RE: Where am i wrong here?

[Guest guest]

You are correct, but don’t let the facts get in the way! Remember, Satan is the father of lies and twists the truth, just like in the garden. The counter to their counter would be that the hormonal contraceptive causes a state of pseudopregnancy- so why induce that state DAILY for years and years on end, when most women only have two or three children throughout their fertile lifetime; why induce that state when there is a perfectly reasonable method- NFP- that can work as effectively when used properly- without cost and without side effects???? But the real effective method is to not accept in incorrect premise otherwise the solution will be tainted (father of lies again).Les Ruppersberger D.O. From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of BameSent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 8:06 AMTo: nfpprofessionals Cc: chazno@...Subject: Where am i wrong here? Ok - let us look at one area of OCP-related morbidity and mortality -- cardiovascular effects. Most of us would accept that there are increased risks with OCPS regarding increased thromboembolic events (increased DVTs, pulmonary emboli -- blood clots in the lungs, stroke and heart attacks). Those of us who treat patients see more common benign effects, like increased blood pressure and increased cholesterol while women are on the pill, they go off the pill and these things get better. So, contracepting women have increased rates of cardiovascular events (and i have pulled over 30 studies which prove this). As an aside, the newer 3rd generation progestins were supposed to have LOWER cardiovascular risks -- they do not - and now we have class action lawsuits against yaz and yasmin because many women died from such events. So, going back to the original question, OCPS have increased cardiovascular risks, the other side acknowledges this but then says, but the pregnant state also has increased thromboembolic events associated with it, and so contracepting women's rates are really no different or perhaps just slightly higher than pregnant women (except when you are dealing with women over 35 and/or smokers -- in those 2 cases, the thromboembolic events from OCPS are 10 times the pregnant state). My question: why have we let them define the comparison? Why do we compare contracepting women to pregnant women? The TRUE comparsion should be women who choose to manage their fertity with contraception versus women who choose to manage their fertility with Natural family planning. When you do that, the increased thromboembolic/cardiovascular risks associated with the pill are blatantly obvious. Where am i wrong on this argument? If you would agree with me on this, then can you anser why have " we " let " them " define the argument? Why don't we challenge more of these conventions? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

It's one thing folks to say Rebeccca is right, but as far as I can recall this is the first time I can recall this being said on this site, and it is absolutely true (Now it may have and I just missed it). It is a logical and statistical fallacy to say that the risks of the pill are safer than those of pregnancy.

Another is the argument that natural pregnancy is riskier than contraceptive use -- also fallacious and easy to disprovel

Another is the touting of the so-called "non-contraceptive benefits" cornucopia of claims made in favor of the pill.

Another is the idea of the health risks of so-called unintended or unwanted pregnancies and these outweighing the risk of robust contraception in these women, as if the contraceptive state were healthier.

Another is the women's health argument that says teenagers are healthier with contraceptives than if they engage in sex and risk pregnancy.

Another is, etc., etc., etc., and so-on and so-on.

I am glad has seen fit to inflame our little fraternity/sorority with the flame and ardor of just anger that ocmes with what our society has been doing to women, marriage , and family. Perhaps we may have been a bit too comfortable?

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

Where am i wrong here?

Ok - let us look at one area of OCP-related morbidity and mortality -- cardiovascular effects. Most of us would accept that there are increased

risks with OCPS regarding increased thromboembolic events (increased DVTs, pulmonary emboli -- blood clots in the lungs, stroke and heart attacks). Those of us who treat patients see more common benign effects, like increased blood pressure and increased cholesterol while women are on the pill, they go off the pill and these things get better. So, contracepting women have increased rates of cardiovascular events (and i have pulled over 30 studies which prove this). As an aside, the newer 3rd generation progestins were supposed to have LOWER cardiovascular risks -- they do not - and now we have class action lawsuits against yaz and yasmin because many women died from such events.

So, going back to the original question, OCPS hav

e increased cardiovascular risks, the other side acknowledges this but then says, but the pregnant state also has increased thromboembolic events associated with it, and so contracepting women's rates are really no different or perhaps just slightly higher than pregnant women (except when you are dealing with women over 35 and/or smokers -- in those 2 cases, the thromboembolic events from OCPS are 10 times the pregnant state).

My question: why have we let them define the comparison? Why do we compare contracepting women to pregnant women?

The TRUE comparsion should be women who choose to manage their fertity with contraception versus women who choose to manage their fertility with Natural family planning.

When you do that, the increased thromboembolic/cardiovascular risks associated with the pill are blatantly obvious.

Where am i wrong on this argument?

If you would agree with me on this, then can you anser why have "we" let "them" define the argument? Why don't we challenge more of these conventions?

Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

: You ask why compare contracepting women’s morbidity/mortality with those of pregnant or post partum women. Historically ( and today) contraceptives were targeted precisely to prevent conception and subsequent maternal morbidity/mortality. I know, there was also the aspect of prevention of STI’s.Until the early 1900’s .One in 20 women in the US died in childbirth. . That figure was reduced greatly in the developed world with modern obstetrics, including proper antenatal care, decades before the pill, but is still too high in the developing world, where post partum hemorrhage and eclampsia account for 90% of maternal deaths. {see www.aaplog.org for stats] Since today there are far more means available to separate sex from procreation, a comparison of both the efficacy and untoward effect of the means is appropriate. Hanna Klaus, M.D.Natural Family Planning Center of Washington, D.C. and Teen STAR Program4400 East West Highway # 911Bethesda, MD 20814-4510 hannaklaus@...http://www.teenstarprogram.org From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of BameSent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 8:06 AMTo: nfpprofessionals Cc: chazno@...Subject: Where am i wrong here? Ok - let us look at one area of OCP-related morbidity and mortality -- cardiovascular effects. Most of us would accept that there are increased risks with OCPS regarding increased thromboembolic events (increased DVTs, pulmonary emboli -- blood clots in the lungs, stroke and heart attacks). Those of us who treat patients see more common benign effects, like increased blood pressure and increased cholesterol while women are on the pill, they go off the pill and these things get better. So, contracepting women have increased rates of cardiovascular events (and i have pulled over 30 studies which prove this). As an aside, the newer 3rd generation progestins were supposed to have LOWER cardiovascular risks -- they do not - and now we have class action lawsuits against yaz and yasmin because many women died from such events. So, going back to the original question, OCPS have increased cardiovascular risks, the other side acknowledges this but then says, but the pregnant state also has increased thromboembolic events associated with it, and so contracepting women's rates are really no different or perhaps just slightly higher than pregnant women (except when you are dealing with women over 35 and/or smokers -- in those 2 cases, the thromboembolic events from OCPS are 10 times the pregnant state). My question: why have we let them define the comparison? Why do we compare contracepting women to pregnant women? The TRUE comparsion should be women who choose to manage their fertity with contraception versus women who choose to manage their fertility with Natural family planning. When you do that, the increased thromboembolic/cardiovascular risks associated with the pill are blatantly obvious. Where am i wrong on this argument? If you would agree with me on this, then can you anser why have " we " let " them " define the argument? Why don't we challenge more of these conventions? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

For an older but ever-timely article by the late Great Dr. Herbert Ratner on condoms, the physiological role of semen, etc., see:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/hrsemen.htm

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

Where am i wrong here?

Ok - let us look at one area of OCP-related morbidity and mortality -- cardiovascular effects. Most of us would accept that there are increased risks with OCPS regarding increased thromboembolic events (increased DVTs, pulmonary emboli -- blood clots in the lungs, stroke and heart attacks). Those of us who treat patients see more common benign effects, like increased blood pressure and increased cholesterol while women are on the pill, they go off t

he pill and these things get better. So, contracepting women have increased rates of cardiovascular events (and i have pulled over 30 studies which prove this). As an aside, the newer 3rd generation progestins were supposed to have LOWER cardiovascular risks -- they do not - and now we have class action lawsuits against yaz and yasmin because many women died from such events.

So, going back to the original question, OCPS have increased cardiovascular risks, the other side acknowledges this but then says, but the pregnant state also has increased thromboembolic events associated with it, and so contracepting women's rates are really no different or perhaps just slightly higher than pregnant women (except when you are dealing

with women over 35 and/or smokers -- in those 2 cases, the thromboembolic events from OCPS are 10 times the pregnant state).

My question: why have we let them define the comparison? Why do we compare contracepting women to pregnant women?

The TRUE comparsion should be women who choose to manage their fertity with contraception versus women who choose to manage their fertility with Natural family planning.

When you do that, the increased thromboembolic/cardiovascular risks associated with the pill are blatantly obvious.

Where am i wrong on this argument?

If you would agree with me on this, then can you anser why have "we" let "them" define the argument? Why don't we challenge more of these conventi

ons?

Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

Thank you for digging this out, Dominic.  Herb Ratner was a marvelous human being and a great friend. He supported me early on when I began to work with the Billings..  Much of what he says is still true,  but the connection between the pill and breast and cervical  cancer overrides the protective effect of seminal fluid, for reasons which we think we know.   It would be good to know the ages of the women with the immature uteri whose uteri matured after marriage.   Time alone also matures uteri,  as I can attest from  my own practice.Hanna From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of DominicSent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 5:40 PMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Re: Where am i wrong here? For an older but ever-timely article by the late Great Dr. Herbert Ratner on condoms, the physiological role of semen, etc., see: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/hrsemen.htm Sincerely yours, Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPhInterventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning ResearcherMedical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com) (office) (cell) (FAX)pedullad@... RE: Where am i wrong here? : You ask why compare contracepting women’s morbidity/mortality with those of pregnant or post partum women. Historically ( and today) contraceptives were targeted precisely to prevent conception and subsequent maternal morbidity/mortality. I know, there was also the aspect of prevention of STI’s.Until the early 1900’s .One in 20 women in the US died in childbirth. . That figure was reduced greatly in the developed world with modern obstetrics, including proper antenatal care, decades before the pill, but is still too high in the developing wo rld, where post partum hemorrhage and eclampsia account for 90% of maternal deaths. {see www.aaplog.org for stats] Since today there are far more means available to separate sex from procreation, a comparison of both the efficacy and untoward effect of the means is appropriate. Hanna Klaus, M.D.Natural Family Planning Center of Washington, D.C. and Teen STAR Program4400 East West Highway # 911< p class= " MsoNormal " >Bethesda, MD 20814-4510 hannaklaus@...http://www.teenstarprogram.org From: nfpprofessionals [m ailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of BameSent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 8:06 AMTo: nfpprofessionals Cc: chazno@...Subject: Where am i wrong here? Ok - let us look at one area of OCP-related morbidity and mortality -- cardiovascular effects. Most of us would accept that there are increased risks with OCPS regarding increased thromboembolic events (increased DVTs, pulmonary emboli -- blood clots in the lungs, stroke and heart attacks). Those of us who treat patients see more common benign effects, like increased blood pressure and increased cholesterol while women are on the pill, they go off t he pill and these things get better. So, contracepting women have increased rates of cardiovascular events (and i have pulled over 30 studies which prove this). As an aside, the newer 3rd generation progestins were supposed to have LOWER cardiovascular risks -- they do not - and now we have class action lawsuits against yaz and yasmin because many women died from such events. So, going back to the original question, OCPS have increased cardiovascular risks, the other side acknowledges this but then says, but the pregnant state also has increased thromboembolic events associated with it, and so contracepting women's rates are really no different or perhaps just slightly higher than pregnant women (except when you are dealing with women over 35 and/or smokers -- in those 2 cases, the thromboembolic events from OCPS are 10 times the pregnant state). My question: why have we let them define the comparison? Why do we compare contracepting women to pregnant women? The TRUE comparsion should be women who choose to manage their fertity with contraception versus women who choose to manage their fertility with Natural family planning. When you do that, the increased thromboembolic/cardiovascular risks associated with the pill are blatantly obvious. Where am i wrong on this argument? If you would agree with me on this, then can you anser why have " we " let " them " define the argument? Why don't we challenge more of these conventi ons? Blessings, rebecca