Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

is there any truth to this?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Robert F. Conkling | Friday, 15 January 2010

www.mercatornet.org

Medicine that makes you sick
When will the medical establishment acknowledge the health risks
associated with chemical contraceptives?

Recently three major health stories appeared in the Washington press
in less than two weeks that were an occasion to pause and reflect.

First, the Potomac Conservancy made headlines about the contamination
of rivers and drinking water in major metropolitan areas, including
Washington DC. Contaminants include not only bacteria, industrial
chemicals and agricultural pesticides but also potentially
endocrine-active pharmaceuticals, such anti-depressants, contraceptive
sex hormones, antibiotics and personal care products.

Next came the report of US Preventive Services Task Force, an
independent body which studies mortality from common diseases, issuing
new guidelines for mammographic screening for early detection of
breast cancer. Breast Cancer remains the second highest cause of
mortality of American women since it began to rise in the 1970s.

Finally, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the annual
statistics for sexually transmitted diseases. In 2008 there was a
record number of new cases of Chlamydia -- a whopping 1.2 million new
cases, a rise in the number of new cases of syphilis and an all-time
record of 19 million total cases of all forms of STDs.

To connect the dots between these stories one has to ask: Could
steroid–based sex hormone contraceptives be a common thread?

Hard to believe until you consider the evidence.

A pill is born

The first sex hormone-containing pill, a synthetic steroid called
Norethindrone, was developed by organic chemist Carl Djerassi in
Syntex Laboratories in Mexico City. Djerassi was developing a
synthetic progestin for menstrual irregularities. His product turned
out to be a powerful inhibitor of ovulation, but he had not
anticipated that the estrogen-with-progestin combination oral birth
control pill (COCP) would have other effects upon women. Only after
many years was this combination suspected as the culprit in many
unexpected side-effects, including blood clots, diabetes, depression
or anxious emotional states experienced by women.

That some of these side-effects can be serious is confirmed by a new
report of conclusive evidence for significant loss of bone mineral
density when a woman uses Depo-Provera (a long acting injectable form
of progestin-only contraceptive) for more than two years.

In 2005 the International Agency for Cancer Research (IACR), an arm of
the World Health Organization, estimated that worldwide more than 100
million women were using some form of COCP. In developed countries,
the current usage was estimated at 16 percent, while the “ever used”
rate was as high as 80 percent. While there appeared to be extreme
variability between countries, the evaluation found that most
contraceptives were used by women of younger age and with higher
educational achievement.

Based on its evaluation, the IACR classified oral contraceptives as a
Group 1 carcinogen: “there is sufficient evidence in humans for the
carcinogenicity of combined oral estrogen-progestogen contraceptives”.
The weight of evidence indicated an increased risk of breast cancer
and cervical cancer. Moreover the risk of breast cancer was greater
for women who were under age 35 at the time of diagnosis of breast
cancer and who had begun using contraceptives before their 20th
birthday.
In 2006 the Mayo Clinic Proceedings published a meta-analysis of 23
studies done in several countries about breast cancer risk and usage
of oral contraceptives. Dr Chris Kahlenborn, one of the principal
authors, stated that “if a woman takes combined oral contraceptive
pills before her first full term pregnancy, she risks a 44 percent
increased chance of developing pre-menopause breast cancer when
compared to women who have never taken an OCP”. Kahlenborn also found
that “if a woman takes OCPs for 4 years or more prior to her first
full term pregnancy, she suffers a 52 percent increased risk”.

Kahlenborn also uncovered that the commonly used contraceptive
Depo-Provera was reported by the WHO and a New Zealand study to be
associated with a statistically significant 190 percent increased risk
of breast cancer when Depo-Provera was taken by a woman for more than
3 years prior to the age of 25 years.

Drinking water contamination

In 2002 the US Geological Survey found one or more pharmaceuticals in
80 percent of the streams it had tested. In 2006 the Los Angeles Times
reported that sewage contains traces of medications like antibiotics,
anti-depressants, birth-control hormones, Viagra, Valium and heart
drugs. Shane Snyder, lead toxicologist at the Southern Nevada Water
Authority, said: “there is no place on Earth exempted from having
pharmaceuticals and steroids in its wastewater. This is clearly an
issue that is global, and we are going to see more and more of these
chemicals in the environment, no doubt about it.”

The Potomac Conservancy found similar drinking water conditions in
Washington DC. Mirroring other regions of the country where biologists
have found frogs contaminated with Prozac, insects on anti-seizure
drugs and algae killed by antibiotics, the waterways draining the
Shenandoah Mountains and tributaries flowing into the Potomac River
have witnessed fish kills since 2002. The unexpected observation was
that most of the dead male fish had inter-sex characteristics and that
there was a disproportionate number of female fish. Further
examination by the US Geological Survey of the Potomac tributaries
revealed that 80 percent of the male fish had the inter-sex condition.

While the concentrations of some of the pharmaceuticals found in
drinking water sources, including estrogens and fertility drugs, are
in the parts per trillion, comparable to putting a few drops in an
Olympic-sized pool, the effects this may have on humans remains
unknown. What is known is that on the level of endocrine systems, fish
and humans function in very similar ways. What happens to fish may be
signaling future disorders for humans.

Contraceptives: a form of endocrine disrupting chemicals

In 2009 the world’s leading professional association for
endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, issued a strong statement on
endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The evidence suggests that exposure to
multiple endocrine disrupting chemicals at developmental stages has
the potential to affect any hormone-sensitive body system, including
the breast and the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian system in women, and
the testes and prostate gland in men. The Endocrine Society appealed
to the precautionary principle stating: “This principle is key to
enhancing endocrine and reproductive health, and should be consulted
to inform decisions about exposure to and risk from any potential
endocrine disruptor.” And: “The public may be placed at risk because
critical information about potential health effects of endocrine
disrupting chemicals to which Americans are exposed is being
overlooked in the development of federal guidelines and regulations.”

The pill’s link to STDs

Are there any strong associations between use of steroid-based OCPs
and sexually transmitted diseases? The CDC’s answer is yes. A review
of 83 studies published in the Journal Contraception in 2006 found
that combined oral contraceptives and Depo-Provera use generally had a
positive association with cervical chlamydial infection. Chlamydia
infection and other inflammatory STDs such as Syphilis or genital
Herpes are reported by the CDC to increase the risk of transmission of
Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection. Chlamydia is well known as the
leading preventable infection that can cause a severe condition called
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, which, if not treated, can result in
female infertility.

The recent STD report for 2008 from the CDC states that adolescent
girls between the ages of 15-19 account for 27 per cent of the total
new cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea. While acknowledging that
adolescent boys have a similar prevalence of STDs, the CDC insisted
that because of “biological differences” young women have a greater
potential to suffer consequences to their health than young males.

Depressing sex

Yet, what was most surprising to Dr Meg Meeker, pediatrician and
adolescent medicine specialist, was her observation that many of her
adolescent girl patients who had begun to engage in sexual encounters
were showing signs of clinical depression. In her book, Strong
Fathers, Strong Daughters (2007), she says: “Kids get depressed when
they experience a loss for which they cannot express a healthy
emotion. This is very common with sexual activity. When a girl has
sex, she loses her virginity and very often loses her self-respect
with it”.

That clinical observation of one pediatrician is supported by findings
of researchers interested in any association between teenage sexual
experimentation, drug use and depression. Denise Hallfors and
colleagues found that for girls even modest involvement in sexual
experimentation or substance use elevated depression risk. In
contrast, boys exhibited little added risk of depression with sexual
experimental behavior, although binge drinking and frequent use of
marijuana contribute substantial risk.

Thanatos syndrome revisited

In Walker Percy’s 1987 novel, The Thanatos Syndrome, Dr Tom More
returns to his home town and family to restart what remains of his
practice of psychiatry after serving a felony conviction for selling
prescriptions for narcotics. After a few weeks of re-establishing
contact with some of his former patients, he notices a profound change
in his patients, with unusual mood changes, increased ability to
recall the location of obscure names of places and the ability to make
complex numeric calculations. In addition his patients all seem to
have become hyper-eroticized, exhibiting outlandish sexual advances
that persons with intact higher-order self-control would recognize as
outside the range of socially acceptable behavior.

He postulates something has changed his patients. With the help of an
epidemiologist, More learns that toxic, radioactive sodium has been
released from a nearby nuclear power plant and that the water with the
heavy sodium is being deliberately channeled through an unauthorized
and hidden pipe into the drinking water supply. Behind this scheme are
some of More’s medical colleagues, who discovered, that dosing the
water supply with low concentrations of heavy sodium had the effect of
suppressing the cognitive functioning of antisocial types like
alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes or those confined to the local
jail. The docs feel justified in what they are doing. They want Dr Tom
to join them when they discover he knows what they are up to. Dr Tom
knows better.

It appears that for the last 50 years, something similar has been
happening to America. The contraceptive pill was sold as the
scientific panacea for ultimate sexual liberation. Its real-time
effect has been a form of “lobotomy” of reason and good judgement,
both of users and prescribers. It is time the medical establishment
recognized its complicity and returned to that simple principle for
which it gained the enviable respect and autonomy of action it merited
as the premier profession that advocated for the unprotected and
unknowing: “Above all, do no harm.”

Robert F. Conkling MD practices family medicine in Virginia and is
co-founder of FertilityCare of the Capitol Region.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I admit I didn't couldn.t read all that ...look at the time.
    What I know of industrial medicne ...or don't know ...disturbs me.
    A drug they prescribe for one thing ...comes with a leaflet of threats that may happen to you should you take this stuff to feel ok.
    You might die unexpectedly etc.
    I'm not a fan of industrial medicine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It comes across as a bit of conspiraloon nuttery tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    smells like bullshit to me
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Call me stupid but couldn't a rise in STI be linked to a lack of condom use as pill use increased?

    The whole thing sounds like someone with an axe to grind - a little like the "jabs" website.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Before the pill there were no STDs, and only humans get STDs and gay men don't get STDs

    Yup, I think it's pretty conclusive that the pill caused STDs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Call me stupid but couldn't a rise in STI be linked to a lack of condom use as pill use increased?

    The whole thing sounds like someone with an axe to grind - a little like the "jabs" website.

    Do I detect negativity from you towards the "jabs" website ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do I detect negativity from you towards the "jabs" website ?

    Just a little.


    Actually, no I mean lots. Loads. More animosity than I feel for any political party. Ever. The only reason I would cross the road for the people, who perpetuate the garbage on that site, would be to slap a little sense in to them - figaratively speaking.

    They are a menace to society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Just a little.


    Actually, no I mean lots. Loads. More animosity than I feel for any political party. Ever. The only reason I would cross the road for the people, who perpetuate the garbage on that site, would be to slap a little sense in to them - figaratively speaking.

    They are a menace to society.

    Is that view due to a vested interest ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is that view due to a vested interest ?

    I have a vested interest? In what way?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I have a vested interest? In what way?

    Promoting the products of pharmaceutical corporations ?

    Am I incorrect ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are indeed incorrect. I don't dispute the Jabs website because I want to sell products but because it's not based on any scientific fact.

    As an aside I don't have any financial interests in people using vaccines.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    You are indeed incorrect. I don't dispute the Jabs website because I want to sell products but because it's not based on any scientific fact.

    From their site (mission statement ?):
    JABS Aims and Objectives

    JABS as a self-help group neither recommends nor advises against vaccinations but we aim to promote understanding about immunisations and offer basic support to any parent whose child has a health problem after vaccination.

    We want comprehensive information for all parents to make an informed decision on the benefits and risks of vaccination. We are fully aware that some children have and will continue to be damaged by combined and single dose vaccines. However, this knowledge does not mean that parents will leave their child unvaccinated. JABS is trying to support free choice and full information on the real risks of vaccination and childhood diseases.

    We accept that the majority of children appear to suffer no ill-effect from immunisation but we are concerned that very few studies have been done as to the long-term effects of vaccinations.

    The current method of reporting adverse reactions is wholy ineffective. The system needs to be radically changed to ensure all reactions are reported.

    The present UK vaccine damage payment scheme is inadequate. We are concerned that the minority that do suffer side effects are not always recognised by the Department of Health as vaccine damaged:

    a) currently a child has to be at least 60% disabled before being assessed for the one-off payment of £120,000.

    b) the period in which claims can be made is restricted to a child between the ages of two and 21.

    JABS wants justice for our vaccine damaged children and will continue to campaign for a legal right to compensation. We also want Legal Aid to be reinstated for all families affected.

    JABS was the first group to conduct a survey of UK children whose parents consider that their children have had an adverse reaction to a vaccination. We have produced reports based on information received. These reports have been placed with parents, other support groups, doctors, health visitors, MPs and the Department of Health.

    PLEASE NOTE: Nothing on the JABS website should be taken to be medical advice. Vaccination decisions should be made only after proper consultation with your medical advisor.

    That does not seem too objectionable.

    What do you consider scientific fact in relation to vaccinations ?
    MoK wrote: »
    As an aside I don't have any financial interests in people using vaccines.

    My mistake. I thought you were employed by the NHS.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That does not seem too objectionable.

    No, but then the aims of the BNP don't seem objectionable until you get into the details and talk to the members.
    My mistake. I thought you were employed by the NHS.

    :confused:

    NHS = Pharma Pusher?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tinfoil-hat.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JABS was the first group to conduct a survey of UK children whose parents consider that their children have had an adverse reaction to a vaccination. We have produced reports based on information received. These reports have been placed with parents, other support groups, doctors, health visitors, MPs and the Department of Health.
    From their site (mission statement ?):



    That does not seem too objectionable.

    What do you consider scientific fact in relation to vaccinations ?


    That strikes me as horribly objectionable. a self selecting population, with no controls, "reports" being presented to other parents which looking scientific, without being so, and influencing them to make bad decisions about vaccination.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    NHS = Pharma Pusher?

    Inextricably linked.

    The pharmaceutical industry is the 3rd most profitable in the UK (after finance and tourism).

    Around 10% of the NHS corporation expenditure is with the industry.

    The Department of Health sponsors the industry.

    There is also evidence of self perpetuation in that 5% of all admissions to hospitals in the UK are due to adverse drug reactions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    That strikes me as horribly objectionable. a self selecting population, with no controls, "reports" being presented to other parents which looking scientific, without being so, and influencing them to make bad decisions about vaccination.

    What, exactly, is a "bad" decision about vaccination ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Inextricably linked.

    The pharmaceutical industry is the 3rd most profitable in the UK (after finance and tourism).

    Around 10% of the NHS corporation expenditure is with the industry.

    The Department of Health sponsors the industry.

    There is also evidence of self perpetuation in that 5% of all admissions to hospitals in the UK are due to adverse drug reactions.

    So you think ANYONE who works for the NHS, down to the cleaners and porters, including MOK in his own position, are 'inextricably linked'? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    So you think ANYONE who works for the NHS, down to the cleaners and porters, including MOK in his own position, are 'inextricably linked'? :rolleyes:

    If a person signs a contract of employment with the NHS corporation there is a link.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Might be nice for you to be clear about what you do G o S, especially given you link so many people's individual career choices to wider social issues?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What, exactly, is a "bad" decision about vaccination ?

    One which increases risk when they've been led to believe it reduces it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If a person signs a contract of employment with the NHS corporation there is a link.

    Tenuous to the point of bullshit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Inextricably linked.

    Well d'uh. :banghead:

    Both are healthcare business.
    The pharmaceutical industry is the 3rd most profitable in the UK (after finance and tourism).

    Around 10% of the NHS corporation expenditure is with the industry.

    The Department of Health sponsors the industry.

    There is also evidence of self perpetuation in that 5% of all admissions to hospitals in the UK are due to adverse drug reactions.

    Your point being?

    You have suggested that I have a vested interest - implication of that being financial - in people using vaccine. Substantiate or withdraw.

    I'll ask once.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's fair to say that the continual linking of an individual's employment to a direct decision on the part of that individual to agree with everything that industry might do is both blinkered and increasingly insulting in these threads.

    It ignores the reality of the many different decision making levels within any organisation and the personal beliefs and actions of the individuals the comments are being directed at.

    I think if you continue to be unable to see a difference between an individual who is employed in a particular employment, or the employer or industry itself GoS, then it becomes hard to see your comments as anything other than personal insults.

    I'd remind you of your agreement not to direct attacks against individuals when using this forum - and ask you to change the tone of your comments.

    You're more than welcome to continue to discuss of the over-riding issues presented by large companies and the like, but you'll need to do so whilst respecting the individuals you interact with here.
Sign In or Register to comment.