Risk of breast cancer recurrence remains for years after endocrine treatment ends, study findsBMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5167 (Published 08 November 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;359:j5167
All rapid responses
It goes without saying that the question of aetiology in breast cancer is a major health issue. However the pitch has been seriously queered by conflicting data.1 The propensity for bias is enormous. There are many vested interests that want to insure the innocence of the pill and exogenous female hormones in general. These include the pharma industry who make money from it; those who support fertility control at any cost; those who support the myth of population explosion; those who consider reducing childbirths to be a positive contribution to climate change; people in general who have come to rely on the pill as a necessary part of modern living.
The odds are stacked against any data showing the pill greatly increases the incidence of breast cancer. Such data exists and I have cited relevant authors in the monograph mentioned in the competing interests statement. We all know that bias is a formidable obstacle to truth, especially a fragile unwanted truth.
Breen EG. The Screech Owls of Breast Cancer. Author House 2013.
Competing interests: Author of "Screech Owls of Breast Cancer."
Longer follow up always proves oral contraceptives beneficial.
Recent evidence from long term observations of hundreds of thousands of women, in 10 European Countries, clearly demonstrated that the use of oral contraceptives reduced mortality by roughly 10%. 
Newer oral contraceptives increase womens' overall survival.
In comparison, drastically reducing obesity by 5 BMI points would only reduce mortality by 5%, from 1.05 to 1. 
Your excellent prose cannot beat hard clinical evidence in this argument.
 doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0484-3.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Everyone knows that the contraceptive pill is the main cause of invasive breast cancer in young women. Everyone knows that in every country you look at the raw data show that increasing incidence of breast cancer is directly correlated to contraceptive pill usage and inversely correlated to number of children per woman. Falling birth rates correlate with rising breast cancer rates everywhere.
SIr William Richard Shaboe Doll CH OBE FRS is credited with uncovering the cigarette lung cancer connection. The cigarette wars were hard fought and are still being played out - but at least people know that cigarettes cause lung cancer thanks to Sir Richard. The pill wars haven't even started. A champion of the calibre of Sir Richard is needed to grasp the endocrine nettle. Job spec includes:
Average or possibly low IQ - even a child knows that taking oestrogen is likely to make an oestrogen dependent cancer worse
Will of titanium
Sense of humour
A place to hide
A Twitter account similar to Donald's
Proven track record of absolute abhorrence for statistics and epidemiology studies of breast cancer in medical journals
The ability to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so help him God
Guaranteed foreshortened stress filled life
Ostracization by all medical establishments
Possible death by Polonium 210 after a cup of afternoon tea
Awarding of several posthumous Nobel Prizes
The joy of contemplating the future eradication of anything Pink from the planet
A status similar or greater than that of Sir Richard with a legacy to women and society of incomparable worth
Every woman deceived by medical journal spin, pharma cover up and lack of courage by all those who knew and said nothing.
Competing interests: I wrote "The Screech Owls of Breast Cancer" for public consumption. It is an effort to show that the cigarette- lung cancer debacle is exactly the same type of situation as the pill- breast cancer tragedy.