Passing the House of Representatives on a voice vote, S. 1858 has been sent to President Bush for signature. The Newborn Genetic Screening bill was passed by the Senate last December. The bill violates the U.S. Constitution and the Nuremberg Code, writes Twila Brase, president of the Citizen’s Council on Health Care (CCHC). “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research,” she states. “It does not require consent and there are no requirements to inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research. Already, in Minnesota, the state health department reports that 42,210 children of the 780,000 whose DNA is housed in the Minnesota ‘DNA warehouse’ have been subjected to genetic research without their parents’ knowledge or consent.”

After her daughter died at age 31 of colon carcinoma, Dr. Jennifer Schneider of Tucson wondered whether three cycles of egg donation might have been related. She is asking Congress to create a registry of egg donors. Research on the long-term effects of egg donation are not now possible because many donations are anonymous, and there is little, if any, follow-up care.Most prospective donors “don’t know the difference between being told ‘We don’t know of any significant long-term risks’ and ‘There are no significant long-term risks,’” Dr. Schneider said.

Merck and Schering-Plough are running full page ads, as in the Wall Street Journal, in an attempt to control the damage from a study questioning the benefits of ezetimibe (Zetia) or Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin). “All of us at Merck and Schering-Plough proudly stand behind the established efficacy and safety profiles of ZETIA and VYTORIN,” states the advertisement. But it also notes that “ZETIA [a drug that limits cholesterol absorption] has not been shown to prevent heart disease or heart attacks.”

According to a meta-analysis published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings¸ but virtually ignored in the mainstream press, use of oral contraceptives increases risk of premenopausal breast cancer, writes Dennis Byrne (Chicago Tribune 12/3/07).

The greatest increase in risk, 52%, was in parous women who used oral contraceptives for four or more years before their first full-term pregnancy (Kahlenborn C, et al.Mayo Clinic Proc 2006;81:1290-1302, 2006).

Byrne notes that stories about other breast cancer risks were plentiful, including one about sleeping with a night light on. The National Institute of Cancer doesn’t mention the study on its web site, nor does the American Cancer Society. The latter concedes only that “it is still not clear what part” the pill plays in breast cancer.

Curiously, those who protest about government and big business failing to “do enough” to protect consumers are silent about this particular risk, Byrne writes.

“Here, I also should clarify some things to all the folks who are itching to hit the ‘post comment’ button. Kahlenborn is pro-life, but what has that to do with his research? As for me, I am not opposed to contraception, oral or otherwise. I am not plotting to get the pill banned. I am not writing this column for hidden religious reasons. I’m not saying the Kahlenborn study is the last word…. I’m writing about it because people have the right to know about the existence of health information, even if it is contradictory to the given wisdom.”

Additional information:

• Reader responses to Byrne
• Editorial accompanying Kahlenborn article
• “Study: Abortion FuelingBreast Cancer ‘Epidemic, ’” Newsmax.com 12/5/07.
• “New Study Supports Abortion/Breast Cancer Link,” AAPS Newsof the Day 11/1/07.