YES! Women Do Have Health Rights

Whether or not you support the ACLU, or even believe in what they do, this win is a positive step in the effort to protect women's health rights.  It also demonstrates to many who still believe that women are second calls citizens, that this is not supported by the law of the land.

Tallahassee, FL – In an important decision for the right of women to make their own medical choices, the Florida District Court of Appeal today ruled that the rights of a pregnant woman were violated when she was forced to remain hospitalized against her will after disagreeing with a hospital's recommended treatment. Read complete article

A Fitness Routine Geared Specifically For Women Who Want A Great Body Fast

By Chris Tan

A fitness routine geared specifically for women is an
excellent way to lose weight and gain a healthier you.
However, it is important to remember that with any fitness
regimen, hard work and dedication are needed for success.

The women of today live a hustle and bustle lifestyle that
leaves them no time for anything extra. For this reason,
time is the number complaint as to why women fail at
exercise routines. In addition, it places an emphasis on the
quick fix of diet pills and teas which can be harmful and
generally don't work. To achieve the much desired 'quick
result" women need to adopt specific exercise routines.

High Intensity Workouts.

Intensity is the key when it comes to fitness trainings.
Whether you are doing cardio exercise or weight training
exercises, you have to know that the higher intensity of
your workout, the more calories you will be burning. For
example, a person who jogs for 5 days a week will be losing
less calories and fats as compared to one who runs for 3
days a week. That is how much a difference intensity levels
can make.

For maximum intensity levels, do short bursts of exercises.
For example, do sets of sprints and then rest instead of
long distance jogging. Long distance jogging will not
increase your heart rate as much as sprinting does. With
high intensity workouts, you will no longer need hours of
exercise to see results.

Training with Weights.

Training with weights is the best way to increase your
metabolism. In weight training, the heavier the weights and
the more lifting you do, the more your metabolism increases.
In addition, the higher intensity of your weight training
will increase your metabolism for twenty-four hours.

The best workout is a combination of both cardio and weight
training. All of this may seem daunting and sound like hard
work, but you will be rewarded with changes in your body
every week.

Eat a Healthy Diet.

Proteins, carbohydrates and fats ingested by the body
determine the way your body will look. Adopting a healthy
diet is another great step to achieving your fitness goals.

To see results quickly, implement a strict healthy diet into
your fitness routine. Here are some suggestions.

Eating foods high in protein rather than carbohydrates is
the best way to see results. Proteins allow your body to
feel full for longer while carbohydrates create excess
energy that the body will store, thus creating fat.

Eating small meals several times a day is another great way
to boost your metabolism. This little trick makes your body
think you're eating more food, thus it will work harder. It
is for this reason that starvation diets do not work. When
the body is starved, the metabolism does not have to work as
hard to store energy for later use.

Chris Tan is a keen fitness enthusiast. He loves to share
his knowledge and wrote articles about
(http://www.clivir.com/lessons/show/women-stretching-exercises.html)
Woman Exercises to Stretch and
(http://www.clivir.com/lessons/show/women-fitness-equipment.html)
Equipment for Woman Fitness on Clivir.com.

Why You Need A Body Detox

By Isabelle S. Mihajlov

Getting a body detox is gaining popularity in many health
circles. Because of the toxic build up in our bodies,
getting clean on the inside is a must. A typical American
has years of poor eating habits, exposed to poor air
quality, and has low fiber diets. Also, stress can attribute
to the increase of toxins being formed in our bodies. If our
bodies do not properly and regularly eliminate this build up
in our colon or other organs, we are prone to sickness and
disease.

Generally, our body does a good job in trying to eliminate
the toxins we are exposed to daily. But it is a challenge to
handle this onslaught of toxins. The toxins will adversely
affect the functioning of vital organs like the liver, kidneys,
and the colon. Poor health is usually a result of a toxic
colon which leads to a toxic liver, thus polluting the tissues
and the bloodstream. For optimal health, our bodies must be
free of dangerous toxins.

How Do I Know I Need A Body Cleansing?

You need to take action if you have one or more of the
following problems. Diarrhea, impaired digestion,
constipation, fatigue and low energy, gas and bloating,
hemorrhoids, excess weight, food allergies, bad breath, foul
smelling stools. These are only some of the symptoms.

Just like you car needs the oil changed regularly or your
outside of your body regularly needs a washing, so does your
internal body. Waiting too long or till you start
experiencing some symptoms listed above, is not a wise idea.
You will increase your risk of developing much more serious
problems like cancer the longer you procrastinate.

Our bodies today simply cannot keep up with the extreme
exposure of ingested or inhaled toxins. The toxins that are
not eliminated simply accumulate in fat cells, tissues,
blood, organs, and remain stored indefinitely resulting in
all kinds of health issues. You can change to a high fiber
diet and eat less acidic foods, but a simple solution is to
regularly get a body detox or body cleansing.

Isabelle S. Mihajlov is blessed to be a stay at home mom
with five healthy children. She loves sharing "remedies"
with others how to
(http://www.immunesystemremedies.com/strengthen-your-immune-system.html)
strengthen your immune system to prevent getting ill. Get
(http://www.immunesystemremedies.com/) free health advice
online.

Celebrity Diets - Good Or Bad?

Everyone wonders how all those Hollywood celebrities diet
and maintain their weight. Sometimes they do look good for
the camera. However there are many times they look sickly
and ill. No matter how they brand their name. Starvation is
starvation, no matter what face you put on it.

There are always stories of celebrity weight loss in the
newspapers and in magazines. Celebrities also come up with
fictional diets to explain how they shifted the weight,
whereas in reality they just starved themselves, not only of
food but of the essential foods and fluids necessary for the
body to properly function.

Sure, losing a great amount of weight in short periods of
time may be somewhat the norm for some who are overly obese,
since they are carrying large amounts of stored fat along
with them. However, for those who are just a few pounds
overweight, losing 40 pounds in a month is terribly
unhealthy. It can lead to more serious problems for some
individuals. The first thing to know about successful
dieting is that it does take time. All those extra pounds
will not disappear overnight or even within just a few days.
Our bodies fluctuate daily.

Without a maintenance diet program, to keep your weight
stabilized after a large weight loss, you will put the
weight back on. Dieting involves self-discipline and
willpower in addition to knowing what foods to eat and when.
Many of the celebrity diets are actually starvation type
diets that are not healthy or worth risking other side
effects.

Hollywood diet juice is an example of a celebrity diet
program and this diet means you only drink juice. You do
not eat or drink anything else. This is a type of starvation
and is an incredibly boring diet. Once you stop drinking the
juice and star eating again all the weight you lost will come
back. It makes no sense to drink a juice and then stop drinking
it and return to being overweight.

Just like many of the popular diets in Hollywood, when your
body considers that you are actually starving yourself to
death, it will rebel. It rebels by putting a stop to the
process of losing that extra weight, just to keep you alive!
A long term alternative is called for when dieting properly.
The Hollywood hottest diets are no long term answer to
weight loss and maintaining your target weight.

The biggest secret of the best celebrity diets is that these
celebrities do not really have a secret when it comes to
dieting. They are just normal people just like the rest of
us. Only we do not have all the extra individuals working
for us to make us look so appealing. Celebrities hire others
to help them lose weight or get some kind of kick back for
advertising a particular product, which includes any number
of quick weight loss programs.

The best celebrity diets are the same ones a normal person
uses, that takes self-discipline and willpower, and sticking
with a balanced meal plan, and proper portions.

Question Authority and Breast Screening

Since 2005 I have posted 45 articles on Natural Health News regarding the risks and hazards of mammogram.

For more than 20 years I have been questioning mammogram and educating people about the known facts that mammogram does not statistically improve discovery, treatment and or cure of breast cancer, and in deed, increases the incidence.

All of this has been known for more than 50 years.

Just this week I sent a message to the Inland NW contingent of the Komen Foundation who are gearing up for another "Race for the Cure". My message was the same: "Why aren't you providing women with the facts about mammogram?"

I also asked why there is no information about thermography, a better screening test with earlier detection and no risk of increasing rates of breast cancer.

You can get the information you need from our non-profit organization with a donation. We do not get any greatly needed donations from pink lids.

Even the local media outlets have refused my efforts over many years, although more then five years ago, one did give some coverage to my concerns.

Women who are most at risk of developing breast cancer deserve better.

CHI's Healthy Handout on Risks of Mammography is available with a donation.

Breast Cancer: To Screen Or Not To Screen?

ScienceDaily (2009-04-04) -- Women are often told that mammography saves lives. But rarely is the question asked, "how often?" Researchers set out to examine how often this life-saving event occurs. ... > read full article

Women's Health Month and Propaganda

During March our organization sponsors a class for women called "What Your Doctor Won't Tell You".

This has always been very popular and we educate more women every year on this facts of the breast cancer scam and other very specific issues for women's health.

The major reason we have sponsored this program is to help women learn how to be better advocates for their health and not fall prey to substandard health care.

We also do not wish for you to be subjected to forced mammogram, which has been proposed under universal health care. You have rights, you need to be informed, and you need choices.

One of the "Healthy Handouts" we publish is a fact sheet on mammography. It is very important to understand why mammogram is a factor in the increased rates of breast cancer, as is a cell phone, WIFI, and Yoplait.

You can get a copy of this Healthy Handout by making a donation to our parent organization, Creating Health Institute, at PayPal.

In the interim we hope you will consider more about thermography.

We hope too that you will visit our colleague at Thermomed, especially good if you are located in the SoCal area.

Women need to take back the night on their own health and not fall prey to the purveyors of radiation, chemo, and other cancer promoting modalities.

5 Of The Most Common Posture Problems

Many posture problems exist that people pick up over the
years and may not even realize they have. These could lead
to pain, especially back pain, and as far as height is
concerned, can make us not only physically shorter, but
appear shorter as well. Some of the most common posture
problems are looked at below.

1. Walking posture - This is one of the most common posture
problems encountered, and can be difficult to break,
depending on the age of the subject. Those with bad walking
posture tend to walk slightly slumped forward, which works
to compress the discs and cartilage in your spine over time,
making you shorter.

Getting to a point where you're consistently walking with
better posture can be difficult and could take weeks of
conscious work. Keeping the back stiff and upright, the
shoulders forced back, and the head held high are methods
that need to be used to break such habits. Eventually, the
new habits should take root and become second nature.

2. Sitting Posture - As more and more people pull up seats
in front of a computer, both for work and pleasure, the
problem of poor sitting posture has grown. The chair,
keyboard, and monitor and should all be set to positions
that will force the user to sit up straight. LCD monitors
are useful for enforcing this, as they must be viewed at a
consistent angle to be fully viewed. If set properly, any
bad sitting habits should immediately make it more difficult
to view all of the screen, forcing the user to get back into
a better position.

3. Sleeping Posture - The one people would generally be the
least aware of, and also the one that would seemingly be the
most difficult to break, though this isn't the case. By
properly utilizing pillows, by removing them when sleeping
on one's back and by sticking them between the legs when
sleeping on the side, bad sleeping posture can be limited
with little effort.

4. Bow Legs and Knock Knees - These conditions are much more
difficult to cure, and may require a visit to a doctor, and
the use of special insoles in the shoes to force the body's
weight to one edge of the foot or the other, helping to
offset the condition and straighten the legs.

5. Scoliosis - The most serious of the conditions mentioned,
and one which will almost certainly require help in one way
or another from a medical professional. Scoliosis causes
severe curvature of the spine, resulting in major height
loss and other ailments. Surgery may be required in advanced
cases of this ailment.

By improving posture, one can see a gradual improvement in
one's height, as well as giving the appearance to others of
being more professional. Breaking old habits can be
difficult, but once accomplished, will make it that much
harder to go back to the old habits.

Women kept in the dark when it comes to their health

UPDATE: 2 March: "A Case for Thermography" Healthy Handout© is now available from CHI/The Oake Centre with your donation.
---------------------------------------
UPDATE: 24 Feb: PLEASE READ COMMENT FOR CONFIRMING INFORMATION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that women are kept in the dark on mammography, but so is everyone else. I heard this same song from a local hospital administrator when I queried him why his facility was not offering thermography. His reply was that there weren't any studies.

I replied that there were studies and sent him several references. I haven't had a reply, and I don't expect one. I just know I have to drive 75 minutes to get thermography.

With the 3 day Race and March coming soon (Women's Health Month) perhaps you'll like to send along your donation to get our report on mammography that we've finally found time to update. I'm sure it will be eye-opening for the vast majority of women.

Women kept in the dark about the facts about mammography
Dr. John Briffa, 20 February 2009
Mammography is a widely advocated and popular intervention designed to pick up breast cancers earlier than they would otherwise be, and therefore allow less invasive and more effective treatment. However, as I pointed out in a blog back in 2007, some researchers believe that the benefits of mammography are somewhat overblown, and that the potential downsides are at the same time downplayed or not mentioned at all. A major problem with mammography is that it may detect cancers that would not go on to trouble women during their lifespan. This can obviously subject women to unnecessary stress and anxiety, not to mention unnecessary treatment in the form of, say, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

The debate about the relative benefits and harms of mammography has reared up again in the UK because of the publication of a letter in the Times newpaper which can you read here. In it, 23 interested parties cite evidence that is published by the researcher Peter Gøtzsche and his colleagues from the independent Nordic Cochrane Centre in 2006 [1]. This review of the available literature concluded that: “for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.”

The letter in the Times appears timed to coincide with the print publication of an article by Peter Gøtzsche and colleagues in this week’s British Medical Journal [2]. The article outlines some of the apparent deficiencies and omissions in the information given to UK women regarding breast screening. The article refers to the UK Department of Health (DoH) leaflet entitled ‘Breast Screening; the Facts’. The authors of the article make the point that the title of the leaflet suggests the information can be trusted. But can it?

The authors of the BMJ piece make the point that the DoH leaves no doubt that screening is good for women, and quote excerpts from the leaflet which include: “Why do I need breast screening?”, “If changes are found at an early stage, there is a good chance of a successful recovery,”. The leaflet also claims that breast screen saves “an estimated 1400 lives each year in this country” and “reduces the risk of the women who attend dying from breast cancer.”

However, according to the authors, the leaflet has many deficiencies which mean that women cannot make informed decisions about whether they attend breast screening or not.

For instance, no mention is made of the major harm of screening—that is, unnecessary treatment of harmless lesions that would not have been identified without screening. It is in violation of guidelines and laws for informed consent not to mention this common harm, especially when screening is aimed at healthy people. The new guidelines from the General Medical Council state: “You must tell patients if an investigation or treatment might result in a serious adverse outcome, even if the likelihood is very small.” The likelihood of being overdiagnosed after mammography is not very small; it is ten times larger than the likehood [sic] of avoiding death from breast cancer.

The leaflet notes that about one in every 20 women screened will be recalled for more tests because of ‘false positive’ results (results that suggest a problem when, in reality, there is none). But, as Gøtzsche and colleagues point out, the more screenings a woman has, the more likely she is to end up with a false positive result. They cite evidence that shows that after 10 screens, risk of false positive diagnosis was 50 per cent in one piece of research and 20 per cent in another. The authors add: “We now know that the psychosocial strain of a false alarm can be severe and may continue after women are declared free from cancer.”

Basically, mammography can lead to women have unnecessary treatment including radiotherapy. Gøtzsche and colleagues point this out, and also explore some of the risks associated with this. They note that the leaflet tells women that the dose of radiation from mammography is very small, but does not tell women of the risks associated with healthy women having radiotherapy. They cite evidence that radiotherapy suggesting that radiotherapy may double the risk of death from heart disease and lung cancer. The authors that that “Technological improvements may have diminished these harms to some extent, but they are still important.”

The authors also tell us that the leaflet summary implies that screening leads to fewer mastectomies. In fact, research shows that screening leads to 20 per cent more mastectomies being performed.

Also, we are told that the leaflet expresses no reservations about screening older women, “only a scare that the breast cancer risk increases with age, although it has not been shown that screening these women decreases their risk of dying from breast cancer. Furthermore, the problem with overdiagnosis becomes more pronounced, and the likehood of gaining any benefit smaller, due to competing risks of death.”

And, finally, the authors point out that it has not been proven that screening saves lives. While it may reduce the risk of breast cancer mortality (by about 15 per cent), studies show that breast screening does not decrease total cancer mortality. As the authors point out “This indicates that the benefit of screening is likely to be smaller than generally perceived.”

The authors then conclude: “We believe that if policy makers had had the knowledge we now have when they decided to introduce screening about 20 years ago, when nobody had published data on overdiagnosis or on the imbalance between numbers of prevented deaths from breast cancer and numbers of false positive screening results and the psychosocial consequences of the false alarms, we probably would not have had mammography screening.”

This is one group of reseachers’ view, and not everyone will share it. The figures regarding those that benefit and those who may come to harm have been disputed. However, there can be little doubt that many women are simply not being informed of the full facts about breast screening. So one figure I think we can be certain of is that chances of these women making a truly informed decision about mammography is zero. I’m not against mammography, but I am against women being kept in the dark about the true benefits and risks associated with this practice.

References:

1. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001877. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub2.

2. Gøtzsche PC, et al. Breast screening: the facts—or maybe not. BMJ 2009;338:b86

More problems for Women's Health

The difficulty here from my perspective is that you aren't being told that anyone treated for any type of cancer can later develop other cancers. Usually people are told that if they achieve the 5 year window successfully following treatment they are cancer free. The other side of this is that if you do develop cancer again after the end of the 5 year window, it is statistically interpreted as a "new"cancer, although that may not in fact be the case.

What I wonder is why don't more women get told about the real and effective benefits from herbs and other nutritional supplements along with diet that will off set menopausal symptoms bone loss concerns. At time is is important to consider liver health because of its role in recycling neurotransmitters and detoxification, all interfered with by chemotherapy and other synthetic hormone pharmaceuticals.

Menopause drug linked to breast cancer relapse
Tue Feb 17, 2009
PARIS (AFP) – A synthetic steroid used to treat menopause symptoms and prevent osteoporosis significantly increases the risk of a relapse in breast cancer patients, according to a study released Tuesday.

The steroid, called tibolone, should not be prescribed to a woman who has had or is suspected of having breast cancer, concluded the study, published in the British medical journal The Lancet Oncology.

Women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy are often beset with the debilitating symptoms of menopause, including hot flushes, night sweats, and bone loss.

Tibolone is licensed for use in 90 countries for alleviating these symptoms, and 55 countries have approved its use in treating osteoporosis, according to the study.

But concern that the drugs might also cause a recurrence of cancer have led to their being ruled out for patients with breast cancer.

Still, many patients with breast cancer use the drug -- often available without prescription -- to counteract the effects of menopause.

In clinical trials led by Peter Kenemans of the VU University Medical Centre in Amsterdam, 3,098 women who had been surgically treated for breast cancer and who were experiencing hot flushes along with other related symptoms were divided into two groups.

The first was given a daily dose of 2.5 milligrammes of tibolone, and the second a look-alike placebo.

Just over 10 percent of the women who had taken the dummy medication suffered a cancer relapse, compared to more than 15 percent of the women who had taken the steroid -- an increased risk of 40 percent.

Seventy percent of the recurrences among the tibolone group were so-called "distant metastatses," which are invariably fatal.

The increased risk was so pronounced that the trial was stopped six months early.

"Although the trial was intended to show the non-inferiority of tibolone compared with placebo, the findings clearly show that -- although effective against hot flushes -- tibolone does increase the risk of breast-cancer recurrence," the study said.

Copyright © 2009 Agence France Presse.

The Red Dress, Heart Month and Women's Health

"Heart Disease Doesn’t Care What You Wear -- It’s the Number 1 Killer of Women."

The primary goal of The Heart Truth campaign is to raise awareness that heart disease is the number one killer of women.

To support this goal, The Heart Truth campaign launched the Red Dress as the national symbol for women and heart disease awareness in February 2003.

A longtime friend of mine, about age 67, was found dead on the floor in her home just under two weeks ago. She had a good doctor but still her damaged heart probably just quit.

Another very dear friend of mine, and younger than I am, has been dealing with heart failure for a couple of years. Her doctor is described as rude and demeaning of her choice of more natural care which the doctor disdains. Still my friend seems to be doing fairly well.

Because I've spent over 30 years in the health care industry in various levels of nursing, administration and education I've known for quite some time that male focused mainstream medicine does not usually do studies on health issues that affect women. The treatments also are based on how men are affected as are the symptoms listed as warnings for heart attack. Only very recently has this started to change.

But, having the enquiring mind that I do, and the fact that I am an inveterate proponent of public health and natural care, I am just wondering this: Has anyone ever looked at the effect of Annual Screening Mammogram and the increase in the rate of heart disease in women?

It is a fact that radiation from x-ray exposure is cumulative and has a deleterious effect on thyroid, heart and breast health. Breast cancer is a side effect of mammogram. Heart disease and thyroid imbalance are side effects of radiation treatment for breast cancer.

What might your thoughts be?

How Mainstream Media Distorts Health Information

I will readily say that mainstream media outlets have a one-sided medical only slant on news when it comes to reporting on current health issues.

An informative health journalism review organization I subscribe to sent out an evaluation that can serve as a very specific example of what I mean.

From the TODAY show here is a 6-minute segment almost completely devoid of evidence and data, riding the single personal anecdote of the network's medical editor. Disease-mongering. Incomplete story on heart CT scans....

I also have to offer that the reference in the video to using statins is not very good information based on the science, even if it is coming from a doctor.

Corruption at the FDA? You Betcha Red Rider!

What big eyes you have my dear, and now let me explain why you should avoid the digital mammography scam -

"In the letter the group singled out mammography computer-aided detection devices as an example of a technology that should not have gone forward. The devices were supposed to improve breast cancer detection, but instead studies showed they were associated with false alarms that led to unnecessary breast biopsies.

Since 2006, FDA experts have recommended five times against approving the devices without better clinical evidence, the letter said. In March of last year, a panel of outside advisers supported some of the concerns of the FDA's in-house scientists. Nonetheless, FDA managers overruled the objections and ordered approval."

Remember to "question authority" because your life and your health depend on it.

FDA scientists complain to Obama of 'corruption'
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — In an unusually blunt letter, a group of federal scientists is complaining to the Obama transition team of widespread managerial misconduct in a division of the Food and Drug Administration.

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scientific review process for medical devices at the FDA has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk," said the letter, dated Wednesday and written on the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health letterhead.

The center is responsible for medical devices ranging from stents and breast implants to MRIs and other imaging machinery. The concerns of the nine scientists who wrote to the transition team echo some of the complaints from the FDA's drug review division a few years ago during the safety debacle involving the painkiller Vioxx.

The FDA declined to publicly respond to the letter, but said it is working to address the concerns.

In their letter the FDA dissidents alleged that agency managers use intimidation to squelch scientific debate, leading to the approval of medical devices whose effectiveness is questionable and which may not be entirely safe.

"Managers with incompatible, discordant and irrelevant scientific and clinical expertise in devices...have ignored serious safety and effectiveness concerns of FDA experts," the letter said. "Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid."
A copy of the letter, with the names of the scientists redacted, was provided to The Associated Press by a congressional official.

"Currently, there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around," the scientists wrote.

FDA spokeswoman Judy Leon said in response: "We have been working very closely with members of the transition team and any concerns or questions they have on any issue, we will address directly with the team. Separately, the agency is actively engaged in a process to explore the staff members' concerns and take appropriate action."

Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers are urging Obama to appoint a commissioner who will shake up the FDA and restore the confidence of its working-level scientists and medical experts. But industry officials fear that approval of new drugs and devices could be delayed by endless scientific disputes — which is the agency's reputation.

The FDA dissidents have previously taken their concerns to Congress and found support from lawmakers in the House.

In the letter the group singled out mammography computer-aided detection devices as an example of a technology that should not have gone forward. The devices were supposed to improve breast cancer detection, but instead studies showed they were associated with false alarms that led to unnecessary breast biopsies.

Since 2006, FDA experts have recommended five times against approving the devices without better clinical evidence, the letter said. In March of last year, a panel of outside advisers supported some of the concerns of the FDA's in-house scientists. Nonetheless, FDA managers overruled the objections and ordered approval.

Top FDA managers "committed the most outrageous misconduct by ordering, coercing and intimidating FDA physicians and scientists to recommend approval, and then retaliating when the physicians and scientists refused to go along," the letter said.

A spokeswoman said the Obama transition team had no comment.

And as an additional comment -

Report: FDA lax in oversight in trials Published: Jan. 12, 2009

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 (UPI) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does little to oversee doctors' financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials, government inspectors said Monday.

The inspector general's report from the Department of Health and Human Services also said its investigators were told by FDA officials trying to protect patients from such conflicts was essentially a waste of time, The New York Times reported.

The agency received no forms disclosing doctors' financial conflicts in 42 percent of clinical trials of drugs and medical devices, and regulators did nothing about the problem, the inspector general said.

In 31 percent of the trials in which the agency did receive the required forms, FDA reviewers gave no indication they'd looked at the information, the inspector general said.

And in 20 percent of the cases in which doctors admitted significant financial conflicts, neither the FDA nor the sponsoring companies did anything to deal with the conflicts, the investigators found.

An FDA spokeswoman told the Times the agency did not review doctors' financial conflicts before trials because the conflicts represented only one possible source of bias.

Studies have found that 20 percent to 33 percent of all doctors who help oversee clinical trials have financial conflicts, the Times said.
Source: UPI.

Testing Hormone Bending Ingredients Should Not Be Sexually Biased

The fact that the EPA would exclude women from their proposed testing of the risks and hazards of pthalates is unconscionable.

Chemicals are equal opportunity toxins....

Hormones Should Be Analyzed Together

Scientists to EPA: Risks of Chemicals That Alter Male Hormones Should Be Analyzed Together Concluding that nearly everybody is exposed to a mix of chemicals that could be damaging male reproductive health, a national panel of scientists on Thursday advised the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to shift its focus and group them together when judging how much of a danger they pose.