Annie Banno at After Abortion says yes:

We blogged in December 2006 about the news that breast cancer is the “type of cancer most affected by”, that is, “fueled by estrogen” found in HRT [Hormone Replacement Therapy]. We showed how, if Plan B = 5 x OC [Oral Contraceptives], and OC = 4 to 8 x HRT, and HRT = More BC (Breast Cancer), then Plan B = 20 to 40 times More Breast Cancer Risk.

Annie returned to the topic last week because of a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine that seems to bolster the conclusions After Abortion drew from the earlier study. This latest study cites government numbers to show breast cancer rates leveling off in 2004 after plunging in 2003, “the year after millions of women stopped taking hormones” because of greater knowledge about cancer and other risks. Annie comments:

Yet medical doctors from the AMA to the APA to the American Society of Clinical Oncology to almost any OBGYN office in the land to even the National Cancer Institute who issued that first study last year– still won’t tell you or the elected officials trying to pass laws to force Catholic hospitals to dispense these cancer-packs that Emergency Contraception can be really, really bad for you personally. Instead these so-called medical doctors urge you to only take EC sparingly. Only once in a blue moon. Only in “true emergencies.”…

I can hear almost all 300 of my state’s elected elite in the chambers of our capital now:

No, no, we don’t believe it will be harmful, we mustn’t tell them it could hurt them and tick off the liberal feminists who’ll vote us out of office…

Read After Abortion on this latest news here. Read their original conclusion on how potent and therefore lethal “EC” is here.

15 Responses to “Does Plan B Increase Breast Cancer?”

  1. on 23 Apr 2007 at 11:34 amopal

    Having worked on the drug development of generic Premarin products, and knowing the screening that all employees had to routinely go through in order to verify that we were not exposed to this product, I have always found it laughable that everyone says Birth Control pills are safe. All the employees, at the tiny pharm company that I started working at were routinely checked for hormone levels and WBC to make sure that we were not developing cancer…that was over 10 years ago. Yet, the main active pharmaceutical compounds in menopause drugs and birth control pills are in essence the same (estradiol) or very similar. So one has to wonder why it should make any difference to the future health of the patient….


  2. on 23 Apr 2007 at 1:20 pmAnnie Banno

    Opal, thanks, that is the first time I’ve heard anyone comment from the pharma industry tell some real truth. In the original post linked to last, above, we do quote an international pharmacologist group’s scientific comparisons of how to determine what are same/similar strength doses of varying forms of estrogen in these various pill packs. But they don’t work for the pharmas, they are the actual pharmacists who dispense prescriptions at “the local drugstore.”

    I presume by WBC you mean women’s breast cancer?

    Thanks again for commenting.

  3. on 24 Apr 2007 at 8:10 amSimon

    Why don’t we just leave the medicine to the doctors. With all due respect to Annie Banno, I read some of her background writings and it sounds less like science and more like a lot of guesstimation.

    I’d hate for a woman who actually needed these medicines and who was prescribed them by her physician to feel like she had to second guess her doctor.

    Stay in your sandbox.

  4. on 24 Apr 2007 at 10:51 amchele

    oh, let’s take medical advice from someone who doesn’t know what a WBC is. yep.

  5. on 24 Apr 2007 at 10:17 pmchele

    Your concern for women’s health, breast cancer in particular, is admirable.

    While some studies indicate a possible small increase in the rate of breast cancer in certain groups of women while using oral contraceptives, I’m sure you will agree that it would be irresponsible to mislead your readers into thinking that oral contraceptives are the only risk factor for breast cancer, or even one of the largest.

    Recent and ongoing studies point to an ever-growing body of evidence that chemicals and synthetic substances in our everyday environment are hugely contributory to the rise in breast cancer among women… AND men. Of particular concern are the xenoestrogens — which mimic estrogen in our bodies. Among the most pervasive of these is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which is used in plastic food wrap, toys, appliances, cars, credit cards and medical products. Numerous toxic chemicals disrupt hormone function in the human body. Most concerning might be dioxin, created by the combustion of things like PVC, which is now found in the body fat of every human being, including newborns.

    We should also be concerned with the hormones that are in our food supply — from the milk we drink to the meat we eat. Six types of hormones are FDA approved for use in our food, and include estradiol and progesterone. These hormones are suspected of causing early onset puberty in girls, which is a risk factor for breast cancer. The European Union has banned all meat treated with these steroid hormones.

    It is also useful to note that studies indicate that oral contraceptives have proven benefits to large numbers of women (aside from family planning). Evidence shows that oral conraceptives DECREASE the risk of cervical, ovarian, endometrial and colorectal cancers.

    Breast cancer has reached epidemic proportions, and its causes are so very complex. Risk factors range from your genetic makeup to the milk you drink to the plastic dish you use to microwave your snack to the DDT sprayed 50 years ago that is STILL found in our bodies today.

    Women (and men) should read peer-reviewed medical articles in respected Journals, and most importantly should address their concerns with their DOCTORS.

  6. on 25 Apr 2007 at 7:49 amopal

    WBC referred to white blood cell counts. Our counts were monitored to make sure we were not getting cancer-especially the men. It was a huge deal to work on this product….I have worked on cancer products and Celebrex with less protective equipment than when I worked on the generic premarin.


  7. on 25 Apr 2007 at 10:37 amAnnie Banno

    Simon, and Chele, too for that matter, for agreeing with Simon by inference, let me see if I understand you correctly:

    According to you…
    The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, The National Toxicology Program (NTP), The Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, the Indiana University-Purdue University At Indianapolis Department of Environmental Health and Safety, and the head of the pharmacists’ group who happens to have earned his Bachelors of Pharmacology, Masters of Pharmaceutical Sciences, AND an M.A. in Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, and has been practicing for decades in his pharmacological career…

    …those are all just “guesstimating?” Those are all phony doctors??

    You are unbelievable. Stay in your own sandbox.

    Not one single fact of the science I referred to (or the links to those sources provided in my posts) is from my own head, but from all those medical experts. It doesn’t take a rocket or medical scientist to look at dosages and realize that Plan B is that much more potent a dosage than HRT. It’s. just. simple. math. One needn’t be a doctor or know what WBC means to know how to do simple math.

    Chele, you are good at obfuscation tactics:

    1) the tactic of clouding the issue with other details that I never mentioned nor tried to “mislead your readers” about. Good try. I never said or implied that “oral contraceptives are the only risk factor for breast cancer, or even one of the largest.” Yet you accuse me of irresponsibility. Interesting.

    “A common tactic adopted by inexperienced debaters is to ask a long series of questions that place an enormous burden on their opposition, without actually making any particular point…The same is true of those with too much time on their hands (or a gift for speed writing) who present far too many arguments at one time in hopes of “burying” their opponent under the supposed “empirical” weight. Both of these abuses inhibit true argumentation and inevitably degrade the quality of a discussion. Respect yourself and your opponents at all times by using moderation in your argumentation and questioning.” And by not accusing others of making statements which they didn’t make or of ignoring other issues that were not the subject of the news reported.

    Quotes from

    2) You state things like “Evidence shows that oral conraceptives DECREASE the risk of cervical, ovarian, endometrial and colorectal cancers.”

    “He who asserts must prove…Every proposition should be supported by either logic or evidence. Logic includes everything from complex syllogisms to plain ol’ cause-and-effect. Evidence can take the form of examples, statistics, and/or quotations from authorities in the field. Supported arguments stand until refuted. Unsupported arguments do not deserve a response and might as well not exist.”

    Give us your evidence links, please, as I gave you mine.

  8. on 25 Apr 2007 at 12:07 pmchele

    Actually, Annie… the Mayo Clinic paper you cited contains the information re: oral contraceptives decreasing the risk of those cancers.

    Didn’t you read it all?

  9. on 25 Apr 2007 at 1:35 pmAnnie Banno

    Chele, it seems you didn’t really read my articles.

    I give proof right there that the WHO’s IARC listed oral contraceptives as “carcinogenic to humans with slightly increased risks for cervical, liver and breast cancer.”

    I didn’t have another link until now: evidence was also found in 2003 that “Women who take the contraceptive pill may increase their risk of cervical cancer, according to a major new study published in the Lancet…Researchers found that the longer women used the pill the greater their risk of developing cervical cancer. The effect remained even when other risk factors for the disease such as infection with the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) were taken into account.”

    NOT “decrease” it, as you claimed you had “evidence” for.

    You can read the rest for yourselves here; (since at least two of you aren’t willing to accept it when I quote it).

    I don’t refute your statement per se, there may well be some research studies that also show decreased cervical cancer risk, just as there are two out of twenty-three studies that found slightly decreased risk of Breast Cancer from the Pill (more on that below). I’d ask how old are all studies, what data pools were studied, what controls were used, were other mitigating factors ruled out, etc. Old studies are quoted to me as “evidence” all the time by folks looking to defend contraception, abortion and other things.

    It’s just that, without proof or support, you’ve just proven your statements cannot be taken seriously. You cast 100% doubt on all you claim, with what you just wrote above. How many more of your claims might I refute with some research work? It’s not necessary, really. The burden of proof of your claims is on you.

    And I fully agree that “Women (and men) should read peer-reviewed medical articles in respected Journals, and most importantly should address their concerns with their DOCTORS.”

    My own OBGYN downplays all the risks of the pill, yet when we all go for our mammograms, one of the big questions they always make us answer is “How long have you been on the pill?”

    Whether our doctors agree with us or not or whether they like it or not, women should read and mention the ones the Mayo Clinic reviewed, whose link to 23 of those “peer-reviewed medical articles in respected Journals” was given you in the link to our posts on this, .

    The actual article abstract is here, [Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis, Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(10):1290-1302]

    Just look at the 16 citations in the footnotes of the PDF file, if you aren’t willing to read the whole thing and if you didn’t already click through. (If you really did read them already, then you really do dismiss the Mayo Clinic medical experts!)

    Then there’s this chart which succinctly summarizes the above Mayo Clinic findings, making it clear for those who don’t like or won’t do their own math to see which of the “peer-reviewed medical articles in respected Journals” say that “Use of OCs is associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, especially with use before FFTP in parous women:”

    Here’s the math on this issue (strictly about OCs and breast cancer): “Twenty one out of twenty-three of these retrospective studies demonstrated an increased risk. The odds ratio of combining these studies for this meta-analysis noted a 44% increased risk, which was significant at the 99% confidence interval (OR, 1.44; 99% CI 1.24-1.68).”

    Yes, we agree on that one thing, that “Women (and men) should read peer-reviewed medical articles in respected Journals.”

    ALL of them.

  10. on 25 Apr 2007 at 1:53 pmAnnie Banno

    It’s quite amazing how smug you can still be after proving yourself so doubtable. The point (once again, for emphasis) is that no one gets away without citations, and you prove yourself foolish for lambasting and disregarding the well-respected scientists I quote. You can’t erase having done that. It’s disingenuous at best, chele, and trollish at worst.

    Ovarian, endometrial cancer, colorectal, they admit to having some findings of decreased risk, but not cervical. And interestingly, the latest news which I was posting on also quoted the UK study showing the evidence of 20% increases in ovarian cancers from HRT in post-menopausal women, which is the lowest dose of the same stuff that’s in OC and EC. So perhaps it helps pre menopause and hurts post. More studies, as in all cases, probably need to be done.

    This is the Mayo Clinic’s editorial quote about their meta-analysis:

    “Third, although a formal risk-benefit analysis is beyond the
    scope of this editorial, all risks and benefits of OC use
    must be considered, not just the risk of breast cancer.
    Other cancer risks may include cervical cancer and liver cancer in populations at low risk for hepatitis B viral
    infection. Additionally, IARC has determined that there is
    convincing evidence that OCs decrease the risk of ovarian
    and endometrial cancer, and there is accumulating
    evidence that they may lower the risk of colorectal cancer.”

    The more often you (continue to) generalize and broadbrush your claims, the worse it gets for your credibility.

  11. on 25 Apr 2007 at 9:21 pmchele

    Annie, why do you only concentrate on the risks caused by contraceptives, and ignore all the other substances which also put women at risk?

    Is your campaign against breast cancer, or aganst contraceptives?

  12. on 26 Apr 2007 at 9:55 amAnnie Banno

    Ahh, chele. Again with the unfounded accusations. Honestly, what a trollish question! If you’d care for me to write about all the other substances which also put women at risk, then pay me a nice advance and I’ll write you a book length manuscript, which is what it would take to cover it all. Sorry, you can’t trick me into wasting my time like that on what you supposedly already know, though you quote it as “evidence” when you’re at least in part wrong.

    Why don’t you go badger your newspapers and news stations to publicize all about it as well, including the expertly-well-documented carcinogenic risk of the hormones in contraceptives and HRT? When you start attacking the mass media for not focusing truly on everything as you’re harping on me, then maybe you’ll have a leg to stand on.

    Hasn’t it ever occurred to you that BECAUSE the mass media DOESN’T report on the real harms that contraceptives, HRT and Plan B pose to women, SOMEONE has to do it??? Your “other substances” get PLENTY of newspaper ink and talking-head soundbite time in the national press. Obviously so, because it’s all you know and accept, even when it’s wrong or subsequently refuted.

    Yet they ignore this, because of the very responses you give me, which they fear getting from people who believe as you do!

    Differences between them and me are many, but two striking ones: I’m not afraid of you and those like you attacking me. They are. I also don’t get paid for reporting only half or less of the truth as they do.

    Yours is such a weak argument and accusation. Once again, since it didn’t register with you the first time(s):

    “And by not accusing others of making statements which they didn’t make or of ignoring other issues that were not the subject of the news reported.”

    The Subject Of The News Reported was HRT and the estrogen content of it “fueling breast cancer.” I simply did the math you, the news media and many health officials refuse to do, for fear of politically correct backlash such as yours.

    You can try to “kill the messenger” all you like. It doesn’t kill the message.

    Keep sticking your heads in your sandbox, chele and company.

  13. on 26 Apr 2007 at 3:21 pmAnnie Banno

    Never let it be said that I couldn’t admit when I’d made a mistake and took steps to correct what I’d reported: see

    The science and math findings we’ve been discussing above still would be accurate for Progestogen/Estrogen-based contraceptives. Perhaps not for Plan B which is progestogen-only, but that doesn’t mean Plan B has been ruled harmless.

    While “Progestogen-only contraceptives” are classified as “Possibly carcinogenic to humans,” that’s based on data that is over 9 years old, and is probably worth restudying in classic scientific studies. Also, that classification doesn’t include PLAN B since it wasn’t around 9 years ago to be tested.

    Knowing all that, here’s how PLAN B’s dose compares to some common OCs:

    A complete Plan B dose delivers 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel, or 15 times the dose as in one Lutera or Alesse pill, or 15 days’ worth in one day. Lutera and Alesse tablets both contain 0.1 mg levonorgestrel (they also have .03 and .02 ethinyl estradiol, respectively, the “breast-cancer-fueling” hormone).

    Plan B gives between 12 and 30 times the dose of progestin as in one Triphasil 28, depending on the day (one month’s Triphasil 28 pills contain levonorgestrel in either 50 mcg, 75 mcg, or 125 mcg doses.)

    Plan B gives 10 times the levonorgestrel dose of a single SEASONALE dose.

    The link first given at the top of this comment, gives you the scientific sources for all this dosing data.

    The point is: when they’ve thoroughly studied PLAN-B-level doses of levonorgestrel which are perhaps 12 to 30 times the amount of “Possibly carcinogenic to humans” hormones, then we’ll know what PLAN B can do to us women.

  14. on 02 May 2007 at 10:22 pmAnnie Banno

    Again, when shown the truth, the hit-and-run-uber-left-liberals have nothing to say…

  15. on 05 May 2007 at 3:11 pmopal

    By the way, so the link for hormones killing fish…


Leave a Reply