Recent research has clarified how emergency contraceptives, or ECs, work.
Seldom suppressing egg release, ECs are often “embryocidal,” as European medical authorities stated in 2009, destroying life before implantation.
Game-changing 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.
But they 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 couldn’t 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.
Despite 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 airplane’s 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.
Why has 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?
If 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