Re: HHS mandate re free birth control

[Guest guest]

Good for you, . Hanna From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of KippleySent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:29 PMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: HHS mandate re free birth control As a result of a comment by Steve Koob on this topic a short time ago, I had a meeting at noon today with Congressman Steve Chabot who represents my district. He promised to discuss the HHS mandate on free birth control with and other members of the Pro-Life Caucus. I left with him a few pages from Kahlenborn's book on the connection between OCPs and breast cancer -- the introduction and pages 34 and 36 where he cites increased risks of 72 percent and 40 percent. I also left a printout of Kahlenborn's article in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in October 2006. Lastly, I left a list of six reasons why the HHS mandate should be defeated. I had previously given his staff the Big Pharma article by Bob Laird By way of preparation, this past Monday night I attended a Town Hall meeting hosted by Mr. Chabot. It was packed, SRO. In the open mike time, I raised the HHS issue and was booed. (So were the other " conservative-type " speakers.) When I mentioned a couple statistics, there were no more boos. Wednesday morning a fellow golfer told me that I was on the 10:00 evening news the night before. Apparently WXIX had run a clip of my statement and then introduced a woman who said there was no evidence to support what I said. I've been trying to talk with the news director, but so far, no luck. Suggestion: If you meet with your Representative or even send him some materials, do more or less what I did. That is, Mr. Chabot was grateful that I had given him some concise facts and papers. I showed him the Kahlenborn book but did not give it to him. (He talked about getting one from the Library of Congress. I don't see how he will ever find the time to read it.) So, thanks, Steve. You gently goaded me to get off my butt. Kippley

[Guest guest]

,You are most welcome. THANK YOU for taking the initiative to contact Steve Chabot. Anyone (first 15 callers) who will promise to hand Kahlenborn´s book to a member of Congress (or a staff person) may have a free copy. JUST CALL at . Dr Chris´ "Breast CAncer Risk from the Pill" pamphlet (PBCP) is very powerful and an inexpensive handout. Leave 10 with every comgressperson, and had out to staffers. The females should be shocked.The Mayo Clinic Proceedings article is a free download from Polycarp Research Institute or the MCP, but needs the pamphlet to interpret the technical content for the lay reader.Blesssings all.Steve KoobTo: nfpprofessionals From: hannaklaus@...Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:55:12 -0400Subject: RE: HHS mandate re free birth control

Good for you, . Hanna From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of KippleySent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:29 PMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: HHS mandate re free birth control As a result of a comment by Steve Koob on this topic a short time ago, I had a meeting at noon today with Congressman Steve Chabot who represents my district. He promised to discuss the HHS mandate on free birth control with and other members of the Pro-Life Caucus. I left with him a few pages from Kahlenborn's book on the connection between OCPs and breast cancer -- the introduction and pages 34 and 36 where he cites increased risks of 72 percent and 40 percent. I also left a printout of Kahlenborn's article in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in October 2006. Lastly, I left a list of six reasons why the HHS mandate should be defeated. I had previously given his staff the Big Pharma article by Bob Laird By way of preparation, this past Monday night I attended a Town Hall meeting hosted by Mr. Chabot. It was packed, SRO. In the open mike time, I raised the HHS issue and was booed. (So were the other "conservative-type" speakers.) When I mentioned a couple statistics, there were no more boos. Wednesday morning a fellow golfer told me that I was on the 10:00 evening news the night before. Apparently WXIX had run a clip of my statement and then introduced a woman who said there was no evidence to support what I said. I've been trying to talk with the news director, but so far, no luck. Suggestion: If you meet with your Representative or even send him some materials, do more or less what I did. That is, Mr. Chabot was grateful that I had given him some concise facts and papers. I showed him the Kahlenborn book but did not give it to him. (He talked about getting one from the Library of Congress. I don't see how he will ever find the time to read it.) So, thanks, Steve. You gently goaded me to get off my butt. Kippley

[Guest guest]

You might also point out that the WHO has classified OCP as carcinogens. No one can argue with that!Diane Royalville, FLAs a result of a comment by Steve Koob on this topic a short time ago, I had a meeting at noon today with Congressman Steve Chabot who represents my district. He promised to discuss the HHS mandate on free birth control with and other members of the Pro-Life Caucus. I left with him a few pages from Kahlenborn's book on the connection between OCPs and breast cancer -- the introduction and pages 34 and 36 where he cites increased risks of 72 percent and 40 percent. I also left a printout of Kahlenborn's article in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in October 2006. Lastly, I left a list of six reasons why the HHS mandate should be defeated. I had previously given his staff the Big Pharma article by Bob Laird By way of preparation, this past Monday night I attended a Town Hall meeting hosted by Mr. Chabot. It was packed, SRO. In the open mike time, I raised the HHS issue and was booed. (So were the other "conservative-type" speakers.) When I mentioned a couple statistics, there were no more boos. Wednesday morning a fellow golfer told me that I was on the 10:00 evening news the night before. Apparently WXIX had run a clip of my statement and then introduced a woman who said there was no evidence to support what I said. I've been trying to talk with the news director, but so far, no luck. Suggestion: If you meet with your Representative or even send him some materials, do more or less what I did. That is, Mr. Chabot was grateful that I had given him some concise facts and papers. I showed him the Kahlenborn book but did not give it to him. (He talked about getting one from the Library of Congress. I don't see how he will ever find the time to read it.) So, thanks, Steve. You gently goaded me to get off my butt. Kippley

[Guest guest]

It doesn´t hurt to also say they are Class I Carcinogens along with asbestos, cigarette smoke, and other well known (and many lesser known) materials.To: nfpprofessionals From: droyalsmiles@...Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:30:51 -0400Subject: Re: HHS mandate re free birth control

You might also point out that the WHO has classified OCP as carcinogens. No one can argue with that!Diane Royalville, FLAs a result of a comment by Steve Koob on this topic a short time ago, I had a meeting at noon today with Congressman Steve Chabot who represents my district. He promised to discuss the HHS mandate on free birth control with and other members of the Pro-Life Caucus. I left with him a few pages from Kahlenborn's book on the connection between OCPs and breast cancer -- the introduction and pages 34 and 36 where he cites increased risks of 72 percent and 40 percent. I also left a printout of Kahlenborn's article in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in October 2006. Lastly, I left a list of six reasons why the HHS mandate should be defeated. I had previously given his staff the Big Pharma article by Bob Laird By way of preparation, this past Monday night I attended a Town Hall meeting hosted by Mr. Chabot. It was packed, SRO. In the open mike time, I raised the HHS issue and was booed. (So were the other "conservative-type" speakers.) When I mentioned a couple statistics, there were no more boos. Wednesday morning a fellow golfer told me that I was on the 10:00 evening news the night before. Apparently WXIX had run a clip of my statement and then introduced a woman who said there was no evidence to support what I said. I've been trying to talk with the news director, but so far, no luck. Suggestion: If you meet with your Representative or even send him some materials, do more or less what I did. That is, Mr. Chabot was grateful that I had given him some concise facts and papers. I showed him the Kahlenborn book but did not give it to him. (He talked about getting one from the Library of Congress. I don't see how he will ever find the time to read it.) So, thanks, Steve. You gently goaded me to get off my butt. Kippley

[Guest guest]

,Good for you.  I just wrote a letter to the editor of our local newspaper (the editor verified that I wrote it and said he would publish it).  The Marin Breast Cancer study was begun because of a " higher than normal " incidence of breast cancer in Marin County.  As a participant in the study I would ask on the survey form " why isn't the question of induced abortions " included?  I never got a response.

So, I emailed one of the program coordinators, Rochelle Ereman (the head of the Marin County Department of Health and Human Services Community Epidemiology Program), and asked her why abortion wasn't included in the study.  I also sent her several links supporting the link between breast cancer and induced abortion.  Here is her reply: 

We have something close to that information in the study.  We asked how many times a woman got pregnant and how many children she had.  That leaves us how many pregnancies did not go to term.  - This could be an abortion or miscarraige.  When we wrote the survey, the scientific literature and experts said that abortions were well studied and not linked to breast cancer.  A scientist that is on our scientific advisory

panel even presented to congress about it, given the controversy.  I noticed in the article you sent that they quoted a Daling study.  Dr. Daling is one of our Principle Investigators for the Marin Women's Study.  At the time we were designing our study, she also said there was

no association between abortions and breast cancer, so we did not ask it directly on the survey. Interesting that the article /link says the opposite her assessment on a very old study.  I'll have to review the study myself.(Dr. Daling, BTW, co-authored a paper supporting the link in 1994).

Our local newspaper had a summary of the results of this study a few days ago.  In this article was the statement " In 2009 the incidence of breast cancer had fallen in Marin County "   and the initial analysis is that " fewer women are taking the combined estrogen and progesterone hormone therapy for menopause " .  Does the obvious question emerge " what about women taking this same combination in oral contraceptives " ?  For this reason and for the omission of inquiring about abortion history on the survey, I wrote this letter to our local newspaper.

As a participant in the Marin Women’s Breast Cancer Study, I

found the article by Nels (“Marin women’s breast cancer study compiles

unique database”, 8/29/11) very interesting.  It is encouraging that the 2009 statistics show a lower

incidence of breast cancer.

 

Regarding the study’s initial analysis of a dip in breast

cancer rates following the reduction of 

estrogen and progesterone for the treatment of menopause, though, it

seems an important question is omitted: What is the breast cancer risk for

women taking this same combination of estrogen and progesterone in oral

contraceptives?  In 2005 the World

Health Organization (WHO) announced that “oral contraceptives (estrogen and

progestogen) and combined menopausal therapy are “’carcinogenic to humans’”.  WHO says this is “based on overexposure

to the female hormone, estrogen, a recognized carcinogen”.

 

Another important omission in the study is the lack of focus

on the documented link between breast cancer and induced abortions.  I raised this issue with Rochelle

Ereman and we had a nice email exchange. She replied, “When we wrote the

survey, the scientific literature and experts said that abortions were well

studied and not linked to breast cancer”.   She went on to say that “Dr.

Daling, one of the Principle Investigators for the Marin Women's Study, said

there was no association between abortions and breast cancer and  so we did not ask it directly on the

survey”.  Yet, the studies of the

breast cancer/induced abortions exist. 

Omitting this question in this important study is troubling.

 

Peggy Bartley