In a blow to the drugmaker, the US Supreme Court rejected a bid by Pfizer to appeal a $58 million damages award made four years ago to three Nevada women, who claimed they suffered breast cancer after taking the Prempro hormone replacement therapy made by its Wyeth unit (see this). The decision comes after the Nevada Supreme Court last November upheld the earlier decision.
As a result, the award stands as the largest to be upheld on appeal in thousands of hormone-replacement lawsuits. More than 6 million women took Prempro and Premarin before the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative study highlighted links to breast cancer, and Pfizer faced more than 10,000 claims, although the drugmaker has since settled nearly one-third of the cases and recently aside $772 million to begin settling the backlog of cases (back story).
The ruling last year by the Nevada Supreme Court confirmed an initial decision in favor of Arlene Rowatt, Jeraldine Scofield and Pamela Forrester, who were originally awarded $134 million, although that was later reduced by the trial judge. The court concluded the jury properly held Pfizer responsible for hiding the cancer risks.
Before the US Supreme Court, however, Pfizer lawyers argued that the trial court judge should have, instead, ordered a new trial rather than reduce the award, and that the jury was swayed by an “improper and inflammatory” closing argument by a lawyer for the women, Bloomberg News notes. Attorneys for the women urged the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal because the damages award was warranted in light of "extensive campaigns to provide false reassurances that its drugs were safe.”
UPDATE: A Pfizer spokesman send us this: “While we are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision, it does nothing to change the fact that hormone therapy medicines are an important treatment option for many women with debilitating symptoms of menopause. The FDA has regularly and thoroughly reviewed the benefits and risks of these medicines, and states that ‘hormone therapy is the most effective FDA approved medicine for relief of hot flashes, night sweats or vaginal dryness.’ ” He adds that four of the last five cases were found in favor of Wyeth.
gavel pic thx to walknboston on flickr
56 Comments
Please remind me again what benefits that Pfizer stockholders inherited in their (forced) purchase of Wyeth...
Maybe Pfizer can cut costs by outsourcing in-house and outside counsel...but then, the Pfizer senior executives who employ these attorneys and corp. counsel would probably argue that they are vital and beneficial to the U.S. economy and employment statistics.
The main reason for the high demand for hormone replacement is the high rate of hysterectomies and cast**tions (ovary removal). There are 22 million women in the U.S. who\\\'ve had a hysterectomy. 1 in 3 women is hysterectomized by age 60 and 1 in 2 by age 72. Well over 90% of these surgeries are unnecessary. Where are the lawsuits for women who are hysterectomized without informed consent?
Do a web search for HERS Foundation to get the facts about female organ removal as well as other procedures on the female organs.
Susan you are dead wrong. My late father was a surgeon, and chief of surgery at several major teaching hospital. I can tell you flat out that unless there are serious indications or complications, every surgeon performing a hysterectomy will make every effort to spare enough ovarian tissue to permit conception later on.
Every young premenopausal woman who has a complete oophorectomy must be immediately given estrogen replacement lest she experience immediate and serious symptoms of estrogen deficiency. Long term estrogen replacement is necessary after complete oophorectomy in a younger woman in order to prevent bone loss later in life.
Correction on first paragraph above. Ovary sparing in a hysterectomy doesn't preserve conceptual function but preserves endocrine function. Even conception later on is possibility with egg donation and in vitro fertilization with surrogate pregnancy.
Susan,
Yes, you sure do sound like what you are, an industry insider. Industry has everything to gain by promoting drugs and surgery, regardless of whether it is safe, efficacious, or medically warranted.
You speak in sweeping terms, \\"dead wrong\\", \\"...every surgeon performing a hysterectomy will make every effort to spare enough ovarian tissue to permit conception later on.\\" Every young premenopausal woman...\\", \\"must be immediately give estrogen replacement\\", etc.
First, Susan is right on the mark. Her comment is fact, not conjecture. Second, no one has a way of knowing what every surgeon does, even if we did not have the benefit of hundreds of the medical journal articles that tell us that the vast majority of hysterectomies and female castrations (removal of the female gonads, the ovaries is castration) were unnecessary. Third, young castrated women are not menopausal. Menopausal women have intact ovaries that will produce all of the hormones they need, their entire lifetime. There is no age when the ovaries stop producing the hormones needed at various ages and stages in a woman\\\'s life. Fourth, when women are informed of the danger of exogenous estrogens they have the right to refuse them rather than risk developing cancer.
This short video connects the dots about female anatomy, the functions of the female organs,and what happens to a woman\\\'s body when the uterus and/or ovaries are removed, www.hersfoundation.org/anatomy.
These are a few of the hundreds of citations that will help you to learn the facts about hysterectomy, female castration and hormones: 1. Parrish HM, Carr CA, Hall DG, King TM. Time interval from castration in premenopausal women to development of excessive coronary atherosclerosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1967;99:155-162. 2. Benrubi GI. History of Hysterectomy. Journal of the Florida Medical Association 1988;75:533-538. 3.Baskett TF. Hysterectomy: evolution and trends. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2005;Vol:295-305. 4.Simon JA, diZerega GS. Physiologic estradiol replacement following oophorectomy: failure to maintain precastration gonadotropin levels. Obstet Gynecol 1982;59:511-513. 5.Wolfe S. Feminine straight to the grave. Mother\\\'s Healer 1978;18-19. 6.Risch HA. Estrogen replacement therapy and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1996;63:254-257. 7.Rodriguez C, Patel AV, Calle EE, Jacob E, Thun MJ. Estrogen replacement therapy and ovarian cancer mortality in a large prospective study of US women. JAMA 2001;285:1460-1465. 8. Garcia CR, CUtler WB. Preservation of the ovary: a reevaluation. Fertil Steril 1984;42:510-514. 9.Adashi EY. The climacteric ovary as a functioinal gonadotropin-driven androgen-producing gland. Fertil Steril 1994;62:20-27. 10.Judd HL, Judd GE, Lucas WE, Yen SS. Endocrine function of the postmenopausal ovary: concentration of androgens and estrogens in ovarian and peripheral vein blood. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1974;39:1020-1024. 11.Domenighetti G, Luraschi P, Casabianca A et al. The effect of information campaign by the mass media on hysterectomy rates. Lancet 1988;2:1470-1473. 12.Miller NF. Hysterectomy: Therapeutic necessity or surgical racket? American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 804-810. 13.William H. Parker, MD, Michael S. Broder, MD, MPH, Zhimei Liu, PhD, Donna Shoupe, MD, Cindy Farquhar, MD, and Jonathan S. Berek, MD, MMSc Ovarian Conservation at the Time of Hysterectomy for Benign Disease. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005 Vol 106 No.2 219-226.
Industry Insider,
Are you sure you want to brag about being an insider? It's not exactly a badge of honor!:
Wyeth ghostwriters pushed hormone therapy - UPI.com 8/17/09 2:45 PM http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/08/05/Wyeth-ghostwriters-pushed-hormone-therapy/UPI-12071249491244/print/ Page 1 of 1 Wyeth ghostwriters pushed hormone therapy Published: Aug. 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM Ghostwriters paid by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Wyeth worked on dozens of articles published in medical journals under doctors' names, court documents indicate. Many of the ghostwritten papers -- published in 18 medical journals including The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and The International Journal of Cardiology between 1998 and 2005 -- backed the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, the documents cited by New York Times said. The review articles, which assessed the overall weight of existing studies, emphasized the benefits and de-emphasized the risks of taking hormones to protect against maladies like aging skin, heart disease and dementia, the documents stated. The supposed medical consensus benefited Wyeth, whose sales of hormone drugs Premarin and Prempro soared to nearly $2 billion in 2001, the Times said. The seeming consensus fell apart in 2002 when a big federal study found that women who took certain hormones had a higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. A later study said replacement hormones increased the risk of dementia in older patients. The journal articles did not disclose Wyeth's role in paying for the work. Wyeth's role was discovered by lawyers suing the company, the Times said. Elsevier BV, the publisher of some of the journals, said it was disturbed by the allegations and would investigate, the Times said. A Wyeth spokesman said the ghostwritten articles were scientifically sound and subject to peer review by the journals that published them. Under a policy Wyeth adopted in 2006, listed authors must become involved early in the publication process and any financial assistance by Wyeth or contributions by medical writers must be acknowledged in the published text, the Times said.
Thanks for the brevity. Sorry to burst the bubble of the folks at thewip.net, and their allies Nora W Coffey and Rick Schweikert (who unlike me are not doctors), but the uterus secretes no hormones, is not an endocrine organ per se, and as such, hysterectomized women are perfectly capable of normal sexual response. To say anything different is doing the women you purport to serve a huge disservice.
The folks at the HERS foundation have good information about estrogens and their harmful effects, but to extend the argument making the uterus some type of seat of the soul is pure rubbish.
When the uterus is amputated and blood supply and nerves severed, there cannot be a normal sexual response because these human structures are absent ( not to speak of the restructured vagina)in hysterectomy. The ovaries secrete even to old age when they are left in place. I think you need to be educated as to the truth of this barbaric surgery called hysterectomy.
Insider, just who do you think is going to care about your silly science when ideology tells us all we need to know?
Maybe next you'll try to convince us that AIDS is caused by an infectious agent????
Industry Insider,
You imply that you are a physician, but it is doubtful considering that you are not informed about the basic functions of the uterus. The uterus is a hormone responsive reproductive sex organ. These are facts that you should know. Are you part of the medical industry, pharmaceutical industry, or both?
The uterus is a sex organ. Uterine contractions that occur during orgasm will not occur when the uterus is removed.
The uterus is a hormone response organ.
The following citations document the sexual and endocrine functions of the uterus:
1. Thakar R, Manyonda I, Stanton SL, Clarkson P, Robinson G. Bladder, bowel and sexual function after hysterectomy for benign conditions. Br J Urol 1997;104:983-987. 2. Levin RJ. The physiology of sexual arousal in the human female: a recreational and procreational synthesis. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2002;31:405-411. 3. Masters WH, Johnson VE. The uterus: physiologic and clinical considerations. eds. Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Company, 1966:111-126. 4. Masters WH, Johnson VE. The Female Orgasm. eds. Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Company, 1966:127-140 5.Zussman L, Zussman S, Sunley R, Bjornson E. Sexual response after hysterectomy-oophorectomy: recent studies and reconsideration of psychogenesis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 1981;140:725-729. 6. Eichenwald K, Kolata G. When physicians double as entrepreneurs. New York Times On the Web 1999 7. Levin RJ. The physiology of sexual arousal in the human female: a recreational and procreational synthesis. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2002;31:405-411. 8.Wagner G. Aspects of genital physiology and pathology. Semin Neurol 1992;12:87-97. 9.Masters WH, Johnson VE. The uterus: physiologic and clinical considerations. eds. Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Company, 1966:111-126. 10.Masters WH, Johnson VE. The Female Orgasm. eds. Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Company, 1966:127-140.
To Original Insider: Okay, let me get this straight, you say that "unless there are serious indications or complications, every surgeon performing a hysterectomy will make every effort to spare enough ovarian tissue to permit conception later on"
Given that most hysterectomies are performed for benign gyn conditions, the best effort to spare tissue (ovarian or otherwise) is to simply not perform a hysterectomy in the first place. What serious indications or complications are there for a condition that is benign in the first place??
As a woman who was given a hysterectomy for fibroids, based on the post-op report, the doctor's simply put down (effortless) justifications for removal of all tissue and choose to leave one ovary.
There was no effort on the surgeon\'s part to spare anything, for mercy, for my health, or to honor the fact that I said "no" to a hysterectomy as my treatment of choice.
TQ, allow me to clarify. I was not referring to a simple hysterectormy. I was referring to a TAH-BSO, say for example for widespread PID. Since that is a non malignant condition every effort should be made to spare as much ovarian tissue.
I detect some jealousy on the part of the HERS poster. Most female patients I've come across report enhancement of their libido following hysterectomy because they have lost the fear of pregnancy.
And yes I am a physician. I remember vividly a patient about to be oophorectomized, who was given inadequate pretreatment with 17 Beta Estradiol, and who almost died on the operating table. So yes, I know about "endocrine responsive tissues". The brain also has many estrogen receptors, but they don't seem to be functioning particularly well in some of the less educated posters on this thread.
John, you are one scary dude if you believe ideology trumps real science. Science is truth. Ideology is a lower order level of thinking because it is not subject to experimental verification, and therefore can no way be considered as truth.
Original Industry Insider,
Let me guess-you are intact. That is, you, personally, retain all of your sexual, reproductive, and endocrine organs as well as their blood supply, nerves, and, supporting ligaments (which serve more than just these organs)...and, barring cancer, you have every intention of remaining fully intact for the remainder of your life...because, quite frankly, you know that these organs are priceless to your mental, social, health, and sexual well being...but, still you'll casually dismiss these organs' critical roles for someone else?
Folks, for the truth, go to the HERS Foundation website...and, by all means, watch the female anatomy video there. 'Cause, as it turns out, what is good for the gander is also good for the goose!
Sorry Insider, I was being sarcastic.
I never cease to be amazed at the number of internet posts I see from self appointed experts whose first line of defense in any argument is to attack the character of their opponent.
*To say that every Surgeon performing a hysterectomy will make every effort to spare enough ovarian tissue to permit conception later on is false. *I went in for exploratory surgery 2/2 a 'large mass posterior to my uterus' being viewed on an ultrasound. *No mass was found but I came out of surgery with my healthy ovary removed (per path report, for a simple luteal cyst). *The dr that did this to me has caused serious endocrine issues and immune issues. *My life changed from being a happy, healthy, sexual, energetic being prior to this unnecessary organ removal, to a severely fatigued, no libido, no sleep, joint pains, immune / endocrine issued person ever since.
*In the pre-surgical consult I told this dr multiple times I did not want any organs removed and still wanted to have a child. Her response; I don't think women your age should be having children. (i was 41 at the time). *This dr did not leave a sliver of my healhty ovary. She purposely removed the healthy organ for absolutely no medical reason. Let us not forget-- Sociopaths can be found is every profession, the Medical Industry is not immune. *AND, about the Resident Training...even Drs I work with said they would never go to a Facility that trains medical students/residents, for they are more apt to remove organs for no medical reason.
*The Original Industry Insider, if you are a Physician, based upon your responses here, I would not encourage any woman to be a patient of yours. Patients need Physicians who listen and do not negate the adverse effects caused by a medication and/or unnecessary surgery. You do not even have to wait a few years for the medical research to prove what women have been saying, it all already exists. I suggest you read up. *Why would any Physician remove the uterus and/or ovaries for a benign condition (fibroids, cysts) when there are other options? They NEVER do this to men (or themselves for that matter). And why would they remove these organs to get rid of the cancer risk (their favorite statement) only to increase womens risk of heart disease, htn, diabetes, immune dysfuntion, endocrine disrupton, osteoporisis, lung cancer (and the list goes on)?.....Well it all comes down to money and trainiing....the more organs removed, the more money these type of drs receive. What other answer could there be? Certaily nothing that has anything to do with their patients continued health and well being in mind. *Remember Docs, do unto your patients as you want done unto yourselves.
Industry Insider,
You are conflating the issues.
First, you stated, on the basis that your father was a surgeon and therefore this must be the truth, "I can tell you flat out that unless there are serious indications or complications, every surgeon performing a hysterectomy will make every effort to spare enough ovarian tissue to permit conception later on."
In addition to the medical journal citations listed in my response which document that 70% of hysterectomies are unwarranted and more of a surgical racket than therapeutic necessity, a Congressional hearing in 1993 concluded " Hysterectomy is performed for a variety of reasons, few of them reflecting actual medical need. It is widely accepted that 90% of all hysterectomies and female castrations are medically unnecessary. "
Second, your comment "Most female patients I’ve come across report enhancement of their libido following hysterectomy because they have lost the fear of pregnancy." reveals how little you know about female anatomy. It's actually quite simple. The uterus is a sex organ. Uterine contractions that occur during orgasm cannot occur without a uterus. Although there still remain an extraordinarily small number of women who are unaware of contraceptive options, and apparently think that the only way to prevent conception is to have their female organs removed, that is not the case for the overwhelming majority of women. And in the unfortunate cases where those poor women thought it was their only choice for contraception, it is no more possible that women have increased libido after having their sex organs removed than it would be for men to have increased libido after their sex organs were removed.
You mentioned Nora W Coffey and Rick Schweikert in one of your comments. If you have not done so, I recommend that you read their book "The H Word: What gynecology doesn't want you to know about 100 years of hysterectomy and female castration in America".
You can learn more about female anatomy, and what happens to a woman's body when the uterus and ovaries are removed, by watching the video "Female Anatomy: the Functions of the Female Organs" at www.hersfoundation.org.
There are 22 million living women in the US whose female organs were removed. At a HERS hysterectomy conference a Professor of Gross Anatomy at a prominent medical school said they need 15 female cadavers to every male cadaver to find one female with a uterus and ovaries.
When you consider these issues more fully, perhaps you will decide to become part of the solution, and work to stop the unacceptable removal of the uterus and ovaries on women who have not been told the consequences of the surgery before they are asked to consent to the removal of her female organs.
Industry Insider,
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. (Upton Sinclair)
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. (Aldous Huxley)
The medical literature has long shown the harm of hysterectomy (with or without ovary removal). There's never a time in a woman's life when her "reproductive" organs are no longer necessary...NEVER!!
In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it constitutes 'cruel and unusual punishment' to surgically castrate convicted rapists and child molesters. Yet, American gynecologists surgically castrate over half a million American women each year; women who have committed no crime. Nothing further needs to be said about the devastating consequences of castration; especially surgical castration. If over half a million men (criminals or not) in the U.S. were being castrated each year, there would be mutiny in the streets.
For a history lesson in how (and more importantly why) the field of gynecology came about, read 'Gynocide: Hysterectomy, Capitalist Patriacrchy and the Medical Abuse of Women' by Maiarosa Dalta Costa M.D. The field did not come about for the noble reason/reasons one would assume or believe. The book is quite the eye-opener.....
To the poster who said that gynecologists (surgeons first and foremost)"I can tell you flat out that unless there are serious indications or complications, every surgeon performing a hysterectomy will make every effort to spare enough ovarian tissue to permit conception later on". First, there is no way that you can know that is true. How in the world would you know what 'every' surgeon will do? You can't. You don't.
I can tell you from personal experience that I was a healthy woman with no female issues of any kind. I agreed to allow a gynecologist to put a light into my pelvic area to see if he could determine a reason for a very bloated abdomen. Once I arrived at the hospital for this simple procedure, I was asked to sign a consent form agreeing to removal of all six of my healthy female sex organs. I refused the surgery of course and did not sign the consent. I was put to sleep via an IV almost immediately after advising the nurse that the consent form was for the wrong surgery. I woke up gutted and castrated. It has not been four years since this my healthy sex organs were amputated and I am completely disabled from this unnecessary and barbaric surgery which I did not consent to.
My ex-doctor admitted via sworn testimony that he did not have my consent to remove my sex organs and he also admitted that he 'altered' my medical record after I requested and received a copy of it. In fact, he went on to admit that he routinely alters patient's records and that he routinely obtains consent from someone other than the patient; legal or not. Interestingly, he also admitted that he performs female to male transsexual surgeries after I learned this from doing research on the Internet post-surgery.
Gynecologists are surgeons. That is what they do. That is how they make their money. They either deliver babies or they 'deliver' women's sex organs. It is completely not within reason to believe that over half a million women each year need to have their sex organs amputated. There is almost always an alternative to hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is rarely performed for necessary reasons or even life-saving reasons. Hysterectomy causes, more often than not, many more problems than it solves. The consequences of hysterectomy are devastating and they are forever. Gynecologists know this and have known it for years. They just don't tell their victims (I mean patients).
It's a lie that surgeons do everything to save ovarian tissue. After having normal periods all my life, I was diagnosed with benign bi-lateral ovarian cysts. Instead of the doctor removing the cysts and leaving me intact, HE instead amputated my healthy ovaries, uterus and cervix even after I made it clear that I wanted to be left intact. Now I have no sex drive and chronic pain. I was very healthy prior to these quacks getting a hold of me, now every day is misery.
Original Insider Your clarification: "TQ, allow me to clarify. I was not referring to a simple hysterectormy. I was referring to a TAH-BSO, say for example for widespread PID. Since that is a non malignant condition every effort should be made to spare as much ovarian tissue."
I don't see where this changes my response, the sparing of non-malignant tissue should be a goal no matter what gyn condition is found. Anything less is no longer healthcare. Also, I wasn't given a simple hysterectomy, so I'm not talking about that either.
Your next comments about the benefits of hysterectomy (preganancy fear) is the least of my concern. As a woman who has lost her health and life behind this procedure the least of my concerns is surgical incision, preganancy, periods, recovery time, egg donation, surgical method and any other such nonsense that is touted by doctors as a benefit/concern of women.
These are only benefits because doctors tell women they are, but no one would trade their life for the many refinements made by the medical community in justifying the lack of restraint shown in removing female organs under any circumstance.
Kendra Carter, thanks for the referenced book, in the introduction it speaks to women having the right not to needlessly suffer - I think that one statement is appropriate for the case posted here.
Yes, the gynecology profession is full of empty reasons for amputating women's organs; you've made that VERY CLEAR in your posts, Industry Insider.
I sure as heck didn't need any of my organs amputated for a benign ovarian cyst. It was done for $$$ and to train gynecology residents how to do a surgery that's unwarranted 90+% of the time. If these were not doctors, they could be prosecuted for assault and battery.
Industry Insider said: "there used to be what we called “hyster heisters”, and they were indeed in it for the money. Rest assured that the profession has cleansed itself of those folks."
Hmmm - why then have hysterectomy rates NOT decreased since ACOG published its report in February 2000 stating that 9 out of 12 hysterectomies are inappropriately recommended? Whether it be for money, control/power, addiction to the "high" some surgeons are said to get when they perform surgery, the results are the same...organs essential to health are removed for NO MEDICAL REASON!
Industry Insider, there are many physicians who utterly and completely disagree with what you state here; most if not all of it.
For those interested in reading about what they do in 'teaching hospitals' once a woman has been knocked out prior to being hysterectomized, read Michael Greger's book "Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student"... another eye opener. I could list many many more but this one book alone is sufficient along with the one I listed in my previous post to indicate that you Industry Insider must practice medicine on another planet.
I did forget to mention in my other post that my ex-doctor obtains consent from someone other than the patient by waiting until after his patients have been put to sleep. That's a good 'trick'. This is what he did in my case and admitted that he routinely does this with other patients. He's not the only doctor who does this. I have spoken with many women who have been through a similar situation. And the good news is always... Guess what? You don't have cancer afterall. The bad news is that most women didn't have cancer in the first place and everyone knew it. Having said that, men have cancer rates equal to if not greater than women but doctors are not rushing in and amputating men's sex organs to the tune of over half a million each year. A surgeon will do anything and everything to save men's sex organs. Why is that?
Women who have their sex organs amputated are much more likely to die from heart disease, heart attack, stroke, etc. than they are from cancer. Heart disease is the number one killer of American women today (more than all cancers combined). I wonder why that is? Such a mystery it seems...... I don't know for sure but it could have something to do with the fact that millions of women are living without their sex organs which produce hormones/chemicals that protect the heart and arteries.... But then, I'm not a doctor. I'm just a woman who was ultimately raped of her six healthy sex organs for no medical reason and without consent by a entire medical team of nurses and surgeons who conspired to cover the whole thing up.
I think we can safely say that the medical profession (the field of gynecology in particular) has a lot of cleaning left to do. I, for one, am not resting assured "that the profession has cleansed itself of those folks".
As a former English teacher; it's difficult for me to believe that a physician would use terms like 'medical ball and bat' and 'over and out'. I don't think I would want that person performing any type of surgery on me.... No wonder you see things the way you do Industry Insider (whomever you are). Is it possible you are not a real doctor but just play one on the Internet?
Industry insider, I notice you never responded to the comment by Susan:
\"Hmmm - why then have hysterectomy rates NOT decreased since ACOG published its report in February 2000 stating that 9 out of 12 hysterectomies are inappropriately recommended?\"
It seems like it\'s time for you to change the subject from cancer to movies to avoid answering a legitimate question. Statistics tell the truth. 1 out of 3 women under the age of 65 are hysterectomized in the U.S, yet less then 2% are for cancer. Explain the logical reason for that?
Industry Insider, I'm not a teacher anymore. I said I "was" (past tense) a teacher. Read more carefully 'doctor'. By all means, feel free to call me by my first name. Anyway, I thought you took your 'medial ball and bat' and went home; over and out.
I knew you would not be able to stay away..... Hence, I posted my last post.
I wish I was delusional. However, I have been found to be quite sane over and over again despite my protest otherwise. I don't want to be sane because I don't want to face the horror of what happened to me and what is happening to millions of innocent women every 30 seconds of every day in the U.S. via hysterectomy.
I suppose I've been found sane due to all the mountains of documentation I have collected that proves me sane and something very very wrong with the medical profession; documentation such as a consent form for surgery not signed by me and a letter from the hospital stating that they investigated my complaint and found that I signed for the surgery I received. Hell, I did not even get the surgery that was listed on the consent form. The pathology report substantiates the fact that an organ was removed that was not supposed to be. My ex-doctor didn't even perform the surgery he got illegal consent for in my case. My guess is that I'm not the first victim either since his testimony is that 'routinely' gets consent after his patient has been put to sleep. Those were not my words. They were his. I never imagined he would admit what he did.
It's beyond difficult to deal with such horror taking place in what one would think would be a place of safety; a place where no harm should be done (at least not intentionally). It is evident that doctors know they can get away with such criminal activity since my ex-doctor admitted what he did to me. Why would he do that unless he knew he could get away with it? Doctors can and do get away with murder simply because they are protected from prosecution for the most part.
I should be able to file criminal charges against my ex-doctor but the matter is considered 'civil'. I can tell you that there is nothing civil about knocking a woman out and strapping her to a table and amputating six healthy organs out of her body. That is beyond civil. That is down-right sick.
Society used to look up to doctors as gods and all powerful. I think people are finally waking up to the fact that doctors are no different than anybody else. Just because someone is able to do well in Science and Math and manages to make it through medical school does not mean that the person is a normal human being nor a does it mean that person is a decent human being. There are some very disturbed and sick doctors and nurses working in our world just as in any other profession. To think otherwise is not reasonable.
Industry Insider, if you think the medical profession is noble and good; then you are the one who is delusional. You also have your percentages off... way off. It is the minority of doctors who go on to become caring doctors for the right reason and go on to regain their humanity and compassion as you put it. There are books upon books written by doctors who tell the truth about what they are taught in medical school and it's nothing to be proud of. It's shameful. It's immoral. It's beyond disgusting.
I was fortunate to meet a good doctor many years ago when I was diagnosed with a brain tumor. He was a wonderful, intelligent, caring and compassionate doctor who did not rush to do surgery as many would have; just for the sake of 'practice'. He even admitted this was true. I'm very thankful for that doctor today. I realize more than ever how I could have been blinded or worse had he chosen to operate on my brain instead of waiting until medication was available in the U.S. which could shrink brain tumors.
Your immature and cruel comments alone 'out' you for the person you really are. By the way, you are not in a position to 'deprive' me of anything via the Internet. Unfortunately, doctors are in a position to deprive women of their health; physically, mentally and sexually and they most often get away with it (to the tune of over half a million each year that we know about). Jack the Ripper could do legally today what he did so many years ago that was considered barbaric and criminal. The public is much more savvy to what is going on than you seem to realize.
Kathy, I think where you and your allies got off track here is that you lost track of the fact that Dr. Insider never performed surgery on any of you. In fact, merely disagreeing with you was sufficient for you to accuse him of lying about his credentials, to question his motives, and engage in all sorts of very personal attacks.
I am quite open to believing that you were a victim in the matter of your surgery. But in engaging in personal attacks on someone whose only offense was to disagree with you, you moved from the role of victim to aggressor.
If your goal is to reduce the number of these surgeries that are performed, this isn't the way to do it. It just makes it that much easier for people to write you off as unreasonable or even unstable.
Industry Insider,
You are out of touch with what is going on in gynecology. The HERS Foundation has counseled over 900,000 women. Many of them did not consent to hysterectomy, but while they were under anesthesia, the gynecologist went to the waiting room and got their husband, mother, brother or sister to sign a new consent form giving permission to remove the woman\'s sex organs. The family members were told their wife, daughter or sister needed the surgery to save her life. In each and every instance it turned out not to be true. There was no life threatening problem.
There are also many women who do not consent to hysterectomy, they consent to a diagnostic surgery or removal of an ovarian cyst, fibroids or endometriosis, but they come out of the operating room without their female organs.
These doctors do not lose their license. Case in point, Peter Schwartz and other staff at Yale told Michelle Di lieto that she needed a hysterectomy and removal of her ovaries for endometrial cancer. After the surgery Schwartz said he \"got it all\". Michelle Di Lieto found out incidentally from a new doctor she went to who had gotten her records and informed her that she did not have cancer. In 2010, after fifteen years of Schwartz and Yale battling their victim in court, after the final appeal to the CT Supreme Court Di Lieto was awarded $12.5 million dollars. No amount of money will make up for the unrelenting pain she has experienced since the surgery, nor will it restore her sex life or vitality.
Lose his license? He\'s still Vice Chair of Gynecology at Yale.
This is a link to the Michelle Di Lieto case against Peter Schwartz and Yale Medical School: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/06/19/news/new_haven/aa1_yale_diagnosis061910.txt
http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/blog/?p=4686
John, I did not accuse anyone of lying about their credentials. I also did not accuse anyone here of performing surgery on me. I did not personally attack anyone, nor has anyone disagreed with me. I am an individual person, not a group of people. You may want to re-read my two (2) posts for clarification. In the future, if you are going to post a message to me, I would appreciate if you would respond to my individual messages, since again, I am one person who has posted two messages (prior to this one). I will ask the same question again:
1 out of 3 women under the age of 65 are hysterectomized in the U.S, yet less then 2% are for cancer. Explain the logical reason for that?
What John said is very sad when you think about it and I've been thinking about it... He stated "If your goal is to reduce the number of these surgeries that are performed, this isn’t the way to do it. It just makes it that much easier for people to write you off as unreasonable or even unstable".
John, let me tell you what our goal truly is here. Our goal is to not be the victim of a horrible crime and that is what those of us posting here are. We are VICTIMS; INNOCENT VICTIMS. Worse yet, we are not victims of thugs on the street. We are victims of physicians; men and women who take an oath 'to do no harm'; men and women who we should be able to trust.
We are not talking about physicians who make 'mistakes' or are 'negligent'. We are talking about physicians intentionally and with malice amputating women's sex organs without medical reason, and most often, without consent. Over half a million women each year are not voluntarily signing up to have their sex organs amputated. That much we can be sure of. The number of women being hysterectomized and castrated each year speaks to this issue. Nothing further needs to be said.
It's sickening the way physicians turn this around and make the women they do harm to the 'crazy ones' and 'unstable ones' or 'delusional ones'. Even if a woman is 'crazy', 'unreasonable' and/or 'unstable' and 'delusional'; that does not ever ever justify a physician committing the crimes we are talking about here. We are talking about physicians who are 'knowingly' committing criminal acts against innocent women and then covering it up and getting away with what they have done. That's wrong no matter how you look at it. That is evil at best.
The physician posting here is the one who appears unstable if anyone does. The physician has made claims that cannot be substantiated such as "Susan you are dead wrong. My late father was a surgeon, and chief of surgery at several major teaching hospital. I can tell you flat out that unless there are serious indications or complications, every surgeon performing a hysterectomy will make every effort to spare enough ovarian tissue to permit conception later on". The physician cannot possibly know what every surgeon does does or does not do. Further, it's outrageous to say "Susan you are dead wrong". Dead wrong... seriously? The physician, if anybody, has made inflammatory statements and immature comments in response to various posts.
How sad that women have to suffer the horror of unconsented organ removal and the life-long devastation of being de-sexed in modern-day America. Even worse, how sad that people like you John and the physician posting here say women who have the courage to speak out about this critical issue are 'delusional' and 'unstable'. Very very sad......
Insider,
The HERS Foundation has zero relationship with the NWHN and NARAL. HERS is an independent non-profit international women\\\'s health education.
ACOG does not collect health statistics. Statistics on surgery are collected and reported by the CDC.
What is your medical expertise, and are you currently practicing medicine?
Insider,
Do you believe that hysterectomy is an abortion issue?
Interesting - a bunch of Industry Insider\'s posts were deleted (looks like 5 were deleted).
Hi Susan,
These were not deleted. There has been a problem with the spam function and we are looking at it. Apparently, only those comments do not appear at the moment. I apologize for this and I assure you that we will work to fix it as soon as possible.
Thanks for the note. ed
Thank you, Ed. I have a question - someone told me they typed a comment to post here and it said "Your comment is awaiting moderation." I thought all comments posted immediately and there was no moderation.
Hi Susan,
Some comments do get stuck in a spam filter. Over the course of any given week, this happens to a few of them. I periodically check and release them. This was always the case, actually, and is not new. The situation concerning posts from 'original industry insider' is unusual, though. I just spoke with IT and they are aware that this needs to be examined closely. Please continue to let me know if you notice anything else unusual.
Thanks again, ed
Ed:
I only remember having spam blocker issues one time ('in moderation') BUT reading the security codes properly has been difficult.
That said, you are BUSY this weekend but what better time (or weather) to host a garden party, no?
He's baaack..
Oii: Shall we all assume "that is a good thing?"
PS - lol - glad "things are resolved!"
Perhaps I should have said to the female posters "Heeere's Johnny!". Or I could quote HAL the computer from another Kubrick film, "2001: A Space Odyssey", who said "I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do". Or, favoring myself to have a computer-like grasp of information, I could also quote HAL, who said "Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
1 out of 3 women under the age of 65 are hysterectomized in the U.S, yet less then 2% are for cancer. Explain the logical reason for that?
Kathy: Perhaps I don't know enough women of the correct age but my personal sphere of contact calls your statistics (specifically one out of three) into question. Do you have a reference to back that claim up?
Kathy, there are at least five other non-malignant indications for hysterectomy (see link). These other diseases are more common than uterine cancer, and could easily account for the 1/3 statistic you cite, although like Observer says, I'd like to see a reference for that statistic.
http://www.healthcommunities.com/hysterectomy/indications-hysterectomy.html
Thanks, Searching 2000
For those interested in whether or not removal of ovaries has been routinely recommended and performed (with or without consent) and in whether or not there is medical reason and data to substantiate this practice; search \'When does hysterectomy go too far? - Los Angeles Times\'
Additionally, if interested in the true nightmare the drug \'Premarin\' has been and is for women; search \'Premarin Mares\'and you will truly understand the significance of the Supreme Court Ruling discussed in the above article.
Most importantly, there is no reason to debate whether hysterectomy is good, bad, wrong, right, etc. It is what it is. By definintion, hysterectomy is a \'destructive\' surgery. It cannot be said to be \'reconstructive\'. The current ACOG patient hysterectomy information pamphlet that is being given to women contains false and misleading information. For instance, the current ACOG pamphlet states that women\'s ovaries cease to function after menopause. That is a bold-face lie. Women\'s ovaries continue to function throughout a woman\'s entire life until she dies or they are amputated. The information regarding sexual response women experience after hysterectomy is beyond misleading and consequeneces such as heart disease is not mentioned at all.
Therein lies the real problem. Women are not told the true consequences of hysterectomy by the medical profession. Women are routinely lied to about hysterectomy, the consequences of hysterectomy and are not told about the many alternatives to hysterectomy. Women, therefore, cannot make an \'informed decision\' as required by law in regard to whether or not they need or want to undergo a hysterectomy.
As I have stated in previous posts, it is not reasonable to believe that over half a million women would line up each year and ask to be gutted and castrated if they knew the \'true facts\' about hysterectomy and ovary removal (castration). Something is obviously very very wrong. The medical community is fully aware of the problems women suffer due to hysterectomy but they don\'t tell women. This is fraud in the worst form. It is criminal.
At the very least, women deserve to be told via the hysterectomy information pamplet published by ACOG and by their doctors the truth about hysterectomy; the good, the bad and the ugly. Only then, will women be in control of their decision regarding whether to undergo such radical surgery.
I am currently working with the Executive Vice -President of ACOG in Washington D.C. regarding the false and misleading information they publish in their patient hysterectomy information pamphlet. As long as women are told the truth about hysterectomy and the consequences of hysterectomy and the many alternatives to hysterectomy; I have no issue with hysterectomy or the number of hysterectomies performed.
Hate to pull a Thomas Dolby and blind you with science, but here's the physiological basis for cessation of ovarian function after menopause. ACOG didn't make it up. It's been fixed knowledge for eons.
"Over time, as aging follicles become more resistant to gonadotropin stimulation, circulating FSH and luteinizing hormone (LH) levels increase. Elevated FSH and LH levels lead to stromal stimulation of the ovary, with a resultant increase in estrone levels and a decrease in estradiol levels. Inhibin levels also drop during this time because of the negative feedback of elevated FSH levels.[5] With the commencement of menopause and a loss of functioning follicles, the most significant change in the hormonal profile is the dramatic decrease in circulating estrogen levels. Without a follicular source, the larger proportion of postmenopausal estrogen is derived from ovarian stromal and adrenal secretion of androstenedione, which is aromatized to estrone in the peripheral circulation. Testosterone levels also decrease with menopause,[6] but this decrease is not as marked as the decline in 17-estradiol.[7]
(from Medscape Professional)
Observer, here is a link from the U.S. National Library of Medicine:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/hysterectomy.html which states:
\"Hysterectomies are very common - one in three women in the United States has had one by age 60.\"
Just as a comparison:
1. Autism effects 1 in every 100 children. 2. Your chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime is about (1 in 600,000), and 3. Your chance of being murdered in your lifetime is about (1 in 11,000).
But hysterectomy is not a disease, or an act of mother nature, or a social disease like the statistics above. A hysterectomy can only happen when a doctor cuts a woman open and purposely amputates her uterus.
In the United States one in three women will end up with their uterus amputated before age 60. Any reasonable thinking person would find that number to be astronomical. There is something very wrong going on.
Industry insider, please provide a reference and statistics for the other \"more common\" diseases which you state could account for, and necessitate such a high number of these surgeries. I think most people would find it hard to believe that 1 in 3 women actually need or want their uterus amputated before they turn 60 years old.
Pages