|The leading British medical journal The Lancet reported last month that the use of oral contraceptives can more than double a woman’s risk of developing cervical cancer.
British and French researchers with Cancer Research U.K. found that being on the pill for less than five years was associated with an increased risk of 10 per cent, while subjects who took the drug for five to nine years had an increased risk of 60 per cent. Women who took the pill for 10 years or more had double the risk of developing the cancer than a woman who had never used hormonal contraceptives.
The sexually transmitted disease HPV, also known as genital warts, is the primary culprit in most cases of cervical cancer. It is worth noting that Planned Parenthood (or is that Planned Barrenhood?) and other condom-hawking organizations do not make it known to their victims – er, clients – that traditional prophylactics do not protect one from HPV, and therefore, cervical cancer. Likewise, the link between the pill and cervical cancer has long been suspected, yet this important health information has been kept from women.
Several studies have also found that oral contraceptives have been implicated in increased rates of breast cancer. While for the most part, mainstream media and the medical community have denied the validity of such claims, several news sources have reported on the breast cancer connection in conjunction with their stories on cervical cancer findings.
The powers that be continue to keep information from women on other cancer-related issues. Recently, Dr. Joel Brind was the only voice of dissent at the National Cancer Institute’s workshop entitled, “Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer,” which he called “a very big fix.” According to institute director Andrew von Eschenbach, the workshop was held in response to numerous challenges of an NCI Fact Sheet stating there was no evidence that abortion raises breast cancer risk. However, as Brind explained in his “Minority Report” on the workshop, not one speaker was called to present evidence of the abortion/breast cancer link. Even Dr. Janet Dahling, whose study was funded by the NCI, was excluded, because despite the fact that she is personally pro-abortion, she found that women who killed their children in-utero were more at risk of breast cancer.
Brind’s meta-analysis of breast cancer studies has revealed that 29 of 38 studies of the ABC link indicate termination of a pregnancy in the first two trimesters is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Drawing on this information, Brind confronted NCI scientists, asking (in a recorded session) how they could conclude there is no link when the evidence actually indicates the opposite. The reply was, “There’s widespread agreement that (the NCI position) is true.”
“(Y)ou ask a scientific question, you get a political answer. It’s a very interesting state of play. The only thing that really surprised me was the sheer bluntness of this political assault. It was very clear they were going to do whatever it took to stamp out the abortion/breast cancer link once and for all from the public’s mind,” Brind stated after the event.
The National Cancer Institute’s refusal to admit links to anti-life behaviours and cancer is doubly ridiculous, because by its own admission, bearing children early in life is a natural, effective and recognized defence against reproductive cancers. Therefore, separate from any of the primary carcinogenic influences of abortion and hormonal contraceptives, both would act to increase cancer risks for women by delaying childbirth. Karen Malec, of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, points out, “Women aren’t stupid. We can connect the dots. If a full-term pregnancy protects against breast cancer, and childlessness raises risk, then logically, an abortion will raise risk.” As will, for the same reasons, contraception. The NCI doesn’t seem to have the faith in women Malec does, however.Gillian Long is executive director of Toronto- based Campaign Life Coalition Youth.