Papantonio: More Birth Control Dangers Revealed

[GoLeft TV]

Run time: 09:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baLDTyOkYH4   Posted on YouTube: December 07, 2011 By YouTube Member: golefttv Views on YouTube: 50   Posted on DU: December 07, 2011 By DU Member: GoLeft TV Views on DU: 1513

 
We’ve talked a lot about the birth control drug Yaz on this show in the past year, and for good reason. Hundreds of thousands of women have taken Yaz for birth control and many of them did so based on false claims given by both Bayer Pharmaceuticals and their own doctors who were also duped by Bayer. And now, new studies are showing us that Yaz has even more problems than original thought, and could very well be one of the most dangerous birth control products on the market. Mike Papantonio discusses the latest developments in the Yaz case with attorney Chris Paulos.

[musette_sf]

1. The dangers are NOT with "Birth Control".

The dangers are with ONE specific brand of BC pills. This headline is IMHO inflammatory and reads like a headline on some forced-birther garbage site like so-called "LifeNews".

Overall there are some health risks from BC pills in general, but many (approved, widely distributed) drugs have FAR more health risks and side effects. And compared to the health risks of pregnancy, the risks of most BC pills are very small.

If Yaz is dangerous, then Yaz needs to be taken off the market. But this broad-brush headline is very misleading. Especially in light of Sebelius' action this morning to IGNORE the FDA recommendations on Plan B. We're raw from this escalated War On Women, and it's even more injurious when it comes from those we thought were progressive.

[Donnachaidh]

3. this is the thing that drives me nuts -- because other drugs have side effects

it's -okay- for this one to have them? Really? Seriously -- REALLY?

This is the same Rovian/Gingrich/neener neener type *argument* that allows these companies to foist these dangerous drugs on the public.

un-freaking-believable.... :eyes:

[musette_sf]

4. You misunderstand me (I hope)

The story is about ONE BC drug.

The headline seems to implicate ALL BC drugs.

I'm objecting to the headline, and want the message to be clear that ONE BC drug has significant risks and probably should be removed from the marketplace. The broadbrush potentially contributes to anti-choice propaganda.

[GoLeft TV]

6. WHOA...

I'm hoping that you listened to the interview, in which Pap and Paulos talk about the fact that other birth control methods are much better than Yaz. We were in no way implying that all birth control methods are bad, and I have no idea how you could even construe this as such. I'm sorry that you took this the wrong way, but the fault lies with you, not me. I certainly don't appreciate the outrage that you're expressing, and find it completely unnecessary. Pap has done more for progressives (and American consumers) than you or I ever could imagine, so to claim that you "thought we were progressives" is rude, disrespectful, and quite frankly, ignorant.

[musette_sf]

7. WHOA 2X

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"

I've listened to Pap and Bobby on Ring Of Fire for years and consider myself a fan and admirer.

My concern was about the SUBJECT LINE - NOT about the content. I agree with the content - I've been following the travails of Yaz for at least the past 7 or 8 years and am well aware that it is a problematic drug.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that the SUBJECT LINE was where I had concerns. There was absolutely NO rudeness or disrespect towards Pap or Bobby intended.

The SUBJECT LINE was, and is, IMHO, sensationalistic and broad-brushed. Women like myself, who have been fighting for reproductive health care freedom for 40+ years, and who are more than a little bit raw and shellshocked at the recent escalation of the right-wing War on Women, see a headline like "More Birth Control Dangers Revealed" from high-profile progressives such as Pap, as a negative that could very possibly be co-opted by anti-choice propagandists, to use against the pro-choice movement, framed as "See? Even the left-wing says BIRTH CONTROL IS DANGEROUS!" You know as well as I that with the right-wing, the actual content of the article and the interview would be meaningless, it would be all about the headline, the sound bite, the bumper sticker.

And particularly in light of the HHS declining yesterday to follow the FDA's guidance and direction on approving Plan B for over the counter sales, it's really the wrong time for a headline on this topic that paints a negative broad brush over ALL birth control. The article was very specific, and all I was concerned about was that the subject line was NOT specific, and in fact could be misleading. The LAST thing I want to see is a anti-choice propaganda site like Jill Stenek's blog, or LifeNews, screeching "PROGRESSIVES AGREE: BIRTH CONTROL IS DANGEROUS".

[GoLeft TV]

8. OK

I kind of understand your concerns, but I think they hinge on an incredible degree of paranoia. If the title had said "Yaz", most people wouldn't know what that is. We're trying to appeal to a broad market, and get people to actually watch the video. At least the title was relevant to what Pap had to say. A lot of video titles on here and YouTube have nothing to do with the subject in the video - they are simply a ruse to get more people to watch. We didn't mislead, we didn't deceive, and we didn't do anything wrong. But, if you want to see who is really waging a "War on Women," I suggest you check out this other video from the people who made the original Yaz commercial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv4ccGSGar4

[Donnachaidh]

2. okay -- now what is the point of unreccing something like this?

Seriously, some of y'all either work for big pharma or you're basement trolls.

Tried to kick and rec. A big flying finger at the trolls... :grr:

[HockeyMom]

5. All medications can have serious side effects for some people

Don't you watch those TV commercials for this pill or that one? I took the old BC pills back in the 70s. They had warning labels on them even back then for risks of stroke, blood clots, etc. It's nothing new. I think this is just another agenda by some to discredit contraception. Hell, I even remember them saying that diaphragms and condoms had health risks.