Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Breast Cancer’ Category

Erikas-final-logo-perfect-square[1]

Below is a press release from the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. Karen Malec, its president, is one of the world’s leadiong authorities on the subject. In tight economic times, her coalition needs financial support more than ever. She has been exceedingly generous with her time and talents through the years. It’s rare that I ask for people to support a cause, and I have never asked for a penny for myself. However, Malec’s work and organization are foundational to pro-life bioethics. The data are beginning to pour in from around the world on this topic, and it’s vital that we keep Karen, the MAIN CONDUIT open. Please e as generous as your means allow.

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Press Release
Contact: Karen Malec, 847-421-4000
Date: July 1, 2013

Indian Study: Abortion Increases Breast Cancer Risk Six-Fold

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports on a study published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine (May, 2013) whose authors found a 6.38-fold greater risk of breast cancer among women with histories of induced abortion. [1] The study, led by Ramachandra Kamath, MD (Department of Public Health, Manipal University), found induced abortion was the most important risk factor.

“With only 94 cases and 94 controls, the study was way too small for a significant risk of the order of 1.5-fold to even show up,” explained Professor Joel Brind (Baruch College, City University of New York). “Yet induced abortion did show up as the strongest risk factor (and right on the border of statistical significance) because the risk increase was so high at 6.38-fold.”

The authors found a non-statistically significant 1.76-fold risk increase among women with first births after age 30. “Medical texts acknowledge delayed first full term pregnancy is a risk factor for breast cancer,” said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. “It’s indisputable that abortion contributes to delayed first full term pregnancies; and in some cases, women remain childless forever, which is also an accepted risk factor.”

Kamath’s group observed that India has the “largest estimated number of breast cancer deaths worldwide,” and breast cancer rates are on the rise there.

Brind said he found it “troubling that the abortion-breast cancer link is now showing up big time in the world’s most populous countries where breast cancer used to be rare. That means millions upon millions of women will die from this deadly after-effect of abortion. Consider that between India and China, we’re talking about over a billion women. If only 1% of them get breast cancer due to abortion, that’s still 10 million women, of whom at least 2 or 3 million will die from it!”

“Their deaths,” declared Malec, “can be laid at the doorstep of the U.S. National Cancer Institute whose leaders have covered up the ABC link for twenty years since the study, Daling et al. 1994, became available.” [2]

Kamath’s team noted that a 2006 Indian study, led by Manjusha Rai, had found a “significant association between abortion and breast cancer.” [3]

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women’s organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

References:

Kamath R, Mahajan KS, Ashok L, Sanai TS. A study on risk factors of breast cancer among patients attending the tertiary care hospital, in Udupi district. Indian J Community Med, 2013;38(2)95-99. Available at: .

Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-1592. Available at: . White E, Malone KE, Weiss NS, Daling JR. Breast cancer among young US women in relation to oral contraceptive use. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:505-514. Available at: .

Rai M, Pandey A, Singh M, Rai A & Shukia HS. “Assessment of epidemiological factors associated with breast cancer.” Indian J. Prev. Soc. Med. 2008;39:71-77. Available at: .

Read Full Post »

There has been confusion of late concerning the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listing for their Group 1 Carcinogens, including several forms of oral contraceptives and estrogen replacement therapy. The confusion has arisen because the original link by WHO has been changed. After some sleuthing, here is a treasure trove of information from WHO. Let’s take the links one at a time.

First are the IARC Group Classifications for agents and their degrees of carcinogenicity:

Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans (107 agents)

Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans (59 agents)

Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans (267 agents)

Group 3 Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (508 agents)

Group 4 Probably not carcinogenic to humans (1 agent)

The definitions of these groups may be found in the IARC Monograph Preamble on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Click here.

The page with links to the agents by various classification schemes may be found here.

The actual list of all agents, (IN Group number order) beginning with the following known (Group 1) carcinogens containing:

Estrogen therapy, postmenopausal
Estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy (combined)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives

may be found by clicking here.

The same estrogens may be found on the list that lists them in alphabetical order with Group number next to their name. Click here.

Going much, much deeper…

There is another link that shows the monographs on:

1. Exposure Data
2. Studies of Cancer in Humans
3. Studies of Cancer in Experimental Animals
4. Other Data Relevant to an Evaluation of Carcinogenicity and its Mechanisms
5. Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation
6. References

for each of the following:

Oral Contraceptives, combined
Hormonal Contraceptives, Progestogens Only
Post-Menopausal Estrogen Therapy
Post-Menopausal Estrogen-Progestogen Therapy

The link to this page (which contains all the links to the monographs) may be found here.

Hopefully, this helps. Contrary to rumor, WHO did not hide the data, but actually expanded it in new links. Remember that even small increases in risk when multiplied by hundreds of millions of women taking these drugs will produce large absolute new cases of breast cancer.

P.S. Here is a monograph on all of the known carcinogens: Click here.

Read Full Post »

Q: Ms. Brinker, can you explain why you’re ending your longstanding relationship with Planned Parenthood?

Brinker: I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate depiction of what has happened. The Komen Foundation has provided funding to Planned Parenthood for the purpose of providing breast screenings. Planned Parenthood performs palpations of the breast, manually feeling for lumps. While these palpations discover lumps and result in mammogram referrals, they do not detect tumors in their most nascent stages. While we’re confident that Planned Parenthood will continue to perform manual exams as a part of their overall physical examination of women, the Komen Foundation is moving in the direction of funding actual mammograms.

Q: But what of the assertion by Planned Parenthood’s supporters that this move on your part will hurt women who will not be seen by Planned Parenthood?

Brinker: We’re talking about $600,000 of Komen money used to help offset some of Planned Parenthood’s costs. Our money represents six-tenths of one-onethousanth of Planned Parenthood’s one billion dollar per year operations. You’re not suggesting that Planned Parenthood is so mercenary that they wouldn’t pick up those exams on a pro-bono basis, are you? Besides, since our announcement, Planned Parenthood has raised more than the $600,000 that we have redirected to mammograms. If an organization can raise close to one million dollars in less than a week, then they no longer need our assistance. That represents a win for women.

Q: Yes, but aren’t you capitulating to anti-choice staff members for whom this is a proxy war over abortion?

Brinker: Don’t be absurd. I began this foundation in order to fulfill a deathbed promise to my sister, Susan, who was taken from us by breast cancer. As the head of a foundation that has raised nearly two billion dollars, I have a moral and ethical obligation to see to it that every dollar goes to advancing the highest caliber science, detection, and therapeutics for breast cancer.

Q: But…

Brinker: Please let me finish. Mammography requires the very best equipment and the very best radiologists to accurately interpret the images. This is simply beyond Planned Parenthood’s expertise and mission. We made a prudential decision to fund mammograms for women. Given Planned Parenthood’s demonstrated capacity this week to raise more money in three days than we give them in one year, I fully expect that as we expand our funding of mammography, Planned Parenthood will expand their manual breast screening and referral program. I just don’t see where women lose in this scenario.

Q: Are you concerned that corporations are threatening to cease funding Komen over this decision?

Brinker: Of course I am. I’m also mystified. We’re trying to fund an increase in the number of women who have the earliest detection of their breast cancer with the best possible outcome and for this we face withdrawal of support? I think you need to ask those corporate sponsors why they prefer we fund pre-mammography science as opposed to state of the art radiography.

Q: Perhaps these corporations see a value in Planned Parenthood’s services that you don’t?

Well, I see that you have a wedding band on your left hand, sir. So let me ask you this… If you had a choice of only one option, would you prefer that your wife receive annual manual exams at Planned Parenthood until a lump large enough to be palpated is detected, or would you rather she receive mammograms at state of the art centers, interpreted by experienced radiologists who could detect tumors too small to be palpated; tumors in their earliest stages where the disease is contained and the prognosis most positive? Our mission at Komen is to fund the very latest in science and technology, and this is way beyond Planned Parenthood’s current capacity, or even anything they could do in the near future.

Q: Getting back to the assertion by the anti-choice activists who have led the charge on efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, there are some who note Komen’s timing and the fact that you have anti-choice staff members. How do you respond?

Brinker: Our decision was not political, but prudential. We’re funding mammograms. However, let me say this. Whether or not a person is pro-choice or anti-choice, there have been a disturbing series of undercover videos of Planned Parenthood staffers acting with less than professional decorum. There are also investigations underway where Planned Parenthood has been advised that their answers may lead to self-incrimination. Now, perhaps these investigations are indeed politically motivated. That doesn’t mean that there may not be merit to the allegations being made. Time, and the process, will tell. We have decided not to fund organizations under investigation. In the case of Planned Parenthood, as I have said, their demonstrated capacity to raise in three days more money than we funded in an entire year really makes this a moot issue. Last Question…

Q: Going forward, assuming that Planned Parenthood is cleared of all allegations, will you resume funding them?

Brinker: This is beginning to resemble the movie, “Groundhog Day.” No, we will not. Given the economy, and given the fact that only about 10% of NIH research grant applications are being funded, there is no shortage of researchers who are desperate for research money. We live in the greatest country in the world, with the best medicine and best researchers. We are Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and that’s where our focus will remain moving forward. We excel at sponsoring the best current technology, and developing the next generation of technology. That’s where we need to be. With their newfound money, we’re delighted that Planned Parenthood will have the means to continue their breast screening program, even expanding it, and look forward to their referring women to the local mammography centers whom we’ll be funding. This is a win-win for women, folks. Let’s keep them as the focus, the women. Together, we’ll one day end this scourge. Thank You.

Read Full Post »

In the ongoing discussion about Komen funding for Planned Parenthood, it is essential that people understand the central issue, which is Komen funding an organization whose activities actually contribute to the incidence of breast cancer. One commenter on yesterday’s post, Dave Bunnell, left a very succinct statement with a perfect analogy to capture the essence of this debate. I thought it deserved its own post. Thanks, Dave. You’ve nailed it!

Reblogged this on The Bunnell Blog and commented:
Planned Parenthood’s activities increase breast cancer rate more than anything else Komen Foundation does decreases it. For Komen to give into PP’s campaign of lies and pressure to give them money would be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving letting Budweiser shake them down for funds.

Read Full Post »

Of the many incongruities arising from last week’s savaging of the Susan G. Komen Foundation by Planned Parenthood and its minions, the greatest single seeming incongruity is the disproportionate attack on Komen in light of the paltry sum of money involved.

Planned Parenthood is a $1 Billion per year organization who stood to lose $600,000 in Komen grant money. Organizations routinely loose that much money, and more when grants are not renewed, and they are organizations for whom $600,000 is the difference between life and death for the organization.

For Planned Parenthood, the loss of Komen funding represented 6/10 of 1/1000 of their budget. So what’s going on here?

It wasn’t the money at issue, it’s what Komen’s support means for the organization. Planned Parenthood makes their money performing abortions, mostly on young people. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director, Abby Johnson, tells of how the corporate model at PP was built around abortions.

The charade of concern for women’s breast health is the only socially acceptable vestige left for the organization’s bruised and tatttered reputation. Planned Parenthood performed manual breast exams and referred women to mammogram centers. In some instances, it appears that they paid for the mammograms.

However, Planned Parenthood lied about performing mammograms, and Lila Rose caught them in that lie.

Subsequently, Komen decided that their money would be better spent on paying directly for mammograms, and that’s when all hell broke loose.

Planned Parenthood has an odd way of demonstrating its concern for women’s breast health. They target teenagers with low-dose birth control pills which will fail in their contraceptive effect if not taken precisely on schedule, setting up a lucrative abortion. What the oral contraceptives will not fail in doing is increasing the risk of the deadliest and most aggressive form of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer.

How much risk?

According to Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute in a 2009 paper, women whose age of first use is below 18 years old have a 540% increased risk. Is that statistic in any of Planned Parenthood’s literature?

The link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer has been known for decades, yet Planned Parenthood dispenses these dangerous drugs to children with reckless abandon.

PP are the lepers of the medical community. They have been caught:

Lying about performing mammograms.

Aiding in child sex trafficking.

Repeatedly showing willingness to violate mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape.

Violating informed consent by giving women medically inaccurate and fabricated information to coerce them into having an abortion.

Enthusiastically accepting money earmarked for aborting Black babies.

This is an organization that makes no distinction between a ten year-old and a twenty-four year-old regarding sex, contraception, and education. In their own words from page 10 of their booklet, Stand and Deliver:

The World Health Organization defines young people as those from 10 to 24 years of age, including adolescents (10–19 years) and youth (15–24 years). IPPF uses the terms young people, youth and adolescents interchangeably to refer to people who are between 10 and 24 years.

This is an organization that tells children in their booklet, Healthy, Happy, and Hot, that disclosure of their HIV status to a sex partner is not mandatory and just another ‘choice’:

You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.


There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of stigma and discrimination within their community. They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like they are using injecting drugs, having sex outside of a marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometimes fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.

Were all of that not enough, Planned Parenthood has outdone themselves in their latest document, Exclaim!, calling for the abolition of parental consent laws and calling for the sexual rights of ALL persons under the age of 18.

This is the face of a social parasite, of the destroyer of children, of the enormous parasitic organism who preys upon our sons and daughters. All they have left is women’s breast health as the last vestige of credibility, and without Komen, they are sunk.

It wasn’t the 6/10 of 1/1000 of their annual budget that was the threat, it was the loss of the borrowed credibility from Komen that threatened them.

As symbiotic relationships go, this one between PP and Komen is a textbook definition of parasitism. Not only does Komen not need the relationship with PP, but the association is an occasion for PP to engage in a blood meal, feeding off of Komen’s enormous reserves of credibility and good will in the community.

Brinker needs to point out the ugly reality of PP and cut the ties. It would also help if she gave the link between abortion and breast cancer, and the link between the pill and breast cancer their proper recognition.

As the head of the world’s premeir breast cancer foundation, she has an obligation to report the whole truth. If she doesn’t, she isn’t acting in women’s best interests. Unlike PP and the abortion industry, Brinker should tell women the whole truth, and then trust them to make their choices.

Choices that are fully informed.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t trust women, or children. That’s why they savaged Brinker for attempting to withdraw the protective cover of Komen’s good name.

Read Full Post »

1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

~Luke 19:1-10

Earlier this week, the pro-life community had high hopes as Planned Parenthood announced that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had withdrawn their funding…

…sort of.

Komen would not give money beyond funds committed for this fiscal year to an organization that was under government investigation and who didn’t do mammograms. Komen would no longer issue “pass-through” grants, which payed PP to be the middle-man. Jubilation erupted amongst pro-lifers and the word went out to start funding Komen.

Then came yesterday’s clarification by Komen. They will not fund organizations under criminal investigation (but exempted “political” investigations). Further, they reaffirmed their commitment to funding the existing grants, and preserved PP’s eligibility to apply for future grants.

That doesn’t mean PP will actually get the grants. Theoretically, any women’s health agency is eligible to apply.

Then the word went out in many pro-life quarters to stop funding Komen until we see how this clarification plays itself out. As institutional and political policy goes, that’s pretty sound advice. There is, however, a very human dimension that such policy overlooks, and we need to examine that dimension in light of the Gospel story shared above.

Jesus didn’t wait for sinners to convert before He called to them, ate and drank with them. That peeved the religious leadership of His day. He didn’t demand conversion as a precondition for His love. Conversion was the consequence of being encountered by the love of Jesus.

Zacchaeus was the Cecile Richards of his day. He defrauded his people as he collected taxes for the Roman occupiers. Like Richards, he was a social leper, a pariah. Brinker’s support of PP and her association with Richards has made her little better in the eyes of pro-lifers, a status not altogether undeserved.

I have written about this unholy alliance, as have many, many others. In December, Komen began to change course. Planned Parenthood has had six weeks to organize and gin up their attack machine, making it appear as though there was a groundswell of support for PP and disgust for Komen. Something is being missed here, regarding Brinker.

She has been in bed with PP for years. We ardently desire to see that relationship end, however it should be noted that Satan doesn’t let go easily when we try to climb out of bed with him. Such was the case this week when Komen was savagely attacked, and for what?

Not funding Planned Parenthood for not doing mammograms.

Facing an existential threat, Komen backpedaled.

The response from the pro-life community ought to be the full embrace of Brinker, to let her know that it will be alright in the end. We should gin up our own attack machine against any corporation that breaks faith with Komen because they dare to fund actual mammograms over PP’s cheap squeeze. We should savage any group that dares to castigate Komen for wanting the best for our women, instead of second-best.

No, Brinker is unlikely to come up to the communion rail and profess Jesus as her personal Lord and Savior.

No, there won’t be a made-for-TV moment of conversion.

If that’s what people were expecting, forget it.

Brinker has a tiger by the tail and got a good lesson in how badly mauled she can get for letting go. Now she’s reeling from the mauling, and this is no time for us to sit on our hands. This is when she needs our support the most. Her conversion will be gradual, and painful. The magnitude of her past sin in bedding down with PP determines the magnitude of the consequences for breaking those ties, and the magnitude of support she will need in going forward.

We need to meet with Brinker, in private and in strictest confidence to ascertain her needs and how we can help Komen be all that it can be ethically and morally in its vital mission in saving women’s lives. We need to offer her more than a kind word for attempting doing the right thing.

We need to offer her our Christian love, a love that calls to her in her own self-imposed social exile as Jesus called to Zacchaeus in his, a love that is unconditional. Then we need to embrace each change, no matter how small.

Nancy Brinker is a woman who has tried to chart a new course and was savaged with a hellish fury this week. The question for us this week is who we wish to emulate:

Jesus, or the crowd who muttered, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

Until Brinker shoves us away definitively, I’m with Jesus. I’ll gladly dine with Nancy Brinker and support her in any way that I can. She is a woman of great influence for good or ill, and that is why Hell unleashed its minions on her this week.

Pray for her.

Read Full Post »

Dear Ms. Brinker,

As one who has been at odds with SGK over your organization’s funding of Planned Parenthood, I write today to offer you my heartfelt gratitude and congratulations for the principled and prudential position that you have taken in defunding Planned Parenthood.

Having lost many family members to cancer, and having several close friends experience the ravages of breast cancer, I’ve experienced this issue intimately and laud you for making good on your deathbed promise to your sister, Susan. You have done what so many researchers could only dream of.

You have rallied an entire nation around women and the disease that strikes fear not only into their hearts, but into the hearts of the men who love them passionately. You have raised hundreds of millions of research dollars and in so doing have advanced the understanding of molecular medicine in the field of oncology far beyond where it would be today, but for your foundation’s single-mindedness of purpose.

In all of that focus on research, you have not forgotten the women of today who lack the means for appropriate breast screening utilizing state of the art mammography, and the need for younger women to be educated in prevention. Toward that end, it is my understanding that you and Planned Parenthood saw a shared mission and purpose in the field of women’s health where breast cancer screening and prevention were concerned.

Many of us heard of your largesse in funding breast screenings at Planned Parenthood, screenings which we were told included mammograms. Tragically, we have come to know that Planned Parenthood lied about performing mammograms, and in so doing took money from SGK that might have otherwise benefited women through mammography elsewhere, or through additional research.

Over the past few years, repeated sting operations have time and again caught Planned Parenthood acting with treachery:

Lying about performing mammograms.
Aiding in what they perceived to be the sex trafficking of minors.
Suborning lies from perceived minors to skirt reporting of statutory rape.
Lying about the developmental status of the baby they were about to abort.

And on, and on…

SGK’s February 1, 2012 statement of clarification speaks very clearly as to why the defunding took place:

We are dismayed and extremely disappointed that actions we have taken to strengthen our granting process have been widely mischaracterized. It is necessary to set the record straight.

Starting in 2010, Komen began an initiative to help us do a better job of measuring the impact of community grants. This is important because we invest significant dollars in our local community programs–$93 million in 2011, which provided for 700,000 breast health screenings and diagnostic procedures.

Following this review, we made the decision to implement stronger performance criteria for our grantees to minimize duplication and free up dollars for direct services to help vulnerable women. To support this new granting strategy, Komen has also implemented more stringent eligibility standards to safeguard donor dollars. Consequently, some organizations are no longer eligible to receive Komen grants.

Some might argue that our standards are too exacting, but over the past three decades people have given us more than just their money. They have given us their trust and we take that responsibility very seriously.

We regret that these new policies have impacted some longstanding grantees, such as Planned Parenthood, but want to be absolutely clear that our grant-making decisions are not about politics. Throughout our 30 year history, our priority has always been and will continue to be the women we serve. As we move forward, we are working to ensure that there is no interruption or gaps in services for the women who need our support most in the fight against breast cancer.

Indeed your stringent criteria leave little room for organizations that are repeatedly caught in sting operations either lying to, or suborning lies from young people. Such criteria also no doubt would require an organization such as Planned Parenthood to actually perform the mammograms they claim to perform, or at the very least, set the record straight when others make such false claims on their behalf.

So now you are being assailed by Planned Parenthood and their devotees for being…

…what?

Anti-women’s health?

That’s a tough narrative to sell where SGK is concerned.

If the word circulating on the internet is true, Planned Parenthood has raised over $400,000 in response to your withdrawal of funding. This is indeed good news all around. Planned Parenthood has demonstrated repeatedly that when monies are withdrawn they have the capability of stepping up and doing the necessary fundraising to offset and replace the lost income. That is a cardinal sign of a strong and financially healthy organization. It means that SGK can give their support elsewhere, confident in knowing that Planned Parenthood can thrive without your support.

You have acted here with the highest integrity and moral courage. Your manifest integrity should serve as a beacon to corporations that currently fund Planned Parenthood, and who might fear the backlash and vilifying you have been receiving should they similarly redirect their money. I would encourage those corporations to fund real women’s health initiatives by funding Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Such a move would indemnify themselves against Planned Parenthood’s predictable allegation of hating women and not supporting women’s health. It would also increase your efficacy in accelerating the arrival of that day when this terrible scourge becomes a thing of the past. Perhaps corporations switching their support might in conjunction with SGK establish a program of purchasing and donating mammogram machines to areas of need, especially for low-income women.

For now, Ms. Brinker, my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude once again for your principled leadership in upholding your exacting standards with equally rigorous equanimity, regardless of the consequences. Through your principled leadership, many more women’s lives will be saved, and many more women made whole once again.

God Bless You,

Gerard M. Nadal, Ph.D.

Read Full Post »

The first paper I ever wrote in graduate school was a review of the literature on Leprosy. It is a disease transmitted by contact that we now know to be caused by a close first cousin of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis, and can be cured using the same antibiotics that we use against TB. This miracle of 20th Century medicine has emptied the leper colonies, arresting and eliminating the disease in its earliest stages before it maims and disfigures its victims.

Sunlight seems to be having the same salutary effect on the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and they have elected to leave the leper colony, as Planned Parenthood languishes with the increasing ravages of their disfigurement, unwilling to take the medicine that would end the insideous effects of their disease. It’s actually too late for Planned Parenthood, but for Komen, there is yet hope.

The sunlight began to pierce the darkness back in 2007, when Dorinda Bordlee, Vice President and Senior Counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund met Eve Sanchez Silver who told her about her about the Komen-Planned Parenthood funding link. Silver, a breast cancer survivor and charter member of Komen’s Hispanic/Latina Advisory Council, resigned from Komen, stating,

As a Christian and life affirming citizen I can not reconcile the Foundation’s decision to affirm life with one hand and support its destruction with the other.

Bordlee began to research Komen’s grant database to confirm Silver’s claims. The most recent data available to her back then were the 2005 numbers which showed over $700,000 in grants made by certain Komen state affiliates to their local Planned Parenthood clinics. Subsequent grant totals can be read here at BDF’s site. BDF’s initial findings were picked up and pursued by a great many who then launched their own investigations.

It was discovered that Komen Founder, Nancy Brinker (Susan Komen’s sister), sat on the board of Planned Parenthood in North Texas. Jill Stanek wrote two great articles about the links between Komen and PP.

At the heart of the matter lies three essential issues regarding the deplorable decision by Komen to fund PP:

1. The causal link between breast cancer and abortion (ABC link).
2. The causal link between breast cancer and oral contraceptives.
3. The fact that Planned Parenthood does NOT do mammograms.

Yes the ABC link is hotly disputed, and only because radical proabort researchers have lied through their teeth about the literature. I’ve written 56 articles dealing with this link, which can be read here. Placing that contentious issue to the side, along with PP’s complicity in placing women at risk for breast cancer through their abortion services, we need to look at the role of PP in dispensing oral contraceptives, which have been well established causes of breast cancer.

In 2009, the same Dr. Louise Brinton who is Branch Chief in Epidemiology at the National Cancer Institute, and who chaired the sham 2003 workshop denying the ABC link, coauthored a 2009 paper in which she listed abortion and oral contraceptives under known or suspected risk factors for breast cancer. The reference for the paper follows at the end of the article.

In their paper, the authors list in Table 4. Multivariate adjusted case-control odds ratios for all breast cancer cases, triple-negative
and non-triple-negative cases, in relation to oral contraceptive risk factors, stratified by age at diagnosis under age 40 and
41-45 y
, the following devastating information.

The risks for acquiring the deadliest, most aggressive and difficult to treat form of breast cancer, Triple Negative Breast Cancer based on age of first use of oral contraceptives is:

Age 22+: 250%
Age 18-22: 270%
Age Under 18: 540%

These numbers, from some of the finest minds in science, beg the question:

What would possess an organization such as Komen to ever fund an organization that dispenses birth control pills like candy? Could it be the claim that PP does life-saving breast screenings?

Certainly, Senator Barbara Boxer has been quite vocal about PP’s “mammograms”, as reported here.

In truth, PP does NOT perform mammograms. When one hears the term, “breast screening” or “breast cancer screening”, one tends to envision a mammogram. Instead, PP’s screening is a palpation of the breast, checking for detectable lumps. So, yes, if a lump is detected, and if the lump is cancerous, that could be lifesaving. But if no lump is detected? Is the woman given a referral for a mammogram?

It is the mammogram that is essential.

A woman’s best chances at beating her cancer are when the cancer is found through mammography before it is large enough to be palpated, or found through mammography in women whose breast density make it difficult to detect by palpation. By funding PP, Komen funded the abortions that lead to increased risk of breast cancer, the distribution of oral contraceptives which are well known to cause breast cancer, and the lie that women were receiving mammograms.

In an era where less than 10% of research grants are receiving federal money, there is no dearth of scientists in desperate need of funding for legitimate research purposes. One can barely walk the corridors of a university without bumping into them, so Komen should have no difficulty at all in finding and funding worthy Ph.D.’s and M.D.’s who simply cannot access the ever-dwindling supply of federal research dollars.

As far as funding prevention efforts, the neglect of the Dolle and Brinton study, or the many other papers showing oral contraception’s role in breast cancer is tantamount to a crime.

Komen is to be applauded for getting out of the leper colony and breaking its funding ties with one of the largest purveyors of death on the planet. The great work of antisepsis begun by Eve Silver and Dorinda Bordlee that was picked up and furthered by thousands will help Komen more fully achieve Nancy Brinker’s deathbed promise to her sister to do all she could to find a cure. Now that Komen is out of funding causality and lies, they may see a more robust financial future, which we all pray may help speed the end of this scourge which afflicts so many of our wives, mothers, sisters, friends, and other loved ones.

As for Planned Parenthood the mask has been ripped away, in no small measure by Lila Rose and her associates, revealing the true face of the leprosy lurking under the guise of women’s healthcare.

Reference:

Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women
Under the Age of 45 Years

Jessica M. Dolle,1 Janet R. Daling,1 Emily White,1,3 Louise A. Brinton,4 David R. Doody,1
Peggy L. Porter,2 and Kathleen E. Malone1,3

Divisions of 1Public Health Sciences and 2Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; 3Department of Epidemiology, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington; and 4Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4). April 2009

Read Full Post »

Senator Boxer

It seems that Senator Barbara Boxer is insisting that Planned Parenthood really, REALLY, performs mammograms, despite Live Action’s latest sting. Read about it here.

It’s an odd set of circumstances. On the one hand, we have Abby Johnson, former PP clinic director, who claims that no PP does mammograms. On the same hand we have the same story from PP clinics taped in the latest Live Action sting. All claim PP merely gives referrals for mammograms performed at real health centers.

On the other hand we have Susan G. Komen giving millions of dollars to PP for mammograms they insist PP performs. We also have PP president Cecile Richards and Senator Boxer insisting that PP performs mammograms.

At the least, Richards ought to inform her employees that the mammogram machines exist at Planned Parenthood so they know enough to schedule appointments. While she is at it, perhaps she could get together with Senator Boxer and furnish the American people with a list of PP centers that perform mammograms.

Perhaps Richards and Boxer are correct, and the people who actually staff the centers can’t see the elephant in the exam room. Perhaps Live Action managed to beat all odds and call every PP center without a machine. If so, that’s a statistical feat that will never be duplicated anytime soon.

Read Full Post »

In the uproar this past week over the Life Always billboard in New York City, carrying the message that the most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb, the most common denunciation was that the billboard was “racist.”

But was it?

In fairness, it’s understandable how the person on the street, looking at the billboard, could have come away with that understanding. The billboard presented a conclusion without first presenting the argument. Absent the staggering numbers that lead to the conclusion, the general public were left with a sign that could seem both racist and misogynistic to the uninformed. That’s a powerful lesson for our side.

Perhaps in the future, a billboard that states:

“With 60% of NYC African American pregnancies ending in abortion, our most unsafe place is in the womb.”

That presents the staggering statistics, the conclusion, and a voice that is black folk talking to black folk. It’s unambiguous.

However, that will never stop the race-baiters like Al Sharpton from coming out in opposition to the message, and still claiming racism—which leads to another can of worms.

It isn’t racist to point out the inequities between groups of people, such as the frightening rates of STD’s among blacks compared to all other groups. The same for abortion, poverty, single-parent households, etc. Indeed, how can society be expected to respond compassionately and effectively if the problem cannot be articulated for fear of being branded a racist? Pointing to glaring inequalities has always been the first, and necessary step in eradicating the forces that keep groups of people down.

Demography is a science that tells the unvarnished truth. There is no political correctness in accurate statistics. Indeed, when we need to modify an absolute term like “correct” with a modifier like “political”, the truth becomes the first casualty. Therefore, an accurate telling of the demographics is the first step in ascertaining what is wrong.

In the case of abortion and communities of color, a more enlightened political leadership might call for and fund a study of women seeking abortions and the reasons. From such a study, it might become evident that low-income women feel a need for abortion based on economic pressures, and that the Pregnancy Resource Center model may well have a good part of the answer. Government might actually work to reduce the frequency of abortion through the initiation of services that encourage and facilitate education, job skills and training, parenting classes, and other life skills. By standing up young women and men, encouraging parenthood, and facilitating mature behavior, society rescues them from a life of perpetual adolescence.

It used to be called liberalism.

Revealing scientific truth with an eye toward ameliorating the underlying stressors that give rise to skewed incidences of pathology is not racist. It is the realization of scientific investigation’s noblest goal, which is the discovery of truth for the betterment of humanity. All humanity.

To be selective in the revelation and the application of that knowledge in a way that ignores the most disenfranchised is the most malignant form of racism:

Ice Cold Indifference.

Read Full Post »

My article this week in Life News

As October has closed, so does another Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is a noble and worthy endeavor to raise awareness of this dread disease and how it affects the women we love and their families.

We have indeed made great strides against this disease in all areas: etiology, early detection, and treatment.

However, the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) pro-abortion political correcting of honestly assessing all areas of causality undercuts the effectiveness of this month’s activities, and leaves millions of women at needless increased risk. Specifically, we need to consider the risks associated with oral contraceptive (OC) use and abortion.

At my blog, I have been analyzing the peer reviewed scientific and medical literature showing the association between OC use, abortion and breast cancer. For a half-century now, well over a hundred studies have indicated a link between abortion and breast cancer, with increased risks being upward of 50% for abortions before a first full-term pregnancy, with many showing increased risks above 100%.

The biological explanation for this link is very simple and has been demonstrated repeatedly in animal studies. Prior to a first full term pregnancy a woman’s breasts are not fully developed, with her lobules made up of immature and cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells. When she conceives a child, estrogen levels rise dramatically, along with the pregnancy hormone HCG, which stimulate the lobules to undergo massive cell proliferation, roughly doubling in number. These first trimester events leave the woman with twice as many cells where cancer can start.

At the end of the second trimester, the baby begins to protect the mother by secreting the hormone human placental lactogen. This hormone matures the lobule cells into cancer-resistant Type 4 cells, which will produce milk. By the end of the pregnancy 85% of the lobule cells will have undergone this differentiation. The remaining 15% will undergo differentiation to Type 4 Cells during breastfeeding and subsequent pregnancies.

As animal studies bear out, if pregnancy is ended by abortion the woman is left with twice as many immature, cancer-prone cells where cancer can start, but she does not derive the protective effect of the third trimester. OC’s work by the same mechanism of stimulating cell proliferation, without the protective effect of a full term pregnancy. It is simple, elegant, and devastating.

Women who miscarry have abnormally low hormonal levels, and in all studies are shown to be at no increased risk of developing breast cancer.

So where does this political correcting at NCI come from?

Pro-abortion feminist researchers in and associated with the National Cancer Institute convened a panel in 2003 to craft a denial of their own research showing the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link. Their dismissal of the data was founded on the absurd notion that women with breast cancer are more apt to recall and truthfully report their prior abortions during detailed health histories in research studies than healthy women in the control groups of these studies. This phenomenon is alternately dubbed “recall bias” and “reporting bias”.

Such preposterous thinking is in contravention to the denial that accompanies such devastating disease. If anything, the reverse would be true. However, these researchers suggested that the only valid studies would be those that start in the present and move forward over time. These are known as prospective studies, and are thought to be advantageous over their retrospective counterparts.

But as my ongoing analysis of these studies indicates, these prospective studies are often conducted and funded by the same pro-abortion folks who denied the validity of their own published retrospective studies. These prospective studies, which have purportedly shown no recall bias, are so methodologically flawed, deliberately so, as to literally violate the scientific process.

In the biggest prospective study to allegedly show no ABC link, the Melbye study, the authors began counting breast cancer cases in 1967, but didn’t start a consideration of abortions before 1973. This puts the cases of disease six years before the suspected exposure to the potential cancer-producing cause. I would fail an undergraduate biology student on a research project for making such an obvious blunder. But this is the best study to which the pro-aborts point. But even Melbye’s studies indicate a 3% rise in risk of breast cancer for every week a woman waits to have an abortion, until at 18 weeks gestation her risk rises to 89%.

Further, when Melbye studied premature births, it was found that breast cancer risks are elevated in women who deliver before 32 weeks at the same levels that the retrospective studies establish for women who have induced abortions. Melbye notes the loss of protective effect in these cases of premature delivery. What Melbye refuses to admit is that the sudden end of pregnancy, through either induced abortion or premature birth, are equivalent biological events where the risk of breast cancer is concerned.

So we have progressed through another Breast Cancer Awareness Month where the pro-abortion gang at NCI has conspired to keep the whole truth about risk factors from women, including their chief epidemiologist’s (Dr. Louise Brinton) own paper last year which indicates that women who begin OC use before age 18 are at 540% increased risk of developing the most aggressive and deadly form of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer.

One wonders why there is not near hysteria in the media over such a catastrophic correlation, especially when Planned Parenthood dispenses OC’s to teens as though they were M&M’s.

It remains for us, the pro-life community, to patiently bring these scientific truths forward. The only force more ruthless and uncaring than the pro-abortion crew at NCI is nature. The laws of physiology and disease are coldly unforgiving of ignorance, political correctness, and willful disobedience. Dr. Louise Brinton and her handpicked coterie of abortion enthusiasts have betrayed women, betrayed scientific integrity, and betrayed their duty to the truth by politically driven machination. Having dug in their heels, we must simply maneuver around them and take the lead.

Read Full Post »

Thank You Drew Mariani

Many thanks to Drew Mariani and his producer Cassandra Everts for your gracious hospitality on today’s show and for your care and concern for women’s health. I am told that there were several callers and not enough time. So please leave any questions in the comments section here and I’ll be happy to answer all!

God Bless.

Read Full Post »

When scientists are so ideologically driven that they are willing to deceive themselves, that’s a tragedy.

When scientists are so ideologically driven that they are willing to deceive the public, that’s criminal.

In our ongoing study of the abortion/breast cancer link we have seen how the epidemiologists reject increased risk (which arises from an actual increase in cases relative to the risk factor in question) of 50-90% as statistically insignificant. So, according to the duplicity, a rise in cases of BC among women who have lost the protective effect of pregnancy through abortion is only considered statistically significant when approaching 200%.

How then do we assess these numbers on the decreasing trend in BC from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

Incidence Trends
In the United States, incidence of breast cancer has—

Decreased significantly by 2.0% per year from 1999 to 2006 among women.
Decreased significantly by 1.5% per year from 1997 to 2006 among white women.
Decreased significantly by 1.6% per year from 1997 to 2006 among African American women.
Decreased significantly by 0.9% per year from 1997 to 2006 among Hispanic women.
Decreased significantly by 1.5% per year from 1997 to 2006 among American Indian/Alaska Native women.
Remained level from 1997 to 2006 among Asian/Pacific Islander women.

Here CDC stratifies the population of women and reports that even a 0.9% decrease among Hispanic women is significant.

Yet we are told by the Brinton Gang at NCI that among the large population of post-abortive women (~45 Million) a 50-90% increased risk is not significant. Multiplying even small risks across large numbers (such as 45 Million) produces large absolute numbers of increased cases of disease, every one a precious life-a woman who deserved to be fully informed of the risks inherent in the abortion that is intrinsically unsafe for her, even though it’s legal.

Read Full Post »

Essential Reading on ABC

For anyone seriously interested in a comprehensive book written for the layperson on the ABC link, then I must recommend Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, M.D.

Breast Cancer: Its link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill

Click the title to get to Amazon.

This book is written in an easy to follow format, with attention paid to every aspect of the debate. Written in 2,000, it predates the Brinton farce at NCI, but don’t let that deter you. This book needs to be on everyone’s shelf.

Read Full Post »

For easing newcomers 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

Title: Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women

Authors: Karen B. Michels, Sc.D, Ph.D., Fei Xue, M.D., Graham A. Colditz, M.D., Dr.P.H., Walter C. Willett, M.D., Dr. P.H.

Author affiliations are with Harvard Medical School and Harvard’s School of Public Health.

Journal: Archives of Internal Medicine, 2007. Vol. 167:814-820

This study included 105, 716 women in a prospective cohort of young women between the ages of 29 46 years old at the start of follow-up in 1993. The participants were asked about their history of spontaneous and induced abortion at the outset, and every two years thereafter. This method was employed to avoid the issue of recall bias, as articulated by the opponents of the retrospective studies.

Breast Cancer status was also part of the questionnaire and follow-up surveys. Hazard Ratios (Comparable to relative risks) were established with 95% confidence intervals.

Using healthy subjects as the controls, The Hazard Ratios for women with breast cancer were:

Age at first abortion:

30 HR=1.12 (12% increased risk)

When parous (women who had children) and nulliparous (women who did not have children) women were analyzed separately (what is called:stratified) the results are as follows:

Nulliparous:

No Induced Abortion HR=1.00 (Reference value)
Induced Abortion HR=1.26
1 Abortion HR=1.28
> 2 Abortions HR=1.18

Parous:

No Induced Abortion HR=1.00 (Reference value)
Induced Abortion HR=0.96
1 Abortion HR=0.98
> 2 Abortions HR=0.87

The authors analyzed the data after ten years from the point of commencing the study with its follow-ups. So what do we see.

The authors conclude an overall 6% increased risk of abortion, which is a bit disingenuous statistically, given the trends reported and the design flaws.

In Parous women v. nulliparous women, we see the obvious risks of abortion and the loss of protective effect of a full term pregnancy in the nulliparous women, whereas we see the protective effect of full term pregnancy in the parous women.

Several design flaws combine to depress the increased risks already evident in this study’s data. First, breast cancer takes at least ten years to develop after the exposure event (abortion). This study stopped at ten years, not accounting for many cancers that will develop after the premature analysis. Also, the most credible analysis would have been a study of the women with induced abortion at the outset in 1993. Two year follow-up surveys were done since then. So the study includes abortions done as close to the analysis as 8 years, 6 years, 4 years and 2 years. Including those abortions in the analysis, while cancer risk is still in its accepted latency period is simply reckless and irresponsible at best.

In truth, it is part of the lie.

For those who love the scientific details, a more thorough scientific analysis by Dr. Joel Brind is available:

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf

In short, this analysis shows all that we have been saying is evident in the retrospective analyses. But this paper was published after the 2003 NCI Fraudulent Workshop and funded with an NCI grant CA50385, and its authors are loathe to bite the hand that feeds them.

More great prospective studies and their shoddy design and reporting all this week.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 738 other followers

%d bloggers like this: