Posts Tagged ‘Oral Contraceptives’

Click the image to enlarge.

The graph tells the story, and comes from Chris Kahlenborn, MD. Dr. Kahlenborn is the founder of the Polycarp Research Institute, which has some excellent materials on the link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer, as well as abortion and breast cancer. Dr. Kahlenborn’s excellent book, Breast Cancer : Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill was written ten years ago and is a perfect source book for non-scientists. It was Dr. Kahlenborn’s stellar book that drew my interest in this subject and took me from DEEP skeptic to a properly educated and enlightened scientist through his presentation of all the scientific literature. Order it here.

This contraceptive fight is going to be a definitive issue in this presidential election. Dr. Kahlenborn, Dr. Lanfranchi, Dr. Brind, Ms. Karen Malec and others have written extensively on these issues, and a thorough and sustained reading of their work is going to be necessary if we are not going to be written off as religious zealots by those in the middle. The place to begin is with Kahlenborn’s book and his website. It’s an easy read for the layperson.

The individuals just mentioned, and myself, are out here doing the education, but now we need voices. Many more voices.

Perhaps many here have used oral contraceptives in the past, or are using them now. It’s never too late to learn what science and medicine are telling us, and to change our lifestyles; if not by the light of faith, then by the light of empiric evidence.

Our women are being ravaged by breast cancer, and while OC use and abortion don’t account for it all, they account for plenty.

I’m here to educate and answer questions. Let’s get going.

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


Read Full Post »

The first paper I ever wrote in graduate school was a review of the literature on Leprosy. It is a disease transmitted by contact that we now know to be caused by a close first cousin of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis, and can be cured using the same antibiotics that we use against TB. This miracle of 20th Century medicine has emptied the leper colonies, arresting and eliminating the disease in its earliest stages before it maims and disfigures its victims.

Sunlight seems to be having the same salutary effect on the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and they have elected to leave the leper colony, as Planned Parenthood languishes with the increasing ravages of their disfigurement, unwilling to take the medicine that would end the insideous effects of their disease. It’s actually too late for Planned Parenthood, but for Komen, there is yet hope.

The sunlight began to pierce the darkness back in 2007, when Dorinda Bordlee, Vice President and Senior Counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund met Eve Sanchez Silver who told her about her about the Komen-Planned Parenthood funding link. Silver, a breast cancer survivor and charter member of Komen’s Hispanic/Latina Advisory Council, resigned from Komen, stating,

As a Christian and life affirming citizen I can not reconcile the Foundation’s decision to affirm life with one hand and support its destruction with the other.

Bordlee began to research Komen’s grant database to confirm Silver’s claims. The most recent data available to her back then were the 2005 numbers which showed over $700,000 in grants made by certain Komen state affiliates to their local Planned Parenthood clinics. Subsequent grant totals can be read here at BDF’s site. BDF’s initial findings were picked up and pursued by a great many who then launched their own investigations.

It was discovered that Komen Founder, Nancy Brinker (Susan Komen’s sister), sat on the board of Planned Parenthood in North Texas. Jill Stanek wrote two great articles about the links between Komen and PP.

At the heart of the matter lies three essential issues regarding the deplorable decision by Komen to fund PP:

1. The causal link between breast cancer and abortion (ABC link).
2. The causal link between breast cancer and oral contraceptives.
3. The fact that Planned Parenthood does NOT do mammograms.

Yes the ABC link is hotly disputed, and only because radical proabort researchers have lied through their teeth about the literature. I’ve written 56 articles dealing with this link, which can be read here. Placing that contentious issue to the side, along with PP’s complicity in placing women at risk for breast cancer through their abortion services, we need to look at the role of PP in dispensing oral contraceptives, which have been well established causes of breast cancer.

In 2009, the same Dr. Louise Brinton who is Branch Chief in Epidemiology at the National Cancer Institute, and who chaired the sham 2003 workshop denying the ABC link, coauthored a 2009 paper in which she listed abortion and oral contraceptives under known or suspected risk factors for breast cancer. The reference for the paper follows at the end of the article.

In their paper, the authors list in Table 4. Multivariate adjusted case-control odds ratios for all breast cancer cases, triple-negative
and non-triple-negative cases, in relation to oral contraceptive risk factors, stratified by age at diagnosis under age 40 and
41-45 y
, the following devastating information.

The risks for acquiring the deadliest, most aggressive and difficult to treat form of breast cancer, Triple Negative Breast Cancer based on age of first use of oral contraceptives is:

Age 22+: 250%
Age 18-22: 270%
Age Under 18: 540%

These numbers, from some of the finest minds in science, beg the question:

What would possess an organization such as Komen to ever fund an organization that dispenses birth control pills like candy? Could it be the claim that PP does life-saving breast screenings?

Certainly, Senator Barbara Boxer has been quite vocal about PP’s “mammograms”, as reported here.

In truth, PP does NOT perform mammograms. When one hears the term, “breast screening” or “breast cancer screening”, one tends to envision a mammogram. Instead, PP’s screening is a palpation of the breast, checking for detectable lumps. So, yes, if a lump is detected, and if the lump is cancerous, that could be lifesaving. But if no lump is detected? Is the woman given a referral for a mammogram?

It is the mammogram that is essential.

A woman’s best chances at beating her cancer are when the cancer is found through mammography before it is large enough to be palpated, or found through mammography in women whose breast density make it difficult to detect by palpation. By funding PP, Komen funded the abortions that lead to increased risk of breast cancer, the distribution of oral contraceptives which are well known to cause breast cancer, and the lie that women were receiving mammograms.

In an era where less than 10% of research grants are receiving federal money, there is no dearth of scientists in desperate need of funding for legitimate research purposes. One can barely walk the corridors of a university without bumping into them, so Komen should have no difficulty at all in finding and funding worthy Ph.D.’s and M.D.’s who simply cannot access the ever-dwindling supply of federal research dollars.

As far as funding prevention efforts, the neglect of the Dolle and Brinton study, or the many other papers showing oral contraception’s role in breast cancer is tantamount to a crime.

Komen is to be applauded for getting out of the leper colony and breaking its funding ties with one of the largest purveyors of death on the planet. The great work of antisepsis begun by Eve Silver and Dorinda Bordlee that was picked up and furthered by thousands will help Komen more fully achieve Nancy Brinker’s deathbed promise to her sister to do all she could to find a cure. Now that Komen is out of funding causality and lies, they may see a more robust financial future, which we all pray may help speed the end of this scourge which afflicts so many of our wives, mothers, sisters, friends, and other loved ones.

As for Planned Parenthood the mask has been ripped away, in no small measure by Lila Rose and her associates, revealing the true face of the leprosy lurking under the guise of women’s healthcare.


Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women
Under the Age of 45 Years

Jessica M. Dolle,1 Janet R. Daling,1 Emily White,1,3 Louise A. Brinton,4 David R. Doody,1
Peggy L. Porter,2 and Kathleen E. Malone1,3

Divisions of 1Public Health Sciences and 2Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; 3Department of Epidemiology, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington; and 4Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4). April 2009

Read Full Post »

Fathers for Good runs a column “Newsworthy Dads” I was interviewed on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link for this week’s column. My thanks to editor Brian Caulfield for his gracious offer and willingness to help get the word out about the ABC link via this interview.

The ABCs of Cancer

Gerard M. Nadal, who holds a Ph.D. in molecular microbiology, is taking a strong stand on the link between induced abortion and breast cancer (ABC). Many studies have shown the link, and basic biology provides the physiological reason for it, yet an abortion mindset in some halls of science and the media have worked together to keep these facts hidden from the public, he says.

Dr. Nadal is 49 years old, married, and the father of three children. He is currently pursuing an M.A. in theology through Franciscan University of Steubenville.

In this Fathers for Good interview, he outlines in layman’s terms some of the research that shows the ABC link.

Fathers for Good: Briefly explain what you see as the abortion-breast cancer link.

Dr. Nadal: I first learned of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link about three years ago when I came across a book entitled, Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, written Chris Kahlenborn, a medical doctor. It’s a great read for those who are not medical professionals.

In brief, when women become pregnant for the first time, they make vastly increased amounts of the hormones estrogen and progesterone, which stimulate the milk-producing tissue of the breast to undergo massive proliferation during the first trimester. These cells form the immature and cancer-prone Type-1 and Type-2 lobules. In the last trimester, hormonal changes will mature 85% of these lobules into cancer-resistant Type-3 and Type-4 lobules. Terminating the pregnancy through induced abortion robs these lobules of the last trimester’s maturation and leaves behind a great deal of newly made, cancer-prone cells.

Most women who have had miscarriages have miscarried precisely because they are not producing enough of the hormones estrogen and progesterone and have not undergone the proliferation of breast lobules. Therefore, they don’t share the same risk as women who have had induced abortions.

FFG: How is the birth-control pill implicated?

Dr. Nadal: The pill contains very high doses of synthetic estrogen and progesterone, which mimic a pregnancy followed by abortion on a monthly basis. Studies have shown frightening rates of breast cancer for women taking the pill or estrogen replacement therapy in menopause. They all share the same mechanism for cancer production as induced abortion. One recent study leads some of us to believe that the synthetic form of estrogen in the pill may be responsible for a particularly aggressive and deadly form of breast cancer called Triple Negative Breast Cancer.

Karen Malec is the President and Co-Founder of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, and has a very informative website: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/

FFG: Do you think there is a cover-up to protect abortion on demand?

Dr. Nadal: Unfortunately, it’s not so much an opinion as a matter of fact. On February 22, I wrote an article in Headline Bistro detailing this. Some researchers who favor abortion say one thing in epidemiology journals which few people read, then dismiss reality to craft public policy that protects and promotes abortion on demand, and hormonal contraception on demand. Yet they better than anybody know the harm being done to women – 1 in 9 of whom will contract breast cancer.

FFG: Some would say you are debating an interpretation of data and that there’s no objective truth, even in science.

Dr. Nadal: If anyone has ever had the misfortune of falling from a ladder or dropping Mom’s good china, then they can ably testify to the scientific truth of the law of gravity. Similarly, we know the factors that will increase the probability of contracting diseases, because we have scientific certitude about the normal physiology of the body and the pathophysiology that results when chemicals or microbes perturb that normal function. The same holds true for the abortion-oral contraceptive-breast cancer link.

When attempts are made to twist reality in order to accommodate an agenda the truth becomes the first casualty, and real people pay the price in their bodies, minds, and souls for denying objective reality.

When I ran college retreats, I used to describe God’s law as functioning as the guard rails on a mountain road. He knows the danger zones. In that light, his law becomes liberating and not at all constricting. It frees us to live lives unencumbered by needless suffering. The more empirical evidence we discover in science, the more one comes to an appreciation of those guard rails, and the more we are able to prevent some of that needless suffering.

For more information, visit Dr. Nadal’s blog.

Read Full Post »

If you missed Part I last week, read it here.

In the past lesson we saw that the hormones estrogen and progesterone are responsible for normal breast development in an adolescent girl’s menstrual cycles. Birth control pills have extremely high levels of these hormones which mimic the elevated levels of the hormones during pregnancy. In either case, the breasts are stimulated to develop numerous extra cancer-prone Type-1 and Type-2 lobules with doubling of the number of ductules on each lobule. Today we consider the mechanism (we love that word in biology), or how, these situations give rise to cancers.

In past lessons we covered mitosis. During mitosis, DNA is replicated. When this happens, errors in DNA synthesis occur. Sometimes the errors escape the notice of a proofreading molecule that corrects these errors. When the repair crews come in they can make mistakes which lead to permanent mutation. If such a mutation occurs in certain cancer-causing genes, as illustrated in the diagram to he left, that cell is in danger of becoming cancerous.

Type-1 and Type-2 cells have greater numbers of receptors to bind estrogen and progesterone, which precipitates the DNA synthesis. The more these cells are stimulated, the greater the chance that the requisite number of mutations in a cell will be reached leading to cancer, as shown below right.

The conversion of 85% of these cells to cancer-resistant Type-4 cells at the end of a first full term pregnancy (FFTP) is the good news of pregnancy. The younger a woman is when she has a FFTP, the less cancer-prone cells she has developed over time. One Harvard study puts the risk of breast cancer at 3.5% elevation per year after the age of 24 until a woman has a FFTP. After a FFTP, the number of Type-4 cells produced from the remaining 15% of Type-1 and Type-2 cells increases.

Women add substantially to their risks when they delay FFTP, take oral contraceptives and/or have induced abortions, as these leave the breasts with an ever-increasing number of cancer-prone cells over a greater period of time in which cancer can develop.

Again, miscarriages are the exception to this rule, as it is precisely the lack of elevated estrogen and progesterone that led to the miscarriage.

Next time: Lies, damned lies, and more damned lies (from pro-choice hacks in lab coats).

Illustrations from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

Read Full Post »

Pro-Life Academy every Tuesday and Thursday.

Today we begin a new track. Breast Cancer will be dealt with on Thursdays, while our ongoing embryology lessons will continue on Tuesdays.

There exists in the peer-reviewed scientific literature a significant body of literature dating to the 1950’s, which shows a clear and consistent link between abortion and breast cancer. I’ve written about some of this on this blog. Click here.

Today, we begin with a consideration of normal breast development in puberty and first pregnancy.

Breast maturation begins at the onset of puberty when girls begin to menstruate. An event called menarche. During menstrual cycles the hormones estrogen and progesterone which are produced stimulate the development of breast lobules.

In each breast, there are 15-25 lobes, each of which is like a main branch on a tree. Each lobe branches off into several lobules, as shown on left. Each lobule prior to pregnancy is comprised of Type-1 and Type-2 cells, which are cancer-susceptible cells.

Once a woman becomes pregnant, her body begins to produce vastly elevated concentrations of estrogen, as well as a steady supply of progesterone. These hormones stimulate prolific development of lobules and ductules in the first trimester leading into the second trimester. By the middle of the second trimester the woman’s breasts have doubled in size.

From the second half of the second trimester and going forward, human prolactin matures the lobule cells into Type-3 and Type-4 cells, which are cancer resistant cells, as shown in the illustration below.


By the end of her FFTP, 85% of a woman’s lobules are cancer resistant. After weaning, many return to Type-3 cells with evidence that genetic changes have occurred leaving these cells cancer resistant. With every subsequent pregnancy, more of the remaining Type-1 and Type-2 lobules mature.

The difficulty presented by abortion is that a woman’s breasts undergo growth and proliferation early in the pregnancy, but are deprived of the maturational effects of the third trimester. This leaves the woman with many more cells which can become cancerous.

Women having miscarriages tend not to produce elevated estrogen levels, and do not therefore undergo the same pregnancy-related breast development.

Oral contraceptives mimic a pregnancy followed by abortion every month, setting up even higher risk for breast cancer.

Next time, more on how cells become cancerous and an introduction to the literature.

Illustrations from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

Read Full Post »


Dear Friends:

We need your help, so please be sure to read our Action Items at the end of this message!

We are excited about our new YouTube video reporting on the study, Dolle et al. 2009, in which U.S. National Cancer Institute scientist Louise Brinton and Dr. Janet Daling of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center appear as co-authors.

Dolle’s team reported significant risk increases for women with abortions and users of oral contraceptives nine months ago, but the National Cancer Institute and cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to issue nationwide warnings to women.

The spin from RHReality.org, the marketing arm for the tobacco industry – I mean, the abortion industry – last week was this. There is “nothing new” about the Dolle team’s findings concerning abortion. Dolle’s team had to include abortion among what researchers listed in their paper as “known and suspected risk factors,” not because abortion really is a risk factor for breast cancer, but only because abortion had been included in the 1990s studies (if you can believe that!).

The trouble is that Brinton and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop in 2003 alleged that all earlier retrospective studies (using on women’s self-reports of abortion histories) were not reliable. In other words, the Dolle team in 2009 relied on data from two 1990s studies that one of its authors, Dr. Brinton, and the NCI had previously claimed were unreliable!

Dolle and her colleagues examined 897 specimens of cancerous breast tissue saved from women who participated in Daling’s and Brinton’s research in 1994 and 1996. They used new technology to test these specimens for triple-negative breast cancer, which was first described in medical journals in 2007.

Dolle’s team tested the specimens for triple-negative breast cancer and matched them with reproductive history. They found a statistically significant 40% risk increase among study subjects with abortion histories for all types of breast cancer, regardless of it being tripe-negative or not.

The YouTube video (produced by Ken Houldsworth and featuring Karly Houldsworth as narrator) is available here:


Send Video to Family, Friends
Help us to make the YouTube video go viral on the internet. Send it to your family and friends.

Send Video to Legislators in Congress
Send the video to your representative in the U.S. House and your U.S. senators. Ask them to investigate the National Cancer Institute’s failure to fulfill its role in the prevention of breast cancer through timely warnings. Tell your representatives that government funding of abortion will cause more women to die of breast cancer.

Send Video to Journalists
Send the video to journalists in your area and ask them to investigate “CancerGate,” the National Cancer Institute’s cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer link. Mainstream journalists were overjoyed to report on the few studies showing no link between abortion and breast cancer (although these have since been proven in medical journals to be fraudulent). Ask them to put women’s health first above their pro-abortion ideology.

Finally, doctors from India are making doctors from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association look backwards because the latter deny an abortion-breast cancer link, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Here is a link to a news page from the Pune Mirror in India whose physician, Dr. M.C. Watsa, in his “Ask the Sexpert” column, wrote to an 18-year-old woman that:

“A breast lump can occur after an abortion. You are right to be concerned. See a gynecologist for a detailed examination.”

Click on this link to the Pune Mirror:


Your help is needed in this critical work of educating the public about the abortion-breast cancer link. Thank you in advance for your care and concern.

Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Read Full Post »

Bethany, a good friend of this blog, has shared this link to the World Health Organization’s list of Group I carcinogens.

{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.

The following oral contraceptives are listed along with some other Group I Carcinogens for reference.

From the document:

Estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy (combined) (Vol. 72, Vol. 91, Vol. 100A; in preparation)

Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Vol. 72, Vol. 91, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)

Estrogens, nonsteroidal (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)

Estrogens, steroidal (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)

Estrogen therapy, postmenopausal (Vol. 72, Vol. 100A; in preparation)

[Oral contraceptives, combined estrogen-progestogen: see Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined)]

Oral contraceptives, sequential (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)

Asbestos [1332-21-4] (Vol. 14, Suppl. 7; 1987)

Benzene [71-43-2] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7; 1987)

Formaldehyde [50-00-0] (Vol. 88; 2006)

Gallium arsenide [1303-00-0] (Vol. 86; 2006)

Plutonium-239 and its decay products (may contain plutonium-240 and other isotopes), as aerosols (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radioiodines, short-lived isotopes, including iodine-131, from atomic reactor accidents and nuclear weapons detonation (exposure during childhood) (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radionuclides, a-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Vol. 78; 2001)
(NB: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)

Radionuclides, b-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Vol. 78; 2001)
(NB: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)

Radium-224 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radium-226 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radium-228 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radon-222 [10043-92-2] and its decay products (Vol. 43, Vol. 78; 2001)

X- and Gamma (g)-Radiation (Vol. 75; 2000)

Tobacco smoking and tobacco smoke (Vol. 83; 2004)

Most assuredly some are stronger than others. The danger in the less potent carcinogens lies in the propensity for a long-term exposure with its cumulative mutagenic effects.

Also on the list was Chinese salted fish. Not sure what’s in there, but will find out, as it was a staple in grad school.

Many Thanks Bethany.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: