Friday, February 25, 2005

AG Kline seeking to protect minors in Kansas

From Tony Perkins, Washington Update:

[quote]Re: Kansas AG Phil Kline, God Bless him!:
Attorney General Kline is attempting to obtain records that show that 78 children under the age of 14 underwent abortions in 2003 in that state. In Kansas, sexual intercourse with a child 14 years of age or younger is a crime--either aggravated indecent liberties with a child, or child rape. Currently, the mainstream media are having a field day misreporting this story as an assault on privacy. Attorney General Kline is conducting the search in a way that protects the children's privacy. He is going after those who would take advantage of and sexually assault young children.

Attorney General Kline explained the situation much better than any reporter has so far when he stated, "The child's privacy is always protected--you never see the name of the child victim in the paper, and no one has the right to rape or victimize a child or women, whether in private or public. There are two things child predators want: access to children and secrecy, and, as Attorney General, I am bound and determined to not give them either. The child's privacy is always protected, and the clinics should not act to protect the secrecy of the predator."[end quote]

The only reason I care about the following news tidbit, since I would not be Democrat in ANY circumstance is that it reveals that they are all lying through their teeth when they say they are seeking "common ground" or a "more centrist position" on the issue of abortion--of course we all knew that, but here is some evidence of it from the "horse's mouth". I admit I was tempted to say from the donkey's mouth, but decided I should be "nice".

from article in LifeSite news, feb 25,2005 about Howard Dean and Demos:
Words spoken by Howard Dean about the Democratic party “Howard Dean’s Plan” and written down by blogger, "raccoon” on Sounding the Trumpet blog on Feb 23,2005:

He said that the Democrat party's position on abortion would not change. Democrats instead should be very subtle; they should change what words they use, and in most cases just try to ignore the issue. He said that he hated that Americans like to call the Democrat party the pro-abortion party. He did at least twice say that he though everyone agreed that abortion was bad, but that a women should be able to decide about her own health-care.

Dean always talked like he assumed that no women would choose abortion, because it was bad, but it was up to them, and they should come to that decision themselves. Should murder become legal, because we think that people should be able to make a wise decision themselves? [end quote]
You can read "raccoon's " article at:

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

it is not the will of your Father, that one should perish

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." Matthew 18:14.

These are the words of Jesus that HE spoke concerning children. If all the world would heed those words,what a better world we would all have! Please do not kill!

Monday, February 21, 2005

Free bloggers Majtaba & Arash from prison!

According to the BBC news, on Feb 20,2005, in two separate articles, entitled,"Global Blogger Action Day" and "The Price for Blogging Iran", two men have been imprisoned in Iran for criticizing the government through radio interviews and blogging. The men imprisoned are: Mojtaba Saminejad, whose bail is set at $125,000 and Arash Sigarchi whose bail is set at $200,000.

The world community of bloggers is encouraged to put a request on a blog on Feb 22,2005, as a worldwide effort for these men to be released. This is my reponse to the cause of the liberty of all men and women everywhere to be able to speak or write what is in their minds, hearts and consciences without punishment.

Will you join in this effort to promote First Amendment Rights for all nations by participating in the Global Action Day for Blogging Freedom and Independent-of-government News Sources? That name is the one I have called my effort because it describes my interest in the plights of two total strangers to me, but ones who have committed no real crimes except political dissension [according to the BBC news]. The right or liberty to criticize the government is essential to a free nation, and encompanies the duty of the citizens to change the government when it no longer responds to the citizens.

Saturday, February 19, 2005

VIOXX,corrupt Big Pharma, FDA, Australian DOH

My notes: A lot of people put a lot of faith in Pharmaceutical companies and Biotech companies. Just yesterday someone in a forum implied to me that science and medicines were not “business” and that scientists could be trusted completely. These articles if read will make you understand the complexity of these issues. Last year, Dr. David Graham, a MD and an investigator for the FDA, the US Food and Drug “watchdog” for the public safety, blew the whistle on a drug made by Merck called VIOXX saying it had a 40% death rate from sudden cardiac collapse. Lawsuits started happening. The Merck used the FDA again to form a “panel” [of whom at least some of the "experts" work for the FDA] to give the ok to people being informed the drug may be deadly and allowing them to “choose” it away. That helps Merck because then they can produce this most likely paid for under the table panel of “experts” as testimony for Merck to defend themselves in their class action lawsuits. Twenty million people were taking VIOXX. Isn’t it also odd how suddenly like a bolt out of the blue, the US Congress decided to change the laws on class action laws suits this past week? I just find that to be a remarkable “coincidence”, don’t you? Merck if sued by all twenty million for giving them drugs now proved to damage the heart muscle leading to sudden death, would be put out of business, but Congress, the best Congress money can buy, stepped to save the day for the BIG PHARMA, but not for the US public taxpayers who pay their salaries and provide them with extraordinary perqs and lifetime benefits. Also, the big newspapers, like the NY Times started running articles ‘warning’ the public that all drugs have risk and if they bear the risk, then oh well. If this whole mess does not convince anyone that BIG PHARMA is bad business and not safe for humans then those who will not see the truth, deserve what they get. Several articles included with all quotes and all given their due acknowledgement as a Public Health Service to alert the public.

From the NY Times:
A Reminder That No Drug Is Risk-Free

Published: February 19, 2005

Cost-benefit analyses for drugs are rarely as explicit as they were yesterday.

When a federal panel of doctors and scientists recommended allowing the sale of arthritis medicines from Pfizer and Merck despite acknowledging their heart risks, it did more than just give new life for Celebrex, Bextra and possibly Vioxx - three drugs some analysts had viewed as doomed.

The panel's recommendations backed the pharmaceutical industry's stance that no medicine is risk-free and that patients should sometimes be allowed to choose medicines that have serious risks even for conditions that are not life-threatening.


The panel, which was convened by the Food and Drug Administration to discuss the risks of pain medications, reached its conclusions after three days of hearings in Maryland. The F.D.A. typically adopts the recommendations of its expert panels, particularly in such controversial matters.

Even as a vocal alliance of consumer groups and plaintiffs' lawyers are raising similar questions over other widely used drugs, the panel's analysis offers at least a small dose of good news for the industry. Indeed, drug stocks rallied broadly yesterday, while the industry's critics spoke out against the panel's decision.

Merck shares ended the day up 13 percent, or $3.76, at $32.61. Pfizer rose almost 7 percent, gaining $1.74, to $26.80. Shares in both companies remain sharply lower than they were before Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in late September.

Now Merck, which makes Vioxx, and Pfizer, which makes Celebrex and Bextra, face their own choices.

Merck stopped selling Vioxx last fall after a clinical trial showed evidence of heart risks in patients who took the drug for more than 18 months. The company can now decide whether to reintroduce it.

A Merck official said in testimony to the panel on Thursday that the company might take that step, if the experts concluded that the risks were characteristic of the entire class of drugs, known as cox-2 inhibitors. Yesterday, after the F.D.A. panel reached just that conclusion, Merck declined to comment further on its plans.

If it does bring back Vioxx, Merck faces the challenge of persuading doctors and their patients to use a medicine that it has already said is unsafe. Pfizer faces a similar though somewhat less serious challenge with its drugs, which have remained on the market, although their sales have fallen sharply.

Merck and Pfizer will also undoubtedly use the panel's conclusions to defend themselves against lawsuits by people who say they had heart problems after taking the drugs. Merck, in particular, faces hundreds of such suits, some of them scheduled to go to trial this spring.

While some lawyers said yesterday that jurors might not be swayed by the F.D.A. panel's analysis, the gains in Merck and Pfizer shares indicated that investors had initially concluded that the F.D.A. recommendations could limit the legal liabilities of the companies.

"Merck can say a panel of experts said this drug was safe enough to be continued to market," said C. J. Sylvester, an analyst at Banc of America Securities who has a neutral rating on the company.

John LaMattina, Pfizer's president for global research and development, said the panel's hearing had given patients new information about the risks and benefits of all pain medications, including over-the-counter drugs like Advil.

A spokeswoman for Merck said the company appreciated the chance to offer data to the committee and looked forward to further discussions with the F.D.A.

Despite yesterday's decision, the drugs will probably never again reach the sales they had last year, analysts said, in part because the panel recommended that the drugs carry so-called black box warnings - the most stringent measure used to warn of potential dangers.

Since they were introduced in 1999, Vioxx and Celebrex have been among the most heavily promoted and most popular drugs, each taken by more than 20 million people. In 2004, Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra had combined sales of more than $6 billion, almost 10 percent of the total sales of Pfizer and Merck.
[end quote]

From FierceHealthCare’s Editor Matthew Holt:
Feb 19,2005:

This has been a momentous week for the FDA, the Cox-2 painkillers and the future of prescription drugs. We now have a new FDA head, a new Drug Safety Board within the FDA, and Pfizer and Merck pondering whether there is a future for Celebrex and Vioxx. While Merck muses about putting Vioxx back on the market, my sources tell me that the going rate for the Keyword "Vioxx" on Google has been bid up to $100 a click by trial lawyers keen to get more people into their class action suits. It all seems as though there will be a lot more caution in future on the approval of any new drug and a lot less indecision about the new FDA removing potentially unsafe drugs from the market.

In the current regulatory and legal climate it might sound crazy that Vioxx be put back on the market. But the fact is that all drugs have some side-effects, and for the vast majority of people the Cox-2s work and don't cause problems. If a patient finds that a Cox-2 works for them, and they and their doctor are aware of the risks involved and are monitored for the adverse side effects, is it not reasonable for that therapy to be available to them? Maybe so. The key to all of this is for all of the information to be made available in an unbiased way so that doctors and patients can make informed choices.

For more comment from me, see The Health Care Blog. Please note that FierceHealthcare will not be published on Monday for the Presidents' Day holiday. We'll be back on Tuesday, February 22. - Matthew

[end quote]
Also from FierceHealthCare:
Feb 19,2005
1. FDA to vote on Cox-2s; Merck may consider Vioxx return

Merck made headlines across the country with its announcement yesterday that it might consider putting Vioxx back on the market if the FDA concludes the cardiovascular risks found to be associated with Vioxx are shared by other Cox-2 drugs like Celebrex and Bextra, as well as drugs considered "safe" like naproxen (Aleve) and Mobic. That surprising news came on a day dominated by stories about the Food and Drug Administration and the Cox-2 drugs. Today, the 30-member panel made up of FDA drug safety and arthritis experts voted to allow Celebrex to remain on the market and will decide the fate of the other drugs later in the day.

Yesterday, the FDA panel heard more evidence from experts both in favor of and against the painkillers, as well as testimony from patients who say their lives would be unbearable without the arthritis drugs, and even from a military doctor who warned "the Cox-2's are necessary for the war against terrorism," which incited laughter from the panel. It's likely that a class warning will be given to all Cox-2s, but unlikely that the panel will vote to take them off the market completely.

- see this story from The New York Times
- see this story from Forbes
- see this AP story for more on the Celebrex decision

[end quote]
Also from FierceHealthCare:
Feb 19,2005:

2. Graham, Europeans suspicious of Cox-2s

The focus of much attention yesterday -- at least until Merck's announcement -- was David Graham, the FDA scientist who made headlines late last year with his charges about the safety of Vioxx and other Cox-2 drugs. As expected, Graham had little nice to say about Celebrex and Vioxx. He testified that there is little reason for the drugs to be on the market when equally effective drugs are available, arguing there is a "class-effect" involving the drugs.

Meanwhile, regulators in Europe made their decision regarding the Cox-2 class yesterday, saying they will require warning labels on all Cox-2 drugs sold in the European Union. After meetings this week in London, the European Medicines Agency said that the cardiovascular risks associated with drugs like Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra make a warning necessary.

- see this story on Graham's testimony from The Washington Post
- see this story from Forbes on the European Medicines Agency

[end quote]

From Matthew’s Editor’s Page on Feb 18,2005 in FierceBiotech:

Whatever the FDA expert panel decides on Cox-2 inhibitors this afternoon, the evidence is growing increasingly clear that the agency will have a long way to go to reassure the public that it is doing everything in its power to safeguard them from dangerous drugs. Dr. David Graham gave a chilling account of a 40 percent death rate from heart attacks triggered by Vioxx. Many of the patients taking these drugs never even needed them. And no one at the top echelon of the FDA bothered to warn them of the risks. Drug companies, too, need to understand that their credibility is growing thin. One expert commented that Pfizer's claim that no evidence linked Celebrex and Bextra to elevated risks of heart attacks was "beyond laughable." So is this entire situation with drug safety.

On a different note, the markets are closed Monday in observance of the Presidents' Day holiday here in the US, and so are we. FierceBiotech will return on Tuesday, February 22. Have a nice weekend! - John Carroll

in FierceHealthCare, Feb 17,2005:

1. FDA hearings on Cox-2s open; Graham testifies

The much-anticipated FDA hearings on the safety of the Cox-2 class began yesterday in Gaithersburg, Maryland, drawing national media attention. A joint panel of FDA officials specializing in drug safety heard leading drug safety experts testify about the wisdom of continuing to allow the controversial painkillers to remain on the market. As expected, much of the testimony was sharply critical of the way in which drug companies have handled the safety issues involved. Pfizer received probably the harshest treatment for its handling of Celebrex, drawing tough questions about the adequacy of the data it relied on in its clinical trials. When a Pfizer scientist said the company believes there is no evidence that its drug poses health risks, Dr. Alastair Wood of Vanderbilt said, "that doesn't even pass the laugh test."

Merck drew less attention, although the admission by the company's scientists that they accept there may be a "class effect" associated with the drugs created a stir. Today's testimony featured Dr. David Graham, the FDA researcher who crated controversy during Congressional hearings following the Vioxx withdrawal. Graham presented his own safety data on the drugs and thanked new FDA chief Lester Crawford for allowing him to present all his findings. He said that heart problems in the typical Vioxx user were more common than shown in the clinical trials and that it was a class effect that also applied to Celebrex. He was not sure if Bextra was also affected.

- see this story from The New York Times
- see this story from the Los Angeles Times
- see this story from Forbes
- see the AP story with details of Graham's testimony

2. Federal Judge consolidates Vioxx cases

The ongoing hearings have particular relevance, of course, for Merck, which faces a series of class-action lawsuits brought by people who say they suffered health problems as a result of taking the company's blockbuster painkiller Vioxx. Yesterday, a federal judge ordered the consolidation of hundreds of cases involving the drug into a single action which will be heard by a New Orleans court.

The decision is seen by some as an advantage for those filing suits against the company. It means the case will be handled by Judge Eldon Fallon, a former trial lawyer believed to be a more sympathetic figure than the other available choices. Fallon is currently overseeing a settlement in a class action suit held last year involving Propulsid, a heartburn drug linked to cardiac problems, which is manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceutica, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

- see this story from The New York Times

[end quote]

From The Medical News Today, Feb 18,2005:


Merck Issues Statement on Granting of Coordinated Pre-Trial Status For Federal VIOXX® Lawsuits
18 Feb 2005
email this article to a friend
printer friendly version
view all opinions on this
write an opinion on this

The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation today granted motions by several parties, including Merck, to transfer all VIOXX® product liability lawsuits pending in federal courts nationwide into one consolidated Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

The product liability cases, now designated as “MDL 1657-In re VIOXX Product Liability Litigation,” include all federal cases involving personal injury or economic losses arising from the use and/or purchases of VIOXX. Those cases are being transferred to the United States District Court in Eastern District for Louisiana before Federal District Judge Eldon E. Fallon.

The company is still awaiting a decision from the panel with respect to the shareholder suits, designated as “MDL 1658-In re Merck & Co., Inc., Securities, Derivative & ‘ERISA' Litigation.”

With respect to the product liability cases, designated as “MDL 1657-In re VIOXX Product Liability Litigation,” Judge Eldon E. Fallon will now set the schedule for pre-trial matters.

Merck intends to vigorously defend itself. Merck acted responsibly every step of the way - from researching the drug prior to approval - to monitoring the drug while it was on the market and - to voluntarily withdrawing the drug when it did. Merck based its decisions on the data from well controlled clinical trials and acted in the best interest of patients.

About Merck

Merck & Co., Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceutical company dedicated to putting patients first. Established in 1891, Merck discovers, develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medicines in more than 20 therapeutic categories. The company also devotes extensive efforts to increase access to medicines through far-reaching programs that not only donate Merck medicines but help deliver them to the people who need them. Merck also publishes unbiased health information as a not-for-profit service. For more information, visit

Forward-Looking Statement

This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the statements. The forward-looking statements may include statements regarding product development, product potential or financial performance. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual results may differ materially from those projected. Merck undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Forward-looking statements in this press release should be evaluated together with the many uncertainties that affect Merck's business, particularly those mentioned in the cautionary statements in Item 1 of Merck's Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2003, and in its periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, which the company incorporates by reference. [end quote]

From The Medical News Today, but is a Press Release from Australia Dept of Health for Doctors and Pharmacists {and Health care Providers} Note that the US Dept of Health has made NO statements on the safety or use of that drug to my knowledge:
Feb 19,2005

Expanded information on Cox-2 inhibitors for doctors and pharmacists, Australia
12 Feb 2005
email this article to a friend
printer friendly version
view all opinions on this
write an opinion on this

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia has introduced new measures on the prescribing of anti-arthritis drugs known as Cox-2 inhibitors following the findings of a review into the safety of this family of medicines.

In September last year the popular arthritis drug, Vioxx, was withdrawn from the market world wide because medical trials had shown a significant increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

In response, the TGA undertook urgent evaluations of new information provided by the sponsoring pharmaceutical companies of all other registered Cox-2 inhibitor drugs.

The results of this review were considered by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) which made a number of recommendations to restrict the use of these drugs in Australia.

As a result, the TGA will immediately require manufacturers of Cox-2 inhibitors to place new highlighted explicit warnings in product information about the increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events from this group of drugs. The new warning statements are to be highlighted with a black boxed margin.

The TGA is also advising people who are taking more than 200mg a day of celecoxib (Celebrex) or more than 15 mg a day of meloxicam (Mobic; Movalis) to review their treatment regime with their doctors.

The TGA believes that most Australians using these drugs will be taking low doses that already meet this dosage advice, but some patients, particularly with rheumatoid arthritis or a rare bowel condition, may be taking 400 mg or 800 mg of celecoxib a day and some patients with arthritis may be taking more than 15 mg of meloxicam a day.

This recommended dose reduction may result in some patients with arthritis having increased symptoms but the review of Cox-2 inhibitors clearly indicated there is an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes with high doses of these drugs.

ADEC reviewed evidence of six drugs in the Cox-2 inhibitor family, all of which were considered to be have risks associated with their use.

It determined that the exact size of the risk and the exact duration of therapy associated with increased risk are still unknown, and so have recommended that Cox-2 inhibitors should be prescribed only when other treatments cannot be tolerated or have caused serious adverse effects.

In addition celecoxib and meloxicam should not be prescribed for patients with increased risks of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks, and treatment should be limited to the shortest time needed.

Concerning celecoxib, the Committee took into account the results of a study of celecoxib 800 mg a day in low cardiovascular risk patients which showed an increased risk of cardiovascular event. The results of studies of 400 mg a day of celecoxib in low cardiovascular risk patients are conflicting with one study at this dose level finding an increased risk.

On the other hand, several recently published papers describing observational studies of patients using large linked medical record databases in North America have not reported an increased myocardial infarction risk with celecoxib. Dose analysis was not undertaken in all studies but it is likely that a large majority of patients were taking 200 mg/day or less. Such observations are consistent with the preliminary results of an Australian case-control study, the results of which were made available to ADEC. An increased risk of acute coronary syndrome was not found for the patients that were studied. Very few of these Australian patients were taking more than 200 mg a day of celecoxib.

Concerning meloxicam, there are theoretical grounds for regarding the drug as having reduced cardiovascular risks. The drug has less selective Cox-2 inhibition than celecoxib or rofecoxib. Clinical study data are more meagre, with most studies limited to no more than six months duration. The Committee notes that a Prescription Event Monitoring study in the UK and an observational study in Quebec, Canada, provided reassurance that the cardiovascular risk at up to 15 mg is acceptable. ADEC recommended that further research be conducted.

The new requirements reinforce and extend advice given to Australian heath care professionals in the Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin, October 2003, and repeated in December 2004.

The TGA has also accepted a number of other recommendations of ADEC and has given notice to the relevant companies:

-- it is proposed to cancel the registration of the drug parecoxib (Dynastat) because of the risk of cardiovascular events. Dynastat is marketed in Australia and is approved as a single dose at the time of surgery to reduce post-operative pain;

-- it is proposed to withdraw the indication of management of arthritis of the drug valdecoxib (Valdyne, Dynoral - known in some countries as Bextra) which is converted to parecoxib in the body. Valdecoxib has not been marketed in Australia. Valdecoxib has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events in cardiac by-pass graft patients. The use of Valdecoxib for 5 days as an analgesic in patients without increased cardiovascular risk will remain;

-- it is proposed to greatly limit the approved uses of two other Cox-2 inhibitors which have not yet been marketed in Australia. They are etoricoxib and lumiracoxib. In both instances, ADEC was not sufficiently assured of the safety of these drugs for anything other than short term use in patients without increased cardiovascular risk.

Concerning parecoxib and valdecoxib, ADEC noted reports of two published studies in which valdecoxib alone for 14 days and parecoxib followed by valdecoxib for 10 days were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Committee was not assured from other available data that the safety of parecoxib in other surgical patients or the safety of valdecoxib other than when used for short periods in patients without cardiovascular risk, had been studies adequately.

Printable version of Expanded information on Cox-2 inhibitors for doctors and pharmacists media statement

People who are concerned about their use of Cox-2 inhibitors should discuss their treatment with their medical practitioner.

Dr John McEwen
Principal Medical Adviser
10th February 2005
This is a press release from the Australian Dept of Health
Panel OKs Merck's Vioxx Return to Market
Fri Feb 18, 2005 07:45 PM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS (Page 1 of 2)

Related Articles
Older NSAID Pain Drugs Need Warning -FDA Panel
Merck Says Would Consider Selling Vioxx Again
Pain Drug Mobic Shows Increased Risk-FDA Scientist
Patients Tell Panel They Accept Pain Drug Risk
Scientist: Risk in High Celebrex Doses

Powered By FeedRoom Systems
Reuters Television
FDA Panel Backs Pain Drugs

By Lisa Richwine and Susan Heavey

GAITHERSBURG, Md. (Reuters) - Merck & Co. Inc.'s (MRK.N: Quote, Profile, Research) withdrawn arthritis drug Vioxx is safe enough to rejoin Pfizer's rival pain relievers Celebrex and Bextra on the U.S. market, an advisory panel said after concluding that all three medicines posed some level of heart risk.

The 17-15 vote on Vioxx's safety to go to market electrified Merck shares, which closed up 13 percent at $32.61 on the New York Stock Exchange. Pfizer Inc. (PFE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) gained 6.9 percent to close at $26.80.

It was a stunning turnaround for Vioxx, which was withdrawn in September by Merck after a study showed the drug doubled heart attack and stroke risk compared with a placebo in patients who took it for at least 18 months.

Celebrex and Bextra, which had been under the same cloud of elevated risks of heart problems, also could stay on the market, the panel said. Most members felt all three drugs should have "black box" warnings -- the strongest warnings used for prescription drugs -- explaining their heart risks.

Many urged restrictions if Vioxx is sold again, such as limiting sales to the lowest dose and recommending it be a second choice after patients try another pain reliever.

John Cush, a rheumatologist at Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, said the risk of heart problems with Vioxx was "still very small" and he wanted "as many options for my patients as possible."

One opponent to Vioxx sales, panel Chairman Alastair Wood, said "there's a clear signal this drug appears substantially worse than the others" in its potential to damage the heart. Celebrex seems to be the safest of the three based on what scientists know now, he said.

The FDA usually follows advice from its panels. Officials said the agency will make final decisions on Celebrex and other pain relievers in the next few weeks.

"Merck has appreciated the opportunity to present data at this advisory committee meeting," the company said in a statement. "We look forward to discussions with the FDA."

Most panelists wanted to forbid drug makers from advertising the COX-2 drugs. The FDA cannot order an advertising ban but will consider asking the manufacturers to do so voluntarily, said Dr. John Jenkins, head of the FDA's Office of New Drugs.

Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx are part of a family called COX-2 inhibitors. The drugs were designed to ease pain as effectively as older, nonprescription drugs known as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, while being easier on the stomach. NSAIDs include more than 20 drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen. Continued ...

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.[end quote]

From the San Diego Union Tribune news Feb 19,2005:


FDA panel allows sale of disputed painkillers

Tight rein is urged on Vioxx, 2 other drugs

By Marc Kaufman

February 19, 2005

WASHINGTON – A Food and Drug Administration panel narrowly voted yesterday in favor of allowing the arthritis painkiller Vioxx back on the market under strict conditions. The committee also voted in favor of allowing Celebrex and Bextra to remain available.

But a substantial majority of the 32-member expert advisory panel recommended steps to significantly restrict the drugs' use and called for extensive new testing of similar arthritis medications on, or coming to, the market.

Several panel members said patients in need of pain relief should first try naproxen, sold as Aleve, before taking any of the three painkillers – Celebrex and Bextra, made by Pfizer, or Vioxx, made by Merck.

The panel voted 31-1 that Pfizer should be allowed to continue selling Celebrex, which members said was safer than the other two. The vote on Bextra was 17-13 with two abstentions, and on Vioxx it was 17-15.

The proposed restrictions include a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising, the inclusion of a strong warning in a highlighted black box on the bottle's label or box, and a requirement that patients be given a written warning that the drugs increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Chairman Alastair Wood said the panel's message is that issues raised by the class of drugs known as Cox-2 inhibitors are "extremely complex" and "there are no black-and-white answers." He said that while the group clearly believes drugs used to treat chronic pain are valuable, they need substantially more testing and should not be aggressively advertised, as they had been until the fall.

Although the votes supported controlled marketing of the drugs, the sometimes sharply divided panel hardly gave them a vote of confidence. The votes came only after the advisory group agreed unanimously that Cox-2 drugs "significantly increase" the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

"It would be a brave man or woman who started a patient with a clear history of heart disease on these drugs," Wood said in a briefing after the meeting.

Dr. John Jenkins, director of the FDA's Office of New Drugs, agreed, saying the panel had made clear "that they felt that these agents should maybe not be as widely used."

The FDA usually follows advisory panels' recommendations, especially on controversial issues, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to make its decisions within weeks.

Celebrex and Vioxx were approved in the late 1990s and were advertised aggressively as breakthrough treatments for arthritis. Millions of patients began taking them, though studies have shown that many were not at risk for the gastrointestinal problems sometimes caused by older painkillers, which the newer drugs were designed to avoid.

In addition to voting on whether the Cox-2 drugs should remain available to U.S. consumers, the panel was asked to assess the safety of nonsteroidal inflammatory drugs such as Mobic and ibuprofen. The group overwhelmingly recommended that they, too, carry new warnings; however, there was a consensus that some of them – naproxen in particular – are much safer than others.

Ibuprofen is sold as a generic drug and by the brand names Advil and Motrin; naproxen is sold under the brand name Naprosyn as well as Aleve.

Just before the voting began, Wood told the group that it was struggling with the biggest and most complicated drug safety issue to come before the FDA. He said that of the 16 drugs the FDA has taken off the market, none has affected nearly as many people because they involved relatively rare side effects and not a general cardiovascular threat.

The restrictions proposed by the panel, if adopted by the FDA, will make Cox-2 drugs much harder for manufacturers to sell and for patients to obtain. Once the FDA gives a drug a black-box warning, certain kinds of advertising are no longer allowed, and doctors tend not to prescribe it widely.

Still, the Vioxx vote in particular was a vindication of sorts for Merck, which pulled its product in September because of safety concerns. At the time, the company said it believed Vioxx could remain on the market with restrictions, but it decided not to do so because there were alternatives with fewer safety concerns.

The drug's possible path back to the market remains difficult. FDA officials told the panel that if Merck wants to return Vioxx to the market, the company must win new approval for revised label information about safety and how the drug should be used.

Merck officials said they are open to returning the drug to the market and that "we look forward to discussions with the FDA" regarding Vioxx and other Cox-2 products in the pipeline.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who has been highly critical of the FDA's handling of Vioxx, commended the panel for its "respect for the scientific process."

But, he added, "I remain troubled by the FDA's reluctance to be fully transparent. . . . Specifically, the FDA should value the science of its own employees at least as much as the science presented by drug companies."

In its recommendations on restrictions, the panel made clear that it thought they should be tightest on Vioxx – which showed the most significant cardiovascular problems in recently stopped clinical trials.

The FDA convened the extraordinary three-day meeting to solicit recommendations from some of the top experts in the nation on arthritis treatment and overall drug safety. The meeting was called because of the Vioxx withdrawal and similar health concerns linked to Celebrex and Bextra.

Although the panel members were convinced that the Cox-2 drugs carry increased risks of heart attacks and strokes, they voiced differing views on how much the drugs benefit patients and whether they are significantly safer than older anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and aspirin. Also weighing on the panel was public testimony Thursday in which many arthritis sufferers pleaded to be allowed to continue using Cox-2 drugs.

During a news conference after the votes, the FDA's Jenkins said the agency will give great weight to the panel's recommendations and comments. But he said the narrow margins of some votes mean the agency must look carefully at the members' comments.

"Close votes are very challenging to interpret," Jenkins said.

Merck shares surged $3.76, or 13 percent, to close at $32.61 yesterday on the New York Stock Exchange. Pfizer shares gained $1.74, or 6.9 percent, to finish at $26.80.

The New York Times News Service contributed to this report.[end quote]

Friday, February 18, 2005


From Medical News Today:
New York City Health Officials Announce Detection of Rare Drug-Resistant HIV Strain, Issue Alert
14 Feb 2005

New York City... Department of Health and Mental Hygiene officials on Friday at a news conference announced they have detected in a local patient a rare strain of HIV that is highly resistant to most antiretroviral drugs and causes a rapid onset of AIDS, the New York Times reports. The city health department also issued an alert to physicians, hospitals and medical providers asking them to test all HIV-positive patients for evidence of the strain (Santora/Altman, New York Times, 2/12). City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said, "We have not seen a case like this before. It holds the potential for a very serious public health problem" (Goldman, Bloomberg News/Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/12). Although drug-resistant HIV strains are common in patients who have been treated with antiretroviral drugs, multiple-drug-resistant HIV is "extremely rare" in patients who are newly diagnosed and previously untreated, according to a health department release (New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene release, 2/11). In addition, HIV infection usually takes about 10 years to progress to an AIDS diagnosis, but this patient apparently progressed to AIDS in a matter of months. This combination of highly drug resistant HIV and rapid disease progression has not been identified before, Long Island Newsday reports. Dr. David Ho, director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center -- where the patient was diagnosed as HIV-positive in December 2004 -- said the combination of drug- resistant HIV and the patient's "rapid clinical and immunological deterioration is alarming" (Kerr [1], Long Island Newsday, 2/12). "We're talking about a single case," Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of CDC's National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, noted, but he added that the case is "quite alarming" and should serve "as a wake-up call to remember that HIV is still a formidable adversary" (Edozien, New York Post, 2/12).

New York City Patient
The virus was discovered in a New York City man -- whose name has not been released -- in his mid-40s who had frequent, unprotected anal intercourse with other men, often while using crystal methamphetamine, the AP/Yahoo! News reports (Dobnik, AP/Yahoo! News, 2/12). The strain, which is being called 3-DCR HIV, is resistant to three of the four classes of antiretroviral drugs, which means that 19 of the 20 available antiretroviral drugs would be ineffective for a person with this HIV strain (New York Post, 2/12). The patient was diagnosed as HIV-positive in December 2004 and already showed symptoms of AIDS despite a relatively recent infection. The man had tested HIV-negative as recently as 2003, according to the New York Times (Perez-Pena, New York Times, 2/12). Frieden said that based on early investigations, the patient could have developed AIDS in as little as two months or as much as 10 months after infection (Santora/Altman, New York Times, 2/12). Doctors at the Diamond AIDS Research Center recognized that the virus seemed to be a rare and "more dangerous" strain of HIV, and contacted city officials on Jan. 22, the New York Times reports. City officials repeatedly analyzed the conclusions before making a public announcement, according to the New York Times. Efforts to locate the man's sexual partners began immediately (Perez-Pena, New York Times, 2/12). The patient has been "extremely cooperative" with officials in tracking down his sexual partners, possibly "hundreds of them," the city health department said on Saturday, according to the New York Post. Officials said some of the man's partners already have been contacted and tested but locating everyone is an "ongoing effort," according to health department spokesperson Sandra Mullin, who added that no one else had tested positive for the new strain (Montefinise et al., New York Post, 2/13).

Frieden said the case should focus increased attention on the importance of using protection during sexual intercourse, according to the AP/Albany Times Union (Dobnik, AP/ Albany Times Union, 2/12). Men who have sex with men and especially MSM who use crystal methamphetamine should be particularly careful to practice safe sex, he added (Talaga, Toronto Star, 2/12). "It's a new warning ... that safe sex practices remain the most effective way of preventing any HIV infection," Dr. John Greenspan, director of the AIDS Research Institute at the University of California-San Francisco, said (Perlman, San Francisco Chronicle, 2/12). New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) said the new strain was "very worrisome," adding, "More than ever ... try not to engage in the drug culture at all, and in terms of unprotected sex, you are putting your life in jeopardy, and if you are infected, you are putting other people's lives in jeopardy" (Burdi, Long Island Newsday, 2/13). Ana Oliveira, executive director of Gay Men's Health Crisis, said, "We need to practice safer sex," adding, "New Yorkers must be vigilant and know that infection with resistant strains of HIV can be avoided" (Kerr [2], Long Island Newsday, 2/12).

Scope Unknown
The "ultimate significance" of the new strain is still "unknown," the Washington Post reports. "Only time will tell whether this was an isolated case or part of an outbreak of similar cases," Frieden said on Saturday, adding, "Only time will tell how widespread it becomes. But it is certainly possible to reduce its spread through prompt action, and that is what we are trying to do." Terje Anderson, executive director of the National Association of People with AIDS, said he is "uncertain" about the case's importance, according to the Post. "It really isn't clear what one case means," he said, adding, "It is premature to be talking about a 'supervirus' circulating out there in the population." Anthony Fauci, director of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the discovery is "not good news no matter how you slice it," but the new case will not necessarily transform the HIV/AIDS epidemic, according to the Post. The case could "turn out to be a rare event highlighting the need for better AIDS prevention strategies," or "it may mark the emergence of a very dangerous HIV strain whose spread could have global health implications," the Post reports (Brown, Washington Post, 2/13).

Search for Source, Spread
The search for the source of the new HIV strain has widened, and officials on Sunday said two other men were being studied to determine if they also had the rare form of the virus, the New York Times reports. One of the men, who was a sexual partner of the New York City man in October 2004, could be a potential "source" of the strain because it is known that he was HIV-positive before sexual contact with the New York City man, according to Ho. The other case is an unidentified San Diego patient who was found by searching the records of the commercial laboratory ViroLogic. Additional tests are needed to determine if the strains are the same, a process that could take more than one week, Ho said. He added that even if tests prove that the three cases are linked, it would "not necessarily mean that a super virus is on the loose" because genetic factors in the first man may have made his infection progress at an increased rate, according to the Times. The health department so far has contacted about 12 of the New York City man's sexual partners, according to Mullin. However, the man had sex with hundreds of men in recent weeks and does not know all of their names, according to the Times. Mullin said she did not know how many partners had agreed to participate in the epidemiological investigation or what the findings were. At least one man who was a sexual partner of the New York City man has declined to participate in the investigation, according to Ho. Frieden reiterated that the city cannot determine whether the strain is an isolated event in one man or whether it had spread to a small or large cluster of people (Altman, New York Times, 2/14).

More Research Needed
Following the announcement, experts have said that more study is needed to assess the danger of the virus, including whether it could be transmitted easily, if it could weaken others' immune systems as quickly and be as resistant to antiretroviral treatment as it has been in the New York City man, the New York Times reports. Experts said the disease may have progressed so rapidly because of the individual patient, not because of the particular strain. Laboratory tests in which the HIV is added to immune system cells to see if it replicates faster than other strains and mixed with other strains to see if it attacks immune cells more effectively should be conducted, experts said, according to the Times. Scientists emphasized that it is "still too early to tell" how rare the HIV strain might be or whether it would spread, according to the New York Times (McNeil/Altman, New York Times, 2/13).

Frieden at the conference issued several recommendations:

* MSM must work to reduce the risk of HIV infection and the spread of the drug-resistant strains;
* New York City physicians must increase HIV prevention counseling and testing and perform drug susceptibility testing for HIV-positive patients;
* City physicians should work to improve antiretroviral drug adherence and notification of partners of HIV-positive patients;
* The public health community must improve monitoring of HIV treatment and drug resistance and must implement effective prevention strategies;
* HIV-positive patients currently taking antiretroviral medications do not need susceptibility testing unless they are advised by their physician.

Dr. Antonio Urbina, medical director of HIV/AIDS education and training at St. Vincent's Medical Center in New York, warned that the growing crystal methamphetamine epidemic is playing a "significant role" in HIV transmission, adding, "In light of the emergence of this virulent new strain, health care providers must be especially vigilant in not only recognizing and diagnosing HIV infection but also in recognizing the signs and symptoms of crystal methamphetamine use in their patients" (Windsor,, 2/11). Physicians disagree about the role methamphetamine might play in making drug users more susceptible to HIV infection, although most agree that it lowers a person's inhibitions and can lead to more frequent, unprotected sex with multiple partners, the New York Times reports (Perez-Pena/Santora, New York Times, 2/13). The city health department is monitoring laboratories for other cases of the new HIV strain and is working with the state to establish a long-term system for monitoring drug resistance in HIV- positive patients who have not yet started treatment (, 2/11).

Alert Draws Criticism
Some experts questioned the need for the public health announcement based on a single case. "This is not novel and the odds are enormous that it is not going to go anywhere," Dr. Robert Gallo, director of the University of Maryland's Institute for Human Virology, said (Reuters, 2/12). One case is "not enough to warrant a public health alert," Gallo, who co-discovered HIV, said, adding, "It's irresponsible and outrageous. We've already heard past claims about superviruses that all turn out to be nonsense. From the science, I would say the probability is very high that you won't see this virus again." Dr. John Moore, an AIDS researcher at Cornell University Weill Medical College, agreed that city officials had " overblown" the danger presented by the new strain. "My guess is this is a relatively poorly transmitted virus," Moore said. However, Bloomberg said the city was correct in issuing a warning because it has "first and foremost a responsibility to educate the public as to what they can do to save their lives" ( Kerr, Long Island Newsday, 2/13).

Reaction Mixed
People reacted with "fear and skepticism" to reports of the new HIV strain, but "few were surprised" that a potentially more dangerous strain had arisen because the "sense of urgency about the disease has waned" in recent years, the New York Times reports. The "prevailing attitude" of complacency -- partly attributable to the availability of antiretroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS -- had many people worried about a new strain emerging, according to the New York Times (Perez-Pena/Santora, New York Times, 2/13). Thomas Farley, a community health expert at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, said, "There's a lot of evidence that gay men have backed away from safe sex practices. And as a nation, both gay men and the rest of us have become much more complacent about AIDS. That sets us up for new sexually transmitted infections to emerge and for any old ones to reemerge" (Confessore, New York Times, 2/12). Some physicians said they are worried about the lack of treatment options available for the new HIV strain and the potential implications if the strain spreads to other patients. "This may be the tip of the iceberg," Dr. Charles Gonzalez, an AIDS specialist at the New York University Medical Center and Bellevue Hospital, said, adding, "If this one starts getting around, we're back to the early '80s." He continued, "In the beginning of the AIDS crisis, we had no treatment. Again, we have absolutely no treatment" (Shin, New York Daily News< /a>, 2/12). Jay Dobkin, medical director of the AIDS Center at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, said, "Many of us here remember the dark days before there was any effective treatment for HIV, and I think ... [the discovery of the new HIV strain] should at least be a reminder that those days could come back" (Lombardi, New York Daily News, 2/12). The New York Times on Monday examined reaction to the announcement in gay chat rooms, Web logs and dating sites, where "a touch of anger and fear" existed, but with most people " advising against panic" (Cave, New York Times, 2/14).

Conference Planned To Study Meth-HIV Link
The Salt Lake Tribune on Monday examined the issue of methamphetamine use as it relates to higher prevalence rates of HIV and hepatitis C. Researchers in August are scheduled to gather at the Science and Response in 2005 Conference for what is being called the first national conference on the issue of meth use and HIV and hepatitis infection (Guidos, Salt Lake City, 2/14). The complete article is available online.
[end quote]
From Medical News Today:

Why there is multi-drug resistant HIV in New York, Terrence Higgins Trust statement
13 Feb 2005

Lisa Power, Head of Policy at Terrence Higgins Trust said: "Multi-drug-resistant HIV is known, both in the US and in Canada. It is the result of treatment, which fails, either because the drug is not strong enough, or because it is not taken at the right time. Multi-drug-resistant strains of HIV can be passed on.

"This case is certainly worrying, but it is important to bare in mind that complete drug resistance is still very rare, and that people with the same strain of HIV can progress at very different speeds to AIDS symptoms."

Oliver Wright
Terrence Higgins Trust
Terrence Higgins Trust 52-54 Grays Inn Road
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7831 0330
Fax : 020 7242 0121
[end quote]

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Fundamental Principles of the EU Constitution

From the EUobserver news:
The University of Geneva is organising an international conference on
Fundamental Principles of the European Constitution", from March 3 to 5
2005, with participants from the 25 member states, details and
registration Already famous
run by students from every member state:
[end quote]

I ask all Christians to be praying that as the EU Constitution is constructed
that it will include the liberty to worship God,include God's laws in the public law,
and create a decent, good, moral society for those nations. Those nations have a
impact on the world, and the US.

Monday, February 14, 2005

The winds of change are blowing!

There is much good news for Prolifers! Four States are changing their laws to limit abortion and that is really good news. Minnesota's Rep Brad Finstad, Republican, is the lead sponsor of a bill entitled, Positive Altenatives Act,that will be funded with $5 million dollars to provide for 100 adoption agencies and pregnancy centers to help save their population. The fund will be administered by the Minnesota Dept of Health and has the support of 38 Senators and 73 House Members, and also Gov Tim Pawlenty.

South Dakota Legislators approved 3 bills last week limiting abortion there. One requires that women be informed of the risks and danger of abortion ahead of time, and it gives women who are not given the correct information standing to sue the abortionists and the clinic. Hurrah.

North Dakota's Rep. Dan Ruby, a Republican from Minot, proposed a bill, heard by the House Human Services Committee to ban abortions.. Under the bill, anyone who "intentionally destroys or terminates the life of a preborn child" is guilty of murder and would serve a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole." Praise God for these bold Legislators and pray they are committed and determined and don't budge one iota from the truth.

Oklahoma passed a law requiring that women be given the information about the risks and the alternatives before any abortion, and that parents of minors be notified prior to any abortion.

Friday, February 11, 2005

How long shall the workers of iniquity boast?

"O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth, O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself! Lift up thyself, thou Judge of the earth; render a reward to the proud. Lord, how long shall the wicked? how long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity [sin] boast themselves? They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither the God of Jacob regard it; Understand,ye brutish among the people, and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planteth the ear, shall not HE hear? HE that formeth the eye, shall not HE see? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not HE correct? HE that teacheth man knowledge, shall not HE know? ...Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? "Psalms 94:1-11 & 20.

These verses came to my mind this morning after mulling in my mind all the shocking words written about Prince Charles and his w-----, how he is planning to marry her and give her a title. I thought their shameless adultery was bad even when i did not know all the history. But after I read the history of their wanton carrying on for decades, flaunting righteousness, and the word of God, to the nations of the world, I am even more appalled. The idea that woman Camilla would say she was "proud" of her ancestor who also played the whore, and was shunned by proper society for her ungodly adulterous relationship with another Prince of Wales, is beyond belief to me. For a woman who aspires to be Duchess or Queen, as an in-your-face repayment to the whole nation for the way they treated her ancestor, to say that she is "proud" of her ancestor who was described as having "the morals of an alley cat" is so shocking to me, that I think 'well no wonder England is in decline'! If those two are the be the "leaders" of England, then no wonder people are again emigrating from there to more righteous places. And what about Prince Charles? The many articles on the subjects of their plans make it abundantly plain that he just used Diana, to mother chiildren for him, never loving her and then displaying the ultimate contempt for her but publicy admitting he carried on openly and in the homes of people she had called friend, with a woman old enough to be her mother! For such a beautiful woman as Diana, that humiliation and shame must have been unbearable. Perhaps she really died of a broken heart? Or maybe Charles and Camilla plotted her death to make it convenient for their tawdry love affair? Charles is the all-time womanizer of this century! Apparently his paramour, his mistress, his lover his cheating woman of his friend, and servant to the Queen, selected Diana as her temporary fill-in thinking she would be too naive and too sweet to protest. It is the most outrageous scandal I have heard of in my lifetime! Even Bill Clinton was not that low-down and before now, I considered him the bottom of the barrell of manhood.

Is the legacy of what was once an Empire, that boasted "the sun never sets on the British Empire" now to be brought to ruin by a man and mere common strumpet who think they have mocked God, and who think they will get away with it? Is God mocked? Can a man who was considered "heir to the throne" and "defender of the faith of God" be so blind spiritually to actually think he will flaunt God's laws in His face? Is lying, deceiving, adultering, misuse of the public purse for paying for luxuries for the w----, making a fool out of Diana, Parker-Bowles, the nation of England, the Prince's Trust Fund, and maybe being complicit in Diana's death, to be rewarded with a TITLE and public recognition? Well maybe Charles in his youth, did witness the abdication of the throne for a divorced woman, and maybe he was taught that is the way to public infamy and notoriety. If that is the way England wants to be remembered, as a nation whose would-be Kings have no morals, no self-control, no self-discripline, and NO sense of duty to the nation, then what should the righteous do? Are the "values" of the Prince's Trust which boldly claims that it is for the youth: adultery, deceiving, manipulating, stealing another man's wife, betraying your own wife, flaunting God and His laws, flaunting the Church of England, flaunting the duty of Kings to the nation? If that is the value system Charles is trying to teach all of England, then look out world, a depraved, godless, far worst England is in store !!

Writing this is what I can do. I can go on the public record as making my howl of protest for the sake of God, for the sake of England, for the sake of virtuous women, for the sake of all the teenagers who are involved in the Prince's Trust, for the sake of all the teenagers and tweenagers around the world who will get the message from that immoral pair that IF they want to be somebody then cheat on husband or wife, flaunt the laws of God, make a mockery of marriage and while you are at it, make a mockery of the Church of England too, and the Title, defender of the faith! What faith are they defending? the devil's? That old serpent the devil must be celebrating his fool head off, because he has not only ruined Charles who even if he became King would never be trusted, and destroyed Diana, and put their children to international shame and disgrace, but he has effectively ruined the ministry of the Church of England and the high moral road Kings should trod according to God's word, and displayed to the public a common w----- as someone they should admire and photograph. How can any in that "Royal" family hold up their heads before God? Why are they not all prostrate on their faces before God's throne begging for forgiveness and guidance AND COURAGE? The lack of courage there is indicative of why England has become just another state in the EU and not the Empire it once was.

Galatians 6:7 is written, "be not deceived. God is not mocked! For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Well if there was ever visible proof of that it is the House of Windsor. The previous Prince played the fool with Wallis Warfield Simpson, and flaunted the laws of the nation and abdicated the throne, but at least he abdicated and did not subject England to his lack of leadership and spiritul power. Another verse says, " for I the Lord am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. " Exodus 20:5

If Prince Charles must have his strumpet, make him abdicate the throne and exile him. He is a shame and disgrace to that nation. Then his sons will be taught that sin has bad consequences and that God is not mocked. If however Charles and Camilla succeed in making a joke out of marriage, and out of the Church that should be built on Jesus's words, and the "Empire" then the nation can look forward to more degeneration, more depravity, more reprobate minds, more lust rewarded, more shame in the world, until they are totally destroyed. That is not my idea but is from the Bible, in Deuteronomy ch 28, "but it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of The Lord thy God, to observe and do all His commandments, and His statutes, which I command thee this day, all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee...[45 verses detailing the curses between these two scriptures] and it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you, so The Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought, and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it." Deuteronomy 28:15 & 63

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

NAZI medicine in the Netherlands & ???U.S.

I read an article about how the Netherlands was investigating the doctors who do not want to kill the patients, and implying that by refusing to kill, the medical doctors were not measuring up. It is shocking! The article brought to mind this book review that I read the other day:

Book Review in Townhall,Feb 7,2005:
From Darwin to Hitler
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

By Richard Weikart

Review by Johannes L. Jacobse
[quotes only, using fair use doctrine for public teaching]
To most Germans, Hitler never appeared to be an evildoer, and thus subsequent attempts to portray him as a fanatical madman betray a misunderstanding of the epoch in which he ruled, Weikart argues. Instead, Hitler was very much a man of his age. The moral justifications for the evil he unleashed were developed long before he rose to power.

Weikart writes that the moral antecedents of Nazi genocide rest in the Darwinism that swept the German academies nearly a century before the Nazi period

Weikart concludes by reiterating that Darwinism alone does not explain the German descent into Nazi darkness. Political and social factors come into play, as well as the nihilism of Nietzsche and others. Nevertheless, the dependence of the Nazi social vision upon Darwinian ethics is so great that Hitler cannot be properly understood apart from it.
From Darwin to Hitler is a valuable work of intellectual history. It is well written, cogently argued, and thoroughly engaging. Read it to understand how the Nazi darkness penetrated the heart of Europe. But be forewarned: many of the arguments that devalued human life in pre-war Germany are the same that we hear in America today. [end quote]

Johannes L. Jacobse is a Greek Orthodox priest and edits the website

How a person becomes a reprobate!

Scripture tells the root cause of, the damnation of, the progression of depravity, and the end result of homosexuality:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness,and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness {contempt} because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the Creation of the World, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their foolish imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools; and changed the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds, and four-footed beasts and creeping things; Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own bodies between themselves, to dishonour the own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature, more than The Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this cause, God gave them up to vile affections, for event their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men, working that which is unseemly [improper, not fitting] ; and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet [due them].

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, [forsaken beyond redemption, foreordained to eternal damnation, rejected by God for eternity] to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.

Who knowing the Judgement of God, that they which do such things are worthy of death,not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans chapter 1:18-32

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Judge rules destroyed embryo was human!!

The smartest Judge in America has done the right thing! He ruled that a human embryo that was thrown out in the trash, was a human and the parents are entitled to a "wrongful death" action against the invitro group. This news is from the article, "Destroyed embryo deemed human" by Steve Patterson and Abdon M. Pallasch, on Feb 5, 2005 in the Chicago Sun Times news. The link to the article is:

It is exciting news! I hope that wise Judge goes far up the ladder maybe to the US Supreme Court! He is one of the few in the US with wisdom and a spirit of discernment that medical truths are medical truths even in Court. God bless him!

Friday, February 04, 2005

Rumsfield charged in Germany with war crimes

From the BBC news today, Last Updated: Friday, 4 February, 2005, 14:43 GMT

'Arrest threat' to Rumsfeld trip
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
A group of US lawyers says Mr Rumsfeld is guilty of war crimes
The US defence secretary has said he is considering whether to attend a conference in Germany, where he may face arrest for war crimes.

Donald Rumsfeld is due to attend a gathering of high-level defence officials and experts next week.

But he says he has not yet decided whether or not to attend the conference in the German city of Munich.

US lawyers representing Iraqis who say they were abused in US custody have filed a complaint with a German court.

'War crimes'

"It's certainly an issue. It's something that we have to take into consideration," Mr Rumsfeld said on Thursday.

"Whether I'll end up there, we'll soon know. It'll be a week and we'll find out."

There is no mention of Mr Rumsfeld's attendance on the website for the conference, which runs from 11-13 February.

In a suit filed with German federal prosecutors, the New-York based Center for Constitutional Rights accuses Mr Rumsfeld of war crimes linked to the alleged abuse of detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib detention centre.

US investigations into the abuse scandal have concluded that he was not directly responsible.

The complaint was filed in Germany as its laws allow war crimes and human rights violations to be prosecuted across international boundaries.[end quote]

Reader feedback

Feedback from a reader via email:

"Greetings! You have an excellent blog and an insightful perspective. Please consider adding your blog to prolifeblogs ( This is a site I manage aimed at networking and promoting pro-life bloggers."

Grace and Peace,


Their site :

Also, another site about the prolife cause,

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Thank God for La Quinta Inns & Rep Matt Bartle.

The La Quinta Inn hotel chain has ended a commercial arrangement between one
of its hotels and the late term abortion facility of George Tiller. The Wichita La Quinta Inn offered discounts to women arriving from as far away as Canada, for abortions at George Tiller's
abortion facility and rented rooms to Tiller's staff so that they could
provide monitoring and follow-up after abortions had been carried out. La Quinta Corporate office investigated and disassociated themselves from Tiller's abortuary and told him
that he may not use the hotel chain's name in
literature or on his website. [ from, 1 February]

Other news affecting life:

According to the International Rescue Committee, 3.8 million people have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo since the war started in August, 1998, and there are 31,000 more deaths monthly. Per alertnet of Reuters. Please pray that the killing will end!!

Missouri Lawmakers held their first discussions to ban all forms of human cloning. The Bill is sponsored by Rep Matt Bartle and has the support of the Missouri Right to Life. Pam Fichter of the Missouri Right to Life said, “we are very aware that the biotech people are out there, and they are trying to cloud the issue and distort the language of the issue.”

According to the Equal Opportunity Commission, 30,000 women have been discriminated against or had to leave their jobs because of being pregnant. First reported in the BBC news Feb 2, and again in the SPUC news, Feb 2,2005. It seems instead of equalizing the playing field abortion has created a discriminatory standard that if a woman wants to advance in her career, she must be willing to abort. Is that how you read this news? The easy availability of abortion has resulted in women who are pregnant or want to be pregnant not being considered hireable. That is another documented bad outcome of the liberal abortion laws.

The Heidi Group, a Christian, evangelical, not for profit organization found that 90% of women who visited religiously run pregnancy centers decided to continue their pregnancies when they saw their babies on ultrasound. There was an article in the New York Times on Feb 2, 2005 about this topic. The Southern Baptist Convention and the Focus on the Family groups are raising money to put ultrasound equipment in every pregnancy center.

Here are excerpts from a previous article on this topic,
"Psalm 139 Project shows mothers why they shouldn't abort" by Dwayne Hastings & Erin Curry
June 14, 2004, [quoted]

INDIANAPOLIS (BP)--Of all the things Southern Baptists were expecting to see on the exhibit floor of the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting, an unborn baby was probably not on their list.

Yet visitors at the Psalm 139 Project booth in the SBC exhibit hall are able to view images of an ultrasound being conducted live. To promote the project's effort to provide ultrasound equipment to eligible pregnancy care centers, sonographers are conducting ultrasound examinations on pregnant women in the booth, with the images broadcast on a large video screen.

The images of the woman's unborn baby are accompanied by the sonographer's commentary. The exam itself is conducted behind a curtain within the exhibit. In fact, a woman discovered in the booth June 14 that she is expecting two babies instead of one. A sonogram done on the exhibit floor showed identical twins holding hands inside her womb.

The Psalm 139 Project, administered by the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, seeks to create an awareness of the value of ultrasound technology in crisis pregnancy situations and to provide a way for individuals to give to a fund that places ultrasound machines in qualified pregnancy care centers.

"If wombs had windows, people would be much more reticent to abort babies because they would be forced to confront the evident humanity of the baby from very early gestation onward," ERLC President Richard Land said, noting sonograms provide a "window into the womb."

"Pregnant mothers who see their babies on sonograms are going to be far more likely to carry their baby to term," Land added. "Ultrasound machines save babies' lives. [end quote]. If you are willing to donate either money or ultrasound machines please contact either Southern Baptist Convention or Focus on the Family, or just donate it directly to the pregnancy center in your community.

Also please do not go see the movie, Million Dollar Baby, produced by Clint Eastwood. According to Micheal Medved. it is a movie promoting euthanasia for the handicapped, and calling the man who violates all laws by killing the injured woman, a "hero". Medved said the movie is "insufferably manipulative" and "shamelessly overrated" and "misleadingly marketed."

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Hallelujah, Major victory!

I am so happy that I am shouting hallelujah Jesus! The Wonderful House of Delegates of the State of Virginia has passed a bill requiring that abortionists meet the same standards as Ambulatory Surgery Centers if the abortionist does 25 or more abortions per year. The bill was sponsored by Delegate Jack Reid, a Republican from Henrico,God bless him! He told the Associated Press, "If we are in fact going to have legal abortions in the state of Virginia we have a responsibility to see that they are performed in as sterile and as safe an environment as possible, and that is the intent of this legislation.[end quote] This bill is something I have promoted in Virginia and also in Georgia, and Colorado, and on the federal level. As a Registered Nurse it has always infuriated me that in the past 31 years history of abortion as a [false] right, abortionists had to meet no standards for quality assurance, infection control, or tracking of complications or infection that every surgeon in the US must meet. That was an intentional effort by groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood to deceive the public by skewing the statistical data on abortions including the deaths of women and the life changing adverse effects of them, by not requiring abortionists to meet JCAHO standards or Ambulatory Surgery standards or even State Health Dept standards.
Now this day that has changed, and Thanks be to God for His infinite mercy. Now maybe the idea that women when they have surgery should be able to count on the State's certfication process to decide which "practioner" is safe and which is not. Of course, I do not believe that abortion is a safe procedure--it is invasive, destructive surgery, how could it be safe? But at least, if the abortionists have to follow the generally accepted standards of doing physical exams and obtaining medical histories PRIOR to the woman jumping on the operating table; and having to deal with the woman's medical problems to manage them so they are not life-threatening when coupled with powerful and potentially lethal drugs via the anesthesiologist or anesthetist, then maybe the lives of the women at least will be saved. If the abortionist has to have emergency medical equipment and a trained staff just like an Ambulatory Surgery Center has to have, then emergencies can be dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner instead of what is the current practice for most abortionists--calling 911, waiting on the ambulance to arrive, transporting the patient to the hospital emergency room, often in another city or state, to prevent having to record the complications or death of the woman, and then attempting to misrepresent the case to the Emergency Room physician on call, and then waiting until the round of tests are completed so the Emergency Room doctor can really figure out what happened, and then finally treating the woman. Oh, I despise abortionists. They are the scum of the earth. Hanging would be too good for them.

Also, back to the Virginia news...Delegate Robert Marshall said that 18 out of 20 abortion "clinics" in Virginia would not meet the standards and that would be great because then they could not operate literally! Their license as a medical establishment would be in jeopardy. That would be very good news. If the killing center could not kill babies for a while, what a wonderful bit of news that would be for all the human race, for Virginia, for the continuity of the nation, and the future and for those called by God's name. Also, Delegate Marshall said, "back alley abortions have moved to Main Street wtih the permission of the state government. This bill establishes standards. "

Also, more good news! Some Oregon citizens have started a new group, Life Support, that has announced its intention to Churches, Legislators, and the public that they intend to challenge the use of taxpayer's funds to pay for abortion. According to the Oregon Dept of Human Services division of Medicaid, they paid for 8,150 abortions in the past two years breaking the federal law against using Medicaid money or federal taxpayer's money to pay for, refer for, counsel for abortion. David Brownlow the Director of Life Support said, he believes "it is unconscionable to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for child-killing, either by surgical or chemical means." Sen Gary George, Republican of Newberg, said he intends to bring the issue to a vote, saying, "we intend to make a big issue of it."

Other states that should sit up and take notice are California, who uses their Medi-cal in violation of federal laws, Hawaii, Montana, and Washingon, who all use federal taxpayer money to pay for abortions, an elective surgery to kill/" terminate" a living human being. Is it ever the duty of any level of good government to kill the citizens? I say emphatically, NO it is not! God said, thou shalt not kill period. Thou shalt not kill anybody! It is written in Exodus 20:13 and God wrote it in stone with His own hands the first time it was handed down to the people! Nothing has changed. Good people and good governments do not kill the innocent.

There is also a Medical doctor who is a most powerful speaker on this subject and his name is Dr. Patrick Johnston of the Physicians for Life. I heard him speak at the Colorado March for Life and it was a wonderful declaration of truth and life. They have a website, check them out. { or dot org.}