Canned risk? Local health scientist still sounds warning

facetime-myersJohn Peterson Myers believes BPA may present a risk to unborn children. FILE PHOTO BY JEN FARIELLO

John Peterson Myers, founder of Charlottesville-based Environmental Health Sciences and former Hook FaceTime subject, is at it again–-telling CNN that a chemical used to line metal and plastic food and beverage containers, bisphenol-A, more commonly known as BPA, can increase the chance of diabetes and heart disease. More alarming, says Myers,  pregnant women who consume BPA may be putting their developing babies at risk.

“There are some indications it may concentrate in the fetus. It’s definitely not something the fetus is protected from,” says Myers, who penned an editorial about BPA in the the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2008. “There are several [health concerns about BPA], but for me the most worrisome relate to diabetes and heart disease, triggered in infancy or in the womb.”

In 1963, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration proclaimed the chemical safe, but new research is prompting health official to take a second look.

Indeed, a January 2010 report from the FDA says “recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.”

"I think it's pretty serious," Meyers told the Hook in 2008. "The levels [of exposure to BPA] in all Americans are above levels found to cause harm in animals."



Bottom line is that birth defects are AOK with you. As good with you as are beheadings and throwing innocent and defenseless infants in the garbage. "Kill the poor" is not a new political idea. Indeed, it was also popular with the founding father of your policy of death for infants, permanent injury to their mothers, and developmental disabilities for future infants.

"It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics."

Adolph Hitler.

Your opposition to human rights and support of Nazi medicine may seem like a popular position within the bubble of Charlottesville. Alas, so is suppressing science in favor of your politics of cruelty. But we are advancing on several fronts. Indeed, that killings will no longer be allowed at UVA hospital is pretty much just a matter of time now. Things are happening in Richmond as we speak. But we are not stopping there. This gift of the Planned Parenthood defector and all the data she left with is an astounding leg up for us to take it to the other killers in town now. And the guy who you would least like to be in possesion of it, is well, - I'm laughing now..

As someone who is against birth defects and is interested in advancing any honest medical science regarding same (which makes me a minority in Charlottesville) - I remain really curious about John Myers' research, and I hope The Hook follows up on this.

I am all for defending and fostering the health and well being of developing babies and unborn children. Most people around here are not.


Clearly because Hitler drove a car, anyone who is driving a car right now is supporting Nazism. Hitler used a gun, anyone is using a gun is supporting Nazism. Did I mention he also breathed some air? Living is an example of Nazi fanaticism. Did you know the forefather of missiles is also Hitler? Oh my goodness, the United States military is following Hitler's footsteps!!!

Medical sciences have shown your claims of permanent damages and birth defects to be a complete farce. Yet you continue to prattle on about these absurd claims. Yes, you all about defending the rights of the unborn. You do not care about socioeconomical effects on the family. You do not care about what the child will grow up to be. To ilks like you, if a baby is born, you add 1 to your growing sense of pride and move on to the next target like a hound. Your job is accomplished. The baby is born. Let us move on to the next.

To be frank, I couldn't care less about your "PP" defector. Your arguments are wrong on the medical front. It is wrong on the socioeconomical front, and you only have the religious front left. But sure, keep on imposing your religions onto others, and your demands that every women carry their fetuses to full term, despite the fact you do not own any ovaries or uterus. Amen.

In their magical world where only politics matter, and medical science is completely irrelevant - the looney left partisans of Charlottesville are happy as can be about adding to the number of children with cerebral palsy. It is part and parcel of who and what they are. PBA might be bad for developing babies, but if we're talking about an "unwanted" baby - then his or her biology is instantly transformed due to someone else's opinion of their convenience factor.

Beheadings are "health care." Infants are "parasitic tumors." Babies are "tissue." Forcing a cervix open to rip a dismembered child out of it early keeps it "healthy." (Just get rid of the corpse ASAP)
The sky is green. The grass is blue. Lies are the truth..

Let's review:

"Previous abortion is a significant risk factor for Low Birth Weight and Preterm Birth, and the risk increases with the increasing number of previous abortions. Practitioners should consider previous abortion as a risk factor for LBW and PB."

Virginia Commonwealth University study as printed in the British Medical Journal.

"Induced and spontaneous abortion are associated with similarly increased ORs for preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, and they vary inversely with the baseline preterm birth rate, explaining some of the variability among studies"

Journal of Reproductive Medicine

" Women with a history of induced abortion were at higher risk of very preterm delivery than those with no such history (OR + 1.5, 95% CI 1.1ââ?¬â??2.0); the risk was even higher for extremely preterm deliveries (<28 weeks)"

British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

"This study shows that a history of induced abortion increases the risk of very preterm birth, particularly extremely preterm deliveries. It appears that both infectious and mechanical mechanisms may be involved." This study showed that women who gave birth between 28 and 32 weeks of pregnancy were 40% more likely to have had a previous abortion, and mothers who gave birth to extremely preterm infants from 22 to 27 weeks were 70% more likely to have had an abortion.

French Study of 2837 preterm births conducted by pro abortion researcher Caroline Moreau.

"A consent form that simply lists such items as "incompetent cervix" or "infection" as potential complications, but does not inform women of the elevated future risk of a preterm delivery, and that the latter constitutes a risk factor for devastating complications such as cerebral palsy, may not satisfy courts"

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

"Previous induced abortions significantly increased the risk of preterm delivery after idiopathic preterm labour, preterm premature rupture of membranes and ante-partum haemorrhage, but not preterm delivery after maternal hypertension. The strength of the association increased with decreasing gestational age at birth."

European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Now then..

Maybe if some of these folks amongst the killing lobby in Cahrlottesville volunteered with kids born preterm and some with palsy, and saw what a struggle it is for some of them to do the things the rest of us take for granted (and how hard they try), then maybe, just maybe, they could snap out of it and embrace learning something new that might just save someone's life someday - or prevent someone from needlessly having some developmental disability.

Nah.. They're too far gone.. Fortunately for us all, the young are information savvy, and the lies are being exposed to them like never before.

You are blind, Sean. You refuse to acknowledge that there is no "majority" results linking abortion to birth defects, and more importantly the correlation is nowhere as strong as other established causes such as malnutrition. You refuse to acknowledge that studies only talked about one certain type of abortion technique, the suction. You continue to outrageously inflate and balloon numbers that you have no proofs or evidences for, prattling about millions whereas studies said a thousand. You refuse to consider other much more significant causes of birth defects, such as malnutrition and other substances, and their correlation with abortion in the first place.

More disgustingly, your personal vendetta against UVA seeks to deprive abortion to other women who do not attend UVA, who are poor and if they have the child would condemn him or her to poor education and quality of life. But you do not care about that. You only care to see the child healthy for the first hour of the life, to hell with the rest of his or her life.

You are a sad sad man. To put it more simply, you believe in individual studies, generalize it to the whole category, and ignore all other consequences of abortion.

All rhetorics, no evidences. Typical Sean. "Proven causes of birth defects?" No, Sean, it is not proven.

Conspiracy Hack Sean,

Thank you for accusing the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of the United Kingdom as a political organization. You scored one point in spreading misinformation!

Not reading into the confidence interval that goes down to 1. You score another point in not understanding statistics!

Not realizing the complications in these studies due to multiple health risk factors that contribute to LBW and Preterm Birth more than abortion (read: fat people). You score yet another point in not understanding basic medical sciences!

Last I checked, the vast majority of doctors says cigarettes cause cancer. You score a point in linking non-related subjects together!

Four points in the post. Keep it up, hack.

Thank you Mr. Myers for those links and the helpful information.

"developing babies" "unborn children"

Amazing how many times you see people return to logic, science, and reality - but only as a slip up when not specifically writing about the "right to choose" to behead and discard these babies into the garbage as unwanted, parasitic tumors who can never be allowed to ruin their mother's spring break plans!

And this in a newspaper that supports that wholeheartedly..

Keep up the good work, John. The FDA is a political organization, not a scientific one. Birth defects have been OK with them for a long time.

For Hook readers who might want to read more, there are many articles in the mainstream press available via this URL:

And for more information about the science underlying health concerns of BPA try here:

Pete Myers
Environmental Health Sciences
Charlottesville VA

You know what Sean? STHU. You don't get to make the judgment about what is or isn't right for someone else's body. You scream all the time about government in our lives but are only too happy to endorse it when it pleases you.

Some guy isn't going to make decisions for my daughter, or my granddaughter, or my wife, as to what is best for her and her health.

Babies don't end up in trash cans unless people like you get to make the call.

Unless you want me to pass a law about when and whom you give a kidney to, I suggest you pipe down.

You never cease to impress with your ability to connect any article with your pro-life and anti-UVA agenda, no matter how oblique that connection may be. I too am pro-life, but you regularly embarrass yourself enough on these boards and others that I am ashamed to be on the same side of the issue as you are. Find something better to do with your time, if you really feel so strongly about these issues try to go out and make a difference instead of spending inordinate amounts of time on the comment sections of various Cville newspapers. Are you not a recent graduate of Piedmont? Put that graduate degree to good use, you're in your mid 40's with a fresh Masters, make the most of it.

Sean... I'm not interested in being politically correct. I just want to give couples advice about what they can do to improve the chances that their children will be healthy. You can give them advice too.


I'm just curious... If you were dictator, would abortions be illegal?

This thread is challenging. I hoped it would have focused on opportunities that we have, right at hand, to give children a chance at a full life by eliminating contaminants that interfere with their development. Surely everyone can agree that couples contemplating becoming parents ought to have information making it more likely that their children are healthy by avoiding problems in the first place. Who can argue with that? It's not about pro-life or pro-choice. It's about eliminating contaminants that undermine fetal development. Let's make sure mom's and dad's have information that helps them make healthy choices.

Sean insists on derailing every thread. Just be glad that he hasn't started talking about the Casteen Anti-Cloaking Device and the young man who passed away in a fraternity house.

Anonymous coward Unbe,

Thanks for providing a link to a self professed pro abortion political organization in Britain that lists 8 studies showing the abortion/preterm birth link, and 4 smaller ones that do not. You also did not read too well into those 4, as one of them states quite clearly that

"Preterm birth (OR, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.41) in women with one prior abortion (7.3% versus 6.2%) and LBW (OR, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.32) in women with two or more prior abortions (7.0% versus 4.7%)"

But then tries to explain their own data away by saying women who have abortions are fat and lead dangerous, unhealthy lives! LOL

There were plenty of studies saying cigarettes didn't cause cancer either. The crush of real science finally defeated the liars.

Pete, you're only interested in giving women information about what causes birth defects if it is politically correct to people in Charlottesville?

Human biology does not conform to human ideology. Like it or not.

From the pro abortion link provided above:

"Abortion remains an essential part of women’s health care services."

They make no attempt to hide their contempt for Geneva or the UDHR.

But even they have to admit:

"A recent systematic review published in BJOG by Shah and Zao has suggested that previous termination of pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies11. However, a lack of consensus exists in this area. Some studies have found an association12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19, while others have not20,21,22,23."

I took about 2 minutes and found citation # 22 to have actually tried to explain away why their numbers showed more preterm births among post abortive numbers. I just took about 2 more minutes and found that citation # 21 is no longer linked at the oxford journal site (removed?) and here is one of the many studies that cites it, which naturally also shows the link quite clearly:

Pete, this IS, unfortunately about politics, and facts that people simply don't want to look at, or know about. This science is at least as good as that linking smoking to lung cancer. Thousands of doctors, including those in AAPLOG and the AAPS have accepted it. Some states already require warning women about it. States who have actually lowered the abortion rates.

If you REALLY want people to be informed FULLY, then you have to be able to leave ideology behind and embrace the cold, hard reality that there are millions of children right now with needless birth defects due only to their mother's previous abortions. How many more is it worth?

Toward that end, I think John Myers has a plausible idea, and hope his efforts are funded and pursued. I am not the one trying to keep things quiet.

Oh please, stop mutilating the UDHR to your own definition. Nothing in the UDHR talked about abortion. One point to you again for misinformation, and another for grand delusion.

Yes, Shah's studies noted that the suction abortion technique, invented by the Chinese I believe, has correlation with premature birth. Surprise about something? Yes, it is about one specific technique. What did Dr. Shah say? He said that it is important to improve abortion techniques, and the focus should not be increasing unwanted pregnancies.

"Millions of children right now due to previous abortions". Are you aware of how silly you sound? Millions? No, the number is not millions. Calhoun's studies' numbers is barely more than a thousand. Congratulations on grand delusion again.

But of course, you argue next that those one thousand babies could have been born without birth defects. Have you considered how many fetuses were aborted due to recognized birth defects via radiological or test methods?

Sorry Dr. Myers for jacking your news and having to reply to the troll.

Fortunately I have not seen any of Sean's previous debates, so I might be missing something-- but I am wondering when you refer to previous abortions and their impact on LBW, does the data you refer to include abortions that took place due to miscarriage? It is not as if all abortions take place because a mother wants to get rid of her child, a lot of them take place because the mother was unable to miscarry on her own. So, if your data has any merit, and previous abortions impact premature birth later, frankly that is not something that all women have control over (they did not WANT to have an abortion--their baby died or didn't develop properly to live).

Sean, you still don't get it? Shah's data only talked about ***suction abortion technique***. ***Suction abortion technique*** is not the only abortion technique out there. There are other medical and surgical means for abortion. Your generalization of everything to make your number of "multiple of millions" make sense is astounding. Fact check: it does not make sense. There are no "multiple of millions" of children with birth defects due to abortions. I know making up numbers sounds dramatic for you, but sometimes you need facts to back it up.

Why do many women (not all, obviously) get abortions? Because they cannot afford to raise the child. What is an established factor of birth defect? Improper nutrition. We all know that a poor person is less likely to get a complete meal. If some years down, a poor person who had an abortion prior has a birth defect kid, what is the likely cause? Doctors will not look at abortion, but rather at poor nutrition, whereas you would lump that person into the "abortion cause this!!!" category.

Medical science is complicated, and it is clear you do not get it.

Anonymous coward Old,

A infant is not a kidney. A kindey is not an infant. A kidney has ho heart, brain, penis, vagina, or eyes. It does not have it's own DNA either. It is a body part. It is impossible for a grown woman to spontaneously grow a spare head, a prostate, or an extra pair of hands. It is likewise impossible for her to have two different blood types, and generate a completely new, second, double helix of DNA also. These are the back flips in science and logic and ethics that are essential to you trying to explain your support of beheadings and birth defects in direct violation of the UDHR. Lies, and Hitler's policy on the matter, are all you have to go with. Medical science, women's health, and human rights are all 180 degrees opposite of your blood soaked dishonesty.

Anonyomous coward Ah,

I don't believe you. This article was about birth defects, among a few others. And it contained two phrases that remind us all of the dislogic in the killing lobby's philosophy. As soon as we're talking about water bottles, "developing babies" need to be protected from the slightest harm. But the moment we start talking about PROVEN causes of birth defects, the verbiage magically shifts to beheading an "unwanted parasitic tumor" to protect a woman from, uh, something or other..

I am almost to my second degree and have 2 certificates also. I have put my education to work in designing our website and helping Live Action with their new graphics campaign. You can see the image we got for our website over Lila's right shoulder here:

Oh yeah? Let's see some counter literature.

"Birth weight in the abortion cohort was 38·5 g higher than that of the reference cohort after adjustment for calender year at recruitment, couples' occupation, education, age, infant sex, maternal body mass index at recruitment, contraceptive use and gestation age. Previous first trimester induced abortion did not significantly increase the risk of LBW or preterm birth. " - Journal of OB/GYN

"No significant differences could be demonstrated between the study and control groups in the maternal demographics, major pregnancy complications, or perinatal outcome, except for the incidence of smokers which was significantly higher (39.0 versus 14.4%, P < 0.02) in the study group. The number of previous induced abortions did not appear to be related to the incidence of preterm labour, which was 10.2 and 8.5% in the study and control groups respectively. Our findings indicate that previous induced abortion is not a significant cause of preterm labour and delivery in teenage pregnancies." - Human Reproduction

See, scroll down... Oh look, studies that contradict each other. What does this mean? It means your evidence on this issue is even flimsier than your breast cancer - OTC pill one. At least that argument showed a very slight absolute risk (although the authors themselves concede the need for further studies).

You see, why don't you spend your time doing something else, oh I don't know, actually doing something productive for society?

Unb, you can do the math yourself. Take the total number of abortions worldwide the last 50 years, and the increased incidence rate of preterm birth and birth defects as shown in the science I quoted above. It is multiple millions.

Jen, most of the data includes all instances where a cervix is unnaturally ripped open and thus gets compromised, and where a uterus is scarred and infections can develop. You are very correct that not all abortions are elective. They both are counted as induced abortions. But the medically necessary ones that require this procedure are usually late term and account for only a tiny fraction of the total. Statistically insignificant as compared to the numbers of entirely healthy and normal mothers and children who are wounded and killed for no other reason other than someone's short term notion of convenience.

Conversely, the breast cancer link has been shown to be valid in elective abortions - but not it naturally occurring miscarriages - due to the hormonal differences. Breast cells are given fair warning when a pregnancy is ending naturally. In the case of a totally unnatural, invasive, and violent end to the infant's life, breast cells are not afforded the advantage of "the estrogen connection."


You've seen the data. you've read the research results. Your politics makes you blind to them. A few studies suggested there was no correlation between smoking and cancer also. You are desperately trying to come up with anything to refute the overwhelming evidence , backed up by common sense, of what happens to a woman's body during an abortion - and what that does to her future children. Even the one source you found - a very political site that says it's all about abortion - had to admit that the majority of research shows a clear link. The "more study is needed" has always been the rallying cry of everyone whose politics or pocket book is endangered by the META analyses and real world statistics. You didn't do the math, did you?

Most (not all) of the women who get abortions at UVA are loaded and drive SUV's and wear designer clothes, buddy. They do it so they can keep drinking at next week's date formal, and because they have spring break plans. Get a grip on REALITY! Since when do poor girls who are can't afford a good meal go to UVA?!

SOme are coerced, some are abandoned, some just simply are lied to about what they are doing. UVA follows the same kind of policy regarding misinformation that PP does. But a whole lot of others simply don't care.

Not to go off topic but that Lila Rose is smokin hot. I would be happy to crank out a couple of kids with her. Good choice.