• Home
  • About
  • BIO
  • Conferences
  • Contact
  • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
  • Speaking

Coming Home

Dr. Gerard M. Nadal: Science in Service of the Pro-Life Movement

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Correcting the Record on My Open Letter to Cardinal Dolan: I’m the Author
Breast Cancer Risk from Oral Contraceptive Use Prior to First Birth »

World Health Organization Data on Birth Control Pill and Estrogen Replacement Carcinogenicity

February 15, 2012 by Gerard M. Nadal

There has been confusion of late concerning the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listing for their Group 1 Carcinogens, including several forms of oral contraceptives and estrogen replacement therapy. The confusion has arisen because the original link by WHO has been changed. After some sleuthing, here is a treasure trove of information from WHO. Let’s take the links one at a time.

First are the IARC Group Classifications for agents and their degrees of carcinogenicity:

Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans (107 agents)

Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans (59 agents)

Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans (267 agents)

Group 3 Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (508 agents)

Group 4 Probably not carcinogenic to humans (1 agent)

The definitions of these groups may be found in the IARC Monograph Preamble on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Click here.

The page with links to the agents by various classification schemes may be found here.

The actual list of all agents, (IN Group number order) beginning with the following known (Group 1) carcinogens containing:

Estrogen therapy, postmenopausal
Estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy (combined)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives

may be found by downloading the pdf by clicking here , going to the pdf download link and then looking at pages 219-311.

The same estrogens may be found on the list that lists them in alphabetical order with Group number next to their name. Click here.

Going much, much deeper…

There is another link that shows the monographs on:

1. Exposure Data
2. Studies of Cancer in Humans
3. Studies of Cancer in Experimental Animals
4. Other Data Relevant to an Evaluation of Carcinogenicity and its Mechanisms
5. Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation
6. References

for each of the following:

Oral Contraceptives, combined
Hormonal Contraceptives, Progestogens Only
Post-Menopausal Estrogen Therapy
Post-Menopausal Estrogen-Progestogen Therapy

The link to this page (which contains all the links to the monographs) may be found here.

Hopefully, this helps. Contrary to rumor, WHO did not hide the data, but actually expanded it in new links. Remember that even small increases in risk when multiplied by hundreds of millions of women taking these drugs will produce large absolute new cases of breast cancer.

P.S. Here is a monograph on all of the known carcinogens: Click here.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Birth Control, Breast Cancer, Pro-Life Academy | Tagged WHO Group 1 Carcinogens | 10 Comments

10 Responses

  1. on February 16, 2012 at 12:47 AM Kristin

    This is extremely helpful! I searched for a long time for a few of those links at the top, but didn’t find the second link. Thank you for posting this.


  2. on February 16, 2012 at 12:55 AM Oral Contraceptives: WHO Group I Carcinogen « Coming Home

    […] {UPDATE 2/15/12: It seems that WHO has taken down the page. However, they have made several expanded pages with a wealth of data. Click here for the links. […]


  3. on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM Kathy Vestermark

    I am full of questions, rhetorical in nature, based on the information you make available in this post:

    Why are women constantly misled in this regard?

    Why are women so easily convinced to risk their health for sexual gratification and/or interference with their fertility cycles, when the reality is that there are links to cancer — and mastectomy is no fun, neither is chemo/radiation therapy for the treatment of any cancer?

    And the medical community, — “first do no harm” in the Hippocratic Oath — shouldn’t they be more concerned about the fact that for very few people this medication constitutes a NEED, but are prescribed this medication as an elective drug vs. a required medication; and the fact that the risks far outweigh, in the majority of cases, the actual benefit when there are other more reliable methods available that do not cause cancer and are also morally acceptable (NFP — NAPRO Technology)?

    The science is clear, or, I assume, it would not be included in this list, so why is it not more prominently presented by the foremost provider of contraceptives (and abortion — also linked to breast cancer), Planned Parenthood? Perhaps because it doesn’t fit their business model (or diabolical philosophy)?

    Women’s health? Really? And, made available for ALL to see by the World Health Organization?


  4. on February 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM Lena

    Is agent another word for ingredients?


  5. on February 16, 2012 at 2:31 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Lena,

    In a manner of speaking, yes. They can also be stand-alone entities, like plutonium.


  6. on February 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM Breast Cancer Risk from Oral Contraceptive Use Prior to First Birth « Coming Home

    […] Comments « World Health Organization Data on Birth Control Pill and Estrogen Replacement Carcinogenicity […]


  7. on February 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM Rhonda

    Kathy: The answer to your question? Money.


  8. on March 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM Norma

    Thank you for this excellent explanation. I’ve linked to it on my FB page and will add to my blog where I’ve been looking at the published warnings that come with contraceptive tools and pills.


  9. on April 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM Contraceptive Coverage – A Case for woman’s health? | InsureYouToo

    […] of the talk about women’s health, I have never heard anyone discuss why a drug that has been classified as a group 1 carcinogen (carcinogenic to humans) by the World Health Organization is good for women’s health. […]


  10. on April 27, 2012 at 9:49 AM darulvietiibucuresti1

    Thank you for updating the links: very useful!



Comments are closed.

  • Archives

    • June 2022 (1)
    • May 2022 (1)
    • July 2021 (1)
    • January 2021 (7)
    • November 2020 (1)
    • May 2020 (2)
    • September 2019 (1)
    • May 2019 (2)
    • April 2019 (1)
    • February 2019 (1)
    • April 2018 (2)
    • January 2017 (1)
    • December 2016 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (10)
    • July 2016 (2)
    • June 2016 (1)
    • May 2016 (1)
    • April 2016 (1)
    • March 2016 (1)
    • February 2016 (3)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • November 2015 (2)
    • October 2015 (1)
    • September 2015 (1)
    • August 2015 (3)
    • April 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (1)
    • December 2014 (3)
    • November 2014 (1)
    • October 2014 (4)
    • September 2014 (15)
    • August 2014 (6)
    • June 2014 (5)
    • May 2014 (1)
    • April 2014 (2)
    • March 2014 (2)
    • February 2014 (1)
    • January 2014 (3)
    • December 2013 (17)
    • November 2013 (9)
    • October 2013 (12)
    • September 2013 (4)
    • July 2013 (2)
    • June 2013 (5)
    • May 2013 (2)
    • April 2013 (3)
    • March 2013 (6)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (1)
    • December 2012 (18)
    • November 2012 (6)
    • October 2012 (13)
    • September 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (10)
    • June 2012 (13)
    • May 2012 (8)
    • April 2012 (1)
    • March 2012 (11)
    • February 2012 (21)
    • January 2012 (5)
    • December 2011 (18)
    • November 2011 (3)
    • October 2011 (23)
    • September 2011 (24)
    • August 2011 (22)
    • July 2011 (22)
    • June 2011 (29)
    • May 2011 (8)
    • April 2011 (11)
    • March 2011 (18)
    • February 2011 (42)
    • January 2011 (26)
    • December 2010 (30)
    • November 2010 (34)
    • October 2010 (33)
    • September 2010 (16)
    • August 2010 (15)
    • July 2010 (7)
    • June 2010 (21)
    • May 2010 (33)
    • April 2010 (14)
    • March 2010 (41)
    • February 2010 (36)
    • January 2010 (59)
    • December 2009 (59)
  • Categories

    • Abortion (258)
    • Advent (26)
    • Biomedical Ethics (82)
    • Birth Control (51)
    • Bishops (87)
    • Black History Month (10)
    • Breast Cancer (65)
    • Christmas (26)
    • Cloning (4)
    • Condoms (16)
    • COVID-19 (1)
    • Darwin (2)
    • Development (6)
    • Dignity (119)
    • Divine Mercy Novenas (10)
    • DNA (3)
    • Embryo Adoption (2)
    • Embryonic Stem Cell Research (6)
    • Eugenics (29)
    • Euthanasia (8)
    • Family (44)
    • Fathers of the Church (11)
    • Fortnight for Freedom (1)
    • Golden Coconut Award (3)
    • Health Care (14)
    • HIV/AIDS (5)
    • Infant Mortality (2)
    • IVF (4)
    • Joseph (6)
    • Lent (17)
    • Margaret Sanger (19)
    • Marriage (6)
    • Maternal Mortality (2)
    • Motherhood (12)
    • Neonates (1)
    • Personhood (20)
    • Physician Assisted Suicide (4)
    • Planned Parenthood (64)
    • Priests (50)
    • Pro-Life Academy (23)
    • Quotes (10)
    • Radio Interviews (3)
    • Right to Life (34)
    • Roots (1)
    • Sex Education (25)
    • Sexually Transmitted Disease (12)
    • Stem Cell Therapy (7)
    • Transgender (1)
    • Uncategorized (208)
  • Pages

    • About
    • BIO
    • Conferences
    • Contact
    • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
    • Speaking

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Coming Home
    • Join 857 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Coming Home
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: