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 »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 779 other followers

%d bloggers like this: