Camouflaged merchandise - 1

A badly approached debate

Chemical contraception is widely spread in France (71% of women from 20 to 44 years old use a "contraceptive" method, 40% use the pill (1), 16% use the IUD), and so far there has not been any important protest movement. The only audible opposition comes from the Roman Catholic Church (2), and only from a minimal section of this Church mainly based on theological principles: the "Be fruitful and multiply" from the Genesis and the Onan affair : rejecting procreation, even if it is not through abortion, is considered a sin (3). Recently, pharmacists of Bordeaux region - also Rescuers - have been sued for not allowing the sale of "contraceptive" hormones and the Appeal Court has rejected their case; the Figaro affirms that their behavior was due to their religious thoughts and did not mention their former arguments: the abortive effects of the so-called contraceptives.

The religious argument is the excuse used by the eugenicists´ lobbies and their allies to bury every debate about the question. But we perfectly know that these opponents are basically dishonest.

In fact, the main argument against chemical contraception is that it deals in fact with abortifacient manipulation, which should place the debate on a more serious level since it does not only involve refusing fertility but more precisely murders. We "forgot" to talk about "material elements".

The second argument involves women´s health, seriously endangered by the strong doses of synthetic hormones.

Everybody thinks they know this

For Mr. and Mrs. Everybody, chemical contraception prevents ovulation from taking place, which at the same time prevents fertilization: no human being is then conceived, therefore there is no abortion; on the contrary, the number of abortions could be lowered thanks to the pill. For them, the secondary effects and mortality induced by the "pill" are minimal, negligible and besides, the media keep on repeating it. Chemical contraception is then seen as a minor evil, adapted to the modern world.

These are just simplistic beliefs that are spread just by repeating them; they are just slogans repeated since school time.

The truth:

a) the abortifacient effects

In fact, chemical contraception has always had an abortifacient effect, most of the time hidden. Lets study the technical detail to understand: nowadays there are many categories of chemical contraception :

combined pills or oestroprogestogens : they are compounded by two synthesis hormones: oestrogens and progestogens. The doses have remarkably decreased if we compare them with the first pills in the sixties. we have changed from 150 mg to 20-35 mg of oestrogens, so as to lower the secondary effects that these synthetic hormones always cause. The ovulation rate that was already of 1 to 10%, and consequently the abortifacient effect, have also increased.

the "mini-pills" or only progestogen pills (represent about 10% of pill consumption). They usually contain only one category of hormones, "progestogen", in lower doses and sometimes these vary according to the cycle stage. They must be taken at a fixed time, often throughout the whole cycle. In 30 to 60% of cases these pills do not prevent ovulation.

the implants (Norplant) or the injections (Depo-Provera) release progestogens permanently into the body during several months and cause important secondary effects (blindness, bleedings, obesity, acne, skin discoloration, blood clots, scars)(4).

"the day after" pills, which nowadays we disguise as "urgent contraception" are in fact an abortifacient kit of massive doses of hormones and their aim is to prevent the implantation of the child in the uterus. The "effectiveness" rate is of about 75%. According to the Market Sales Release Authorization, "the therapeutical action is not totally clear. This medicine could retard or inhibit ovulation. Moreover, it could induce modifications to the endometrium and then make it unfit for the implantation of the fertilized ovum. Once the egg is implanted, not even high doses of hormones can prevent the continuation of pregnancy."
The secondary effects on women can be disastrous. However, the Sales Authorization has been issued
(5) for a kit called Tétragynon in Europe and Preven in the United States, manufactured by the -- still -- German Schering.

A great propaganda campaign started in 1997 in the United States to promote this method (6), which was less expensive than everyday pills, at least in the Third-World. Baulieu kicked off this campaign in France (7), the French socialist government is about to make its own contribution by launching a great campaign on the same subject. The WHO also spreads the propaganda for this type of abortifacient method by recommending the use of progestogen only, rather than oestroprogestogen.(8).

The RU486 also fits into the "day after"pill category : it is described as such by its promoters abroad.

the copper IUDs, with or without hormonal additive, are placed in the uterus and there they cause an irritation of the uterine mucosa (the endometrium) aimed at making it unfit to host a conceived child. The IUDs do not prevent ovulation and are then mainly abortifacient (blastocides, they say). However, they are officially classified as "contraceptive objects", and their manufacturers try to hold the confusion concerning their therapeutic action by speaking about the mobility of spermatozoids, ovulation, the cervical mucus, which is dishonest.

the anti-pregnancy "vaccination" or anti-hCG, which is still being tested in the Third-World, tries to immunize the mother´s body against the hormone hcg necessary to host the conceived child. They aim at making the uterus completely unfit to host, it is a purely abortifacient method.

None of the therapeutic actions of these products is 100% reliable (9). They vary according to people, the food they eat and the illnesses and treatments they undergo (10). Consequently, a woman using one of the methods described here, even if it is not 100% abortifacient, will never know if she is aborting or not.



of oestrogens

Dose of


rate per cycle


combined pill

strong dosage

> 50µg

0.5 to 2 mg


2 to

Pregnancy rate: 3 to 6% per year.
The first pill (Envoid) had oestrogens in doses of 100µg.

average dosage

20 to 50 µg

1 to 2.5 mg


up to

light dosage

20 to 35 µg

0.5 to 1.5 mg


sequential pill


0.5 to 10 mg


30 to

The ovulation rate increases throughout the intake period

continuous micro-
sequential pill


0.03 to 0.6 mg


The French agency for drug administration says that "the ovulation is supposed to be respected" in these products.



150 mg/
3 months


40 to

Pregnancy rate ~ 5% per year. Pregnancy rate increases with time. It is the method preferred by eugenicists for disabled and women of the Third-World: the easiest is to give an injection on the pretext of curing!



6 subcutaneous implants/ 5 years

50 to

These implants are specially spread in the Third World by the USAID. Not used in France.

the day after


2 x 100 µg

2 x 500 µg


according to
the intake date
in the cycle

Mainly abortifacient.

by the WHO


2 x 750 µg








Purely abortifacient.

Details in the table: Action mode:

OV: anti-ovulation effect; ovulation is inhibited but not in 100% of cases. Moreover, this effect decreases with time and varies according to other factors.

GL: the cervical mucus is thickened and then it slows down or prevents the spermatozoids from passing. The effectiveness of this contraceptive barrier is weak: an experiment on female rabbits concluded that 72% of spermatozoids pass in spite of the effect caused by the synthetic progestogens intake.(11).

END: normally the endometrium vascularity grows so as to be able to host the child by providing him/her oxygen and glucose. The hormonal "contraceptives" prevent a normal development of the endometrium throughout the cycle and so make it unfit to host an eventually conceived child. This effect is abortifacient.

TR: certain hormones used in the "contraceptives" interfere with the passage of the conceived child to the endometrium and they interfere with the flexing and the movements of the cilia inside the fallopian tube : certain products accelerate and others slow down the child´s movement, who is then likely to arrive too early or too late to the uterus. As a result, he will find that the endometrium is not ready or is already deteriorated. Therefore this effect is abortifacient.

b) the secondary effects

The secondary effects of these hormonal products are generally important (12) : a synthetic hormone - thus hardly metabolized by the body - interferes with the hormonal balance (13). It has been proved that some of the cancers (neck of the womb, breast cancer) are stimulated or caused by the so called contraceptive pills and that these cause serious cardiovascular disorders. A recent study on 46000 women during the period 1968-1993 (14) proved a greater mortality due to cardiovascular diseases or cancer among the pill consumers. These secondary effects are generally minimized by the media, the manufacturers and the eugenic ideologists: we speak about percentages of risks and not about accurate figures of annual decease. However, among the eugenicists, there are groups of ecologists (WWF) to denounce the industrial use of oestrogen disrupters (products that interfere with the oestrogens metabolism by imitating, blocking or canceling them or the production of natural hormones ), like the nonyl-phenol, the octyl-phenol, the PCB (poly-chlorinated biphenyls) the DDT, used in certain plastics, paintings, pesticides, etc... In fact, we have observed a feminization (under-development of male sexual organs and generation of feminine hormones) in some male animals (fish, alligators, turtles) after pollution, even old ones, caused by some of these products. These oestrogen products generally concentrate in fat and they remain in it. These ecologists attribute even a decrease in human male fertility - which they say they have noticed - to the same reasons (15). However, the dosages found in the polluted natural environments are infinitesimal [30mg of nonylphenol per liter of water, one thousand times are enough with the octylphenol and the fish do not drink all the water] compared with the dosages imposed to a woman who takes the pill.

Ecologists and the media put special emphasis on industrial pollution, while neck of the womb cancers increased by 50% throughout the period when the hormonal "contraception" was introduced in Western countries: in the Eastern countries and in Japan, where it has not been introduced, their cancer rates are much lower than in ours although industrial pollution is much worse!

But there are two weights and two measures, according to the political goal followed : the pill makes part of the foundations of the "advanced liberal society" started by the social traitor Giscard D´Estaing. Therefore, it is also taboo, even if it kills and sickens human beings; animals are in our society, more important than humans and so deserve that we regulate a bit more the chemical industry!

c) the pedophobic mentality

Chemical contraception, due to its relatively easy use, has permitted the soon trivialization of a hedonistic mentality, that considers the child, above all, as a nuisance. This contraceptive mentality promotes abortion, according to what we can observe in the field. They sell to the young the idea of sexuality as an object of consumption, with the corresponding chemical paraphernalia, which allows them to have an "open sexual life", clearly speaking "irresponsible promiscuity". The result is a considerable increase of teenage pregnancy, an excuse for the increase of "contraceptive" pressure and the cause of a great number of a surgical abortions, considered as the spare wheel of a failing contraception. Even the French Demographic Studies Institute (INED), a State organization, recognizes now that contraception does not prevent abortion, but multiplies it. (16).

Our responsibility

A woman who uses the hormonal "contraception", even if it is not highly abortifacient, she never knows if she is aborting or not, it is like playing the Russian roulette (on child´s temple). Actually, many chemical abortions are caused by this means. We are before a problem similar to the polluted blood: we take a risk with somebody else´s life to get personal profit; refusing to know or not asking at all does not relieve us of responsibility; refusing to take knowledge into account states the guilt, at least that is the case of promoters and manufacturers (17).

As there are no statistics about the number of abortions provoked by this means, we could calculate a range of 400,000 to 2 millions per year in France.

This message must be urgently spread and as a start, those who do not want abortion should stop using these camouflaged abortifacient means.


(second part)


1. For a total of 4,320,00 (Le Figaro, Jan.8, 1999).

2. The beginning of the protestant churches downfall started in 1930 when the Lambeth Conference of anglican bishops accepted the use of artificial means of contraception in exceptional situations. It was the work of an active minority, one of whom was the Very Reverend William R. Inge, influential member of the English Eugenics Society, spokesperson of the anglican church in London, and and admirer of Margaret Sanger since 1920, whose book "Woman and the New Race" he had read. Soon followed most of the denominations known as "liberal" encouraged by Margaret Sanger's dollars and lobbyists. Thus we can find in the fifties the methodist churches, which distributed IUDs and the French reformed church that since 1974 has supported the law of abortion! The French reformed church had modestly started in the fifties to accept "contraception" in "extreme cases".

3. From this perspective, it will be its own condemnation and voluntary restraint : the one who has no descendants does not convey his mores to his children.

4. The Norplant has been tested in the Third-World countries since 1972 (Haiti, Brazil, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Chile, Dominican Republic). The BBC produced and broadcast in 1995 a documentary film, which shows the non professional and illegal way in which clinical tests were carried out in Bangladesh. There women testified that they had serious secondary effects and declared they had never been warned about the experimental nature of Norplant nor about the possible risks. Moreover, they were not allowed to have the product removed. The Population Council is the owner of the product´s license, which was developed by Sheldon Segal of the Rockefeller Foundation. The Norplant was approved in the United States just at the end of 1990 and is manufactured by Wyeth-Ayerst. We estimate that 2.5 million women have got a Norplant implanted. So far today there are about 50,000 judicial proceedings against this manufacturer in the United States due to its secondary effects. The Norplant is recommended by these promoters to women "of developing countries" or affected by "puerility" or "mental despise".

5. Our bizarre doctor aux pieds nus / health minister Kouchner wishes that this drug was administered without prescription (Le Monde du 22-23 nov. 1998). This reminds us the way in which the Chinese government risks the lives of Chinese women by making them abort with the RU486 although the infrastructure needed to use this dangerous product is inexistent.

6. First a test campaign was launched in 5 American villages, with TV , radio, newspapers spots, etc., all under the aegis of the Population Research Department at Princeton University, whose principal James Trussel supports the militant group "Reproductive Health Technology Project" (cf. This campaign ended in 1998 with the FDA approval in the United States and later introduction in the official market of Preven, here known as Tétragynon, an abortifacient pill called "the day after" pill manufactured by the German Schering A.G. Some months later, Tétragynon obtained the Market Sales Release Authorization in France.

7. See Le Quotidien du Médecin issued on 10/30/1998, "Contraception in 1998: you should not believe at all that everything is perfect" ("La contraception en 1998: surtout ne pas croire que tout est parfait") where Baulieu promotes the chemical abortion again under the name of "urgent contraception" or "delayed contraception". He was accompanied in these approaches by Elisabeth Aubény, an executive in Broussais, who had just created an association for the promotion of "urgent contraception" (ADCU). We could also notice the little importance given to this abortifacient system by certain associations which are supposed to fight against abortion: thus Pregnancy Help (Grossesse Secours), granted by the city of Paris, has recommended for years the use of the Yuzpé method on its Minitel (3615 SOSG)!

8. The WHO press release issued on 8/7/1998 quoted a publication in the Lancet issued on 8/8/98 on the results of a study financed by the UNDP, the UNFPA, the WHO and the World Bank ; this study carried on 1998 women attempts to prove that "the day after pills" made only of progestogen are more efficient than those made of oestroprogestogen (the so called Yuzpé´s method). In this press release the WHO betrays itself: it affirms that 80,000 women die every year as a consequence of "nonmedical" abortions; for many years, the figure declared by the WHO was 200,000!

9. The rate of pregnancies that occur in spite of the pill intake is of 3% per year with the combined pills : spermatozoids pass well, ovulation and later fertilization occur successfully and in spite of the endometrium´s deterioration, the child is successfully hosted in those cases!

10. Without going into technical details specific of each kind of product, here is a list of the treatments that interfere with the contraceptive effects of these products : barbiturates, antituberculosis drugs, antiepileptic, certain antimycotics and antibiotics, tranquillizers, sedatives, analgesics, antihistaminic, neuroleptics, antimigraine, cytostatics, hypolipemiant, myorelaxant, laxatives. Additionally, specific diseases also decrease their effects: diarrhea, vomits. The secondary effects and the interactions with other drugs are widely documented in the Internet ( etc...).

11. Chang MC, Hunt DM. Effects of various progestins and estrogen on the gamete transport and fertilization in the rabbit. Fertlity and sterility. 1970; 21: 683-686

12. A recent work (A consumer guide to the pill and other drugs, John Wilks, B.Pharm. M.P.S., Sept.97, ed. ALLInc., USA) takes stock of the research in this field, which fully proves the toxicity of the different hormonal "contraceptions". The media and the eugenic side have always tried to hide and minimize these consequences, while the scientific research is serious and overwhelming! Wilks notices the complicity of the Public Health administrators in deliberately misinforming women about the risks of their health.

13. which is not the case of natural hormones generally edible (in the leguminous plants, etc...) because they are digested and "degraded "

14. Le Figaro issued on 1/8/1999 : "the mortality rate as a result of stroke, accident or suicide has clearly increased with this contraception. (...) with the use of the pill we have noted an increase of liver cancer (126 among the pill consumers against 34 among the others), lung cancer (107 in the first group, 71 in the other one) and cancer of the neck of the womb (115 in the first group and 57 in the other one) (...) the lung cancer risk is multiplied by two and the neck one by four in women who have taken the pill for more than ten years." Le Figaro hastens to add that these results are not significant; will those of the WHO be more important since they were carried on 1998 women and not on 46,000? Media headlines are significantly partial: le Figaro entitles " the minimal risks of the pill" , le Nouvel Observateur " The pill: no long-term risk" (1/14/1999), la Croix " Ten years after giving up the pill, its harmful effects disappear" (1/9-10/1999).

15. if eugenicists had dreamed about this, the industry would have done it : in 1969, in Dacca, when the International Planned Parenthood Conference took place, Paul Ehrlich (of the Zero Population Growth) recommended the Federal American Government to release some funds to grant the development of massive sterilizing products which would be poured in the running water distribution systems. Accidents due to "oestrogen disrupters" do not seem to be intentional but we wonder which could be the origin of the oestrogen found in the rivers in England: could it be the remains of "contraceptive" pills thrown in the drains? We have not yet identified in these effluents its principal molecule (the ethanol-estradiol).

16. Léridon of the French Demographic Studies Institute (INED), quoted by l'Express in its issue of 10/8/1998 : "Unplanned children are less accepted now than in the past ".

17. manufacturers among which Roussel-Uclaf, which name is now Hoechst-Marion-Roussel (or Aventis), appears as the largest provider of ethinyl-estradiol, an oestrogen component of most of the oestroprogestogen pills. There was a logic in the promotion of the RU486.

(second part)