How Warren Buffett’s philanthropy secretly funded contraception
The billionaire has funded cheap, effective and safe IUDs.
Contraceptive market sales in the United States alone were estimated to be US$6 billion in 2013. The major promoters of “family planning products” are known to be some of the world’s richest philanthropists who fund projects and products through their bountiful foundations.
However, one significant controversial development was kept under the radar until a sharp financial journalist recently discovered how a reinvented IUD was funded, researched, approved and became marketable.
The full story was brought to light in a feature article in a recent issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek. The article’s title read as follows: “IUD Revolution. How the Buffett family is changing birth control in America.” The subtitle was even more revealing: “How the billionaire’s family secretly funded a revolution in birth control.”
The Buffett involvement began with the magnanimity of the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, ($3.1 billion in assets as of 12/31/2014) named for Warren Buffett’s first wife, which today is the third largest family foundation in the US. To put matters into perspective, the article states: “In the past decade the Buffett Foundation has become the most influential supporter of research on IUDs and expanding access to contraception.” None of the persons interviewed for the article mentioned the Buffett Foundation. The evidence was uncovered by examining tax filings that traced the money flow.
“For Warren, it’s economic. He thinks that unless women can control their fertility—and that it’s basically their right to control their fertility—that you are sort of wasting more than half of the brainpower in the United States,” Judith DeSarno, the Buffett Foundation’s former director for domestic programs, said in a 2008 interview for a reproductive health oral history project. “Well, not just the United States. Worldwide.”
The Buffett Foundation funded a multi-year project to develop a cheap, effective and safe IUD that began with research in Colorado, a study in St Louis and the creation of a non-profit to manufacture the product after securing FDA approval. Having developed a new and “safe” IUD nonetheless required a bit of marketing to encourage usage due to the prior history of IUDs: The earliest products dating back to the 1970s proved harmful and even fatal for many women, in particular the Dalkon Shield.
The article states that the new IUD was developed by a specially created non-profit called Medicines360 “whose entire seed funding came from an anonymous donor” later discovered to be the Buffett Foundation. The cost of the IUD remained an obstacle too, but Medicines360, founded in 2009, developed a new IUD that was named and trademarked Liletta and subsequently sold to Allergan which paid $50 million to the company “plus $125 million more in addition to royalties.” The product today is manufactured by Allergan, a $23 billion pharmaceutical company, best known its product Botox, which also produces generic medicines.
Medicines360 describes its mission as a non-profit in the women’s health pharmaceutical business to provide access to medicines “regardless of socioeconomic status, insurance coverage or geographic location” according to its web site – but it does not indicate the production of any other “medicine.”
Although the retail price is estimated at just under $800 for those with insurance or otherwise able to afford it, the deal between the Buffett Foundation and the Liletta producer stipulated the IUD should be available to public clinics for $50 so that they would be accessible to poor women.
A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the effectiveness of the new IUD was also financed “anonymously.” With secret funding, the plan was to conduct a study at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University in St Louis which was named the Contraceptive Choice Project – “the biggest US medical study of IUD users conducted.” It involved some $20 million of Buffett money.
In the 2010 study, to determine what type of contraceptive most women would choose, all types of contraceptives were offered free. The study revealed that 56 percent chose IUDs. Following this success, medical personnel involved published more than 50 papers in various medical journals. All the activity and publicity led to a turnaround in thinking at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists leading them to change their position on IUDs to encourage their use as the most effective form of contraception.
The promotional and marketing effort took place with another project called the Colorado Initiative to Reduce Unintended Pregnancies. That too was Buffett funded. The results showed in that state “The teen birthrate dropped 40% from 2009 to 2013 and the teen abortion rate was down by more than a third.” The project cost the Buffetts $50 million.
Before the IUD could get FDA approval, a longer multi-year clinical study was ordered. The results showed that Liletta was 99.45 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. In February 2015 the FDA approved Liletta as a product that was effective for up to three years. Medicines360 is continuing trials in the hope of receiving FDA approval for using the device up to seven years.
The new IUD had succeeded – with funding of an estimated $74 million of Buffett Foundation money according to the article.
If the results are true, “IUD’s are over 99% effective in preventing pregnancies, making them as effective as sterilization.” With efforts to develop a new device, “the Buffett Foundation has become, by far, the most influential supporter of research on IUDs and expanding access to the contraceptive.”
The Buffett Foundation insisted on anonymity from start to finish throughout development, mindful of the controversial nature of IUDs. To put matters into perspective, the article states: “In the past decade the Buffett Foundation has become the most influential supporter of research on IUDs and expanding access to contraception.” However, as the article indicates, “Much of the foundation’s other grants go to abortion-related work.”
In effect, they are all elements of the culture of death, financed and promoted by richest of the rich, to be made available to rich and poor alike.
Vincenzina Santoro is United Nations Representative of the American Family Association of New York.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/how-warren-buffetts-philanthropy-secretly-funded-contraception/17162#sthash.Lja6OWNl.dpufHowever, one significant controversial development was kept under the radar until a sharp financial journalist recently discovered how a reinvented IUD was funded, researched, approved and became marketable.
The full story was brought to light in a feature article in a recent issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek. The article’s title read as follows: “IUD Revolution. How the Buffett family is changing birth control in America.” The subtitle was even more revealing: “How the billionaire’s family secretly funded a revolution in birth control.”
The Buffett involvement began with the magnanimity of the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, ($3.1 billion in assets as of 12/31/2014) named for Warren Buffett’s first wife, which today is the third largest family foundation in the US. To put matters into perspective, the article states: “In the past decade the Buffett Foundation has become the most influential supporter of research on IUDs and expanding access to contraception.” None of the persons interviewed for the article mentioned the Buffett Foundation. The evidence was uncovered by examining tax filings that traced the money flow.
“For Warren, it’s economic. He thinks that unless women can control their fertility—and that it’s basically their right to control their fertility—that you are sort of wasting more than half of the brainpower in the United States,” Judith DeSarno, the Buffett Foundation’s former director for domestic programs, said in a 2008 interview for a reproductive health oral history project. “Well, not just the United States. Worldwide.”
The Buffett Foundation funded a multi-year project to develop a cheap, effective and safe IUD that began with research in Colorado, a study in St Louis and the creation of a non-profit to manufacture the product after securing FDA approval. Having developed a new and “safe” IUD nonetheless required a bit of marketing to encourage usage due to the prior history of IUDs: The earliest products dating back to the 1970s proved harmful and even fatal for many women, in particular the Dalkon Shield.
The article states that the new IUD was developed by a specially created non-profit called Medicines360 “whose entire seed funding came from an anonymous donor” later discovered to be the Buffett Foundation. The cost of the IUD remained an obstacle too, but Medicines360, founded in 2009, developed a new IUD that was named and trademarked Liletta and subsequently sold to Allergan which paid $50 million to the company “plus $125 million more in addition to royalties.” The product today is manufactured by Allergan, a $23 billion pharmaceutical company, best known its product Botox, which also produces generic medicines.
Medicines360 describes its mission as a non-profit in the women’s health pharmaceutical business to provide access to medicines “regardless of socioeconomic status, insurance coverage or geographic location” according to its web site – but it does not indicate the production of any other “medicine.”
Although the retail price is estimated at just under $800 for those with insurance or otherwise able to afford it, the deal between the Buffett Foundation and the Liletta producer stipulated the IUD should be available to public clinics for $50 so that they would be accessible to poor women.
A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the effectiveness of the new IUD was also financed “anonymously.” With secret funding, the plan was to conduct a study at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University in St Louis which was named the Contraceptive Choice Project – “the biggest US medical study of IUD users conducted.” It involved some $20 million of Buffett money.
In the 2010 study, to determine what type of contraceptive most women would choose, all types of contraceptives were offered free. The study revealed that 56 percent chose IUDs. Following this success, medical personnel involved published more than 50 papers in various medical journals. All the activity and publicity led to a turnaround in thinking at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists leading them to change their position on IUDs to encourage their use as the most effective form of contraception.
The promotional and marketing effort took place with another project called the Colorado Initiative to Reduce Unintended Pregnancies. That too was Buffett funded. The results showed in that state “The teen birthrate dropped 40% from 2009 to 2013 and the teen abortion rate was down by more than a third.” The project cost the Buffetts $50 million.
Before the IUD could get FDA approval, a longer multi-year clinical study was ordered. The results showed that Liletta was 99.45 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. In February 2015 the FDA approved Liletta as a product that was effective for up to three years. Medicines360 is continuing trials in the hope of receiving FDA approval for using the device up to seven years.
The new IUD had succeeded – with funding of an estimated $74 million of Buffett Foundation money according to the article.
If the results are true, “IUD’s are over 99% effective in preventing pregnancies, making them as effective as sterilization.” With efforts to develop a new device, “the Buffett Foundation has become, by far, the most influential supporter of research on IUDs and expanding access to the contraceptive.”
The Buffett Foundation insisted on anonymity from start to finish throughout development, mindful of the controversial nature of IUDs. To put matters into perspective, the article states: “In the past decade the Buffett Foundation has become the most influential supporter of research on IUDs and expanding access to contraception.” However, as the article indicates, “Much of the foundation’s other grants go to abortion-related work.”
In effect, they are all elements of the culture of death, financed and promoted by richest of the rich, to be made available to rich and poor alike.
Vincenzina Santoro is United Nations Representative of the American Family Association of New York.
MercatorNet: Same-sex adoption bill could leave birth mothers with emotional scars
Same-sex adoption bill could leave birth mothers with emotional scars
The Australian state of Victoria's proposed law could repeat the sad mistakes of the past.
There has been a whirl of activity on the adoption front in Australia this week. Adopt Change has scheduled a busy program of events as part of National Adoption Awareness Week; there’s a new book out on adoption by Jeremy Sammut; and the Victorian Legislative Council is due to debate the Adoption Amendment (Adoption by Same Sex Couples Bill) 2015 this Thursday.
It is true that Australia desperately needs adoption reform at both bureaucratic and community levels. What we don’t need is poorly-conceived adoption legislation that ignores the real issues and promotes the interests of one sector of the community at the expense of the most vulnerable -- in this case the child and the birth parents. Good legislation fixes problems without creating new ones. The proposed legislation does not meet this standard.
The real problem with the current system is that adoption is so difficult in this country that it has almost become impossible. Last year there were only 317 adoptions in Australia, of which only 89 were of children from care – 84 in NSW and just five from other states and territories. This is despite the fact that there are more than 43,000 children languishing in the out-of-home care system, nearly 70 percent of whom have been in the system for two or more years. These are children who have been removed due to physical abuse, sexual abuse and/or neglect with no hope of being reunited with their birth parents.
Because adoption simply isn’t a choice, there are also thousands of women facing a difficult or unplanned pregnancy who go down the path of abortion if they are unwilling or unable to parent their own child. Women’s Forum Australia’s research report, Adoption Rethink, shows that adoption, if appropriately and sensitively managed, can work out well in by far the majority of circumstances and should be a realistic choice for these women.
But despite the fact that the current adoption system fails comprehensively to provide an adequate response to these most vulnerable members of our community, the Victorian government has chosen to focus its efforts almost exclusively on the perceived rights of prospective adoptive parents, in particular same-sex couples.
Adoption should, first and foremost, be a response to the needs of the vulnerable and not simply a means by which families can be created for those who are unable to have children. While prospective adoptive parents should be encouraged to open their homes and hearts to those in need, children are not commodities and we must avoid any situation that leads to the creation of a “market” for children.
Section 15(1) (b) of the Adoption Act 1984 currently provides for birth parents to express a preference in relation to the religion, race and ethnic characteristics of the proposed adoptive parents who are required to have been in a (heterosexual) marital or de facto relationship for two or more years. This is entirely appropriate.
Our research demonstrated that an open adoption where the birth parents feel they have some control over the decisions and process results in the most favourable long-term outcomes for all involved. Key to a successful open adoption process is the involvement of the birth parents, where possible, in the selection of adoptive parents.
The proposed bill will change the Adoption Act so that anyone involved in a “domestic partnership”, heterosexual or otherwise, will be eligible to adopt. However, it makes no attempt to update Section 15(1)(b) to include reference to marital status and gender although these may be just as important as religion, race and ethnicity to the birth mother and even her child.
This is line with the recommendation of the Adoption by Same-Sex Couples Legislative Review that birth parents not be allowed to express a wish about the domestic relationship of any prospective adoptive parents as “to do so would open up an avenue for same-sex couples to be discriminated against”.
Yet, irrespective of religious views, there will be birth parents who want their child to be raised by a mother and a father and they should not be forced to place their child in an adoptive situation that is contrary to their personal beliefs. The experiences of earlier decades left many women psychologically and emotionally scarred because they felt forced or coerced into giving up their children in a closed adoption process over which they had little control. History is set to repeat itself if birth parents are allowed no say in whether their child goes to a traditional married couple or a same-sex couple.
This not only privileges the rights of one group over another; it is not even necessary. If Australians are as open to gay marriage as polls suggest, the majority will also approve of same-sex adoption. This is how public opinion has trended in the United States. So it brings into question why the current government refuses to allow for different preferences among birth parents in the adoption process.
Perhaps they are quietly concerned that, given the choice, many, if not most, members of the community might want their child to be raised by a mother and a father in practice if not in principle.
The proposed Bill goes even further and also seeks to remove exemptions for faith-based organisations in the provision of adoption services to same-sex couples. Again, this provision seeks to prioritise the desires of the adoptive parents over the needs of the birth parents.
Birth parents have a right to work with an adoption agency of their choice, including an organisation that aligns with their religious preferences. Removing exemptions for faith-based organisations means that these adoption agencies which do not support same-sex marriage, will be forced to close, narrowing the options of birth and adoptive parents.
If the Victorian government proceeds with these reforms it must do so on the basis of equality and non-discrimination for all the parties involved. Faith-based exemptions will not hinder same-sex couples’ access to adoption since they are free to seek out the services of another agency. It will, however, protect the rights of birth parents who for religious or other reasons wish to work with a faith-based agency and the consciences of those who believe that children deserve a mother and a father.
The optimal situation for women and their children occurs when children are raised in a safe, loving and stable environment under the care of their birth parents. However, the sad reality is that this is not always possible. Therefore, as a community we need to provide viable alternatives.
Open, respectful and regulated adoption provides an appropriate response to the situation of vulnerable children in need of a loving, permanent and stable home. Adoption also provides an appropriate response to the situation of women who feel unable or unwilling to parent their own child.
The last thing thousands of vulnerable Australian women and children need is laws that make the adoption system even less effective than it is by removing legitimate pluralism and choice.
Kristan Dooley is the Managing Director of Women’s Forum Australia. She writes from Melbourne, Victoria.
Some of Shakespeare's plays are about societies which have gone mad. "The time is out of joint," says Hamlet. In Hamlet, Macbeth or King Lear, a tidal wave of nightmarish derangement sweeps the characters before it, leaving the stage a bloody wasteland. I sometimes feel that I've stepped into one of these worlds when confronted by the intense emotions provoked by debates over same-sex marriage or transgender issues. Daniel Moody captures some of this drama in his creative analysis of transgenderism:
Half Eloi, half Morlock, Transgenderists stalk the land listening out for pre-Gender language: first the Transgenderist creates a victim by claiming that words such as He and Man can pierce a woman’s heart, like so many wooden stakes; then the hapless perpetrator is run through with a lawsuit. Why be afraid of things that go bump in the night when we can instead be afraid to talk? Courageous are those who confront the wrath of these wraiths.
Michael Cook
Editor
MERCATORNET
 | Invasion of the body snatchers: transgenderism on Halloween Daniel Moody | FEATURES | 11 November 2015 |
 | Same-sex adoption bill could leave birth mothers with emotional scars Kristan Dooley | FEATURES | 11 November 2015 The Australian state of Victoria's proposed law could repeat the sad mistakes of the past. Read more... |
 | How Warren Buffett’s philanthropy secretly funded contraception Vincenzina Santoro | FEATURES | 11 November 2015 |
 | The tragedy of growing old in South Korea Marcus Roberts | DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY | 11 November 2015 |
MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia
Designed by elleston
New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario