A federal report has concluded that the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil has a 400 percent higher rate of adverse effects than another comparable vaccine, the Menactra anti-meningitis shot.
"It is unusual for there to be such a big discrepancy between two vaccines used in similar populations involving serious and relatively rare life threatening adverse events and autoimmune disorders," the researchers from the federal Vaccine Events Reporting System wrote.
Gardasil, marketed by Merck, prevents againt the strains of HPV believed to be responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts cases. GlaxoSmithKline's competing Cervarix vaccine protects against the same cervical cancer-causing strains.
The researchers considered Gardasil and Menactra equivalent for the purposes of comparison because they are given to similar age groups at similar frequencies. Their study concluded that Gardasil was associated with twice as many emergency room visits, four times as many deaths, four times as many heart attacks, seven times as many "disabled" reports and 15 times as many strokes. All reported cases of blood clots and heart attacks associated with Gardasil occurred when the vaccine was given alone, not in conjunction with other drugs.
"Fainting, which has been attributed by doctors and health officials as 'fear' of needles in teenage girls, is reported six times as often ... after receipt of Gardasil than Menactra even though Menactra is also given to girls in the same age group," the researchers noted.
The report recommends that the government more thoroughly investigate reports of dangerous side effects from the HPV vaccine, that research be conducted into mechanisms by which the vaccine might cause these effects, and that patients and parents be more adequately warned of the risks before vaccination. It also recommends that Congress investigate how the vaccine was fast-tracked for approval in the absence of safety data on girls younger than 17.
Sources for this story: http://www.naturalnews.com/026722_Gardasil_HPV_cervical_cancer.html
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
morning after pill
A local Catholic hospital gives the "morning after pill" (Plan B) to women who have been raped. Is this policy in line with Catholic teachings?
Barr Pharmaceuticals manufactures the "Plan B" pills, and its patient information pamphlet states that "This product works mainly by preventing ovulation (egg release). It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation)."
If a drug works by preventing the attachment of a newly conceived human being to the wall of the uterus, it is acting as an abortifacient.
This fact led to the Pontifical Academy for Life issuing an October 2000 statement that stated "... from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co operate with this procedure, are also morally responsible for it."1
Therefore, we should treat the abortifacient Plan B "morning after pill" and so-called "emergency contraception" in the same manner as we would handle Depo-Provera, the birth control pill (OC), Norplant and the intrauterine device (IUD). All of these work to end the life of the early developing human being and are therefore inadmissible.
1. Pontifical Academy for Life. "Statement on the So-Called 'Morning-After Pill'," October 31, 2000. This document is available on Human Life International's Library Compact Disc.
Barr Pharmaceuticals manufactures the "Plan B" pills, and its patient information pamphlet states that "This product works mainly by preventing ovulation (egg release). It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation)."
If a drug works by preventing the attachment of a newly conceived human being to the wall of the uterus, it is acting as an abortifacient.
This fact led to the Pontifical Academy for Life issuing an October 2000 statement that stated "... from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co operate with this procedure, are also morally responsible for it."1
Therefore, we should treat the abortifacient Plan B "morning after pill" and so-called "emergency contraception" in the same manner as we would handle Depo-Provera, the birth control pill (OC), Norplant and the intrauterine device (IUD). All of these work to end the life of the early developing human being and are therefore inadmissible.
1. Pontifical Academy for Life. "Statement on the So-Called 'Morning-After Pill'," October 31, 2000. This document is available on Human Life International's Library Compact Disc.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Depo Provera
A woman in my parish is considering using Depo Provera. Her doctor told her that it is a contraceptive because it does not end the human life that has already begun in her womb. What is the truth regarding Depo Provera?
Depo-Provera is one of a class of steroid hormones that employ powerful hormones to control the female reproductive system. Others in this class include the intra-uterine device (IUD), birth control pills or oral contraceptives (OCs), the morning-after pill (MAP) and emergency contraception (EC), and the implantables (Norplant, Jadelle and Implanon).
Depo Provera's active ingredient is depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), a synthetic form of the natural hormone progesterone. Upjohn Pharmaceuticals is the corporation that produces Depo-Provera. According to Upjohn's patient information pamphlet on Depo Provera, the compound "inhibits the secretion of gonadotropins which, in turn, prevents follicular maturation and ovulation and results in endometrial thinning. These actions produce its contraceptive effect."1
The pamphlet also says that Depo Provera:
• "[Has a] contraceptive effect produced by inhibiting the secretion of gonadotropins (FSH, LH), which prevents follicular maturation and ovulation.
• Suppresses the endometrium [the mucous membrane lining the uterus] and changes cervical mucus."
In other words, Upjohn acknowledges that Depo Provera acts as an abortifacient.
The authoritative Contraceptive Technology confirms that Depo Provera has a three way mode of action. It inhibits ovulation and thickens cervical mucus (which are both contraceptive actions), but it also alters the endometrium (the lining of the uterus) so that its degree of receptivity to the blastocyst (very early developing human being) is significantly decreased.
According to Contraceptive Technology, "Other contraceptive actions include the development of a shallow and atrophic [thinning] endometrium ..."
When Depo Provera works in this way, it is an abortifacient.2
1. Patient information brochure. "Now Available in the U.S.: Depo Provera Contraceptive Injection." Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company, December 1992.
2. Robert A. Hatcher, et.al. Contraceptive Technology (18th Revised Edition) [New York: Ardent Media, Inc.], 2004. Chapter 20, "Depo Provera Injections, Implants, and Progestin Only Pills (Minipills)," pages 461 to 494.
These and other question are answered in HLI's Little black book for priest.
Depo-Provera is one of a class of steroid hormones that employ powerful hormones to control the female reproductive system. Others in this class include the intra-uterine device (IUD), birth control pills or oral contraceptives (OCs), the morning-after pill (MAP) and emergency contraception (EC), and the implantables (Norplant, Jadelle and Implanon).
Depo Provera's active ingredient is depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), a synthetic form of the natural hormone progesterone. Upjohn Pharmaceuticals is the corporation that produces Depo-Provera. According to Upjohn's patient information pamphlet on Depo Provera, the compound "inhibits the secretion of gonadotropins which, in turn, prevents follicular maturation and ovulation and results in endometrial thinning. These actions produce its contraceptive effect."1
The pamphlet also says that Depo Provera:
• "[Has a] contraceptive effect produced by inhibiting the secretion of gonadotropins (FSH, LH), which prevents follicular maturation and ovulation.
• Suppresses the endometrium [the mucous membrane lining the uterus] and changes cervical mucus."
In other words, Upjohn acknowledges that Depo Provera acts as an abortifacient.
The authoritative Contraceptive Technology confirms that Depo Provera has a three way mode of action. It inhibits ovulation and thickens cervical mucus (which are both contraceptive actions), but it also alters the endometrium (the lining of the uterus) so that its degree of receptivity to the blastocyst (very early developing human being) is significantly decreased.
According to Contraceptive Technology, "Other contraceptive actions include the development of a shallow and atrophic [thinning] endometrium ..."
When Depo Provera works in this way, it is an abortifacient.2
1. Patient information brochure. "Now Available in the U.S.: Depo Provera Contraceptive Injection." Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company, December 1992.
2. Robert A. Hatcher, et.al. Contraceptive Technology (18th Revised Edition) [New York: Ardent Media, Inc.], 2004. Chapter 20, "Depo Provera Injections, Implants, and Progestin Only Pills (Minipills)," pages 461 to 494.
These and other question are answered in HLI's Little black book for priest.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Obama misled Pope on his abortion agenda, congressman charges
Washington D.C., Jul 20, 2009 / 01:40 pm (CNA).- In remarks on the House floor last week, Congressman Chris Smith argued that President Obama purposely misled Pope Benedict XVI when he said that he “wants to reduce abortion” at their July 10 meeting.
Smith recalled the president's statement to the Pope and pointed out that Obama has repeated it several times to different audiences. And yet, Smith charged, Obama’s actions have not aligned with his words. “He says one thing and does precisely the opposite.”
Now, the New Jersey Congressman said, Obama is offering a plan for health care reform that is a thinly veiled attempt to increase access to abortion on demand. The plan would increase funding for abortions and allow abortion services to be considered part of “basic health care” required by all insurance plans, including private plans.
Smith pointed to information from the Guttmacher Institute, which has stated that “when taxpayer funding is not available, between 20 and 35 percent of Medicaid abortions that would have been procured simply don't occur.”
These children go on to be born, he explained, referencing the millions of children throughout the country who are able to live their own lives and pursue their own hopes and dreams “because taxpayer subsidies didn't effectuate their demise.”
“The ugly truth is that if his so-called health care reform care bill, if enacted, will lead to millions of additional deaths to children and millions of mothers will be wounded,” Smith said.
Rep. Smith concluded his remarks by encouraging his fellow congressmen to vote against the health care bill and insisting that “[t]here will be children who will die if this legislation becomes law simply because the subsidies are there to effectuate their deaths.”
This story can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16604
Smith recalled the president's statement to the Pope and pointed out that Obama has repeated it several times to different audiences. And yet, Smith charged, Obama’s actions have not aligned with his words. “He says one thing and does precisely the opposite.”
Now, the New Jersey Congressman said, Obama is offering a plan for health care reform that is a thinly veiled attempt to increase access to abortion on demand. The plan would increase funding for abortions and allow abortion services to be considered part of “basic health care” required by all insurance plans, including private plans.
Smith pointed to information from the Guttmacher Institute, which has stated that “when taxpayer funding is not available, between 20 and 35 percent of Medicaid abortions that would have been procured simply don't occur.”
These children go on to be born, he explained, referencing the millions of children throughout the country who are able to live their own lives and pursue their own hopes and dreams “because taxpayer subsidies didn't effectuate their demise.”
“The ugly truth is that if his so-called health care reform care bill, if enacted, will lead to millions of additional deaths to children and millions of mothers will be wounded,” Smith said.
Rep. Smith concluded his remarks by encouraging his fellow congressmen to vote against the health care bill and insisting that “[t]here will be children who will die if this legislation becomes law simply because the subsidies are there to effectuate their deaths.”
This story can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16604
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Frozen Embryos From DP
19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.
Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.37
The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;38 this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.
It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.
All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.39
Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.37
The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;38 this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.
It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.
All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.39
Friday, July 3, 2009
Obama Administration Calls for Universal Access to Abortion at UN Meeting
Obama Administration Calls for Universal Access to Abortion at UN Meeting
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) At United Nations (UN) headquarters this week, the Obama administration continued its push for ever increasing access to legal abortion around the world. The Obama team has introduced language that has thrown a high level negotiation into a roil. The US proposal calls for “universal access” to “sexual and reproductive health services including universal access to family planning.” The document under consideration will culminate in the 2009 Annual Ministerial Review, which convenes next week in Geneva.
The sticking point for many delegations and what has driven apart the usual solid European bloc is the use of the word “services” in the context of “reproductive health.” Way back in 2001 during negotiations related to the ten year review of the Child Convention, a Canadian delegate blurted out “of course everyone knows ‘services’ means abortion.” Ever since, the word “services” has been a topic of hot debate.
So controversial is the topic of “services” in the context of “reproductive health” that the usually impenetrable negotiating bloc of the 27 member European Union has imploded with Malta, Poland and Ireland splitting from their allies and joining the Holy See in opposing the measure.
In addition to the word "services," delegates are also concerned with attempts to link “sexual and reproductive health” to “universal access,” something the UN has never agreed to and what would amount to a major gain for pro-abortion forces. There have been numerous attempts at the UN to insert language on "universal access to sexual and reproductive health services." In 2005 at the Commission on Population and Development, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) joined with pro-abortion lobby groups to call for "universal access to sexual and reproductive health services and programmes." They were defeated in large part by the Bush-appointed US delegates who insisted that none of the terms related to reproductive health be interpreted to include abortion.
In recent weeks the new US administration has interpreted "reproductive health" to include abortion. In April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a US House subcommittee, “We [the Obama administration] happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal and rare.” In this statement, Clinton also contradicted the agreement reached at the Cairo Confernence which said that abortion can never be used as a part of family planning. This was a document that Clinton helped to negotiate.
Apart from the US, other delegations including Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, France, Estonia and the United Kingdom are pushing for the language.
The G-77 developing nations' bloc is still holding its own negotiations to determine whether or not they will have a common position on the paragraph.
Negotiations are scheduled to continue this week and the draft declaration will be adopted by high level government ministers at the end of next week's meeting in Geneva.
this is found http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1270/pub_detail.asp
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) At United Nations (UN) headquarters this week, the Obama administration continued its push for ever increasing access to legal abortion around the world. The Obama team has introduced language that has thrown a high level negotiation into a roil. The US proposal calls for “universal access” to “sexual and reproductive health services including universal access to family planning.” The document under consideration will culminate in the 2009 Annual Ministerial Review, which convenes next week in Geneva.
The sticking point for many delegations and what has driven apart the usual solid European bloc is the use of the word “services” in the context of “reproductive health.” Way back in 2001 during negotiations related to the ten year review of the Child Convention, a Canadian delegate blurted out “of course everyone knows ‘services’ means abortion.” Ever since, the word “services” has been a topic of hot debate.
So controversial is the topic of “services” in the context of “reproductive health” that the usually impenetrable negotiating bloc of the 27 member European Union has imploded with Malta, Poland and Ireland splitting from their allies and joining the Holy See in opposing the measure.
In addition to the word "services," delegates are also concerned with attempts to link “sexual and reproductive health” to “universal access,” something the UN has never agreed to and what would amount to a major gain for pro-abortion forces. There have been numerous attempts at the UN to insert language on "universal access to sexual and reproductive health services." In 2005 at the Commission on Population and Development, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) joined with pro-abortion lobby groups to call for "universal access to sexual and reproductive health services and programmes." They were defeated in large part by the Bush-appointed US delegates who insisted that none of the terms related to reproductive health be interpreted to include abortion.
In recent weeks the new US administration has interpreted "reproductive health" to include abortion. In April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a US House subcommittee, “We [the Obama administration] happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal and rare.” In this statement, Clinton also contradicted the agreement reached at the Cairo Confernence which said that abortion can never be used as a part of family planning. This was a document that Clinton helped to negotiate.
Apart from the US, other delegations including Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, France, Estonia and the United Kingdom are pushing for the language.
The G-77 developing nations' bloc is still holding its own negotiations to determine whether or not they will have a common position on the paragraph.
Negotiations are scheduled to continue this week and the draft declaration will be adopted by high level government ministers at the end of next week's meeting in Geneva.
this is found http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1270/pub_detail.asp
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
attack on the African American
More African American babies have been killed by abortion than twice the total number of deaths from these other causes combined.
AIDS..............136,557
Violence..........201,491
Accidents.........250,087
Brain Vessel......364,586
Cancer...........1,118,609
Heart Disease..1,532,362
Abortion.........9,683,928
Abortion is a silent killer in our community. From 1981-2000, 9.6 million black children have lost their lives to abortion. This number is more than twice the amount of the other six leading causes of death combined. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973 by Roe vs. Wade, it is estimated that 14,000,000 black children have been aborted.
AIDS..............136,557
Violence..........201,491
Accidents.........250,087
Brain Vessel......364,586
Cancer...........1,118,609
Heart Disease..1,532,362
Abortion.........9,683,928
Abortion is a silent killer in our community. From 1981-2000, 9.6 million black children have lost their lives to abortion. This number is more than twice the amount of the other six leading causes of death combined. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973 by Roe vs. Wade, it is estimated that 14,000,000 black children have been aborted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
