FROM MY EMAIL TODAY:
Dear Friends:
We need your help, so please be sure to read our Action Items at the end of this message!
We are excited about our new YouTube video reporting on the study, Dolle et al. 2009, in which U.S. National Cancer Institute scientist Louise Brinton and Dr. Janet Daling of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center appear as co-authors.
Dolle’s team reported significant risk increases for women with abortions and users of oral contraceptives nine months ago, but the National Cancer Institute and cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to issue nationwide warnings to women.
The spin from RHReality.org, the marketing arm for the tobacco industry – I mean, the abortion industry – last week was this. There is “nothing new” about the Dolle team’s findings concerning abortion. Dolle’s team had to include abortion among what researchers listed in their paper as “known and suspected risk factors,” not because abortion really is a risk factor for breast cancer, but only because abortion had been included in the 1990s studies (if you can believe that!).
The trouble is that Brinton and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop in 2003 alleged that all earlier retrospective studies (using on women’s self-reports of abortion histories) were not reliable. In other words, the Dolle team in 2009 relied on data from two 1990s studies that one of its authors, Dr. Brinton, and the NCI had previously claimed were unreliable!
Dolle and her colleagues examined 897 specimens of cancerous breast tissue saved from women who participated in Daling’s and Brinton’s research in 1994 and 1996. They used new technology to test these specimens for triple-negative breast cancer, which was first described in medical journals in 2007.
Dolle’s team tested the specimens for triple-negative breast cancer and matched them with reproductive history. They found a statistically significant 40% risk increase among study subjects with abortion histories for all types of breast cancer, regardless of it being tripe-negative or not.
The YouTube video (produced by Ken Houldsworth and featuring Karly Houldsworth as narrator) is available here:
ACTION ITEMS:
Send Video to Family, Friends
Help us to make the YouTube video go viral on the internet. Send it to your family and friends.
Send Video to Legislators in Congress
Send the video to your representative in the U.S. House and your U.S. senators. Ask them to investigate the National Cancer Institute’s failure to fulfill its role in the prevention of breast cancer through timely warnings. Tell your representatives that government funding of abortion will cause more women to die of breast cancer.
Send Video to Journalists
Send the video to journalists in your area and ask them to investigate “CancerGate,” the National Cancer Institute’s cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer link. Mainstream journalists were overjoyed to report on the few studies showing no link between abortion and breast cancer (although these have since been proven in medical journals to be fraudulent). Ask them to put women’s health first above their pro-abortion ideology.
Finally, doctors from India are making doctors from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association look backwards because the latter deny an abortion-breast cancer link, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Here is a link to a news page from the Pune Mirror in India whose physician, Dr. M.C. Watsa, in his “Ask the Sexpert” column, wrote to an 18-year-old woman that:
“A breast lump can occur after an abortion. You are right to be concerned. See a gynecologist for a detailed examination.”
Click on this link to the Pune Mirror:
http://www.punemirror.in/index.aspx?page=article§id=30&contentid=201001112010011122571944450fed873§xslt=
Your help is needed in this critical work of educating the public about the abortion-breast cancer link. Thank you in advance for your care and concern.
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
That quote from Dr Watsa is the best they can offer? All he says is a lump can occur after abortion. He says nothing about cancer. He wisely advises to have it checked out, as any doctor would advise a woman who has found a lump.
I hope he sees this and comments. Did you know he’s the President of the Family Planning Association in India?
Forwarding this information. It’s an issue that people should be able to evaluate for themselves and act upon as they see fit.
Okay, I’m going to rescue this thread early and advise all to consider all that I have posted and all the rest of the detail discussed in the video.
This is NOT junior HS, Asitis. That’s NOT all that was offered. So we are NOT going down that road. I’ll delete all comments offered in an attempt to deny the work that I have done in presenting a great deal of data.
Fair warning!!! This will not be another hijacked thread!!!
Hi Dr. G
I don’t like this video as much as another one where the same young woman is standing in a field and talks about breast cancer being a “grandmother’s” disease. Although there are no studies quoted in the video, I prefer the style used.
In this video:
The background noise of dogs barking is creepy and distracting.
Too many facts presented too quickly.
Too many shots made it seem disjointed.
It was hard to focus on what she was saying.
I also don’t like the way the studies are presented – it’s alot of information in a very very short video.
I have a friend whose mother had 9 children and got breast cancer a year after she started taking HRT in her 40′s. She stopped the hormones, was treated and cured of her cancer. She remains convinced to this day that her cancer was from HRT.
I know of so many many women in their 40′s who have breast cancer or have had it. All of these women were OC users.
Abortions PREVENT cancer
Here’s a study which reports:
“There was a significant reduction in risk of uterine corpus cancer in women who had ever had an induced abortion, and a significant decreasing trend in risk with increasing number of induced abortions.”
Reference: Cancer Causes Control. 2006 Dec;17(10):1275-80.
AICH-TEE-TEE-PEA://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17111259&ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Btw Gerard, I stand by my comment. It was not sophmoric. It was on point… their point.
Furthermore it’s important to point out that this group seems to have a practice of fabricating claims of support it doesn’t thave.I checked out the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer website. Here ‘s what it claims on the intro page: “As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman’s risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child….. An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a “highly plausible” relationship between abortion and breast cancer.”
Well when you look into this claim, you see that these (including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) are not medical associations, but rather conservative and pro-life organizations.
Misleading.
I doubt you will print this comment. But it’s a legitimate one to make, even if it doesn’t support your purpose.
I’m familiar with these organizations, and they are pro-life medical organizations. Their members went to accredited colleges, graduate and medical schools. They hold state licenses and national certifications. Being as fully educated as their pro-death counterparts in some of the mainstream medical organizations, they choose to back a body of valid data with their valid credentials (Like me doing this blog).
That in no way can be construed in a negative light.
Karen Malec runs a tight ship at ABC and enjoys my great esteem for her work in disseminating the truth that Brinton and Malone have conspired to deny to women.
AGAIN, Brinton and Malone ADMIT in their paper that abortion and OC are KNOWN risk factors for BC.
Don’t write to the contrary or I’ll delete the comment, as I quoted them verbatim.
They published the fact that abortion raises BC risk by 40%. It’s in the paper.
Brinton and Malone are on record as stating that this paper offers NO NEW DATA.
That statement supports their reporting in the paper that abortion and OC are KNOWN risk factors for BC.
This means that the NCI statement written in 2003 and reaffirmed by them last week on 1/12/10 is an outrageous denial of the truth. They are liars and pro-abortion hacks who speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Yes, in such a climate when these pathetic liars write official policy positions contradicted by their own papers and those of 29 other teams, honest researchers are forced to found their own organizations. These are legitimate societies, founded by licensed professionals dedicated to the dissemination of the truth.
Hurts doesn’t it?
Oh and btw, if Malec runs such a tight ship maybe she should know that the study she highlights as showing abortion is the best predictor for breast cancer was a scientifically invalid bit of work done by a statistician who is ( yet another!) one man research institute, funded by pro-life.
Or perhaps she already knows this. And perhaps she knows it makes no difference to prolifers.
But it does make a difference to others. Which is the real reason we’re not listening.
Asitis,
Sorry to be deleting your comments, but I’m not going to see you impugn the names of good people, like Malec, who are intellectually honest.
You have not, nor will you likely read the Brinton/Malone paper. Even though I cut and pasted their words from the paper in whole paragraph, you say that you do not believe that they said those things.
Therefore, you call me a liar.
So please do us all a favor and move along. Troll some other site. You are no longer welcome here, as you add nothing substantive and have degenerated into impugning the character and honor of good people who measure their words ten times before publishing them, for fear of the least inaccuracy being seized upon to discredit them. Theirs is data and reporting that is far more reliable than the work of hacks such as Brinton and Malone.
And I back that assessment of these good people with my own Ph.D.
Gerard, truth is you and others here do far more character attacking than I do.
And truth is, you simply don’t like me pointing out certain things.
Hurts doesn’t it?
It is at least plausible that there may be a genuine link between abortion and statistical incidence of breast cancer. Further research may even identify a specific physical connection, a cause and effect. However, I find this debate rather sterile. IF there is a link, it would be one factor every woman should be fully informed of, just like the side effects of certain drugs, the percentage of mortality from certain surgeries, etc. On the other hand, if this body of research were proven to be entirely false, then those who style themselves “pro-life” would be not one whit less condemnatory of abortion. It would still be condemned by all of this persuasion, and sincerely condemned, as murder. As a matter of fact, further research into precise cause and effect might produce therapies which would reduce or eliminate the risk! That wouldn’t change the moral equation either.
So why do we even need to debate this topic? Its not definitive for anyone of any persuasion. It may score a few brownie points one way or the other, but could we agree that in dealing with women’s health, brownie points are not the proper focus?
I don’t need to in any way impugn the credentials or skill, or even the honesty of any of those cited, to note that they come to their research, and present their research, with a definite bias. A bias is not the same as a prejudice, but it is a relevant factor to consider. If this research is valid, I expect that many others who have different biases will recognize the truth of the matter. Some, with outright prejudice, might continue to deny it. But that won’t be very significant if the results continue to be consistent. After all, there are still a few people who belong to the Flat Earth Society, and a few Protestants who continue to believe in a geocentric solar system (the Roman Church having apologized to Galileo sometime in the 1980s). But none of that has stopped the space program.
well, the biology of how abortion causes cancer IS plausible.
I can say, in a general way, and without getting into details, that pregnancy definitely changed my body.
For. the. Better.
problems I had before I had children vanished after a few pregnancies
SJ: the problem is that women are NOT told about ANY pf the consequences of abortion
virtually EVERY physical and emotion effect of abortion is blown off….
Not only that, but the actual abortion procedure is minimalized.
Many many women have stated that the abortion procedure was NOTHING like what they were told – it was excruciatingly painful
And yes, prolifers will always be FOR LIFE. Abortion stops a beating heart.
Sure it’s plausible SJ, I agree.And if research shows there is a risk, women should be informed just as happens with all medical procedures and treatments.
Why do prolifers bother since it has nothing to do with their position on abortion? Well, just like so- called Post Abortion Syndrome, they hope these allegations will bring people to prolife who otherwise wouldn’t.
you might find this link interesting:
NCI denies abortion breast cancer link to Globe and Mail reporter in Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/was-maurice-vellacott-right-about-abortion/article1424760/
Mary Catherine, you are speaking in passive voice of information being blown off, suppressed, denied. It is quite possible that, e.g., Planned Parenthood takes short cuts which deny women relevant information, while Dr. Samuel Smith very thoroughly informs his gynecology patients of the known risks and potential risks still under study, with the result that some women decide not to undergo abortion, while others make an informed decision to do so.
I believe that many woman, including yourself, since you know you best, have better health as a result of having children. It is equally true that some women suffer declining health from childbearing. There is no standard rule in such matters. Human bodies and biology are very complex, and each person is unique. I do remember the daughter of someone I used to work with who was quite overweight before pregnancy, and afterwards it seemed that the baby and the placenta and the energy used in pregnancy and delivery used up all the excess, leaving her about 40 pounds smaller when it was all over.
SJ: most women LOSE weight after pregnancy
That is normal.
ya think PP might not tell women exactly what’s up with abortion? Ya think?
I’d be hard pressed to call them “short cuts”. In any other branch of medicine, we sue doctors for taking “short cuts”.
I don’t think they could be sued for not warning patients about things that aren’t proven , like PAS and breaSt cancer. If that’s what you mean.
Asitiss,
Actually Planned Parenthood has beens sued a few times for not warning woman about the possible link. These woman won there cases.
go to http://www.abortiobreastcancer.com to read other interesting tidbits.
Jovie,
Asitis has been banned from this site, but manages to slip through the filter. I have taken down her post to which you have responded
She has been banned because she comes on the threads and insists on putting her words in people’s mouths and repeatedly states that science has not offered evidence or proof after I have spent great time researching and presenting the clear and compelling evidence.
People are free to debate here, but not to deny the scientific data themselves.
That sort of sophistry passes for enlightened discourse in other quarters, but not with me.
God Bless
Mary Catherine, just so we are clear, this woman was overweight BEFORE pregnancy, and it seemed that rather than GAINING weight during pregnancy, the excess weight she already had merely went into the pregnancy, and was gone immediately after. A slight variation on gaining weight while pregnant, then losing that new weight after delivery.
Gerard, while Jovie addressed herself to asitis, her comment is as relevant to what I’ve said and what Mary Catherine said. I might further say that if Planned Parenthood withheld relevant medical information, they should be sued. That’s malpractice. I do have the impression that they are in some places pushing abortions, for reasons of generating revenue, rather than offering options as a community service. There is a world of difference between the two, whatever our respective thoughts on what the law should allow.
I’m having a hard time telling what your critique of asitis amounted to, partly because her posts are no longer available. If someone denies the meticulously charted empirical evidence, or rational bordering on indisputable conclusions from that evidence, then of course no productive discussion can ensue. On the other hand, reasonable people may differ on the implications for social policy or individual choice of the bare scientific conclusions.
SJ,
My critique of Asitis is actually quite simple. I’ll juxtapose her with you.
You and I are of rather different minds on quite a bit. Though we differ, I really enjoy the thoughtfulness of your commentary and the respectful and engaging voice in your posts. You are a civilized man in the finest tradition of civil dissent.
Asitis takes a dissenting position as well. However, the dissent is all too often characterized by incivility and flagrant lies: constantly putting into my mouth words I did not say, though I repeatedly and strenuously stated as much.
Then, she denies the very existence of the scientific data I present here.
I simply have no time and no inclination to police my threads because of such mendacity. In recent weeks, I’ve found myself checking in just to make sure that I caught her lies and took them down. This is an extension of my living room, and so I showed her the door.
I welcome dissent. Pugnacity and dishonesty are entirely unrelated to dissent. Such people are a dark and brooding presence and bring everyone down.
Not here.
God Bless.
SJ
I have a friend who has a very large family. She is also overweight but she loses weight during pregnancy. She then gains weight during the nursing period and her babies don’t gain much weight from nursing.
To me this suggests a hormonal problem.
NFP can help identify such problems.
She never bothered to seek much help and most of us, her friends, just told her don’t complain. If this bothers you so much, get the help you need.
We even know a good Catholic, nonOC-prescribing gyn/ob.
Most doctors when presented with this problem will put the woman on the pill and likely tell her to stop breastfeeding, especially since her babies don’t do well breastfeeding.
However, these aren’t solutions. The problem still remains.
SJ: I think the problem here is that Asitis repeatedly makes statements that a logical, thoughtful person simply can’t take seriously.
Denying a zygote is alive is one such statement.
Anyone without any basic science instruction could come to this conclusion on their own.
Anyone with any basic science training should know this statement is beyond ridiculous.
The fact is: she does know it is ridiculous.
That’s why she makes it.
The purpose is to take away from the discussion, derail the thread from productive discourse and borders on silliness.
I think this is a situation of someone who probably has a bit too much time on their hands and needs something more meaningful to do in life.
Ahhhh, more dishonesty Mary Cat! You know very well that I never claimed a zygote wasn’t alive. You tried to have such a debate with me but I would not. That is not a premise of Dr Gilbert’s argument.
But then again, I don’t think honesty matters much to you, does it?
Hmmmm…. Exactly when did I say a zucote wasn’t alive Mary Cat? Please, please point that out to me? Was that right after you didn’t say your position on contraception was founded on your religious beliefs?
And speaking of contraception, maybe you would feel differently if you had my fertility. I know if I didn’t practice it, I’d have as many kids as Michelle Duggars. No thanks. That’s not for me. At all. But maybe you’d be okay with that.
And that pretty much sums it up for me.
Over and out.
I too noticed a certain reflexive pugnacity about some of the replies from asitis, although I sometimes agreed with her and sometimes found her comments thoughtful — and she sometimes recognized that I had made a point in a better way than she did. I understand the concern. There is of course no question that a zygote is alive. We’ve gone around the block several times on whether that fact is enough to define destruction of a zygote as the murder of a human being, so I won’t repeat it all now, but that is the real question.
Mary Catherine, I think you are basically correct about your friend. I can’t imagine why a doctor would put her on the pill at all, and the benefits of breast feeding are well documented. It sounds like her body is storing nutrients and energy rather than producing nutritious milk for her baby, which is what a doctor needs to explore. Why? Can this be fixed? Maybe medicine has no answer, but that would be the question to pursue.