Those following daily are beginning to get confortable with the jargon (I hope). For ease of newcomers following along , please consult the glossary of terms that I’ve written to make the terminology very understandable. Also, consult the post that explains the essential background.
Aristotle taught that a thing cannot be, and not be at the same time. Either it exists or it does not, but both cannot be simultaneous phenomena. It’s common sense. However, as Voltaire also reminds us, common sense is the least common of all the senses.
This is true especially as regards all things pertaining to abortion.
Today is the first day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and our continuing analysis of the literature now brings us to the woman who has done violence to the truth, to scientific integrity, to the ability of women to receive fully informed consent prior to commencing with an abortion. We turn our attention to Dr. Louise Brinton, Head of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, Maryland.
Dr. Brinton chaired a panel of ‘experts’ in 2003 at NCI whose stated purpose was to evaluate the professional literature purporting a link between abortion and breast cancer. They evaluated the retrospective studies which are the self-report studies accused of being contaminated by recall bias. They also evaluated the prospective studies which are far larger and do not rely on self-reports, but as we shall see throughout the month of October, there was a great deal of inappropriate conduct at this three day panel, so much in fact as to be profoundly disturbing, and Dr. Brinton is at the center of the storm.
For now, here is the “Fact Sheet” produced at the workshop.
Two bits of hypocrisy, lies actually.
First, note this statement from the “Fact Sheet”:
“Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies.”
Well now. The same Dr. Brinton made this statement about one of her 1990’s papers to be reviewed by us next week, which contained a number of subjects that was in line with many of the other retrospective studies we’ve reviewed thus far:
“We undertook this study to evaluate the contribution of known and suspected breast cancer risk factors to triple-negative breast cancer in a large population-based study.”
So, as we shall see, when Louise and the gang are writing in epidemiology journals, their studies are large, well-constructed, and statistically sound. When they report on the data to the general public, suddenly the studies are too small, statistically insignificant, and riddled with recall bias.
Because they stacked the panel, as we shall see, with radical feminist researchers who are ardently pro-abortion, researchers such as Dr. Leslie Bernstein who after the panel concluded its three day session betrayed her ideologically driven approach to the task just completed:
“There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.”
“I don’t want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument.”
I don’t want? “I” Don’t want???
That isn’t the way scientists and physicians are trained to speak. “I” am not the issue. The data do the talking in science. The data determine what we report to the public. The data determine public health policy, not some self-appointed reproductive dictator.
Read it all and listen to MP3’s of Bernstein here at Cancerpage.com
So despite the eye-popping smattering of studies reviewed thus far on this blog, and their obvious relation to and reinforcement of one another, Bernstein gives us a peek behind the veil. SHE doesn’t want women being told the greatest truths in the literature:
The earlier a woman has children, the lower her risk of BC.
Her risk decreases 7% for every child she has.
Her risk decreases 4.3% for every 12 months that she breastfeeds.
Her risk of BC increases 50% with induced abortion prior to FFTP.
Her risk of BC increases 30% with induced abortion after FFTP.
This is a level of imperiousness, condescension, and arrogance that is staggering.
This October, please consider $upporting the following who desperately need our $upport to get the truth out*:
*I have no institutional affiliation or membership with either group. Karen Malec and BCPI have been great resources for me, utterly generous with their time and resources.