bookmark_borderHealth Care Fraud Endangers Women

PHILADELPHIA, PA – Unnecessary hysterectomy costs the U.S. medical system $17 billion per year. That’s Billion, with a B. This does not even begin to tally up the costs of caring for women damaged by hysterectomy, oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries) and related procedures. These findings are explained in The H Word, by Nora W. Coffey and Rick Schweikert. Coffey is the president of the HERS Foundation, located in Bala Cynwyd, PA. Schweikert, a playwright, wrote and directed un becoming, a play depicting the needless hysterectomy of a woman.

Hysterectomy and oophorectomy are offered as the best or only option to women with problems ranging from fibroids to heavy menstrual bleeding and pelvic pain. These operations almost always occur without the information required for informed consent. Frequently, they are performed when a woman is under the knife for exploratory surgery. In 98% of these cases, the pathology report comes back normal or with a condition that could have been treated conservatively, meaning that the woman’s reproductive, sexual, and
endocrine organs were removed for no medical reason. The toll in the
Delaware Valley is the same as if the Wachovia Center was filled twice a year, every year, with women whose female organs had been removed!

Anna (not her real name) met the Protest and Play tour in Denver, Colorado. Her experience is more the norm than the exception: “The first of Anna’s three suicide attempts came in the first year after her hysterectomy, but she said that was due to depression related to her complicated childhood. After the surgery she was diagnosed with depression, had back surgery, and began sleeping in a separate bedroom from her husband.” If 49 out of every 50 hysterectomies could be avoided at a savings of $17 billion, and the operation leaves women with an increased incidence of heart disease, osteoporosis, sexual loss, and urinary and bowel problems, why does the
medical establishment still promote it? Coffey and Schweikert take on the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, hospitals, medical schools, and even Congress. The H Word is a must for any intact or hysterectomized woman of any age. It is also a major contribution to the national health care debate.

See contact information to obtain a review copy of The H Word and to book Nora W. Coffey and Rick Schweikert for speaking engagements and book readings/signings.

bookmark_borderAMA Ends 72-Year Policy, Says Marijuana has Medical Benefits

By Americans for Safe Access, Medical Marijuana Therapeutics/Research

HOUSTON — The American Medical Association (AMA) voted today to reverse its long-held position that marijuana be retained as a Schedule I substance with no medical value. The AMA adopted a report drafted by the AMA Council on Science and Public Health (CSAPH) entitled, “Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes,” which affirmed the therapeutic benefits of marijuana and called for further research. The CSAPH report concluded that, “short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.” Furthermore, the report urges that “the Schedule I status of marijuana be reviewed with the goal of facilitating clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods.”

The change of position by the largest physician-based group in the country was precipitated in part by a resolution adopted in June of 2008 by the Medical Student Section (MSS) of the AMA in support of the reclassification of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance. In the past year, the AMA has considered three resolutions dealing with medical marijuana, which also helped to influence the report and its recommendations. The AMA vote on the report took place in Houston, Texas during the organization’s annual Interim Meeting of the House of Delegates. The last AMA position, adopted 8 years ago, called for maintaining marijuana as a Schedule I substance, with no medical value.

“It’s been 72 years since the AMA has officially recognized that marijuana has both already-demonstrated and future-promising medical utility,” said Sunil Aggarwal, Ph.D., the medical student who spearheaded both the passage of the June 2008 resolution by the MSS and one of the CSAPH report’s designated expert reviewers. “The AMA has written an extensive, well-documented, evidence-based report that they are seeking to publish in a peer-reviewed journal that will help to educate the medical community about the scientific basis of botanical cannabis-based medicines.” Aggarwal is also on the Medical & Scientific Advisory Board of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the largest medical marijuana advocacy organization in the U.S.

The AMA’s about face on medical marijuana follows an announcement by the Obama Administration in October discouraging U.S. Attorneys from taking enforcement actions in medical marijuana states. In February 2008, a resolution was adopted by the American College of Physicians (ACP), the country’s second largest physician group and the largest organization of doctors of internal medicine. The ACP resolution called for an “evidence-based review of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled substance to determine whether it should be reclassified to a different schedule. “The two largest physician groups in the U.S. have established medical marijuana as a health care issue that must be addressed,” said ASA Government Affairs Director Caren Woodson. “Both organizations have underscored the need for change by placing patients above politics.”

Though the CSAPH report has not been officially released to the public, AMA documentation indicates that it: “(1) provides a brief historical perspective on the use of cannabis as medicine; (2) examines the current federal and state-based legal envelope relevant to the medical use of cannabis; (3) provides a brief overview of our current understanding of the pharmacology and physiology of the endocannabinoid system; (4) reviews clinical trials on the relative safety and efficacy of smoked cannabis and botanical-based products; and (5) places this information in perspective with respect to the current drug regulatory framework.”

bookmark_borderGardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell

Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates
By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that “four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.”

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, “If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.”

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.”

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”

At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”

“It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,” she said at the time. “There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”

Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline’s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper’s candor. “I think she’s a scientist, a researcher, and she’s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.”

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. “For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.”

bookmark_borderFlu and Vaccinations

Hello All, Bonjour à Tous,

By writing this email, I am trying to make people aware of the possibility of a flu pandemic that could be made much worse by the vaccination which is scheduled to take place all over the world, in schools, clinics, hospitals, etc., starting in just a few weeks. Jane Burgermeister, a scientific journalist living in Vienna, Austria, has done a lot to bring this into the public eye – for this, she has lost her job, as many people seem to have a vested interest in the continuation of this well-planned, massive, world-wide vaccination. For our good? Highly doubtful. Please take a look at her website, and do your own investigations – your lives may depend on getting enough people aware of this possibility, and by refusing to take a vaccine which could actually harm us more than help us. http://theflucase.com/

Et pour mes amis francophones, je vous encourage de vous informer sur les vrais motifs derrière ce vaccin, qui, d’après des papiers officiels du Ministère de la Santé (dont j’ai copie, si vous êtes intéressés), sera administré de force ou de gré, sur la population française d’ici le mois d’octobre ou novembre. Et n’oubliez pas de regarder le site de Jane Burgemeister: http://theflucase.com/ – je pense qu’une traduction pourrait être demandée, ou peut-être parmi vous y aurait-il un traducteur potentiel?…

Restons en bonne santé, pour toujours!

Let’s stay healthy through this all!

Sarah

Sarah Dickinson Murray, NHC,
founder of Pure Healing Insight, LLC
1708 Lovering Avenue, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19806
(302) 507-6548