The Pill:
The Mainstream Media Misrepresents Its Danger
U.S. Journalists 'Celebrate' a Carcinogen's Birthday / British
Scientists Shill for the Pill
by Karen Malec, President, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer *
Karen Malec is a frequent contributor to RFFM.org. Malec is the
Founder and President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.
A free press and the dissemination of accurate information are among
the elements needed for the continuation of a democratic republic. A
free people must be educated and have access to truthful information in
order to make decisions about the issues of the day, choose worthy
candidates for office, participate in the legislative process and
promote the common good.
One of the marks of a totalitarian government is one in which the flow
of information is tightly controlled so that the attitudes and beliefs
of citizens can be formed in a way that benefits the powerful. When
journalists in a free society omit or misrepresent scientific evidence
that is critical for making life-or-death health decisions, they
violate a fundamental human right. Indeed, having the right to protect
one's own life trumps every other right.
News stories "celebrating" the birth control pill's birthday - also
known as "oral contraceptives" - raise troubling questions about the
dedication of journalists in the mainstream press to the democratic
ideal and their traditional roles as defenders of civil liberties and
watchdogs of government.
When feminist ideology, left-wing politics, corporate agendas or even
keeping one's job supersede women's lives in importance, journalists
abandon their professional responsibilities and become complicit in the
abuse of power exercised by governments and wealthy men striving to
reduce the populations of nations around the world.
When journalists tout pro-pill studies funded by pharmaceutical
companies - as they have done with the recent study in the British
Medical Journal, Hannaford et al. 2010 - or when they promote studies
that receive heavy criticism from researchers' peers in medical
journals (also like Hannaford et al. 2010), they become instruments of
corporate greed, perhaps unknowingly. [1]
Here is a glimpse of a few "news stories" celebrating the 50th birthday
of a carcinogen.
Associated Press: "'The health benefits are tremendous,' said Dr.
Melissa Gilliam, chief of family planning contraceptive research at the
University of Chicago Medical Center. 'It decreases the risk of ovarian
cancer and uterine cancer. If we called it "the cancer-preventing
pill," it would have far better traction. It's a real success story.'"
[2]
Response: There was not even a veneer of objectivity here. Why didn't
the author, Carla Johnson, bother to interview researchers whose
studies show that the pill raises the risk of cancers of the breast,
liver and cervix? Why only interview a family planning contraceptive
researcher?
The World Health Organization (WHO) assigned combined (estrogen +
progestin) oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy
the highest level of carcinogenicity as Group 1 carcinogens in 2005.
[3] These drugs are on the same list as benzene, tobacco, asbestos and
cadmium.
The WHO's press release in 2005 said combined oral contraceptives raise
the risk of cancers of the breast, liver and cervix, but reduce the
risk of cancers of the endometrium and ovaries. [4] Incredibly, some
softheaded doctors tell women to take a carcinogen (the pill) to
prevent cancer. The truth is that more than twice as many American
women die every year from the cancers that the pill causes than the
cancers it prevents.
Combined oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy
contain the same type of drugs, but the former have a larger dose of
those drugs. Unlike combined hormone replacement therapy, women often
use the pill during the most cancer-susceptible time of their lives -
before the birth of a first child.
In April, Dr. Gerard Nadal, a microbiologist, explained on his blog,
Coming Home, that combined hormone replacement therapy, combined oral
contraceptives and abortion share the same biological mechanism for
cancer production. [5] All three risks have to do with the negative
effect of estrogen overexposure, while in the presence of progesterone,
on immature, cancer-susceptible breast lobules.
Only eight years ago, researchers stopped a large study - the Women's
Health Initiative - because study subjects using these steroidal
hormones - combined estrogen and progestin - were at risk for stroke,
heart attack, breast cancer and blood clots. [6] One year later, after
thousands of women had stopped using combined hormone replacement
therapy, there were 14,000 fewer U.S. cases of breast cancer.
Beyond all reason, mainstream journalists unconscionably ignored last
year's monumental study on oral contraceptives and triple-negative
breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive form of breast cancer associated
with a high mortality rate. Led by Jessica Dolle, the study included as
co-author Dr. Louise Brinton, a U.S. National Cancer Institute branch
chief. [7] The authors reported that recent users of the pill within
the last one to five years multiply their risk of TNBC - by 4.2 times.
Women who started using the pill before age 18 multiply their risk of
TNBC by 3.7 times. Women with abortions in the study had a
statistically significant 40% increase in risk for breast cancer,
whether or not it was TNBC.
Other than the Chicago Tribune's Dennis Byrne, what American mainstream
journalists cared enough about women to inform them about these
findings - especially those who develop TNBC most often, i.e. African
Americans and women under age 50?
Researchers' findings contradicted the U.S. National Cancer Institute's
official position that the abortion-breast cancer link is
"non-existent." They contribute to overwhelming evidence that the
agency conned women into believing this blatant falsehood with its sham
workshop on the link in 2003. [8] Nevertheless, while Uncle Sam
physically abuses women in every country that has made abortion legally
accessible, America's mainstream journalists are taking a siesta.
CBS News: "Control your cycle; control your life. What could be more
empowering? Plus it made your boobs bigger. Win-win....It may have
produced fewer children, but it produced better mothers: fulfilled
women who deliberately created families." [9]
Response: Yeah, right. Taking hormonal contraceptive steroids and
developing cancers of the breast, cervix and liver makes women feel
powerful. How many cancer patients would agree that the pill made them
better mothers? This silly pitch for the pill reads like a
pharmaceutical ad.
Time Magazine: "One of the world's largest studies of the Pill — 46,000
women followed for nearly 40 years — was released this March. It found
that women who take the Pill are less likely to die prematurely from
any cause, including cancer and heart disease, yet many women still
question whether the health risks outweigh the benefits." [10]
Response: As of April 4, 2010 - eighteen days before Time published its
article - the British Medical Journal had published on its website a
long list of scientists, who criticized the study, Hannaford et al.
2010, and demonstrated the flaws in the study. [1] Time Magazine might
be interested in the fact that at least one letter by Joel Brind, Ph.D.
rebutting the findings in the study was published during the week of
the pill's birthday in the print version of the British Medical
Journal. [11] Professor Brind is Deputy Chair for Biology and
Environmental Sciences at Baruch College, City University of New
York. He offered his comments on the Time article by saying:
"Here are some inconvenient truths about Time's statement: They say:
'46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years.'
"The truth: Of the 46,000 in the original study, only 10,000 were
actually followed up for the whole study, and even at that, the follow
up for those 10,000 ended in 1996, i.e., after only 28 years--not 40!
When the analysis was restricted to those 10,000 women followed up
until 1996, there was no significant difference in longevity between
pill users and never users. Why did the study end so long ago?
Because it started long ago, back in 1968, when the average pill user
was already 29 and married with children; the type of women whose
future health is least affected by the pill.
"But now, of course, most pill users are very young--teens and early
20's, unmarried and with no children; the type of women whose future
risk of breast cancer and other life-shortening illnesses is most
affected by the pill. And if you actually bother to read the whole
Hannaford study--which the Time author likely did not--these trends
actually show up. For example, here's a sobering quote directly from
the results of the paper, where the authors are referring to the subset
of younger women (they don't tell you how many), who were under age 45
in 1996:
"'The increased rate of death from circulatory disease persisted in
pill users five to nine years after stopping use and was accompanied by
an increased rate of death from all cancers combined, including breast
cancer. This resulted in a significantly increased adjusted relative
risk of death from any cause among this group (1.76, 1.27 to 2.45 for
all causes; 1.91, 1.18 to 3.07 for all cancers combined), compared with
never users.'"
When women choose to take the pill (or have an abortion) is an
important piece of information in any study focusing on the link to
breast cancer. Women in the 1960s took the pill after they had already
had their families. Today, women take the pill before the birth of a
first child during the "susceptibility window" - the period between
puberty and first full term pregnancy when nearly all of the breast
lobules are cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. Ninety-seven
percent of all breast cancers develop in Type 1 and 2 lobules (where
ductal and lobular cancers arise).
On the other hand, by the end of first full term pregnancy, 85% of the
lobules are permanently cancer-resistant. The more carcinogenic time to
be exposed to the pill is before first full term pregnancy. Abortions
before first full term pregnancy are called "highly carcinogenic."
Women who followed the more current patterns of pill use, using before
first full term pregnancy at a younger age and for longer periods, have
greater health problems, not less.
Hopefully, Time's editors have the integrity to print a retraction.
Chris Kahlenborn, MD, the lead author of a meta-analysis published in
2006 in the journal, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, calls breast cancer "the
pill's dirty secret." [12] Kahlenborn and his colleagues' paper
included an examination of studies dating from the 1980s. They found
that women who used the pill before a first full term pregnancy
increased their risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer by 44%.
In a recent commentary "The Pill after 50 Years: The Dirty Little
Secret of Contraception" http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/05/the-pill-after-50-years-the-dirty-little-secret-of-contraception.html
Kahlenborn
said
he
was
stunned
that the meta-analysis brought almost no
press coverage, although Mayo Clinic sent a press release to all major
media in the country and 40,000 American women develop pre-menopausal
breast cancer annually. The mainstream media continue to studiously
ignore the meta-analysis, although it remains the most recent one in
this area.
There is a simple explanation for the mainstream media's hear-no-evil,
see-no-evil, speak-no-evil practices. Although the pill is accepted as
a risk factor for certain cancers in the highest places of medicine, in
feminist theology it (and induced abortion) is a sacred sacrament.
Belief in the safety of so-called reproductive rights is an article of
religious faith. For true believers, it serves as an impediment to
science.
Hopefully, both scientists and journalists dedicated to the cause of
"reproductive rights" will ask themselves in good conscience whether it
is really worth causing large numbers of women to lose their breasts or
cut their lives short. Is it really worth causing children to lose
their mothers to cancer?
Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th century political thinker and French
aristocrat, used to argue that it is easier for people to believe a
simple lie than a complex truth. In the case of the birth control pill,
the simple lie is that it is "safe" for women. Keeping women in the
dark about the deadly risks of the pill and induced abortion is a form
of totalitarianism through science and the mass media.
References:
1. Hannaford et al. British Medical Journal 2010;340:c927.
2. "America's Favorite Birth Control Method Turns 50," By Carla
Johnson, Associated Press, May 7, 2010. Available at: http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/93071369.html
3. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F.
Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and
menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.
4. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined
Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy
Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International
Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005.
5. Dr. Gerard Nadal, “My interview on abortion-breast cancer link in
Fathers for Good,” Coming Home, April 16, 2010. Available at: http://gerardnadal.com/2010/04/16/my-interview-on-abortion-breast-cancer-link-in-fathers-for-good/
6. Writing group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks
and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal
women. JAMA 2002;288:321-33.
7. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors
for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf
8. See the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer's press release, "Groups
Request Congressional Investigation of National Cancer Institute's
Misinformation on Breast Cancer Risks of Abortion, Oral
Contraceptives," January 25, 2010. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/100125/index.htm
9. "Faith Salie: Happy Birthday to the Pill, Says the 'Pro-Choice
Contraceptive Empowered Women to Become Better Mothers," CBS News, May
9, 2010. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/09/sunday/main6469959.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsOpinion+%28Opinion%3A+CBSNews.com%29
10. "The Pill at 50: Sex, Freedom and Paradox," By Nancy Gibbs, Time
Magazine, April 22, 2010. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1983712,00.html
11. Brind J. Wrong Conclusions Drawn Again. Letter. British Medical
Journal 2010;340:c927.
12. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter D, Severs W. Oral contraceptive use
as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo
Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302.
Karen Malec, President
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
response@abortionbreastcancer.com
1-877-803-0102 (toll free)
#####
The Coalition on
Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization
founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating
and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast
cancer.
Support the Coalition on Abortion/Breast
Cancer. We are volunteers whose work depends entirely on the
generosity of good people like you.
To help us continue our work, please make a tax-deductible, credit card
donation by Clicking Here or
donations
can
be
mailed
to:
Coalition on
Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box
957133
Hoffman
Estates, IL 60195
The IRS
recognizes the Coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION:
Coalition on
Abortion/Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Prevention Institute
Polycarp Research
Institute
This newsletter
can be viewed online by clicking here.
Click here to view
past new articles.
