Mary Ann Liebert Inc., Publishers

Journal of Women’s Health

Sarah E. Tom, Rachel Cooper, Robert B. Wallace, and Jack M. Guralnik. Journal of Women’s Health. January 2012, 21(1): 10-16. doi:10.1089/jwh.2011.2745. Published in Volume: 21 Issue 1: January 12, 2012
Online Ahead of Print: October 4, 2011

Read More…

Read the complete article and related information at Type and Timing of Menopause and Later Life Mortality among Women in the Iowa Established Populations for the Epidemiological Study of the Elderly (EPESE) Cohort

Activist Post

January 26, 2012

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at Health Groups: Statins Linked to 300+ Negative Effects

Please visit Holy Hormones Journal - The Greatest Story Never Told for similar articles.

The FDA asserts that the foreign DNA fragments found in Gardasil pose no risk. In contrast, Dr. Hanan Polansky, from the Center for the Biology of Chronic Disease, uses his highly acclaimed discovery of Microcompetition to explain how these DNA fragments can cause major diseases.

PR Web

Rochester, New York (PRWEB) February 4, 2012

Gardasil is the FDA approved HPV vaccine. As of September 15, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) received a total of 20,096 reports of adverse events in relation to Gardasil vaccination. Dr. Hanan Polansky, Director of the Center for the Biology of Chronic Disease, will discuss his discovery of Microcompetition with Norma Erickson, President of SANE Vax Inc. Dr. Polansky will use Microcompetition to explain the biological mechanism underlying the Gardasil adverse events. Leslie Carol Botha will host the event on the Holy Hormones Radio Show. The show will be broadcast on the community radio station KRFC FM in Fort Collins, CO, Monday, February 6, from 6 to 7pm MST.

Dr. Hanan Polansky is the author of the highly acclaimed “Purple” book, entitled Microcompetition with Foreign DNA and the Origin of Chronic Disease. In his book he explains how foreign DNA fragments can cause many major diseases without damaging (mutating) the human DNA. The book has been read by more than 5,000 scientists around the world, and has been reviewed in more than 20 leading scientific journals.

“Even if only a portion of the author’s (Dr. Hanan Polansky’s) thesis is correct, it would establish wholly new insights into the pathogenesis of chronic disease states, and would have significant implications for treatment and/or prevention.” – Kim E. Barrett, PhD – Professor of Medicine and Vice-Chair for Research, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine

The FDA says on its website that “Since the early development of Gardasil, FDA and the manufacturer (Merck and Co., Inc.) have known that after purification of the vaccine, small quantities of residual recombinant HPV L1-specific DNA fragments remain in the vaccine.” … “The presence of DNA fragments is expected in Gardasil … these are not contaminants …. The presence of these DNA fragments is expected, is not a risk to vaccine recipients, and is not a safety factor.”

The FDA and Merck admit that Gardasil contains foreign DNA fragments. However, the FDA asserts that these foreign DNA fragments pose no risk. In contrast, Dr. Hanan Polansky, in his highly acclaimed “Purple” book explains how certain foreign DNA fragments, at high concentrations, cause major diseases, such as, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and even obesity even when the DNA is broken and not functioning.

In fact, the center encourages biologists, virologists, geneticists and scientists and the general public to obtain a copy of Dr. Hanan Polansky’s book and read it before the radio interview on February 6th. The book is available as a free download from the CBCD website.

(http://www.cbcd.net)

“Dr. Polansky takes an interesting approach when relating the diseases discussed in this book. He uses a detailed quantitative analysis to explain his theories of microcompetition with foreign DNA. I especially enjoyed how he found links between these different chronic diseases. It was quite thought-provoking.” – Afshin Beheshti, PhD Research Associate, Department of Molecular Genetics, The Forsyth Institute, (Harvard Medical Center Affiliate)

The CBCD endorses Dr. Polansky’s theory, and invites the media, scientists, and the general public to contact us on this issue.

For more information on the Center for the Biology of Chronic Disease, or to schedule an interview with Dr. Polansky, please visit http://www.cbcd.net or call 585-250-9999.

The FDA quotes above can be found here:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm276859.htm

The Center for the Biology of Chronic Disease (CBCD, http://www.cbcd.net) is a research center recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-for-profit organization. The mission of the CBCD is to advance the research on the biology of chronic diseases, and to accelerate the discovery of treatments for these diseases.

The CBCD published the “Purple” book entitled “Microcompetition with Foreign DNA and the Origin of Chronic Disease” written by Dr. Hanan Polansky. The book presents Dr. Polansky’s highly acclaimed scientific theory on the relationship between the DNA of latent (chronic) viruses and the onset of chronic diseases. Dr. Polansky’s book is available as a free download from the CBCD website.

We invite biologists, virologists, and scientists everywhere to download Dr. Polansky’s book here: http://cbcd.net/.

# # #

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at Gardasil: Dr. Polansky Explains How Foreign DNA Fragments found in the Vaccine can Cause Disease

BioEdge  Bioethics News from around the World

by Michael Cook | 30 Jan 2012

Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer and a research assistant, Agata Sagan, proposed a “morality pill” in a column in the New York Times this week. They speculate that moral behaviour is at least in part biochemically determined. Hence, it should be possible to engineer moral behaviour with drugs. Here is the scenario that they paint:

“If continuing brain research does in fact show biochemical differences between the brains of those who help others and the brains of those who do not, could this lead to a “morality pill” — a drug that makes us more likely to help? Given the many other studies linking biochemical conditions to mood and behavior, and the proliferation of drugs to modify them that have followed, the idea is not far-fetched. If so, would people choose to take it?

“Could criminals be given the option, as an alternative to prison, of a drug-releasing implant that would make them less likely to harm others? Might governments begin screening people to discover those most likely to commit crimes? Those who are at much greater risk of committing a crime might be offered the morality pill; if they refused, they might be required to wear a tracking device that would show where they had been at any given time, so that they would know that if they did commit a crime, they would be detected.”

They foresee some objections to their idea. Some people will argue that depriving someone of free will can never be justified. But Singer and Sagan are sceptical of the existence of free will, so they suspect that this is not a sound objection.

Morality pills are not a novel idea. Another Australian utilitarian, Oxford bioethicist Julian Savulescu, believes that it would be a crime not to “enhance” people to act more morally.

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at Do we need a morality pill?

Huff Post
Women

February 4, 2012

Yashar Ali
Writer at The Current Conscience

Earlier this year, I was watching a repeat episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” The guest on this particular episode was Dr. Oz, who was tasked with answering a series of health questions, many of which were related to women’s reproductive health.

After Dr. Oz answered a question about douching, Oprah turned to a gentleman who was sitting in the audience and (with some humor) apologized to him for being stuck listening to all the conversation about “women” stuff and being seen on TV for participating in an episode that dealt with, among other topics, menstruation and menopause.

The gentleman turned out to be Major League Baseball player Jim Thome, who plays for the Chicago White Sox. He had brought his wife to the Oprah show as a gift, as Oprah Show tickets were nearly impossible to come by.

Oprah’s interaction with Jim Thome left me fuming. Why should we feel bad for him? Why would Oprah feel bad for him? I am an Oprah fan, but her apology was uncharacteristic for someone who spends her life advocating for and helping women.

I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t feel sorry for Jim Thome because he’s a wealthy, famous baseball player.

What I am saying is that we shouldn’t feel sorry for him because he’s a man and he doesn’t have to deal with the reality of any of the problems addressed on the Oprah show he sat in on. And instead of Oprah offering that Dr. Oz episode to Jim as an opportunity to learn more about a woman’s body — perhaps allowing him to be more supportive of his wife and female family members — he was offered an apology for having to sit in on a conversation about issues that are so central to a woman’s life.

Why is our culture so intent on protecting men from hearing about or discussing a woman’s reproductive health?

I’ve written about this phenomena in some of my previous posts. When some of the women in my life start talking about their menstrual cycles or anything else reproductive related, they stop themselves and warn me to stop listening, “But you don’t want to hear about this …”

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at If Men Had Periods, Women Would Know All About It

Marcia G. Yerman - Reporting – Reviewing – Reflecting

February 3, 2102

The first time I saw Rachel Lloyd was in 2005, the year of the 70^th Annual Academy Awards. “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” had taken the honors for best song. Whenever I complained about that tune being showcased, people would remark, “Lighten up.” Yet when Lloyd  addressed an audience in Soho about the issue of human trafficking, she mentioned “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp,” using it to illustrate the disconnect between reality and the Hollywood version of life on the street .

Since then, while covering the topic of human trafficking, I have heard Lloyd talk at numerous events and panels. I have called her up for quotes and insights, like the time football star Lawrence Taylor was arrested. I had needed to get a lucid response on why the media was portraying an under-age trafficked girl as a “hooker.”

Lloyd always speaks the truth to power. It may be to a New York City police commissioner, or an affluent Manhattan audience learning for the first time that 13-year-old African-American girls in Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn are being bought and sold. Lloyd frequently notes that they are part of an estimated 200,000-300,000 adolescents who are at risk annually for commercial sexual exploitation in the United States.

Consequently, it was no surprise to me that the memoir Lloyd had penned, Girls Like Us: Fighting for a World Where Girls Are Not for Sale, an Activist Finds Her Calling and Heals Herself, would be a tough, gritty and brutally honest account. Lloyd traces how a difficult childhood led to a hair-raising journey that encompassed risk, recruitment, violent abuse, breaking free from sexual exploitation—and ultimately healing. She now is a top activist in the anti-trafficking movement.

Finding her purpose in working with girls “in the life,” Lloyd connects to those in crisis based on shared experiences, understanding without judgment, and respect. Founding Girls Educational and Mentoring Services (GEMS) in 1998, Lloyd went back to school to attain her GED, going on to receive a Bachelors degree in Psychology from Marymount Manhattan College and a Masters in Applied Urban Anthropology from the City College of New York. She has racked up numerous awards for her efforts, all while “owning her experience.”

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at “Girls Likes Us” — Rachel Lloyd’s Memoir Illuminates the Sexual Exploitation of Children

CJAD 800 AM

Posted By: Dan Spector dspector@astral.com · 2/1/2012 10:01:00 PM

On a day when CJAD News was discussing the story of a family intending to sue a massive pharmaceutical company for $200 000 after their daughter died soon after receiving the anti-HPV (Human papillomavirus) vaccine Gardasil, researcher Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic joined Aaron for a fascinating discussion about the safety of the vaccine.

Dr.Tomljenovic hails from the Neural Dynamics Research Group at the University of British Columbia, and along with colleague Dr. Chris Shaw has published a controversial new study that asks: “Is it possible that HPV vaccines have been promoted to women based on inaccurate information?

Their essay was published online in late December in the medical journal Annals of Medicine.

To read about their findings, take a look at the following Medscape article. It sums up Tomljenovic and Shaw’s work nicely. If you’re interested in some of the controversy and backlash resulting from this study, scroll to the bottom.

January 31, 2012 — Is the policy for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at odds with evidence-based medicine?

Yes, according to an essay published online December 22, 2011, in the Annals of Medicine.

Canadian researchers Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, and Christopher Shaw, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group, University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, point out that there is a major discrepancy in claims regarding the safety and efficacy of Gardasil (Merck & Co) and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) — the 2 HPV vaccines that are currently on the market.

The vaccines have been heavily promoted in the United States by their respective manufacturers, the essayists report. In addition, the vaccines are backed by government agencies in the United States, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration, and by medical authorities in a number of other countries.

HPV vaccination has been mired in controversy since the first vaccine was approved in the United States in 2006. There have been clashes among politicians, parents, professional and advocacy organizations, and public health officials, with heated exchanges over issues ranging from safety, the premise that vaccination will promote sexual activity in teens, cost, and concerns about aggressive lobbying by Merck to make the vaccine mandatory for girls.

Drs. Tomljenovic and Shaw note that skepticism about the vaccine has been increasing for a number of reasons, despite reassurances from the public-health sector. In their essay, they examine the current evidence to answer a key question: “Is it possible that HPV vaccines have been promoted to women based on inaccurate information?”

Does it Prevent Cancer?

One major issue is the claim made by medical authorities that HPV vaccines are an important tool in preventing cervical cancer. The efficacy of the vaccines in preventing cervical cancer has not been demonstrated because the study periods have been too short, say the essayists.

The longest follow-up from phase 2 trials for Gardasil is 5 years and for Cervarix is 8.4 years, but invasive cervical cancer can take 20 to 40 years to develop from the time of HPV infection.

“We don’t know the duration of the immune response of the vaccines,” Dr. Tomljenovic told Medscape Medical News, “so we don’t know if they are actually preventing cervical cancer or simply postponing it.”

Both vaccines very effectively prevent persistent infections with high-risk HPV types 16 and 18 and the associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 lesions in HPV-naïve young women. However, note the essayists, even persistent HPV infections caused by high-risk strains generally do not lead to precursor lesions in the short term or to cervical cancer in the long term.

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at A new voice in the HPV vaccine debate

The New York Times

By DENISE GRADY
Published: January 29, 2012

Michael Nagle for The New York Times

Bridgette Dunlap, a Fordham University law student, knew that the school’s health plan had to pay for birth control pills, in keeping with New York state law. What she did not find out until she was in an examining room, “in the paper dress,” was that the student health service — in keeping with Roman Catholic tenets — would simply refuse to prescribe them.

As a result, students have had to go to Planned Parenthood or private doctors to get prescriptions. Some, unable to afford the doctor visits, gave up birth control pills entirely. In November, Ms. Dunlap, 31, who was raised a Catholic and was educated at parochial schools, organized a one-day, off-campus clinic staffed by volunteer doctors who wrote prescriptions for dozens of women.

Many Catholic colleges decline to prescribe or cover birth control, citing religious reasons. Now they are under pressure to change. This month the Obama administration, citing the medical case for birth control, made a politically charged decision that the new health care law requires insurance plans at Catholic institutions to cover birth control without co-payments for employees, and that may be extended to students. But Catholic organizations are resisting the rule, saying it would force them to violate their beliefs and finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings.

“We can’t just lie down and die and let religious freedom go,” said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges

The Daily Beast

Feb 3, 2012 12:00 AM EST

Michelle Goldberg

If a Republican becomes president, says Michelle Goldberg, say goodbye to international programs providing birth control to women in desperately poor countries such as Liberia.

Gertrude Gorma Cole, a midwife in Liberia’s Bong County, is almost universally known as “Mother Dear.” A warm, grandmotherly presence in a traditional lappa dress, she has been practicing at least since the 1970s. In some ways, she is conservative. Speaking of Liberia’s disastrous teenage pregnancy rate—which is high even by West African standards—she blames both the social breakdown caused by the country’s savage civil war and the lax ideas of the international NGOs that swept into the country in its wake. “After the war, the NGO people came in and they brought ‘child rights,’ so the children became so loose, and even to discipline them, they will take you to the police,” she says. Western aid workers dispute this, insisting that the idea of Liberian kids informing on their parents is an urban legend. Still, her views speak to a level of distrust toward the humanitarian agencies that play an outsized role in governing the decimated nation.

Yet there is one thing Mother Dear does not distrust: the programs to provide birth control, which are largely supplied by USAID. In addition to being a midwife, Mother Dear is the county’s reproductive-health supervisor. When I tell her that support for international family planning is controversial in the U.S., and that some candidates for president would like to end it, she is shocked. “If they cut off funding for family planning, more mothers are going to die,” she says.

She’s worth listening to, because whatever effect the upcoming election has on the reproductive health of American women, the effect on women worldwide is likely to be even greater. I was in Liberia recently as part of a World Health Organization-sponsored trip to look at the future of funding for AIDS, TB, and malaria in an age of global austerity. But the country is also an object lesson in the potential global impact of our interminable culture wars.

Those culture wars have turned birth control into a significant issue in the U.S. presidential campaign. All of the Republican candidates have slammed the administration’s refusal to give religious institutions a broad exemption from the mandate that insurance cover family planning. One of them, Rick Santorum, has promised to use the presidency to speak out about “the dangers of contraception in this country,” and has said he believes states should have the right to ban it. Mitt Romney, the likely nominee, has laughed off threats to birth control as an absurd nonissue, but even he has pledged to eliminate Title X, the federal family-planning program founded under Richard Nixon.

Read Full Article…

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at How a GOP Win Could Spell the End of Reproductive Health for Global Women

 New York Times

By REUTERS
Published: February 3, 2012 at 3:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation backed down from its decision to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and birth control services, following a massive outcry by supporters of the world’s largest breast cancer charity.

Komen’s decision had thrust the group into America’s deeply politicized debate over abortion rights and its apology on Friday may not satisfy the more vocal advocates on either side.

Planned Parenthood supporters, including local directors within Komen’s ranks, say Komen had come under pressure from anti-abortion activists. Social conservatives had lauded the move to disengage from Planned Parenthood and said it would win Komen new supporters.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” Komen said in a statement on Friday signed by its board of directors and its founder Nancy Brinker.

Komen had said earlier this week it would cease to fund grants for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood under new rules to tighten eligibility. The guidelines excluded groups under investigation by U.S. authorities and Planned Parenthood is the subject of a probe by U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Republican from Florida who opposes abortion.

Planned Parenthood provides a variety of services – including reproductive healthcare, sex education, cancer screenings and information on sexually transmitted diseases – but its abortion role has put it at the forefront of the national debate.

Komen’s move prompted a protest campaign on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook that reached a fever pitch on Thursday. Local Komen chapters sent letters to headquarters opposing the move, and by late Thursday night, its board convened a special meeting.

Read Full Article…

Read the complete article and related information at Cancer Group Backs Down on Cutting Off Planned Parenthood