|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Health and Nutrition
Breast Cancer Sells by Lucinda Marshal
Gardasil: Our Best Option? by Ellie Blalock, WIFP
Men and Meat by Chelsea Cundiff, WIFP
-----
Articles
Breast Cancer Sells
By Lucinda Marshall, AlterNet. Posted October 24, 2007. Thanks to AlterNet for publishing this great article and to Lucinda Marshall for writing it!
October is an awareness month for breast cancer and domestic violence. Yet media coverage shows we'd rather be aware of breasts, even sick ones, than talk about abuse.
October means falling leaves, ghosts and goblins, and pink, lots of Pepto-Pink as we observe National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM). From Campbell's Soup to Breast Cancer Barbie, it seems as if just about everyone has jumped on the pinkified bandwagon. And although October is also Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM), we'd much rather be aware of breasts, even sick ones, than talk about black eyes and things that aren't supposed to go on behind closed doors. That point is reflected in women's magazines, which devote much more space in their October issues to breast cancer than they do to domestic violence.
Of nine publications that I recently found on a grocery store magazine rack, all of which advertised breast cancer articles on the covers of their October issues, only two also contained coverage of Domestic Violence Awareness Month (and mentioned that on their covers).* And, what's worse, of the coverage dedicated to breast cancer, much of it was offensive, superficial, misleading, or flat-out wrong.
This year there is even called Beyond Breast Cancer that cheerfully proclaims that there are "10 Good Things About Breast Cancer." Who knew? And just what are the pluses of getting this dreaded disease? According to the bubblegum-colored magazine, one perk is a pair of new boobs that "will face the horizon, not the South Pole.' Better yet, they will be paid for by insurance. Oh, and you get lots of cards and flowers.
Meanwhile, both Good Housekeeping and Woman's Day give incorrect information about mammograms. Good Housekeeping claims that "[N]o one disputes that all women 50 and over should be screened annually." Yet physicians in different countries disagree on how often women over 50 should be screened. While doctors in the United States recommend annual mammograms, those in Europe say every two to three years. In Australia, where a study out last year shed significant doubt on the extent to which mammograms save lives, the recommendation is every two years. Interestingly, in some of these countries, the incidence and death rates for breast cancer are actually lower or comparable to the United States.
When they're not spewing misinformation, the October issues of the traditional women's magazines are offering overly simplistic information about breast cancer risk factors and tips for preventing it. Woman's World (not to be confused with Good Housekeeping discuss factors you can change, such as smoking, and those you can't, like genetics. Missing is any mention about the purported connection between breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy. Also absent is information on parabens, phthalates and other carcinogenic chemicals, which are disturbingly common in consumer goods from lipstick to lotion.
The silence on these subjects mirrors the focus that both the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen for the Cure place on the profitable business of curing cancer rather than preventing it, which likely would hurt the bottom line of many of their biggest donors. Consumers are told that shopping will help find a cure -- a message that is not lost on advertisers.
Vogue sings the praises of one prolific advertiser, Ralph Lauren, who this year is selling polo shirts with bullseyes above the breast to target breast cancer. The ad shows a group of young, mostly white women wearing skimpy thongs, the polo shirts and nothing else. Subtle, huh?
A Pine Sol ad in Essence features motorcycle riders Aj Jemison and Jan Emanuel "driving for the cure," which is awfully hard when your vehicle is spewing cancer-causing exhaust. On top of that, Pine Sol contains 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE), which has been linked to fertility disorders, birth defects and other medical problems.
Redbook carries a sparkling wine "Cheers for the Cure" ad. Curiously, their article, "Who Beats Cancer and Who Doesn't," was one of the few risk factor pieces that failed to mention the link between alcohol and breast cancer, something that is highlighted in several of the other magazines.
And what if you or someone you love gets breast cancer? Not to worry, the women's magazines are full of inspiring survivor stories. Unfortunately, while most breast cancer victims are over the age of 50, not one of the nine magazines I analyzed focused on those women and the impact the disease has on their lives. Far more typical is a piece in Vogue discussing a very attractive young woman's agonizing choice to have a preventive double mastectomy because she carries the genes that can cause breast cancer. And with the exception of Essence, whose target audience is black, most of the women in these survivor stories are white, even though black women are more likely to die from the disease.
Despite most of these magazines having sections on health, family and love, only two of them (Redbook and Essence) had any mention of Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
While it is questionable that additional awareness of breast cancer is useful, in the case of domestic violence, more coverage would be helpful. Domestic violence is the most common type of violence experienced by women both globally and in the United States. The Family Violence Prevention Fund reports that one out of every three women worldwide is "beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime." Here in the United States, the rate is one in four. In 2005 (the latest year for which statistics are available), 976 women in the United States were killed by by men that they knew. Yet because we tend to see this violence as a private, shameful issue, only 20 percent of rapes and 25 percent of physical assaults against women in this country are reported to the police.
Also underreported is the great financial toll domestic violence takes on communities. FVPF estimates that the health-related costs of "rape, physical assault, stalking and homicide committed by intimate partners exceed $5.8 billion each year." About 70 percent of that goes toward direct medical costs; the other 30 accounts for indirect costs such as lost wages.
Though lacking in many other details, this month's article in Redbook did attempt to demonstrate how common domestic violence really is, with featured pictures of two women as well as two men who knew a woman who had been affected by domestic violence.
And the article in the October issue of Essence, which delves into why black America is "so silent" about the violence that is committed against black women (a number that nearly doubled between 2003 and 2004, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics), also pinpoints why more coverage in these magazines would be more useful. ""Awareness, or lack thereof, is also a factor, says Rose Pulliam, president of the National Domestic Violence Hotline and the National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline. "We have to find a way to talk about domestic abuse that doesn't demonize our men but creates a way of looking at this as something to discuss openly," she says.
What to take away from all this? The bottom line, literally, is that we shrink away from black eyes. Breasts, on the other hand, are highly marketable commodities, as these magazines' advertising and helpful hints about pink products attest. Glamour even uses breast cancer awareness as an opportunity for a little full frontal nudity, featuring young, pretty and oh-so-white survivors with their best come hither looks. This emphasis on youth and whiteness is a true disservice to older women who are far more likely to get this disease and black women who are more likely to die from it.
Such irresponsible coverage of breast cancer and blindness to domestic violence suggest that many publications are less concerned with women's health than with making a buck. By tugging at consumers' purse strings instead of promoting their well-being, these magazines fail to serve the women who read them.
*The magazines surveyed for this article were: Essence, Redbook, Good Housekeeping, Women’s Day, Women’s World, Ladies Home Journal, Glamour, Vogue and Beyond Breast Cancer
-----
Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer and activist. She is the Founder of the Feminist Peace Network, www.feministpeacenetwork.org.
By Ellie Blalock, WIFP
May 23, 2007
In a society that worships the quick fix, vaccines seem nothing less than perfect. One trip to the doctor early in life can save a child from death or a lifetime of suffering with history’s most crippling epidemics. Polio, measles, and smallpox have been virtually eradicated worldwide through vaccination campaigns requiring minimal effort from the general public. Is it conceivable then that universal inoculation against HPV might not be our best option in the fight against cervical cancer?
This question has caused much recent debate among women’s groups and the medical community as numerous states and the District of Columbia consider bills which could require girls as young as 13 to show proof of inoculation with Gardasil, a new and not extensively-tested vaccine. While parents will be able to “opt out” of having their child receive the vaccine, the conditions under which this will be allowed are still unclear.
The major question that remains unanswered is how effective Gardasil would be even if required universally. Most cases of infection from HPV (around 90%) will disappear on their own within two years. Rarely does the HPV virus develop into cancer, and even more rarely is cervical cancer actually fatal. In fact, the cancer is considered to be largely preventable if women receive frequent pap smears. According to the Canadian Women's Health Network, the incidence of cervical cancer among women in the United States has dropped by 74% between 1955 and 1992, almost exclusively due to the introduction and increased availability of pap smears. Those who are still dying of cervical cancer today, says Sherrill Sellman of "Total Health" magazine, "are those who do not get screened (for whatever reason, be it financial, cultural, socioeconomic, or other access issues).
Gardasil, though it prevents infection from the two strains of HPV responsible for 70% of cervical cancer cases, is not foolproof. There are over 100 strains of HPV, 15 of which can cause cervical cancer. That leaves 13 (or 30% ) of the cancer-associated strains unblocked. Even after receiving the HPV vaccine, women must still have regular pap smears to ensure they do not develop cancer from contracting the HPV virus before receiving the vaccine or from a strain not blocked by Gardasil.
There is limited research on the long-term safety of the HPV vaccine, particularly for pre-teen girls, who stand to benefit the most from its use. It seems at the least a bit suspicious that Gardasil is being advocated by legislators when there are still potential safety issues to resolve. Feminist blogger Lucinda Marshall of feministpeacenetwork.org offers her own explanation, writing that "Merck, the company that manufactures the vaccine, has provided very significant funding to many of the legislators that are pushing the vaccine." Gardasil has also been "blessed' by the CDC, meaning that Merck, which stands to profit upwards of a billion dollars from mandatory use of its newest vaccine, can not be sued for any injuries sustained from the drug.
Marshall also links the current push for widespread use of the HPV vaccine to similar support for hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which “is probably responsible for a significant percentage of breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer deaths,” in earlier years.
Gardasil’s high cost makes the case for mandatory vaccination in schools even weaker. Sherrill Sellman of “Total Health” magazine reports that at $360 for a series of three injections, the HPV vaccine is the most expensive in history, and would certainly stretch public health budgets supported by tax-payer money.
A vaccine which could safely and cheaply prevent cervical cancer would be wonderful news for the women’s health community, and to oppose it would be downright absurd. Unfortunately, this is not what we have in Gardasil. There is considerable evidence that the drug is simply not appropriate for mandatory use yet, and that public healthcare dollars would be better spent elsewhere. Greater access to gynecological services for marginalized groups, safe-sex campaigns, and even efforts for better public nutrition could all help to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer with none of the possible downsides or high costs associated with Gardasil. In the rush for a quick fix, it is necessary for governments to at least consider that there might be a more effective, sustainable, and non-invasive option out there than yet another new vaccine.
Men and Meat
by Chelsea Cundiff, WIFP
May 2007
Men and meat tend to go hand in hand. Watch any advertisement for meat-filled fast food and you can expect to hear a very masculine voice narrating. When fast food restaurants advertise salads with veggies and fruits, a female voice typically narrates. If there is meat involved, it's usually chicken or fish, not the red meat geared toward men. Likewise, weight loss advertisements are targeted toward men and women separately, where men are told they can have as much meat as they want and still lose weight. Women, in turn, are told they can have as much chocolate as they want.
The relationship between men and meat has a long history, back to the days of hunters and gatherers. Men have always typically been hunters and women gatherers or the ones who stayed at home with the children.
In the United States, vegetarians and vegans are often ridiculed for straying away from the "normal" American diet, which places meat and dairy prominently in the food pyramid. Meat is commonly considered a good source of protein, and dairy is a common source of calcium, so an easily refutable argument against vegetarianism is that it is a difficult diet in which to find these essential nutrients. Any well-balanced vegan diet will have plenty of protein and calcium, no problem.
But all "anti-vegetarian" arguments aside, long after the days of necessary hunting and gathering for food, why does vegetarianism seem more popular with women while men tend to need meat to feel masculine?
In her controversial book, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, Carol J. Adams links the objectification of women to the consumption of meat by men. Understandably, many probably find it difficult to take Adams seriously, because though men and women consume large quantities of meat in America, contributing to out-of-control obesity rates, along with epidemics of diabetes, heart failure and disease, and many other health problems in the United States, the link between men eating meat and treating women without due respect is hard to prove.
An interview by Elizabeth W. Green, published in 2003 by the Harvard Crimson, only serves to reinforce any negative criticism toward the reputability of her book because Adams answers practically every question with sarcasm. This may be a technique used by Adams to gain attention, but may not work toward a goal of gaining respect.
None-the-less, Adams' book, which can be found at any number of online booksellers, has received a number of positive reviews over the years (it was first published in 1990). Adams also authored three other books involving meat/animals and women: The Pornography of Meat (2003), Neither Man Nor Beast (1995), and Animals and Women (1995) along with a number of other pro-vegetarian and pro-animal books. Having read none of these books, I can only question the primary difference in content between them all, considering they all seem to deal with practically the same subject matter.
Adams' books may be redundant and not always taken seriously, but the subject matter is worth pondering. There is no question that meat is often advertised in a manner that compares it to women, sexually. Adams' shows examples of this in illustrations and descriptions including a billboard advertising steak with the caption "Stip Tease" and a roasted chicken wearing a bikini as if portraying a woman sunbathing.
Encouraging Americans to stop eating meat in a nation full of fast food restaurants will likely not make much of a difference at all. To over generalize, Americans will do what they want, eat what they want, and probably only diet and exercise to lose weight or because they have had serious health problems. Rather than striving to make more Americans vegetarians, advertisements need to stop subjugating women by comparing them to meat and stop giving the impression that men must consume meat to be "manly." But, if such companies did stop using sexism to sell meat, how would they sell it? Though eliminating such tactics for advertising meat would cut out the themes of many current advertisements, by no means do advertisements need meat to be compared to women or portrayed as an overly masculine product – rather, it could sell by itself, just by appearing as appetizing in advertisements. Americans are already addicted to meat, so advertisements don't need to use sexism to further their profits.
Breast Cancer Approaches Questioned
By Amanda Glensky, WIFP
Every October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, yet the majority of people are not as aware of the causes and treatments for the disease as this name implies. Muckraking researchers suggest that the media do not always effectively broadcast accurate breast cancer information.
For example, when Internet conglomerate Yahoo embraced the spirit of the season by giving its health page a rosy makeover, an advertisement for Premarin on in the corner overshadowed its attempt to educate about breast cancer. Premarin, named for its key ingredient, Pregnant Mare's Urine, was a top-selling hormone replacement therapy (HRT) used to alleviate menopause symptoms, yet studies show now that extra estrogen can cause cancer.
On Oct. 2, 2006 founder of the Feminist Peace Network Lucinda Marshall pointed out the blunder on the blog WIMN's Voices. "What is this, be aware of 2 cancers for the price of one?" she wrote, adding that it is unacceptable to advertise a cancer-causing product on a page meant to inform about its prevention. She asked her readers to contact Yahoo about its mistake, and the ad was removed soon after.
The estrogen cover-up
In 2002, researchers working on the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a series of health studies by the government, found that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases the risk of breast cancer by 26 percent ("The Tragedy of Premarin").
While there is an abundance of similar breast cancer-related research, it is not sufficiently reported. In a 2003 article, Jay S. Cohen, M.D. writes that ever since negative HRT studies surfaced, the media never misses the opportunity tosensationalize each new revelation.
The media consistently fails to challenge drug companies as to why these issues are discovered long after the drug has been on the market and otherwise preventable harm has been inflicted on its users, he writes.
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals marketed Premarin as containing natural ingredients, estrogens from the urine of pregnant mares. However, mare urine contains three types of estrogen, two of which arenot natural to humans, Cohen writes.
In 2001, doctors wrote so many prescriptions for Premarin and the similar drug Prempro, making them the number 1 HRTs. However, drugs with human-identical ingredients have been available for decades, Cohen said. "The current medical-pharmaceutical system isdysfunctional, but it won't change unless we become informed and demand better."
In 2003, the FDA required manufacturers to push the lowest effective HRT doses available to prevent women from taking larger doses than necessary. Cohen questions why most women were not initially prescribed the lowest effective dose, rather than the standard 0.625 mg. He writes that many women are unknowingly overdosed with estrogen, as the manufacturer-recommended doses do not distinguish between the various ages and sizes of their consumers.
Barbara Seaman author of the book The Greatest Experiment Ever Performed on Women, appears skeptical of the actions of drug companies and theorizes that women have been guinea pigs of different drugs for centuries. In an interview with Webmd.com, she said the first oral estrogen project was developed in 1938 by Sir Charles Dodd of Britain, as an attempt to stop Hitler from cornering the market on sterilization products to create a master race. Therefore, Dodd quickly published his research, but regretted it when doctors and drug companies from around the world began to experiment with estrogen. The men in Dodd's' laboratory that were handling stilbestrol developed breasts. He subsequently sent the product to cancer researchers who determined it caused reproductive cancer.
Seaman credits the popularity of estrogen drugs to "the triumph of marketing over science…science by press release."
"The FDA succumbed to a huge and brilliant campaignorganized by 12 powerful drug companies to get stilbestrol approved for marketing," she said, despite the protests of such established cancer researchers such as Dr. George Papanicolaou, the inventor of the Pap smear.
In 1997, Seaman asked why most people are not aware that the FDA refused to approve estrogen as a heart disease preventive, and that principal scientists in Harvard's Nurses Health Study (NHS) refuse to participate in "the great estrogen stampede."
"Some blame for the confusion must be placed on media coverage," she writes, "Which—since the end of the ban on advertising prescription drugs direct to the public—has shifted toward less scrutiny and more ballyhoo of such products."
She gives the example of an article in the New York Times published Nov. 28, 1990 that reported NHS discoveries about the causal relationship of estrogens to breast cancer. Then, on Sept. 12, 1991 the Times reported hopeful news from the NHS about estrogens and the heart. The paper neglected to report other negative research from the NHS about more severe complications from estrogen use: the increased risk of asthma and blood clotting in the legs and lungs.
The belief that estrogens should be used conservatively is no longer voiced on many talk shows, magazine advertisements and prestigious newspapers as result of the vested interests of pharmaceutical advertising, she writes.
Seaman said the media has censored her conservative stance on HRT, she granted interviews to magazines and was surprised to find that her comments critical of HRT were absent from the final copy.
Mammography and the Media
In its online detailed guide to breast cancer, the American Cancer Society emphasizes that all women over 40 should regularly get mammograms, and that current evidence supporting the procedure is stronger than in the past.
It also informs that mammograms can miss some cancers, and suggests that women who find lumps on their breasts not shown on the scanner should follow up with a biopsy. The page says women should be told about the benefits, limitations and potential harms linked with regular screening—but nowhere on the Web site does the American Cancer Society provide this information. It does, however, discuss the process of getting a mammogram, breast abnormalities that the scan detects, what a woman can expect on the day of the procedure and tips for receiving a quality mammogram. As long as a woman is in good health, she should continue to be screened with a mammogram, the site says.
The American Cancer Society Web site states its belief that the combined use of mammograms, clinical breast exam and early detection gives women the best opportunity for reducing the breast cancer death rate.
Shirley's Wellness Café, a site attempting to debunk myths and propaganda of the medical mainstream, shows another perception. Shirley provides a link on her Web site to the International Health News Database and a page titled Breast Cancer Diagnosis, a collection of studies in breast cancer diagnosis summarized by Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE.
According to a study by two Canadian medical professors that Larsen summarizes, the benefits to a mammogram are marginal, the chance of harm is likely and the procedure is not worth the hefty cost.
The professors hardly saw benefit in screening women less than 50 years old. In the article they discuss some serious negative effects of mammography, such as future illness from mammogram radiation, the possibility that an existing tumor may spread due to the pressure exerted on the breast during screening, and the anxiety caused by frequent false positive results.
He also posts the article "Mammography: A risky procedure?" about a study from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland that said the compressive force used in mammograms may contribute to breast cancer. Researchers fear that the strength in which the breast is squeezed and flattened during the mammogram is enough to dislocate and spread cancer cells.
Experiments performed on animals show that the number of cancer sites can increase by as much as 80 percent when tumors are manipulated mechanically, the article said.
The above studies were published between 1992-96 in medical journals including The Lancet and The Medical Journal of Australia. The page additionally discusses a study in 1993 by the National Cancer Institute that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine mammography screening for women 40-49 years old.
Despite this evidence, most newspaper articles continue to push mammography. In 2001, researchers from the University of Maryland reviewed almost 200 articles about mammography published in six popular American newspapers during the 90s, and found that the articles recommended mammography screening twice as often as not. Thus, they concluded that newspapers over-represent support for mammography without providing sources of their information.
Profiting from breast cancer
Among the variety of breast cancer-related articles posted on Shirley's Wellness Café, some discuss the politics of breast cancer. One article says that Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, now known as AstraZeneca, is the mastermind behind Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Zeneca manufactures tamoxifen, a controversial and widely prescribed breast cancer drug, and its chemical plant in Perry, Ohio is the third largest source of potential cancer causing pollution in the U.S., the article said.
According to Marshall, in another article "Not So Pretty in Pink" on Counterpunch.com (http://counterpunch.com/marshall10092006.html), manufacturing companies take advantage of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month by marketing deceptive promotions that appear to be only for the company's gain, rather than to fund cancer research. An advertising ploy in her local paper inspired Marshall to write about some of this deceptive advertising. The ad said, "Shop for a cause. Buy products that support the fight against breast cancer."
The company, Delightful Deliveries, will donate 10% of the proceeds from boxes of white chocolate Oreos decorated with pink sprinkles and edible pink ribbons to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, Marshall said, although there is no mention of it on the company's Web site.
"The rest presumably benefits their corporate coffers," she said, adding that the sales pitch is a bit odd, because doctors say that a healthy diet prevents cancer.
Another Web site, Thinkbeforeyoupink.org exposes certain companies for either promoting cancer-causing products to raise money for a cure, or by failing to honor their promise to donate a portion of the profit to research.
The site features the history of the pink ribbon, and how it represents a joint marketing ploy between SELF magazine and Estee Lauder.
SELF coincidentally provided the articles posted on Yahoo's breast cancer awareness page, the same page that used to display the Premarin advertisement.
The abundance of conflicting breast cancer research requires us to be skeptical over what we choose to believe. The Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press lists these breast cancer-related media sources in its Directory of Women's Media:
Ash Tree Publishing
PO Box 64
Woodstock, NY 12498
USA
Telephone: 845-246-8081
Fax: 845-246-8081
Website: http://www.ashtreepublishing.com
Description: Ash Tree Publishing was founded in 1985. The books Ash Tree publish offer women simple, successful, and safe ways to regain and maintain health and vitality through menstruation, PMS, fertility & pregnancy, childbirth, breast health, cancer prevention, and menopause.
BRCA-L: Breast Cancer Online Support Group
Contact: To subscribe, send email to listserv@LISTS.UFL.EDU and in the body of the message, put 'subscribe brca-l'
Email List: LISTSERV
Listserv[no.spam*]MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA
Breast Cancer: For any issue relating to breast cancer. It is open to researchers, physicians, patients, family, and friends of patients, for the discussion of any issue relating to breast cancer. The list does not recommend particular therapies, but seeks to increase the information available on options and choices. The list will offer a venue for the discussion of the work of various grassroots breast cancer advocacy groups worldwide, to announce events, to exchange ideas related to breast cancer activism, and, more broadly, to discuss the politics of breast cancer and health care.
Contact: To subscribe, send email to listserv@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA and in the body of the message,
put subscribe BREAST-CANCER
Email List: LISTSERV
Resources
Link to articles:
"Yes Virginia, There is a Link Between Chemicals and Breast Cancer"
May 14, 2007
http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2007/05/14/yes-virginia-there-is-a-link-between-chemicals-and-breast-cancer/
Breast Cancer’s Chemical Culprits, by Miranda Spencer
WIMN’s Voices: A Group Blog on Women, Media, AND…
May 24th, 2007
http://www.wimnonline.org/WIMNsVoicesBlog/?p=587
Book:
Money Driven Medicine, Tests and Treatments That Don't Work, by David K. Cundiff, MD.
ISBN 0-9761571-0-1
Excellent book documenting the need for evidence-based medicine. Dr. Cundiff thoroughly documents the alarming role of special interest money and the effects on our health care system. At the end of the book, rather than ending on a discouraging note, he presents an alternative system of "Doctor Managed Care" that is patient centered. It is a great tool for renewing our public debate for comprehensive health care reform.
You can order a copy from http://www.doctormanagedcare.com.
Women's Institute
for Freedom of the Press
1940 Calvert Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009-1502
phone: 202-265-6707
email: allen [at] wifp.org
www.wifp.org