Pfizer- Wyeth Marriage Made in Heaven Cartoon. Martha Rosenberg. Click to Enlarge.

Premarin and Prempro: The consequences of deception – A litany of litigation

Written by JANE ALLIN

Pfizer- Wyeth Marriage Made in Heaven Cartoon. Martha Rosenberg. Click to Enlarge.
Pfizer- Wyeth Marriage Made in Heaven Cartoon. Martha Rosenberg. Click to Enlarge.

In early July of 2002 the alarming news of the National Institutes of Health Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study sent shock waves through the medical and scientific communities. Wyeth’s hormone combination replacement therapies (e.g. Prempro®), long believed to provide cardiovascular benefits to the millions of menopausal women who took them, now proved to be deadly carcinogens and cardiovascular antagonists.

With the reports that long-term use of HRT derived from conjugated equine estrogens increased the risk of invasive breast cancer, stroke, cardiovascular disease, heart attack, pulmonary embolism and blood clots, sales of these drugs quickly plummeted.

Closely on the heels of the WHI, the National Cancer Institute also shook the public with the news that estrogen alone (i.e. Premarin®) puts long-term users at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. Doctors and their patients were aghast at the deception of Big Pharma and its lack of ethics in failure to disclose potentially life-threatening risks associated with their HRT drugs. How could this happen?

Through an exceedingly misleading and conspiratorial marketing campaign Wyeth managed to convince the world that menopause is a disease and requires medical intervention to mitigate its ravages on the female body. Needless to say what followed was, and is today, one of the most scandalous events to have occurred in the pharmaceutical industry which has led to an epidemic of mass tort litigation. Rather than accept responsibility for their heinous actions and provide compensation to their victims, Wyeth and now Pfizer, continue in their quest to defend their right to sell these carcinogenic concoctions.

Currently Pfizer has settled approximately half of the more than 10,000 lawsuits it has faced in product liability claims regarding Prempro and Premarin and their link to increased risk of breast cancer. Moreover in 2011 Pfizer added another $68 million to an already massive fund of $772 million to address and resolve the on-going cases.

What is appalling is despite the fact these hormone replacement therapies are clearly linked to a surfeit of disease and death Pfizer continues to appeal the trials and delay proceedings while turning massive profits from the very drugs at the center of the controversy, year after year. Many of the victims have already succumbed to breast cancer or other insidious illnesses affiliated with the use of these drugs however the emotional and physical scars of the survivors and their families live on. Heedless of the suffering, Pfizer/Wyeth remain steadfast in their litigation efforts without compassion or accountability. Profit over safety at all costs.

Pfizer’s mission:

“We dedicate ourselves to humanity’s quest for longer, healthier, happier lives through innovation in pharmaceutical, consumer, and animal health products. To achieve this purpose and mission, Pfizer affirm the values of Integrity, Leadership, Innovation, Performance, Teamwork, Customer Focus, Respect for People and Community.”

Partial and radical mastectomy, mutilated breasts, chemotherapy, radiation, cardiac surgery, exorbitant medical costs and death. I think not. Mission impossible.

The Lawsuits: In Review

2002 – 2006:

Prempro. Image by J B Reed / Bloomberg News.
Prempro. Image by J B Reed / Bloomberg News.

Prior to August of 2006 when the first Prempro® trial began, Wyeth and Pharmacia & Upjohn prevailed in a great majority of HRT hormone therapy cases previously set for trial through a combination of rulings by judges and dismissals by plaintiffs themselves to avoid being put to trial.

2006:

First Prempro trial begins in August of 2006 in Little Rock AR (Linda Reeves) but the trial is short-lived when a jury dismisses negligence by Wyeth in September.

At this time 5,000 lawsuits had been filed against Wyeth.

In October 2006, a jury awarded Jennie Nelson $1.5 million in compensatory damages, on the Phase I verdict. In 2001 Mrs. Nelson underwent a double mastectomy and chemotherapy and radiation for invasive breast cancer. A mistrial was later granted on the basis of juror ineligibility based on a motion by Wyeth.

2007:

In January 2007 a Philadelphia jury found that Prempro was responsible for Mary Daniel’s breast cancer and ordered Wyeth to pay $1.5 million in compensatory damages. The jury concluded that Wyeth was negligent in failing to provide adequate warnings about the risk of breast cancer associated with Prempro.

In February 2007 a jury in Philadelphia found that Prempro caused Jennie Nelson’s breast cancer and awarded her and her husband $3 million in damages. Nelson previously had been awarded $1.5 million by a jury in October 2006, but a mistrial was declared after the verdict had been returned.

In March a conference was held in Philadelphia to discuss future cases, two of which began in April, another in May and one in September. There were, at this time, a total of about 1814 HRT cases filed in Philadelphia.

According to an analysis published in April, statistics showed that the sharp drop in hormone use by menopausal women that began in 2002 as a result of the WHI study caused a dramatic decline in breast cancer cases strengthening the case that the trends are related.

In June, despite the jury awarding the Nelson’s $3 million in February of 2007, the first HRT case to reach trial ended with a Wyeth victory.

In response to an article published in the Wall Street Journal, “How NIH Misread Hormone Study in 2002”, WHI executives reply that the WHI investigators and the National Institutes of Health, which funds the WHI, are jointly responsible for all scientific articles arising from the study. Both parties stand by the original findings and conclusions.

A trial scheduled for September in Philadelphia is denied as a result of the two-year statute of limitations from bringing a personal injury claim.

However in October Wyeth was ordered to pay $134.1 million including $99 million in punitive damages, over its mishandling of menopause drugs and concealing the breast-cancer risks of its Prempro and Premarin drugs that helped cause three Nevada women’s cancer (Arlene Rowatt, Jeraldine Scofield and Pamela Forrester).

The October verdict was the largest related to Wyeth’s HRT drugs. A fourth woman settled before trial and passed away in April 2007 at the age of 59.

2008:

A trial scheduled for January 2008 was dismissed by a Minnesota judge who found that Patricia Zandi failed to provide valid scientific evidence to support her claim that she had developed breast cancer as a result of taking Wyeth’s Premarin and Prempro.

In February a district court judge in Nevada reduced the $134 awarded to Arlene Rowatt, Jeraldine Scofield and Pamela Forrester to $58 million citing that he felt concern that the amount awarded was “the rest of passion and prejudice” rather than reflective of appropriate compensatory settlement.

Wyeth and Pfizer were ordered to pay an Arkansas woman $27.12 million in March of 2008 determining that Prempro and Provera were the cause of the woman’s breast cancer and that the companies had shown reckless disregard. Wyeth’s share of the punitive damages came to $19.3 million.

In June a New Jersey Superior Court Judge issued a pre-trial ruling that federal law does not bar state product liability lawsuits against drug makers. With this ruling Ellen Deutsch’s lawsuit was allowed to proceed. This was the first Prempro case to reach the courts in NJ of the 2500 trials pending in the state and one of 10,000 filed nationwide.

By mid-July Wyeth settled lawsuits with two Nevada women, Vesta Woodhouse and Annie Woods, for an undisclosed amount.

2009:

In April The Texas Court of Appeals held that a lawsuit against drug manufacturer Wyeth could proceed. The court found that the claims were not preempted by federal law.

Ghost writing image.
Ghost writing image.

The unsealing of thousands of documents pertaining to the ghostwriting practices of Wyeth was ordered in July by a federal judge overseeing Prempro litigation.

In October a Philadelphia jury decided Wyeth should pay an Illinois woman $3.7 million in punitive damages without making a decision as to whether the company was at fault.

Again in November a court ruled in affirming a jury’s liability verdict based on the fact that the claims against the manufacturer of estrogen and progestin drugs are not preempted or barred by the statute of limitations.

Also in November there were two hefty verdicts in Pennsylvania, the first for $75 million and the second for $34 million in punitive damages regarding the link between breast cancer and HRT as well as finding that the drug maker willfully failed to warn patients of cancer risks associated with the hormone replacement drugs Premarin, Provera and Prempro.

In December Wyeth was ordered to pay the $75 million in punitive damages recommended by a jury in November. In the same month a New York trial court judge dismissed lawsuits brought by 23 women who claim hormone replacement therapy drugs manufactured by Wyeth caused them to develop breast cancer.

2010

In January of 2010 the largest individual HRT verdict was handed down by a Philadelphia. $78.75 million in damages was awarded to an Illinois woman who claimed Prempro caused her breast cancer.

In February the Prempro litigation in Philadelphia turned feverish with both sides continuing the fight it out in court. 8 out of the 11 cases that have gone to jury have been in favor of the plaintiffs however two of those verdicts were reversed on appeal, and post-trial motions are pending in other cases. Plaintiffs were successful in the first trail with a $9.45 million verdict in Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court for Audrey Singleton, a retired school bus driver from Alabama. Pfizer said it would appeal.

However, no more than two days later, a different Philadelphia jury ruled in favor of Pfizer in another Prempro case. The plaintiff, Cheryl Foust, from Richmond Indiana, had been taking Prempro for about four years before she learned in 2003 that she had breast cancer. Foust died in 2005 at age 56.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Wyeth’s petition for certiorari in a Prempro case earlier this week, allowing a new trial on punitive damages. In March 2008, Donna Scroggin won nearly $30 million – including $27 million in punitives – against Wyeth and Upjohn Co., subsidiaries of Pfizer Inc.

In August a Philadelphia PA Common Pleas Court jury denied that the two women’s breast cancer was linked to Prempro. In the same month Pfizer agreed to settle an Arkansas woman’s claims prior to inception of another trial over punitive damages.

The Pfizer/Wyeth trial litigation is turning into one of the longest-running mass torts in US history.

A Pennsylvania court ruled that plaintiffs in HRT liability trials should have been allowed to have juries decide when it was reasonable for them to have discovered that their breast cancer was linked to the use of Wyeth’s HRT drugs.

In September an Arkansas District ruled that expert witnesses lacked sufficiently reliable scientific data to testify that estrogen-only HRT medications can cause breast cancer.

According to a new federal study post-menopausal women who take Prempro are at increased risk of getting breast cancer as well as dying from it.

In October, a federal Arkansas jury rules for the defense in the case of 81 year old Margaret Wilson.

Year end brought another victory for Wyeth when a jury rejected a Virginia woman’s claim for damages saying that the drug company properly warned her about the risks of Prempro. The Nevada Supreme Court also ruled that liability claims regarding HRT drugs are governed by the law of the state the plaintiffs became ill regardless if they had taken the drugs in other states prior to the onset of their illness.

2011

The new year saw a Puerto Rico jury hold Pfizer accountable for $1.5 million in damages to a pharmacist who developed breast cancer after taking one of its HRT drugs.

In February Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay about $330 million to resolve claims that its Prempro menopause drug caused breast cancer, in the first large-scale settlements in eight years of litigation.

A Pennsylvania appellate court in June ruled that a jury’s $1.6 million verdict for a plaintiff in a Prempro case was to be reinstated along with a sealed punitive award against Wyeth. There was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to conclude that Wyeth’s failure to perform adequate tests of the risk of breast cancer was intentional, because it did not want confirmation of those risks and the resulting loss of sales and profits.

In July a US District Court in West Virginia denied a treating physician’s testimony as an expert alleging that HRT drugs caused the plaintiffs breast cancer.

Wyeth wins another victory in October when the 8th circuit rules that the plaintiff’s product liability claims over Prempro were properly dismissed as time-barred in New York.

In December after a jury in Philadelphia awarded $76 million in compensatory damages to three women who claimed that Wyeth’s HRT drugs caused their breast cancer, Wyeth settled the cases for a confidential amount.

As of year-end 2011 Pfizer and affiliates had settled almost half of the product liability claims involving their HRT drugs -Prempro, Premarin and Provera.

2012

In January a Pennsylvania appellate court ruled that evidence of Wyeth’s marketing campaign for “off-label” Prempro uses was admissible in a breast cancer victim case. That same month the court also ruled that a $28 million award of punitive damages was not excessive in one of the HRT liability cases.

A US District Court in Mississippi ruled that a lawsuit against Wyeth would not be barred as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to declare her claim as an asset in her bankruptcy case prior to obtaining a discharge of debts.

Sources:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/prempro/
http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/topics/hrt/
http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/prempro/
http://www.hrt-legal.com/tag/pfizer/
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/prempro.html
http://www.drug-injury.com/drug_injury/hormone-therapy-hrt/
http://menstruationresearch.org/tag/lawsuit/
http://www.joelbieber.com/practice-areas/drug-reactions/prempro-lawsuits/
http://www.premproadvisor.com/prempro-lawsuits
http://prempro.vanosteen.com/news.asp

Conjugated Equine Estogens: About the Horses

Premarin Foal
For every 150 women who stop taking Premarin, one mare is spared from the “pee line” and seven or eight “byproduct” foals will not be slaughtered for their meat.

The drugs made the basis of this article are manufactured with conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs), now commonly referred to as simply conjugated estrogens. Make no mistake, these drugs — including the drug Aprela currently awaiting FDA approval — are made with the estrogen rich urine taken from pregnant mares.

Once these mares are no longer able to conceive, they are disposed of typically at livestock auctions. Tens of thousands of byproduct foals are also sent to auctions where they fall prey to buyers hired to supply horses to slaughter plants. The horses are killed and their meat processed for human consumption. In some instances, foals are shipped live for slaughter for human consumption. Only a tiny percentage of these horses are rescued or bought and given another chance of life.

© Int’l Fund for Horses

See all posts on this issue >>

21 thoughts on “Premarin and Prempro: The consequences of deception – A litany of litigation”

  1. All I can say is that if these cases involved viagra or cialis, and men were developing cancer after taking these meds, these cases would have been settled immediateley….]

    Like

    1. Indeed Jane, we dwell in a Male dominated society and they only recently learned that more women die of heart attacks than any other cause. They failed to study the incidence of heart disease in women. Rather, they prefer to torture horses and foals to ‘help’ us deal with the symptoms of Menopause! It is idiotic. However, you already know all of this.

      Elle

      Like

  2. Jane, I have read the same thing. I found an article that at the age of 29 women are losing their ability to procreate! Two friends for my entire life had to take fertility drugs to have children. They both had one child and then as they falsely believed they could not get pregnant again without the drugs, they ended up being pregnant again 12 months later! The same thing happened to my cousin. All of these gals were 35 and 36 when they had their first child via fertility drugs. They both got unexpected children, whom luckily they can actually afford.

    It is directly related to the drugs they use in Factory Farms for beef and porcines. The reason they are going after the horses is because beef consumption is down. People in the US are eating less beef for a variety of reasons. The drugs in the beef and the dairy cause all processes to be sped up and now 9 year old little girls are growing breasts. I believe the term is ‘Precocious Puberty’. I know a few young girls whom are horrified at the changes their bodies are making. It is sad for the women and children, and also tragic for the animals. I have been a Vegan since 1995 when I learned they were slaughtering horses.

    Elle

    Like

  3. Vivian & Jane:

    I know this may sound a tad far afield, but have there been any studies done or theories projected as to the WHY of menopausal symptoms?

    I firmly believe the human body nearly always does things with a purpose (although PMS? totally escapes me…). Women past the point of child-bearing, it stands to reason hormone production does decrease, but surely the chemical processes and the physical affects have ‘purpose’.

    If anyone could direct me toward either a study or a paper on the theory, I’d be very grateful.

    Like

    1. Lisa

      From what I have read the reasons for all the changes associated with menopause is very complex and involves the entire endocrine system which essentially is a series of glands that release all the hormones in the body.

      The endocrine system is regulated by a negative feedback system meaning that the glands that stimulate the release of a hormone (for example, the pituitary) from another gland (for example, the thyroid) are eventually shut off, in a sense, so that too much hormone is not produced and a hormone imbalance is avoided.

      When a woman reaches menopause the production of both female and male hormones decreases which disrupts the entire feedback system and things can get out of whack. Hot flashes for example are caused by fluctuating hormones during menopause. Changes in hormonal levels signal the hypothalamus, the body’s thermometer, to adjust the body’s temperature. If the fluctuation is pronounced, hot flashes can occur. Every woman is different and can have different ratios of hormonal levels so some will suffer more than others and at different times.

      You have peaked my interest with your question so I’ll have a look around to see if I can find a comprehensive article explaining things.

      Like

      1. Thanks, Jane.

        I know many of the body’s biological functions create discomforts in the efforts to rid the body of diseases or illnesses, like fevers or abcesses ( and I realize I’m preaching to an intelligent choir here ). So while we take medications to make it a little less uncomfortable, it doesn’t negate the notion that these functions have a purpose: fevers essentially ‘boil’ the biotics causing the illness, abcesses target a specific wound in an effot to isolate and destroy the infection.

        So I’m assuming that over the millenia of human developement, the discomforts associated with menopause must have some purpose, superceding the notion that a woman’s body just runs rampant for no reason. And why this isn’t explored more – or with at least as much attention as research into ever more efficient ways of victimizing mares and conjugating poison under the guise of ‘women’s health’ – is a bit perplexing.

        I hope you’re able to find something, Jane!

        Like

        1. Lisa

          Believe it or not I think part of it is that the strides in keeping humans alive longer have outdone biological certainty as was once the norm.

          The fate of women in times past used to be that at the end of their reproductive years they would succumb to the inevitable…at least a large majority of them. Not all obviously.

          I once took a course on the Biology of Aging and what struck me more than anything was a graph that showed how medical intervention has prolonged human life in the way of preventative care and reduction in symptoms and extended life such that death occurs at a later stage.

          Not that we still don’t develop the same ailments as our predecessors but rather that now we have ways of prolonging life by suppression of symptoms.

          It was an eye-opening course…we start to decline physically at the tender age of 30…all down hill from there….wow.

          Like

  4. Any Premarin only cases out there? I am a 4.5 year survivor of breast cancer. Would like to know if others were hit by Premarin alone.

    Like

    1. Dear KLF, I am so happy to hear you are a survivor. Insofar as Premarin only cases, I am not certain. Jane, who does all our research may have come across this data. She would need to know what State you are in, if you are in the US.

      Like

    2. A number of the class action lawsuits list Premarin as one of the drugs however in some cases the women have taken both Premarin and Prempro or even Provera. I found that the great majority of the litigation has to do with Prempro. Premarin is usually given only to women who have had a hysterectomy while Prempro to those who haven’t – at least since the availability of the drug Prempro in 1995 when it was approved by the FDA.
      Part of the problem is due to the fact that the WHI study was comprised of two groups of women; (1) those with an intact uterus that were given Prempro (Premarin +Provera) and; (2) those who had undergone a hysterectomy and were given estrogen alone – Premarin. Half of each of these groups was given a placebo rather than the active HRT. These trials were also conducted using randomized, controlled, double-blind tests, the gold standard in terms of scientific reliability.
      The combination of estrogen and progestin HRT is not to be confused with the estrogen-only form of HRT. One has to read the results of the WHI very carefully to determine the conclusions made in 2002 were based on the combination of estrogen with progestin (PremPro® ) and not the version of estrogen alone.
      Later on, after the WHI clinical trial was halted, an estrogen-only component of the study was begun and followed until 2004. More conclusions were then made about the estrogen-only participation regarding heart disease, blood clots, stroke, ovarian cancer, cognitive dysfunction and dementia. Not breast cancer.
      Findings from each of the two groups of women differed somewhat in terms of the deleterious effects. Common to both drugs however were increased risk of; blood clots, stroke, Alzheimer’s, and impaired cognitive thinking.
      For the combination HRT Prempro other side effects included increased risk of:
      Coronary heart disease
      Heart attacks
      Lung clots, cancer
      Breast cancer

      For Premarin or estrogen alone other increased risks included:
      Uterine cancer
      Ovarian cancer
      Gall bladder disease

      Because these findings precluded a risk for breast cancer of taking estrogen alone most of the cases involving breast cancer were for Prempro. In fact Estrogen-only treatment was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the risk of breast cancer in those women without a uterus. However, these results pertained only to those women who had undergone a hysterectomy. So there was nothing at the time as to the effect of Premarin on the risk of breast cancer in women with an intact uterus apart from early studies in the 1970’s.
      It seems it was a timing factor in terms of when Prempro was available (1995)and when a woman began HRT either in the form of Prempro or Premarin. Obviously prior to 1995 women took Premarin to relieve the symptoms of menopause with or without a uterus so I believe that estrogen-only HRT could well be to blame for breast cancer in women that had not undergone a hysterectomy. The risks of breast and other cancers as a result of estrogen-only were well known in the 1970’s.
      Another study undertaken by the NCI found that any type of hormone replacement therapy, even estrogen alone, increased a woman’s risk for breast cancer. In many cases clinical trials studying whether estrogen-only therapy affects the risk of breast cancer have had mixed results in women who have a uterus. Many of these studies have to do with age at which HRT was started and length of treatment, etc. etc.
      As far as I am concerned any form of HRT therapy is potentially dangerous. Every day there are new studies coming out with contradicting results and/or increased risks of more and more debilitating disease. The interaction of these “foreign” estrogens, not “natural” as Pfizer-Wyeth claim, are complex, dose dependant and at times unknown.
      There is so much information out there it is hard to wade through it all.
      That said, there was a Premarin class action lawsuit settlement in California in 2007, now closed. http://blog.prescriptionaccess.org/?p=40
      Also in August of 2011 the Supreme Court of British Columbia allowed a class action lawsuit against Pfizer-Wyeth to proceed. This represents women who developed breast cancer due to the use of the drug between 1977 and 2003 but is Canadian. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/08/05/18514426.html
      There are also a number of lawsuits pre-WHI such as this one back in the 1970’s and prior to the manufacture of Prempro (1995) that took place http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/505/505.F2d.489.74-1169.html
      Lots of lawyers out there that specialize in drug injury : Class Action Drug Lawsuits – How to Hire a Drug Injury Attorneyhttp://www.classactiondruglawsuits.com/category/class-action-drug-lawsuits/

      Sorry for the long-winded post.

      So glad to hear you are a survivor 

      Like

  5. Corporate greed abounds! Do you know the FDA pulled all forms of Excedrine, and their Excedrine Migraine was the number one recommended treatment for Migraines by Neurologists? They want to force us to take expensive drugs that are not over the counter. It is revolting. I sometimes get Migraines as my back is full of osteoarthritis. There is a connection to your spine and your brain. Tylenol does nothing. I kept an empty bottle to see what was in it and now I make it myself!

    This Aprela product is beyond the pale.

    Elle

    Like

    1. Elle – my daughter and I get migraines. Mine are food-related but hers are termed ‘cluster migraines’ and are related to her high blood pressure (very debilitating). She received some advice from her pharmacist – magnesium and folic acid supplements. They work very well for both of us – as a preventaive, not for the pain – but magnesium may also help with the osteoarthritis in conjunction with calcium supplements.
      I’ve read the Nurse’s Drug Manual cover to cover (because I think I might be a little, er, obsessive?) and it illustrates aspirin and it’s compounds have a myriad of benefits though it can cause a loss of calcium in the bone.
      I’m sure you have a routine that brings you good results. I’m just saying this here because, in the overall scheme of women’s health, sometimes low-tech and old school really do work.

      Like

      1. I agree wholeheartedly. Mom, sister, 1 cousin, and 2 Aunts are Nurses in my family. My Mom is the best. she created the first Patient Assistance Program when she worked for J&J as Nurse. My youngest sister dropped out of school so many times, she ended up without a degree. I have three, Music, Philosophy, and Law. Nursing is fascinating, however, the new Nurses are leaving in droves to work for Big Pharm as sales people! It is not often that I get a Migraine, but when it happens, I will take your considered advice. I take plenty of Calcium and tons of Vitamin D, but will get the folic acid and the Magnesium. Thanks Lisa!!!

        Elle

        Like

      2. Thanks for the reminder Lisa. I am a migraine sufferer too and sometimes the “old school” ways or remedies handed down from our anscestors are indeed the best. Remedies started at home and it’s a good time for them to return there. I am also at that wonderful age of TROPICAL MOMENTS! No HRT for me except if I do, I would choose herbs. They are out there and are getting great reviews (even my doctors reccommends them, which is a rare thing). So far, I’ve chosen to just “go” with them. also, I could not, with any good conscience use something derived from such a cruel, inhumane way. I can not participate in any equine torture.

        Like

  6. This is no surprise and once again, the innocent suffer the most for greed. As in the current lack of health care coverage here in the US and in the constant ripoffs from Big Pharma, there is no sense of ethics, no moral component and no way this can continue.

    A a type 1 diabetic who cannot find health care coverage and lives at risk every day, I can tell anyone that we have to do everything we can to see this change. This belief that life is disposable is the source of this kind of behavior.

    We have to keep telling the truth to those who don’t want to hear it. The more who know, the more we are protected. We also have to make it clear to our elected officials that we will not tolerate this behavior any more. (For the US, http://www.Congress.org)

    We have inherited this situation and it is up to us to put an end to it. If we do nothing, we allow it to continue. That is the choice we have to make ourselves.

    Thanks for this post.

    Like

  7. Corporate greed seems to trump common sense and knoledge, beware of the next generation of HRT that is close to or already for sale. ( froma equine urine source).

    Like

  8. Why is this stuff still in production you ask?

    Corporate greed. The more they get away with the more confident of their immunity and impunity they become as they escalate their criminality.

    Like

  9. “If one man calls thee an ass, pay him no mind. If two men call thee an ass, get thee a saddle.”

    Why is this stuff still in production?

    I know why I’m against this stuff – breast cancer, circulatory and coronary diseases, subjugation of captive mares and their ‘byproduct’ babies (and, by the by, how much do human women have biologically in common with female horses, aside from our sexes?) – but honestly, are there women out there who’s lives have been appreciably enhanced by taking this junk? Do they know – really KNOW – what this stuff is and what can happen?

    It’s tantamount to curing cancer with a megadose of arsenic.

    (As always, thank you, Vivian, and thank you Jane Allin.)

    Like

Comments are closed.