Influential F.D.A. commissioner dies..first to express concern about safety of bc pills

New York Times run a piece on Dr. Charles C. Edwards. He was the first to express concerns about whether the products actually worked and was concerned about their safety. Does the benefits outweigh the risks? Notice how Planned Parenthood objected to even warnings??

New legislation required the F.D.A. to determine for the first time not only if drugs were safe, but also if they actually worked. Dr. Edwards, who had been appointed commissioner by President Richard M. Nixon in 1969, ordered the review of hundreds of thousands of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. A particularly visible action concerned birth control pills, which were revolutionizing sexual behavior but seemed to be causing worrisome side effects.

He ordered that a message be inserted in each package discussing the pills’ benefits and hazards, including the possibility of blood clots and breast cancer. It was the boldest step yet taken under a 1966 law requiring accurate labeling.

Planned Parenthood objected to the warnings because it believed that the pills’ benefits far outweighed what it said were unproved dangers. At the same time, doctors complained that the action encroached on their role of instructing and guiding patients. Later, Dr. Edwards ordered that two brands of birth control pills be removed from the market as unsafe.

Photo: AP taken in 1970
Dr. Edwards

Another Study Finds Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer

Another study shows link between breast cancer and abortions. But of course you will not see this publicized and you will see an attack because this is not in the interest of the abortion industry....

Malec argued that the NCI has for years been dodging the truth that its researchers finally — and somewhat reluctantly — admitted. “It is criminal that the U.S. National Cancer Institute has covered up this risk for over a half century,” Malec said. “It’s becoming increasingly difficult for the NCI to keep its fingers and toes in the dike, especially since many researchers in other parts of the world do not depend on the agency for grants.”

Narrative vs. Mission....from Life Training Institute...when the non profit forgets their mission

Thursday, May 6, 2010 [Jay Watts] from Life Training Institute

Here is an excerpt from an article at Medical News Today:

An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]

Additionally, Dolle's team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times.

TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality. But this troubling excerpt is what I wanted to focus on in this limited post: "Although the study was published nine months ago," observed Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, "the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women." This disturbs me, but it is not surprising.

To put it very simply, a non-profit organization must have a clearly articulated mission statement and then work to assure that the daily operations of that organization are actually serving that mission. This may seem like common sense, but it is very easy for a charity or a ministry to stop serving their mission and begin serving a narrative. Associations and relationships grow and become important and without even noticing it happened an organization is more concerned about what they and their friends believe about the world than what they are supposed to be doing.

Planned Parenthood deepens link to breast-cancer group

 I have  for some time refused to contribute  to Susan G. Komen because I knew they gave money to Planned Parenthood but this columns shows it is deeper than that!


by: Jill Stanek
World Net Daily 

---

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation had noble beginnings, launched by Nancy Goodman Brinker in response to a promise she made to her dying sister, Susan Goodman Komen, to do all she could to eradicate breast cancer. Komen succumbed to the disease in 1980 at age 36. Nancy went on to contract the disease herself and is now a survivor.
SGK has a noble mission, "to save lives and end breast cancer forever."
But for years pro-lifers have opposed contributing to SGK because it not only denies that induced abortions may cause breast cancer, it also bestows financial grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates.
 
Pro-lifers believe that for all the good SGK does, it shoots its mission in both feet by refusing to educate women about the abortion-breast cancer link while funding the United States' largest abortion provider.
Disregarding decades of worldwide studies concluding there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, logic alone says abortion increases the risk.
On its website, SGK acknowledges that childbearing protects women from breast cancer, and the more children a mother bears and the younger she begins bearing them the better. SGK also acknowledges breast-feeding protects against breast cancer.
But abortion blocks all those preventative measures.
Only last week a new study got lots of press that found breast cancer survivors lower their risk of dying by 42 percent simply by getting pregnant.
But abortion blocks that protection.
SGK acknowledges never having children increases a woman's risk of getting breast cancer, and delaying childbearing, particularly after age 35, also increases the risk.
And abortion increases the risk of both those risks.
Logic.
It would seem logical that with all the controversy surrounding abortion's role in breast cancer, SGK would simply back away from involvement with it in any way if wanting to stay true to its mission "to save lives and end breast cancer forever."
That would include SGK's relationship with Planned Parenthood.
But SGK is not backing away. Between 2003 and 2008, SGK gave $3 million to Planned Parenthood. In Fiscal Year 2008 alone, Planned Parenthood got $805,000 from SGK.
SGK now has a webpage dedicated to defending its involvement with Planned Parenthood, including message points and a letter from a "pro-life Catholic."
Most recently added to the webpage, in March, was an open letter from SGK's chief scientific adviser quoting two Catholic ethicists who "concluded that it was morally permissible for the church to be involved with Komen in light of its funding agreements with Planned Parenthood ... specifically and solely for breast health services. ..."
SGK maintains there are certain places in the United States where Planned Parenthood is the sole provider of breast-cancer screening, education and treatment.
I don't believe it, but that is SGK's defense. Even if so, is it really "morally permissible" to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?
Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest's IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006.
PPGNW is Washington's largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.) Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.

Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK's board. Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, "This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders , a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre."But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available. 

So there is much still unanswered. Why didn't PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn't Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.
Eric wrote in his e-mail only "20 of Komen's 122 U.S. Affiliates fund breast-health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics." SGK states the total money given represents "less than one percent of the total granted by affiliates." 

My question then is why bother? Why play with fire?
Whatever, the fact remains that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, who is also a member of the board, owns a business – a mall – together with a Planned Parenthood affiliate.
The irony. Susan G. Komen's nephew is financially enabling an abortion business.
And condemning more women to develop breast cancer.