Tag Archives: health risks

Women Uninformed About Medical Dangers of Birth Control Pill

Human Life International America released a new national poll surveying teenaged and adult women showing widespread usage of the birth control pill despite women not knowing much about potential harmful effects.

The poll, conducted by professional firm the polling company/WomenTrend surveyed more than 800 women aged 15?44 in the United States.

Once learning that the birth control pill can raise the risk of contracting breast cancer, about 40 percent of women in the poll were more deterred from using it than before.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a New jersey-based breast cancer surgeon, is a presenter at the HLI conference and she says women need to know more about the potential problems.

“The most egregious omission affecting a young woman’s life is the fact that in 2005, the International Agency on Research of Cancer listed oral contraceptives as Group I carcinogens for breast, cervical and liver cancer,” she says. “You’ll find cigarettes and asbestos in the same group as risks for lung cancer.”

The poll found 78 percent of women have used the birth control pill and a 35% began using it under the age of 18. Thirty?five percent of women aged 15?44 who were surveyed said that they currently take oral contraceptives, while an additional 43% said that they had in the past but no longer do.

Fewer than one?in?five (19%) said they had never used oral contraceptives.

Three-fifths of women said they began taking the Pill to prevent pregnancy, and nearly two?thirds said that is the reason why they are still on it. This was the top reason across all demographic groups. Regulation of menstruation was the second?most common reason why women began oral contraceptives and remain on it

Women were less likely to have used another form of hormonal birth control — like contraceptive shots or patches – as two-thirds said they had never done so; 11% said they currently do, and 19%
said they did at one point.

Three?in?five women said they took the Pill (or used another form of hormonal birth control) after becoming sexually?active for the first time.

The survey found a majority of women don’t know the side effects of the pill and were more likely to share those sides effects than information about significant medical problems the pill caused.

All women surveyed – regardless of contraceptive use – said that knowing “there is new evidence to suggest that taking hormonal contraceptives may increase the risk of breast cancer” would give them serious pause; 44% concluded they would be less likely to take them, and 3% would be more likely. Still, 44% said such research made no difference to them.

While 49% of women were warned by a friend or physician about weight gain and 23% of headaches, only 40% were told of blood clots and the risk of stroke and 19% of increased risks of breast cancer.

In a second question, 54% of women said that use of the Pill for pregnancy prevention would not be worth it if further research shows that there is a definitive link between use of hormonal birth control and cancer; 32% said the risk would be worth the benefits of pregnancy prevention.

Ultimately, the poll found women generally believe the birth control pill has had a positive effect on them, their families, and society. By margins of at least 6?to?1, the impact of birth control was deemed more positive than negative on society, marriages, and relationships in the U.S.

Source: LifeNews.com, December 3, 2010

The Fluoride Racket

It amazes me the audacity many elected officials have when it comes to deciding public health issues. The “one size fits all” policy seems rampant these days. I’m not sure if they are aware of the potential short and long term effects due to dumping a poison in the water supply, or if they are just ignorant. Let me explain just some of the reasons why you should not allow fluoride-a poison in the city water. Fluoride or hydrofluorosilicic acid, is an industrial “waste” product from the fertilizer industry. This bright idea came to be about the same time as did the bright ideas of asbestos lined pipes, lead in our gasoline and DDT, and was assumed safe and effective by public officials. I’m too young to remember, but some of you may remember seeing the “fogger” vehicles spraying neighborhoods and schools with what turned out to be a very, very bad idea. Today though, fluoride is the devil in disguise that is being propagandized as to the supposed health benefits of preventing tooth decay. Like any good propaganda, millions are spent on advertising to convince the trusting public to believe everything our leaders tell us. Sadly, many including the ADA and many of our dentist go along with this deception.

Fluoridation is unsafe because in accumulates in our bones and makes them brittle and more prone to fractures especially in the elderly. It accumulates in our pineal gland in our brain and possibly lowers the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone. It damages the enamel on our teeth especially in younger children. There are serious yet unproven concerns about the connection of osterosarcoma (cancerous-malignant bone tumors) in young men along with the possible connections to arthritis and hypothyroidism. Animal studies showed that 1ppm in drinking water showed an increase in aluminum in the brain. Places where there are 3ppm in public drinking water have proven lower fertility rates. In human studies, the agents in fluoride has been linked to increased lead in children’s blood and associated with increased violent behavior. Lastly, the safety and therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay is so low that the concerns stated above and those not stated should be enough reasons to not be forced upon those of us who do not want to be “medicated” from our drinking water. I highly encourage everyone concerned to Google “weston price fluoride fraud” and determine yourself. As for me, I even avoid toothpaste with fluoride-but then again shouldn’t that be “my” decision.

Why Would City Council Even Consider Adding Fuoride to Xenia’s Drinking Water

By Daniel Downs

During the last meeting, Council President Dennis Propes proposed an ordinance that would authorize the city manager to fluoridate Xenia’s drinking water. Most council members still remember the community voting down this proposal three times in the past. So why reintroduce it?

In the past, city officials sold water fluoridation as a convenient way to lower the cost of treating water, prevent tooth decay, and build stronger bones. It also is true that fluoride is a natural trace element. Medical studies have supported the belief that consuming water supplemented with fluoride does result in increased bone density or stronger bones. Besides all of those benefits, most, if not all, of neighboring cities and regions fluoridate their water.

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, J.V. Kumar of the New York Health Department reported that the state spent nearly $24 million on water fluoridation with no statistically significant reduction in the rate of tooth decay among children 7 to 17 years of age. His comparative study examined whether children in communities with different levels of water fluoridation demonstrated any differences in levels of cavities. At all levels, including no fluoridation and the optimal level of 1.2 milligrams/ Liter, there was a 2 percent or less difference All of which means the state of New York has been wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.

Wasting a taxpayers’ hard earned money is bad enough, but jeopardizing their health is unconscionable.

In 2005, a majority of EPA scientists by union proxy asked the head of the EPA to place fluoride on its list of carcinogenic chemicals.

In 2006, National Research Council (NRC) published the results of their study of fluoride in drinking water entitled “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standard.” They reviewed all relevant research on the health impacts of fluoride on both animal and humans. At press conference, John Doull, chair of the research team, summarized the NRC’s findings. He began by identifying fluoride as an EPA regulated contaminate of drinking water and not as a beneficial trace element. He proceeded to define the EPA’s 40-year-old two-tier standard of acceptable fluoride levels. The EPA set tier one at a maximum of 4 milligrams of fluoride to 1 liter of water below which no adverse health risk was expected, and tier two level is a maximum of 2 milligrams of fluoride in 1 liter of drinking water below which no discoloration or other damage of tooth enamel (fluorosis) was expected. He continued by briefly summarizing several important conclusions of their 530-page review:

  1. Drinking water is the main source of fluoride. Seventy-two (72%) to ninety-four percent (94%) of fluoride intake is through drinking water fluoridated at EPA levels.
  2. Lifelong consumption of fluoride in drinking water results in increased bone fractures.

 

The study uncovered a number of other health risks resulting from fluoride consumption. One of risks includes skeletal fluorosis, which involves increased bone density and pitting of bones. It also causes joint stiffness, pain, and sometime impairment. Fluoride consumption also adversely affects thyroid function when the iodine levels are too low. Because fluoride consumption produces greater glucose intolerance, fluoridating drinking water will exacerbate the health problems of citizens with diabetes. Fluoride consumption is known to weaken the immune system thus putting citizens already with compromised immune systems at greater risk.

NRC also suspects fluoride is an important factor in liver, kidney, intestinal, and mental diseases, but previous research was inconclusive requiring more research.

Some of the research reviewed did show links between fluoride consumption and mental diseases like Alzheimer and dementia. Other studies conducted in China concluded that fluoride also diminishes intellectual abilities like problem solving.

Another study published in 2006 discovered strong links between water fluoridation and bone cancer in young boys. The findings of Harvard medical study led by Dr. Bassin, and referenced by the EPA scientists above, showed that with the consumption of fluoridated water, the risk of osteosarcoma in boys increased sevenfold. Some readers may remember hearing about this study from all of the mainstream news media.

According to some reports, osteosarcoma is the second most common type of bone cancer. It accounts for 20 percent of all bone malignancies, and 50 percent of all cases occur around the knee.

With the widely increasing knowledge about the harmful effects of treating water with fluoride, it is surprising that city officials could agree to further discussion let alone a vote, which they plan to do on December 10. Do they really want to jeopardize further the health of the community’s children and at-risk members? Maybe some do; but citizens have an opportunity to tell them to stop–stop placing our health and welfare at risk.

To do so, visit to the Council website at http://www.ci.xenia.oh.us where each council member’s email address and telephone number may be obtain.