Birth Control Archive

September – June 2008: Birth Control

New Study Shows Contraceptive Pill Increases Risk of Heart Disease and Stroke

Ortho-Evra: Patchy Information Given to the Public

Hormone Treatment Could Work as Male Birth Control

Protest the Pill Day '08 was June 7

Experts Confirmed Abortifacient Potential of Morning-After Pill / EC

Conjugated Equine Estrogen Increases Benign Breast Disease Risk

NEW! Abortion and Morning After Pill Rates Rise Together in Sweden

The Pill Disrupts the Normal Hormonal System –> Often Leads to Adverse Health Effects

NEW! Massive Brazilian Vaccination Raises Suspicions of Covert Sterilization Program

New Study: Oral Contraceptives Disrupt Ability to Choose Genetically Favorable Mate

PROTEST THE PILL DAY '08: THE PILL KILLS BABIES. Saturday, June 7 marks the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut. This was the first of many decisions leading to the decriminalization of birth control and abortion, which, in turn, gave rise to the culture of death we live in today.
 
In Griswold, the Supreme Court claimed that the Constitution grants women the “right to privacy” with regard to matters of sexual practice, even though the constitutional right to privacy in fact had nothing to do with sexual matters. Because of this decision, states could no longer stop married women from taking the birth control pill.
 
The history behind this case is that Estelle Griswold, then Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut’s executive director, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic.

They were arrested and fined because they were administering the birth control pill, which was then illegal. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where it was decided in 1965. As Judie Brown has explained, the Supreme Court created this decision out of “nothing.” Because of Griswold and other decisions that followed it, eventually single women and teenagers were also allowed to take the birth control pill … and now Planned Parenthood rakes in a total of $356.9 million each year.
 
Join American Life League, along with our Pro-Life Wisconsin and Pharmacists for Life International Associate groups, in participating in Protest the Pill Day ‘08: The Pill Kills Babies. Pro-lifers across the country will protest the birth control pill by standing outside of centers and facilities (especially Planned Parenthood businesses) that distribute it. [23Apr08, STOPP,  www.ThePillKills.com]

 

 

STUDY SHOWS CONTRACEPTIVE PILL INCREASES RISK OF HEART DISEASE & STROKE. A new study published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has revealed that the newest version of the contraceptive pill increases the risk of heart disease.
 
The study, which was conducted by the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies at the University of Udine, in Italy, concludes that the new, "third-generation" oral contraceptives elevates the levels of  "C-reactive protein" (CRP) in women, which in turn raises their risk of cardiovascular disease.
 
In comparing healthy women who used the pill with a group that didn't, the study found that pill-users were more than four times more likely to have high levels of CRP in their bodies, "posing a high risk of cardiovascular disease".   Pill-users were also 3.9 times more likely to have levels of CRP posing an "intermediate risk" for heart disease.
 
Elevated CRP levels are associated with a condition known as "low grade inflammation" which, the study's abstract says, "could affect the risk of venous thromboembolism, cardiovascular disease, and other oral contraceptive-associated adverse conditions in young women."  "Venus thromboembolism" is the medical term for blood clots, a problem that has long been associated with oral contraceptives.
 
The study also found that pill-users were more likely to have elevated "bad" cholesterol levels (high density lipoprotein) relative to "good" cholesterol (low level lipoprotein), another risk factor for heart disease and stroke.
 
Dr. John Shea, medical advisor to Canada's Campaign Life Coalition noted that, ironically, "third generation oral contraceptives were first introduced in 1994 in order to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease".
 
"Third generation oral contraceptive use increases low-grade inflammatory status which could increase the risk of arteriosclerosis that could, in turn, increase the risk of arterial or venous blood clots, heart attack, stroke, hypertension, liver cancer, and non cancerous liver tumours and an increased risk of bone loss," Shea told LifeSiteNews.com.
 
"It should be noted that the use of ordinary oral contraceptives is associated with a four-fold increased risk of blood clots and that the use of third generation oral contraceptives increases that risk by a factor of 1.5. All oral contraceptive use is also associated with increased risk of breast cancer and cancer of the cervix of the uterus."
 
The study matches the results of another study published in April, which found that oral contraceptive use was associated with "hardening" of the arteries due to plaque buildup (see LifeSiteNews.com coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08040807.html).
[Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology; May 7, 2008, LifeSiteNews.com]
 
 

ORTHO-EVRA: PATCHY INFORMATION.  The drug company Johnson & Johnson is arguing in court that FDA approval should shield it from liability in lawsuits filed by over 3,000 patients and their families after the women received a much higher hormone dose than the label described. The contraceptive was marketed as releasing a lower hormone dose than the birth control pill, but internal J&J documents reveal the pharmaceutical company was aware of the discrepancy six years before informing the public. Heart attacks, strokes, and deaths have been attributed to the drug in court action.
 
[“Drug Makers Near Old Goal: A Legal Shield,” New York Times, 04-06-08, By GARDINER HARRIS and ALEX BERENSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/washington/06patch.html?scp=1&sq=ortho-evra&st=nyt) Tom Uhlman for The New York Times]
 
Drug Maker

s Near Old Goal: A Legal Shield
 
For years, Johnson & Johnson obscured evidence that its popular Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, potentially increasing the risk of blood clots and strokes, according to internal company documents.
 
But because the Food and Drug Administration approved the patch, the company is arguing in court that it cannot be sued by women who claim that they were injured by the product — even though its old label inaccurately described the amount of estrogen it released.
 
This legal argument is called pre-emption. After decades of being dismissed by courts, the tactic now appears to be on the verge of success, lawyers for plaintiffs and drug companies say.
 
The Bush administration has argued strongly in favor of the doctrine, which holds that the F.D.A. is the only agency with enough expertise to regulate drug makers and that its decisions should not be second-guessed by courts. The Supreme Court is to rule on a case next term that could make pre-emption a legal standard for drug cases. The court already ruled in February that many suits against the makers of medical devices like pacemakers are pre-empted.
 
More than 3,000 women and their families have sued Johnson & Johnson, asserting that users of the Ortho Evra patch suffered heart attacks, strokes and, in 40 cases, death. From 2002 to 2006, the food and drug agency received reports of at least 50 deaths associated with the drug.
 
Documents and e-mail messages from Johnson & Johnson, made public as part of the lawsuits against the company, show that even before the drug agency approved the product in 2001, the company’s own researchers found that the patch delivered far more estrogen each day than low-dose pills. When it reported the results publicly, the company reduced the numbers by 40 percent.
 
The F.D.A. did not warn the public of the potential risks until November 2005 — six years after the company’s own study showed the high estrogen releases. At that point, the product’s label was changed, and prescriptions fell 80 percent, to 187,000 by last February from 900,000 in March 2004.
 
Gloria Vanderham, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, said the company acted responsibly.
 
“We have regularly disclosed data to the F.D.A., the medical community and the public in a timely manner,” Ms. Vanderham said. “Ortho Evra is a safe and effective birth control option for women when used according to the labeling.”
 
But Janet Abaray, a plaintiff’s lawyer from Cincinnati, said that Johnson & Johnson took advantage of an agency overwhelmed by its many responsibilities.
 
“Johnson & Johnson knew that F.D.A. does not have the funding or the manpower to police drug companies,” Ms. Abaray said.
 
A series of independent assessments have concluded that the agency is poorly organized, scientifically deficient and short of money. In February, its commissioner, Andrew C. von Eschenbach, acknowledged that the agency faces a crisis and may not be “adequate to regulate the food and drugs of the 21st century.”
 
The F.D.A. does not test experimental medicines but relies on drug makers to report the results of their own tests completely and honestly. Even when companies fail to follow agency rules, officials rarely seek to penalize them. “These are scientists, not cops,” said David Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown Law School.
 
Last month, at a trial over the schizophrenia drug Zyprexa, Dr. John Gueriguian, a scientist who worked at the F.D.A. for two decades, testified that the agency did not always ask for strong warnings even if it believed a drug was risky. Companies typically oppose warnings, and the agency knows it must compromise on its requests or face years of delay, Dr. Gueriguian said.
 
“We at the F.D.A. know what we can obtain and we cannot obtain,” Dr. Gueriguian said. “We have many, many problems, and we have a management system — what we can’t obtain we will not ask.”
 
For years, top officials at the agency acknowledged that lawsuits could aid the agency’s oversight of safety issues. In the last decade, suits over Zyprexa, the withdrawn pain pill Vioxx, the withdrawn diabetes medicine Rezulin, the withdrawn heartburn medicine Propulsid and several antidepressants have shown that companies played down the risks of their medicines and failed to disclose clinical trials to the public even as they have aggressively marketed their drugs.
 
But now, the agency says a proliferation of lawsuits could lead to an overlapping patchwork of rules that would burden companies and might discourage patients from taking useful medicines.
 
The Ortho case, however, suggests that Johnson & Johnson, like other drug makers, is not always quick to tell the F.D.A. about potential problems with its medicines.
 
In 1996, the company told the agency it planned to develop the Ortho Evra patch in part because it would be likely to expose women to less estrogen than pills. The company suggested that the body would not break down hormones delivered via the patch as readily as the pill, so lower doses could be used to achieve contraception. And unlike the pill, which must be taken daily, the patch is changed weekly.
 
High doses of estrogen are known to raise the risk for blood clots that can cause heart attacks and strokes.
 
But a crucial trial completed in 1999 showed that the patch delivered 30 to 38 micrograms of estrogen into the bloodstream each day, according to company documents.
Because up to half of the estrogen in pills is lost in the digestive tract before it reaches the blood, the study suggested that the patch delivered an amount of estrogen that could be as high as a pill containing 76 micrograms of estrogen. In 1988, the F.D.A. banned birth control pills with more than 50 micrograms of estrogen.
 
But the study’s author, Dr. Larry Abrams, who has since retired from Johnson & Johnson, decided to apply a “correction factor” to the results of the 1999 trial, according to documents. He claimed that the patch actually delivered about 40 percent less estrogen than the trial results showed — about 20 micrograms a day.
 
Dr. Abrams made the change, according to his deposition, to adjust for the different ways the body metabolizes hormones from pills and patches. This adjustment was never part of the study protocol, a plan filed with the F.D.A..
 
“The judgment was made by the pharmacokeneticists at the time that in doing the calculation, it was probably appropriate to make that correction,” Bob Tucker, a lawyer representing Johnson & Johnson, said in an interview Thursday. “Later on when people looked at it in a different time frame, they concluded that probably the correction shouldn’t be applied.” The company mentioned its decision to use the “correction factor” only once in a 435-page report filed with the F.D.A., and then only in a complex mathematical formula. When the study was published in 2002, there was no reference to the alteration.
 
Mr. Tucker said that the F.D.A. was aware of the “correction factor.”
 
Clinical trials conducted before the patch was approved raised other red flags, as patients complained of breast soreness and nausea. “The side effects seem related” to high estrogen doses, one company scientist wrote in an e-mail message.
 
Two other studies, one conducted in 1999 and another in 2003, confirmed that the patch released more estrogen than the pill. Still, Johnson & John

son delayed reporting those results to the food and drug agency, according to documents that have been made public in lawsuits.
 
After the patch was approved, the company marketed it as releasing 20 micrograms of estrogen to the blood every 24 hours, a figure it now acknowledges was inaccurate. It also acknowledges that the patch releases more estrogen than the pill but says that the estrogen released under the two methods cannot be directly compared.
 
The New York Times provided the drug agency with a copy of a court brief and asked whether agency medical reviewers were aware of the “correction factor.”
 
Rita Chappelle, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, replied, “At present, we are reviewing the allegations and cannot comment further at this time.”
 
Prescriptions for the patch grew rapidly after its introduction, reaching more than 900,000 by March 2004, according to data from Wolters Kluwer, a company that tracks prescription trends. But as the use of the patch rose, so did reports of side effects.
 
By 2004, after the death of Zakiya Kennedy, an 18-year-old college freshman in New York, food and drug officials had become concerned.
 
In November 2005, the agency announced that it had placed a warning that the patch “exposes women to higher levels of estrogen than most birth control pills.”
 
Since then, an epidemiological study has shown that women on the patch can have as much as double the risk of blood clots than those taking pills. And prescriptions for the patch have fallen 80 percent.
 
Still, lawyers for Johnson & Johnson say that patients should not be allowed to sue the company because the F.D.A. approved the patch and its label.
 
“F.D.A. is responsible for making those decisions,” said John Winter, a lawyer for the company.
 
Judge David A. Katz of Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is expected to rule soon on whether any of the lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson can go forward.
 
In the fall, the Supreme Court will hear a separate pre-emption case involving Wyeth, another drug company. Chris Seeger, a plaintiffs’ lawyer who has about 125 Ortho Evra cases, said he expected the court to rule in Wyeth’s favor.
 
“Our lawsuits are the ultimate check against the mistake made by the government, or fraud made by the companies against the government, or just an underfunded bureaucracy stretched thin,” he said.
 
Public Citizen Calls on FDA To Withdraw Ortho Evra Patch From Market Because of Safety Concerns
National Partnership for Women and Families. Public Citizen's Health Research Group on Thursday filed a petition with FDA calling on the agency to withdraw the birth control patch Ortho Evra from the market because of safety concerns, Reuters reports. In the petition, the consumer advocacy group said the amount of estrogen released from the patch — made by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ortho McNeil — varies among women, which could result in up to double the number of blood clots and other negative health effects (Heavey, Reuters, 5/8). Sidney Wolfe, head of the group, suggested that FDA phase out sales of the patch during a six-month period so that only existing users can get refills, allowing them enough time to switch to another contraceptive. [http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr007=3jqhth1lj6.app8b&abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=11273&security=1201&news_iv_ctrl=-1; ALL Pro-Life Today, 9May08]

HORMONE TREATMENT COULD WORK AS MALE BIRTH CONTROL. A new male birth control method to reduce semen output offers results comparable to a vasectomy and may dispel the belief that contraception is a woman's responsibility, researchers and experts suggest.

University of Sydney researchers published study results in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism Feb. 26, reporting that testosterone and progestin hormones can be combined to form a new kind of contraceptive for men.

Researchers analyzed male-contraceptive studies published between 1990 and 2006 and found that the combination of testosterone and progestin effectively suppresses semen output.

Peter Liu, the lead survey author and associate professor at the University of Sydney, said in a March 25 statement that the combination of the two hormones would be reversible and as effective as a vasectomy, a more invasive form of contraception involving surgery.

Though the results seem to foretell a future of men popping the pill instead of women, Liu said in an e-mail that further studies on the drug are needed, because exposure to androgens, or synthetic steroid hormones, must be varied as a male is continually treated. The study found that men respond differently to the treatment — white men respond sooner than, but not as well as, the non-white men in the study.

Warren Farrell, a California-based author of Father and Child Reunion, a book about the importance of fathers to families, said in his book that a male birth control pill is necessary because it adds to women's options to take the pill and allows men to share the risk of pregnancy.

Farrell said drug companies have felt women would not trust a man to actually be on the pill.

"They've felt men wouldn't take the pill because they don't perceive birth control to be their responsibility," he said in a phone interview.

School of Management sophomore Matt Mintz said men should think contraception is their responsibility, but said current methods are effective enough without extra medication.

"[Male] birth control isn't necessary when there are other means to prevent possible child birth," Mintz said. "Just using condoms and spermicide eliminates almost any chance of pregnancy, so that seems fine by me."
[8April2008, Teresa Gorman, The Daily Free Press, The Independent Student Newspaper at Boston University,
http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2008/04/08/News/Hormone.Treatment.Could.Work.As.Male.Birth.Control-3309833.shtml; A.L.L., 8Apr08]

EXPERTS CONFIRM ABORTIFACIENT POTENTIAL OF MORNING-AFTER PILL. The most recent scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the “morning-after pill” or “emergency contraceptive,” confirms that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the womb of the mother.

The promoters of the drug in Latin America, where most countries have laws against abortion, have argued that the there is no scientific basis for the “third effect,” and that therefore the drug should be legalized.  Dr. Horacio Croxatto, professor at the Chilean Institute of Reproductive Medicine, said in 2006 that the morning-after pill “is not abortifacient because it only prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation.”

However, the most recent study (2007) by Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the pill’s “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.

Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, the study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent

If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent

The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.  [CNA, May 25, 2007, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9463]

This report confirms yet again that one of the modes of action of these potent hormones is the prevention of implantation of the 6-10 day-old  human embryo (Blastocyst) in the lining of the uterus (endometrium). IF it cannot implant, then the "post-fertilization effect" is for the tiny embryo to be eliminated from the mother's body, which, of course, results in the death of this human embryo. [Right to Life, www.cincinnatirighttolife.org. Cincinnati Right to Life, April 2008]
 

 

 


CONJUGATED EQUINE ESTROGEN INCREASES BENIGN BREAST DISEASE RISK. Women who took conjugated equine estrogen, a commonly prescribed form of estrogen, had more than twice the risk of developing specific types of benign breast disease as women who took a placebo, according to a randomized controlled trial published online April 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

The impact of conjugated equine estrogen on the risk of developing benign proliferative breast disease, a condition that is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, has been unclear. Some studies have reported an association while others have not.

In the Women's Health Initiative study, 10,739 postmenopausal women with hysterectomy were assigned to either conjugated equine estrogen or a placebo. Previous analyses did not show an increase in breast cancer incidence in the women who took estrogen alone after a median follow-up of seven years.
 

To determine whether the hormone increases the risk of benign proliferative breast disease, Tom Rohan, M.D., Ph.D., of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and colleagues identified and examined non-cancerous breast biopsies in each of the Women's Health Initiative trial arms.
 

A total of 232 cases of benign proliferative breast disease were identified, with 155 cases among the women who took estrogen supplements and 77 in the placebo group. The risk of developing benign disease increased by more than two-fold for women taking conjugated equine estrogen, compared with those taking a placebo.

"The prevailing hypothesis concerning the natural history of breast cancer is that benign proliferative breast disease without atypia, proliferative disease with atypia, and in situ cancer represent successive steps preceding the development of invasive breast [cancer]. In keeping with this hypothesis, women with benign proliferative breast disease have an increased risk of subsequent breast cancer," the authors write.
 

Although the women taking conjugated equine estrogen have not yet shown a significant increased risk of breast cancer in the Women's Health Initiative study, if this hypothesis holds true, they might show increased risk later. Ongoing follow up of the study participants may help to resolve this issue.
[9-Apr-2008, Women's Health News,  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=37147; http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/]

 

 

 

ABORTION & MORNING AFTER PILL RATES BOTH RISE IN SWEDEN. According to the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, morning-after pill and abortion rates have risen significantly since 2000.

37,205 abortions were procured in Sweden in 2007, compared to the 30,980 in 2000 – an increase of approximately 17 percent. In Stockholm alone, 10,259 abortions were carried out in 2007, up 6.9 percent from 2006.

The morning-after pill, which functions as an abortifacient, has also become increasingly popular.  Recorded uses of it have doubled in Sweden and tripled in Stockholm since it became a non-prescription drug in 2001.

Many advocates of contraception claim that by promoting the use of contraceptives, abortion rates will decrease. However, experience & STUDIES have repeatedly shown that, rather than decreasing abortion rates, widespread contraceptive use increases the number of abortions. [STOCKHOLM, August 25, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com]

 

25Aug08, LifeNews.com: The number of abortions has increased 17 percent in Sweden from 2000 to 2007 despite sales of the morning after pill increasing during the same time period. The data provides more evidence abortion advocates are misleading the public in saying the Plan B drug helps reduce abortions. The morning after pill became a drug that could be sold over the counter in Sweden in 2001 and abortion advocates touted non-prescription sales in the United States as a panacea for reducing abortions. In that time, sales of the drug tripled in the nation's capital and doubled nationwide. Still, new national figures show 37,205 abortions in Sweden in 2007, up approximately 17 percent from the 30,980 done in 2000. In Stockholm, 10,259 abortions were done — a 6.9 percent increase in just one year from the 2006 figures.

 

 

THE PILL DISRUPTS THE NORMAL HORMONAL SYSTEM WHICH OFTEN LEADS TO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS. In further commentary on recent research linking use of oral contraceptives to atherosclerosis, Dr. David Brownstein warns,

"Oral contraceptives totally disrupt the normal hormonal cascade. When the hormonal system is disrupted, cardiovascular disease, cancer, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and other serious illnesses will increase. My clinical experience has clearly shown that it is impossible to adequately treat these illnesses if there is an imbalanced hormonal system. I do not recommend the use of oral contraceptives for any reason."
[Source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071202.html; posted 12 July 08, www.abstinence.net]

 

 

MASSIVE BRAZILIAN VACCINATION RAISES SUSPICIONS OF COVERT STERILIZATION PROGRAM. The commencement of a massive, mandatory vaccination program in Brazil has raised suspicions among international pro-life activists, who note that the program is similar to others in recent years that have included a hidden sterilizing agent in the vaccines.

The campaign, which was begun last week by Brazil's pro-abortion Health Minister, Jose Gomes Temporao, claims that its goal is to annihilate rubella in the South American nation.

Temporao, who has expended considerable energy to legalize abortion, claims he is concerned about the fact that 17 Brazilian children each year suffer birth defects from the disease, in a nation of more than 180 million people.  Rubella is normally little more

than a nuisance for those who contract it, with symptoms that pass in a matter of days or weeks.

Although the number of children affected by Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) is less per capita than that of both the United Kingdom and Australia in the 1990s, Temporao is heading a mandatory program to vaccinate 70 million Brazilians, which would make it the largest vaccination in history.

Adolfo Castañeda of Human Life International notes that just two years ago, researchers found that the rubella vaccine used in a similar campaign in Argentina was laced with Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG), a pregnancy hormone that is necessary for a newly conceived zygote to implant in the uterine wall after conception.

When the body receives HCG in a vaccine, it perceives it as an intruder and creates antibodies that fight the presence of the hormone in the body.  The body's immunological response is turned against pregnancy, causing abortions when conception occurs.

"In 2006, there was a similar campaign to the current one in Brazil in Argentina," Castañeda writes in a recent HLI bulletin.  "The presence of HCG in various samples of the vaccine used against rubella were discovered.  The suspicion that brought about the investigation was caused by the fact that there were very few cases of the disease in Argentina, which didn't merit a large-scale campaign."

Castañeda also notes that the age group of women targeted by the campaign is the same or similar to other programs that were proven to include sterilizing agents in vaccines.

"The age of the people who will be vaccinated is 12 to 49 years for women (reproductive age), and between 12 and 39 for men," he writes.  "The ages for women are the same as those who received the vaccines in Nicaragua, where they included a hormone that sterilizes the woman who receives it, and similar to the age of those who received another sterilizing hormone in the Philippines."

In fact, as the Australian government notes in its journal, Communicable Diseases Intelligence, small children are the primary conduit for the disease, and highly-effective programs in the US and Australia have therefore focused on that group (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nasf/conte…).  Yet the Brazilian government is ignoring children and is focusing on women in their childbearing years.

Brazilian pro-life activist Julio Severo, who is in hiding from the Brazilian government for his refusal to participate in forced vaccination programs, notes that, strangely, even those who have already received the vaccine, or who have already had rubella (thus ensuring immunity) will be required by the government to receive the vaccine during the current drive.

"If the campaign goal is really to eliminate rubella, then why vaccinate those already vaccinated?" he asks on his blog, Last Days Watchman. "Why compel the vaccination of those that had the illness in the past? It is a fact more than proven that an individual who has had rubella in the past will never have it again."

Severo says that the campaign is seeking to find people wherever they congregate or travel, and there is no option but to receive the vaccine.  In fact, he notes, the government has already carried out a widely-publicized prosecution of one woman because her children did not receive some of the the mandatory vaccines.  The woman's children were taken from her custody, and co-workers who were aware of the situation and failed to report it were prosecuted.  The story has appeared in the media as an example for those who might wish to resist the government's efforts to forcibly vaccinate them.

He also points out that the same international agencies that are backing the current vaccination in Brazil have been involved in research on sterilizing vaccines for decades, and warns that these same groups, which are dedicated to abortion and population control, cannot be trusted.

"In the mass vaccination campaigns in Argentina, Nigeria, Philippines and other countries, UNICEF showed that it knows how to unite the worse intentions to the most angelic appearances," writes Severo. "In Brazil, we have the assurance of Temporao that the mass vaccination campaign is only for protecting babies and helping families."

Related: What is behind the campaign "Brazil Free of Rubella"?
http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-is-behind-…

HLI Report on Sterilizing Vaccines
http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/vcdvaccineslacedwithbirthcon…

UNICEF Nigerian Polio Vaccine Contaminated with Sterilizing Agents Scientist Finds
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/mar/04031101.html

NEW WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION CHIEF INVOLVED IN POPULATION CONTROL VACCINE SCANDAL
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/jan/03013003.html

UNICEF's Other Agendas
Popular Children's Aid Agency at Odds With Conservative Religious Groups for Embracing Politically Correct U.N. Viewpoints
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/oct/021030a.html

[14 August 08, MC Hoffman, www.LifeSiteNews.com,
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081407.html; prolifeamerica.com, 15Aug08]

 

 

 

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES DISRUPT ABILITY TO CHOOSE GENETICALLY FAVORABLE MATE. A recent study by the University of Liverpool found that the contraceptive pill may adversely affect a woman's natural ability to choose a genetically favorable mate.  The ability to choose a genetically favorable mate is ascribed in part to pheromones, chemicals that can cause behavioral changes in the opposite sex. These chemicals also contain the genes involved in immunity response.  When these genes interact with normal skin bacteria, they influence an individual's particular body odor.  [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081206.html
www.LifeSiteNews.com; ALL Pro-Life Today, 13Aug08]

New Study: Oral Contraceptives Disrupt Ability to Choose Genetically Favorable Mate

A recent study by the University of Liverpool found that the contraceptive pill may adversely affect a woman's natural ability to choose a genetically favorable mate.

The ability to choose a genetically favorable mate is ascribed in part to pheromones, chemicals that can cause behavioral changes in the opposite sex. These chemicals also contain the genes involved in immunity response.  When these genes interact with normal skin bacteria, they influence an individual's particular body odor.

Research has indicated that women tend to be more attracted to the odors of men whose genes are more unlike their own; this instinctive attraction is key in helping ensure a match that is genetically advantageous to a couple's offspring.  If a couple's genes are too similar, they are at an increased risk of miscarriage and difficulty conceiving, and if they do conceive, the child may have a weakened immune system.

Yet this natural sense may be endangered by the use of oral contraceptives.  The research team conducting the study asked women to indicate their preferences of six male body odors before and after initiating use of oral contraceptives.

According to Craig Roberts, a Lecturer in Evolutionary Psychology and one of the researchers in this study, women taking the pill began to prefer men with more genetically similar odors.  Addressing the implications of such a disruption, he states: "Not only could [gene] similarity in couples lead to fertility problems, but it could ultimately lead to the breakdown of relationships when women stop using the contraceptive pill, as odour p

erception plays a significant role in maintaining attraction to partners."

These claims are not the first to question the pill's impact on hormone activity and sexuality.  Dr. David Brownstein, commenting on a study linking oral contraceptives to increased arterial plaque, emphasized the precarious balance of hormones needed for good health, a balance disrupted de facto in pill users:

"Oral contraceptives totally disrupt the normal hormonal cascade. When the hormonal system is disrupted, cardiovascular disease, cancer, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and other serious illnesses will increase.  My clinical experience has clearly shown that it is impossible to adequately treat these illnesses if there is an imbalanced hormonal system."  (Read "Oral Contraceptives May Be Linked to Atherosclerosis" http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071202.html)

In addition to altering women's natural attraction to suitable partners, the pill also permanently damages sex drive over long-term use, according to one study (Read http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05052603.html).

Dr. Lionel Tiger of CDC also reached similar conclusions at least 10 years ago.

Related: Birth Control Pill May Cause Prostate Cancer and Bladder Disease in Mothers' Children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05050411.html

The Pill is Deadly to Babies and Women
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/1999/jan/99011203.html

Online Video: Noted Endocrinologist Explains How the Birth Control Pill Causes Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07080303.html
[12 August 2008, Kathleen Gilbert, Liverpool, United Kingdom, www.LifeSiteNews.com]