Brutally Honest

Will the birth control link to breast cancer now be given a serious look?

This story yesterday caught my eye:

The likelihood that a woman age 25 to 39 will be diagnosed with advanced breast cancer has steadily increased since the mid-1970s, researchers from Seattle Children’s and Oregon Health and Science University have found.

Analyzing data from hundreds of thousands of cases collected in three national cancer registries, the researchers, whose work is published in Wednesday’s issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), found no other age group had such an increase.

Although breast cancer overall is relatively rare in younger women, it is the most common malignant tumor in young adult women, who tend to experience more aggressive disease and have lower survival rates, the study’s authors said.

The study looked at the extent of disease at the time of original diagnosis, comparing the change in incidence in each age group from 1976 to 2009.

The increase in incidence of metastatic disease in the 25-39 age group was small — an increase of 1.37 cases per year for every 100,000 women — but statistically significant and steady throughout the time period, said the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Rebecca Johnson, medical director of the Adolescent and Young Adult oncology program at Seattle Children’s.

Since 1992, when data on race and geographic location were added to the databases, the increase among women in that age group occurred in all races and ethnicities evaluated and in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, the researchers said.

Non-Hispanic white women and African-American women, as well as women with estrogen-receptor positive subtypes of cancer, appear to have been most affected.

186 percent increase

Over the time period analyzed in the study, the number of women ages 25-39 in the U.S. grew from about 22 million to approximately 28 to 30 million — a figure that’s been steady since the 1980s, Johnson noted. That’s an increase of about 36 percent.

But in the same period, the number of women in that age group with an original diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer increased from 293 in 1976 to 838 in 2009, an increase of 186 percent.

No other age group had a similar increase.

...

“We’re interested in these trends,” Johnson said, “with the hypothesis that cancers of adolescents and young adults may have unique biological features that more research may uncover.”

She hopes future studies may reveal why the rate of metastatic breast cancer in young women has increased.

“The rate of this change has been so rapid we think it’s likely there’s some sort of external factor,” she said — perhaps a “modifiable risk factor”such as obesity, alcohol use, the age when a woman first gives birth, an environmental toxin exposure, or a combination of factors.

“It could be complicated, it could be simple, or something we haven’t thought of yet,” Johnson said.

Or it could be something that would not sit well with a certain ideology and thus needs to be suppressed:

1) How could the Pill cause breast cancer?

Two of the most important types of hormones that control reproduction are estrogens and progestins. Birth control pills are made from synthetic estrogens and/or progestins. Experiments have shown that these hormones cause women’s breast cells to divide more rapidly. [1] Cells which divide more rapidly are more prone to develop into cancer cells.

2) What is the evidence that the Pill and breast cancer are connected?
In 2005, the World Health Organization classified oral contraceptives as a Group I carcinogen—the most dangerous classification known.[2] Also, a comprehensive meta-analysis* published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in October, 2006[3] found that 21 out of 23 retrospective studies done since 1980 showed that women who took oral contraceptive prior to the birth of their first child sustained a 44% average increased risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer, [see Table A]. ] This risk rose to 52% for women who took the pill for at least four years prior to the birth of their first child.

3) How serious of a problem is breast cancer?

Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in U. S. in women age 20-59. In the U.S. about 211,000 women are diagnosed annually and over 40,000 die from this disease.[4] More than one in five women who are diagnosed with breast cancer (ie, 47,000 women annually) will develop it before menopause. About one in eight women will develop breast cancer at some time in her life and one fourth of such women will die from this disease. Using the birth control pill, especially at a young age, markedly increases a woman’s risk for developing breast cancer. This risk is increased even higher when combined with other breast cancer risk factors such as induced abortion, hormone treatment (such as estrogen supplementation), family history of breast cancer, and other factors.

4) Do some contraceptives cause more risk than others?

Yes. Research studies show that breast cancer risk is almost tripled for women who used Depo-Provera for 2 years or more before age 25. [5]

5) Are other types of cancer affected by oral contraceptive pills?

Oral contraceptives decrease the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer, while they increase the risk of cervical and breast cancer. [6] Since breast cancer is far more prevalent than the other three types of gynecological cancers, the pills overall effect is detrimental to women.

6) Are there other risks from contraceptives?
Yes. Well known side effects of the Pill include an increased frequency of blood clots, high blood pressure, and heart attacks, as well as migraines, depression, loss of libido, and a variety of other disorders. Less well known is that oral contraceptives and injectable progestins (such
as Depo-Provera) significantly increase the risk of contracting and transmitting HIV (the AIDS virus). [7,8] In addition, medical studies strongly suggest that oral contraceptives work at times by causing an early abortion. [9]

Next time you hear someone talk about the war on women being waged by Catholics, perhaps it'd be good to have them open their eyes to this.

Measuring societal decay?

Start in Massachusetts:

The Massachusetts Department of Education has issued a new directive for schools in the handling of transgendered students, including allowing them to use whichever restroom they choose.

“Transgender students who are uncomfortable using a sex-segregated restroom should be provided with a safe and adequate alternative, such as a single ‘unisex’ restroom or the nurse’s restroom,” the 11-page directive reads.

The directive also states even though some students may feel uncomfortable with sharing the same sex-segregated restroom or locker room as the transgendered student, the “this discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”

...

The directive also requires that all transgendered students be allowed to participating in gender-specific activities that he or she identifies with.

“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” the guidelines stipulate.

If you have a problem with any of this, you must be... disordered.

Get it?

"Are you [bleeping] kidding me? Are you [bleeping] kidding me?"

That's the reaction from Mollie Hemingway at GetReligion to The New York Times coverage of this past weekend's March for Life in DC:

The story that has outraged so many folks is the primary story on the march that ran in a more prominent position than the straight story. In fact, it ran above the fold of the national news section, headlined “In Fight Over Life, a New Call by Catholics.”

The lede:

The March for Life in Washington on Friday renewed the annual impassioned call to end legalized abortion, 40 years after the Roe v. Wade decision. But this year, some Roman Catholic leaders and theologians are asking why so many of those who call themselves “pro-life” have been silent, or even opposed, when it comes to controlling the guns that have been used to kill and injure millions of Americans.

More than 60 Catholic priests, nuns, scholars and two former ambassadors to theVatican sent a letter this week saying that if marchers and politicians truly want to defend life they should support “common-sense reforms to address the epidemic of gun violence in our nation.”

A caption for the piece read:

Anti-abortion protesters flooded the National Mall in Washington on Friday for the annual March for Life. Many Catholic leaders and theologians are asking why many of those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ have been silent when it comes to gun control.

You’ll notice that marchers are only called “pro-life” in a scare-quotey sense to cast skepticism on their claims. You might also wonder if the Times broke precedent to cover the massive march so as to be able to criticize it with this more prominent story, but we can’t really know the answer to that question.

We’re a family site here so I’m going to be careful here:

Are you [bleeping] kidding me? Are you [bleeping] kidding me?

What? This is the religion angle for the massive, hundreds-thousands-strong March for Life that marks the murder of 55 million unborn children over the last 40 years? We’re going to turn it into something nebulous (no specific gun controls are even discussed) related to the media’s current political cause du jour?

And it gets worse.

Believe it or not, this is basically just a press release from the same savvy, highly funded PR firm that has been rolling reporters for the last year. One is beginning to think they enjoy the ride.

The group that put out the letter is … drum roll please …

… Faith in Public Life. Yes, that Faith in Public Life! They’re the ones who came up with the highly successful “Nuns on the Bus” tour that got embarrassingly uncritical coverage for an anti-Paul Ryan campaign featuring not one, not two, but as many asthree to four nuns. We’re talking front-page coverage in major media outlets, gushy broadcasts, the works.

You couldn’t pay for coverage this nice. Except, I guess, that George Soros and his fellow donors do pay for this coverage. But you know what I mean.

Well yes, thinking people know what you mean Mollie.

It means that the media continues to be in our faces as to being in the tank for progressives and their agenda but particularly so when that agenda entails issues of faith.

Mollie actually has an additional story that's more of the same.

And so the culture wars continue, waiting for those on the sidelines to choose a side.

Have you chosen?

A margin of doubt for the Medal of Honor

Posted by guest blogger Locutisprime

The last time I checked, awarding the Medal of Honor was not hinged upon some courtroom standard of reasonable doubt. Witnesses testify to the acts of the individual cited and the medal is awarded for cause based upon eye witness testimony.

In  this case a young Marine died saving his comrades from a grenade attack in Iraq eight years ago, yet the secretary of defense and his predecessor don't believe that what he did that day is good enough to receive the nation's highest honor. This fallen Marine was observed scooping a live grenade underneath his body to save his comrades, but that isn't good enough. Serious questions have been raised.  Questions like......which hand did he use to grab and scoop the grenade with?

Seriously? In the fog of war, one man's recollection of which hand was used differs from another? And that is cause to inject reasonable doubt and deny this medal? Other questions linger and suggest the autopsy report reflects that Sgt. Rafael Peralta suffered a mortal head wound before the incident and therefore, he couldn't have done that which others witnessed him perform? Really?  A mortally wounded Marine saved his comrades, but that couldn't have happened as it has been reported? So what the hell did the witnesses see that day? Was it a dead man that reached out and scooped up a grenade and saved his comrades? Or was Sgt. Rafael Peralta shot in the head after the act? Or did his fellow Marines simply place his body on top of a live grenade after his death for shits and giggles?

Leon Panetta and Robert Gates are both POS in my opinion. Neither of them have provided anything other than yes man stone walling for this cardboard cutout presidency of Barack Obama. Both have been responsible for the countless deaths of our service men in Afghanistan since Obama took office via their complicit issuance of absurd rules of engagement. Rules specifically aimed at furthering the liberal agenda and perception, while sacrificing our troops on the alter of political correct egalitarianism. Panetta and Gates are personally responsible because they have implemented Obama's political policies to the detriment and the death of young men and women who deserved more from their leaders than political correctness and egalitarian lies.

This young Marine deserves the honor that he earned. This medal was paid for in full in Fallujah Iraq eight years ago. It was paid for with the last full measure of love and devotion that Sgt. Rafael Peralta could offer to his friends as he was dying in a despicable place for a despicable cause.

Shame on all who have sought to deny this hero the honor and respect that he earned

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has denied the request to give Sgt. Rafael Peralta the Medal of Honor, saying there are still too many questions to accept that he knowingly scooped a grenade beneath himself to absorb its blast and save his fellow Marines.

The Pentagon informed Peralta’s family Wednesday morning of the denial, eight years after he was killed in Fallujah, Iraq, and four years after then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates denied an initial bid to award Peralta the military’s top honor despite eyewitness reports from his platoon that he saved their lives.

Icela Donald, Peralta’s sister, said the decision was a disappointment — compounded by the lack of a good reason. She said the family was told that one overriding factor was Mr. Panetta's reluctance to overturn the decision of Mr. Gates.

“That right there just truly made it even worse,” she said. “It’s not that they don’t want to do the right thing, it’s that they don’t want to turn over someone else’s decision.”
A Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department wouldn’t comment “on Medal of Honor nominations under consideration.”

Peralta has been awarded the Navy Cross, the second-highest honor a Marine can earn, but his family has not accepted it. Ms. Donald said her mother feels that if she accepted it, she would be settling.
The quest to upgrade to the Medal of Honor seemed to get a big boost last week when Navy Secretary Ray Mabus backed the move, and Peralta has had a key ally in Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine officer.

Peralta was under consideration for the Medal of Honor four years ago, but the Pentagon questioned the reliability of eyewitnesses, who said Peralta scooped the grenade under him but disagreed about details such as which hand he used.

The Pentagon also pointed to autopsy data that suggested he was likely dead, and probably blinded, from a friendly-fire gunshot wound to the head and thus could not have voluntarily scooped the grenade toward himself.

“There is no way to reconcile differences in forensic evidence and conflicting testimony of Marines involved,” the Pentagon report said, but it concluded that the forensic evidence created enough “margin of doubt” that the medal could not be issued.

Read the rest.

Michael Bloomberg; idiot extraordinaire

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

Hot Air:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been on the receiving end of a firestorm of criticism lately, particularly for his ham handed handling of the Hurricane Sandy recovery. But this story is almost too stupid to check.

Mayor Bloomberg has snubbed Borough President Markowitz’s impassioned plea to bring the National Guard to Hurricane Sandy-scarred Brooklyn — arguing that approving the Beep’s request would be a waste of federal manpower and turn the borough into a police state.

“We don’t need it,” Mayor Bloomberg said on Wednesday during a press update on the city’s ongoing Hurricane Sandy cleanup. “The NYPD is the only people we want on the street with guns.”

I’m not sure, but I think we’re witnessing the complete implosion of somebody who was once considered a pretty influential politician on the rise. Yes, Bloomberg doesn’t much care for the Second Amendment and doesn’t want people to have guns. We get it. But we’re talking about the National Guard here. Has this guy completely lost his mind?

This is a time when leaders up and down the east coast are loudly singing the praises of the National Guard for their rapid deployment and efficient rescue, recovery and security work. It’s also a time when people out on Staten Island are hanging on by a thread, with looting and violence being a serious threat on top of the hurricane’s destruction. Who in their right mind even suggests that Guardsmen carrying their weapons is an issue at a time like this? I understand wanting to express your support of and confidence in the police department and the firefighters, but even some of the finest first responders in the nation are completely swamped by the magnitude of this disaster. They could use the help and the Guard stands ready to provide it.

The rest. 

Now can we call them anti-Christian?

I don't know how else to square the logic:

Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Actually, he has done that  . . . and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.

During the (understandable) controversy over the city selling land for a house of worship at a below-market rate a decade ago, reporters discovered that the Islamic Society of Boston counted imam Yusef al-Qaradawi as one of its spiritual guides. As the Weekly Standard reported at the time:

“The ISB does not dispute the fact that they have repeatedly used al-Qaradawi as a tool to raise funds for the Boston mosque, printing a brochure that highlighted al-Qaradawi’s enthusiastic support of the mosque and playing a videotaped message of support from him at a 2002 gathering.”

Also in attendance at the gathering, listening to al-Qaradawi’s message: Mayor Tom Menino.

I'm sure Menino, should he be confronted with what was just read, would atempt to wriggle out of it in some way by pointing out how may Muslims are moderate and how many would not take seriously the Quranic command to put the homosexual to death.

But that benefit of the doubt the idiot won't extend to Christians and so in the mental gymnastics tumbling forth from the excuse for a brain that sits in the man's head, he finds Christians more threatening in some way than Muslims.

Yea, I think we can call him anti-Christian.

And I think we can do the same for his buddy Obama.  Bowing to Muslim leaders, extending the open hand of friendship while in the same breath attempting to shove the HHS mandate down the throat of Catholics who actually believe in the tenets of their faith.

Yea, I think we can call him anti-Christian as well.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"The nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people"

Obama believes his biggest mistake thus far is his story-telling:

"When I think about what we've done well and what we haven't done well," the president said, "the mistake of my first term - couple of years - was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that's important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times."

Mr. Obama acknowledged the dissonance between others' perception of his strength as an expert orator, and his own. 

"It's funny - when I ran, everybody said, well he can give a good speech but can he actually manage the job?" he said. "And in my first two years, I think the notion was, 'Well, he's been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where's the story that tells us where he's going?' And I think that was a legitimate criticism." 

Pressed by Rose about what he felt he needed to explain better to the American people, the president corrected that he wanted to do more "explaining, but also inspiring." 

"Because hope is still there," Mrs. Obama added.

Mitt Romney jumped on this with both feet:

“Being president is not about telling stories.”

“President Obama believes that millions of Americans have lost their homes, their jobs and their livelihood because he failed to tell a good story,” Romney said in a written statement. “Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead. No wonder Americans are losing faith in his presidency.”

He's no John McCain.

White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew is an exceptional liar

Here you have a person who has so bought into the lie, nothing will sway him from it, even when confronted with irrefutable evidence:

"If you deny that it’s a tax, you admit that it’s unconstitutional"

That from Glenn Reynolds while linking to this piece:

It didn’t even take 24 hours for the games and backtracking by the White House to begin. Don’t forget, they insisted to the American people — in order to get the bill passed — that it was not a tax. Clearly, they are worried about the tax narrative shaping the rest of the election season rhetoric.

Read the whole thing.

There's a reason for this Mr. President

I received the following from Obama yesterday:

Rick --

I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far.

I'm not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups -- I'm talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.

The Romney campaign raises more than we do, and the math isn't hard to understand: Through the primaries, we raised almost three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mitt Romney's campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1,000 or more.

And, again, that's not including the massive outside spending by super PACs and front groups funneling up to an additional billion dollars into ads trashing me, you, and everything we believe in.

We can be outspent and still win -- but we can't be outspent 10 to 1 and still win.

More than 2.2 million Americans have already chipped in for us, and I'm so grateful for it. As we face this week's fundraising deadline, can you make a donation of $3 or more today?

Every donation you make today automatically enters you to join Michelle and me for one of the last grassroots dinners of this campaign -- today is your last chance to get your name in.

These dinners represent how we do things differently. My opponent spent this past weekend at a secretive retreat for the biggest donors to both his campaign and the super PACs that support him.

I've got other responsibilities I'm attending to.

Donate today to stand for our kind of politics:

https://donate.barackobama.com/June-Deadline

Thank you,

Barack

Maybe, just maybe, the reason you're being outspent Mr. President, and that this is the first time in history an incumbent is being outspent, is because people just don't want you to be re-elected and are doing their level best to ensure that outcome by giving money to your opposition.

Maybe.