LifeSite News Plays Fast and Loose with News Coverage. Again

Bick from A Catholic Experience points to this Lifesite News story on a WHO announcement.

According to LifeSite News:

A press release issued on July 29th of this year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared the little publicized classification of combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (OCs) as carcinogenic. The IARC placed the contraceptives into their Group 1 classification, the highest classification of carcinogenicity, used only "when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans." (emphasis theirs)

Combined estrogen-progestogen OCs are the most commonly prescribed forms of contraceptives. According to the IARC "worldwide, more than 100 million women - about 10% of all women of reproductive age - currently use combined hormonal contraceptives."

This outright declaration by the World Health Organization of the proven dangers of combined OCs comes as an unexpected surprise to many who have been working for years to publicize their dangers. "I'm stunned that they would come out and say that, because they've been denying this for years," said Toronto area MD and medical adviser to Campaign Life Coalition, Dr. Shea. But he added, "They're really only admitting something that's been known."

In 2003 the National Cancer Institute (NCI) became one of the latest added to the list of scientific bodies that had found a substantially increased risk of several types of cancer amongst combined OC users, citing a "significant increase" of the risk of breast cancer, as well as an increase in the risk of cervical and liver cancers. Despite this admission, no significant steps have yet been taken to protect womens' health and to curb the use of combined OCs.

The problem with LifeSite News' coverage is that they don't tell the whole story. Behold what IARC's actual press release says:

An IARC Monographs Working Group has concluded that combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), after a thorough review of the published scientific evidence.

At the same time, the Working Group stressed that there is also convincing evidence that oral contraceptives have a protective effect against some types of cancer.

There are both beneficial and adverse effects for oral contraceptives and menopausal therapy. Each woman who uses these products should discuss the overall risks and benefits with her doctor.

And this:

Use of OC's increases risk of breast, cervix and liver cancer…
There is a small increase in the risk of breast cancer in current and recent users of oral contraceptives. However, ten years after cessation of use, the risk appears to be similar to that in never-users. The risk of cervical cancer increases with duration of use of combined oral contraceptives. The risk of hepatocellular carcinoma is increased in long-term users of combined oral contraceptives in populations with low prevalences of hepatitis B infection and chronic liver disease – two major causes of human liver cancer.


… but decreases risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer
In contrast, the risks of endometrial and ovarian cancer are consistently decreased in women who used combined oral contraceptives. The reduction is generally greater with longer duration of use, and some reduction persists at least 15 years after cessation of use.

More work needed to assess risks and benefits
Because use of combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives increases some cancer risks and decreases risk of some other forms of cancer , it is possible that the overall net public health outcome may be beneficial, but a rigorous analysis is required to demonstrate this. This should be done on a country-by-country basis and also consider the effects on non-malignant

In other words, oral contraceptives do contribute to breast and liver cancers. But they also help prevent ovarian and endometrial cancers. Funny, I didn't see this last fact mentioned in LifeSite News' coverage. A bit of a convenient lapse.

This is now the second time that LifeSite News has spun a story. LifeSite, however, claims the following:

LifeSite is a web portal dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. It was launched in September 1997. LifeSite news and information is widely used by other services and by leaders and grassroots people across North America and internationally.

Main components

1. LifeSiteNews.com - Widely circulated daily news reports on important developments in Canada, the United States and around the world, with a special focus on United Nations matters. Its purpose is to provide balance and more accurate coverage on culture, life and family matters than is usually given by other media.

LifeSite News has failed to live up to its own standard. Unfortunately, their biased interpretation of IARC's press release will play right into the hands of the Reasonable pro-abort moral relativists. They will use this story to sow doubt among the sensible middle in both Canada and the US. LifeSite does a tremendous disservice to their cause by slanting the news coverage this way. It's ironic and hypocritical that they engage in the same practice they condemn in the MSM. If they continue to do so, they'll become about as credible as MSM is.

Fools can't witness to the Truth by spinning or distorting the record. It may seem like a small price to pay in order to promote the big picture, but any price that compromises one's integrity is too high. We can't do evil that good might come of it. If we want to avoid being Reasonable, then we can't employ Reasonable tactics. I'm disappointed that LifeSite News fails to understand this. I had counted on their reporting in the past. I'm no longer certain I can depend on them in the future.