

For pregnant women, 397 spontaneous abortions within one day of vaccination would occur as coincidental, background events for every 1 million vaccinated.

However, the researchers cautioned that the miscarriage rate may have been an overestimate given that vaccination rates are not uniform throughout trimesters of pregnancy.

But given the large number of events that could potentially be misinterpreted as caused by vaccination, Black’s group recommended “timely and thorough analysis of safety concerns,” taking into account the chance of temporal and geographical clustering.

For example, about 2% of practices will likely have a seemingly elevated rate — more than two standard deviations above average — of post vaccination spontaneous abortion based on the normal distribution.

Although this could lead to suspicions of a link to vaccination or a specific manufacturer’s vaccine, the investigators warned that “even random events can appear to have patterns.”

The number of cases sent to passive reporting systems alone is not an appropriate method on which to rely because the “denominator” — the number vaccinated — is usually not known, they cautioned.

Comparing observed and expected rates is a better method, although that is still subject to uncertainty and differences in populations, the researchers said.
In the U.S., the voluntary Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System has beefed up outreach efforts, and a new Web-based active surveillance system has been implemented along with population-based, computerized database monitoring, according to an accompanying commentary in The Lancet.

The CDC’s Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, and Jerome Tokars, MD, MPH, wrote that other countries have mounted similarly intensive monitoring for the safety of the H1N1 vaccine, which should serve as a model for tracking safety of all vaccines in the future.

Black reported serving on the data monitoring safety board for pneumoccocal conjugate vaccine for GlaxoSmithKline and receiving honoraria for participation in scientific advisory boards for Novartis. Co-authors reported conflicts of interest with the CDC, Merck, Novartis, Wyeth, and Sanofi Pasteur.

DeStefano and Tokars reported no conflicts of interest.

Primary source: The Lancet
Source reference:
Black S, et al “Importance of background rates of disease in assessment of vaccine safety during mass immunisation with pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccines” Lancet 2009; DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61877-8.

Also Read: Pregnant Women Wary of Swine Flu Shot

Oct. 27, 2009 — A new survey shows only about one in four pregnant women and mothers of young children plan to get the H1N1 flu vaccine this year, despite recommendations from public health groups urging them to do so.
The CDC, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and many other public health organizations strongly recommend that pregnant women and new mothers get both the seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccine shots to protect themselves as well as their newborns.
The survey shows 43% of pregnant women and mothers of children younger than 2 years old plan to get a seasonal flu shot this year, up from 33% surveyed last year. But only 27% plan on getting the H1N1 flu vaccine.
Researchers say confusion and concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the H1N1 vaccine may be preventing many pregnant women from getting the additional protection they need…..