Recent research has clarified how emergency contraceptives, or ECs, work.
suppressing egg release, ECs are often embryocidal, as European
medical authorities stated in 2009, destroying life before implantation.
recent studies precisely revealed how the most popular ECs work.
Chilean researchers attempted to definitively show Plan B chiefly
suppresses ovulation without embryocidal effects and thus cannot
threaten the already-conceived embryo.
demonstrated unhindered ovulation up to 86 percent of the time,
admitting this suggests other mechanisms make it 100-percent effective
when taken during the fertile period.
We already knew
emergency contraceptives couldnt block sperm from uniting with eggs, so
if eggs can reach sperm, conceived embryos are at risk. This study was a
disaster for researchers focused on exonerating ECs as embryocide. Even
worse, their own data provided a most unwelcome explanation,
considering their quest to prove Plan B non-embryocidal. Plan B
interferes with the luteinizing hormone surge affecting not ovulation,
but functions needed for embryo survival.
discovering effectiveness came through interfering with embryo survival,
the researchers manipulatively reported that since Plan B does not work
when given after ovulation, it cannot have post-ovulation effects. But a
chain of causally linked events occurs here, much like sabotaging an
airplanes landing mechanism that, even though done before taking off,
nonetheless operates when landing.
We now know how Plan
B prevents pregnancy. Let the reader not be deceived. Given before
ovulation, it largely does not prevent union of sperm and egg but rather
inhibits pre-implantation embryo survival.
this knowledge eluded some of my colleagues? Do they not have before
them the same studies I have? Within certain specialties such as
obstetrics and gynecology, are physicians even permitted to disagree
with the party line? Is dissent from contraceptive progress even
tolerated? Are we witnessing a new, irrational ideology pushing
progress at all costs and punishing the dissenters?
a paper concludes falsely that the danger everyone worried about is
disproved once and for all, yet a proper reading of that same paper
leads to the opposite conclusion, must these specialists suspend their
critical faculties and remain in slavish conformity, like a corrupt and
dishonest party platform?
And we call this freedom?
Dr. Dominic M. Pedulla, Oklahoma City