Jill Stanek runs an excellent commentary concerning the ongoing fallout from the recent study showing a forty percent increased probability of breast cancer among women who have had abortions.
Two of the paper’s authors are noteworthy. Dr. Louise Brinton chaired the infamous 203 National Cancer Institute panel that declared no link between abortion and breast cancer, dismissing a good number of retrospective studies indicating otherwise in favor of premature analyses of prospective (longitudinal) studies whose subjects lacked sufficient time to have developed breast cancer. The decisiveness of this linkage denial, dismissing a body of sound, mature data in favor of data not yet ripened was stunning.
The other author in question is Dr. Kathi Malone, who dismisses the significance of her own paper, stating, “There are no new findings related to induced abortion in this paper because the results of these women were published previously.” These words need to be considered in light of the paper’s own clear and unambiguous statements.
The study in question, Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years, actually lists abortion and oral contraceptive use under, “The following known and suspected breast cancer risk factors were examined…”
Lest any seize upon abortion and oral contraceptive use as only being suspected, and not known risk factors, consider the first paragraph of the paper’s Results section.
In the results section of the paper,
“In analyses of all 897 breast cancer cases (subtypes combined), the multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for examined risk factors were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women. Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion and oral contraceptive use were associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.”
So if Malone is correct in stating that the linkage is nothing new, having been reported before, why hasn’t NCI revised its position paper on the breast cancer-abortion link? Taken at her word, not only are these linkage data not new, but they have been confirmed by Brinton and Malone.
These are some of the several signifiant and disturbing features of this story, all of which undermine the essential trust of the citizens, who fund this research and stand to gain from it, and the scientific community.
Abortion is held out by women as an absolute good for women. If the epidemiological data suggest that abortion harms women, then why are these data being downplayed? It is precisely such a doctrinaire, ideologically driven approach that science and the scientific method are meant to ameliorate for the good of humanity. The a priori assumption that abortion is an absolute good with neither significant physical or psychological sequelae is increasingly being challenged by an emerging body of literature to the contrary.
But scientists are slow to relinquish their orthodoxies, especially those which have become woven into the fabric of the body politic. Nevertheless, the scientific community would be well advised to pull back from this unqualified endorsement of abortion, as its credibility is on the line.
A doctoral degree, especially the research-oriented Ph.D., is the gold standard for any who would perform research. The granting of a Ph.D. is an acceptance of the graduate student as a peer at the highest levels of academia, and carries with it the imprimatur of the scientific community, assuring all that this individual can be trusted to perform and report credible research in an independent and ethical manner without the need for oversight. It is at once a great honor and an awesome responsibility. It is a sacred trust, a covenant.
Betrayal of such trust by a single act of partisan orthodoxy which leads to the denial or suppression of the data and their conclusions forever shatters the trust of one’s peers and the public. Such has been the case with these researchers who have suppressed critical data repeatedly, beginning with the spurious premature interpretations of the data sets on two large prospective studies that led to the infamous NCI and American Cancer Society declarations in 2003 denying a link between breast cancer and abortion. The denial of the plain meaning of their own text, and hewing to the NCI position, despite their own report is an egregious act of politically inspired scientific fraud.
If Brinton and Malone cannot stand by their own words, if they cannot revise the NCI position to one of at least uncertainty, then they have committed the unforgivable sin among Ph.D.’s. They’ve lied.
Women are dying and we need to know why. If NCI and ACS can’t cobble together a panel of honest scientists, the sin upon their heads, and a pox on both of their houses.
Coming Home 
unfortunately, Gerard, research into women’s health issues in North America is severely compromised
often when researchers have results that are at odds with what is politically correct or with their own liberal agenda, they will spout the liberal-speak in the results
this means that reading scientific papers, one must be careful to read ALL the data and the discussion parts of the paper because the conclusions now lie
this revisionist approach to science is harming women and shows that science has lost it’s integrity
no health issue is so politicized as abortion and we have the feminists to blame for this
researchers should be able to publish their results and state what the data show instead of what they would like the data to show
Please report since you have seen the paper; I’ve only seen the abstract: what ODDS RATIO did they find? If you have had an abortion (or abortions), HOW MUCH more likely did they find the breast-cancer was?
Based on your quotation from the RESULTS section, my guess would be it’s a small number–they usually list risk factors from biggest to smallest, and I recall that age, family history, and early menarche were among the strongest predictors. So the MAGNITUTE of the effect they saw is probably very small.
Couple this with the fact that the study itself is very small–fewer than one thousand patients–and you’re getting into the grain-of-sand scale.
This is a pattern: big studies all say no abc link; small studies vary in what they say. Just as one expects if there is no link (or a link too small to matter).
This may explain why the NCI has not changed its position. Even if this study had found a BIG odds-ratio, it’s still a small study.
Small studies give random results. It’s easy to pick the small ones which because of statistical noise say there is a link, and to ignore the ones that say the opposite. This is called “one-sided amplification of statistical noise” and you, Gerard, ought not to be stooping so low.
I read they reported an increase of 40% of the previous probablility. But I read that that only refers to the “triple-negative” breast-cancers mentioned in the title. And they only looked at 187 patients with this type of breast-cancer! That’s so small it’s virtually meaningless. What odds ratio did they report for breast cancers overall?
In fact, Gerard, if you could see your way to posting the entire RESULTS section, I’d be very grateful. Surely copyright will allow that! If not, how about more details from it?
Thx.
Jill Stanek wraps her column up in so much back and forth and political rhetoric, that its difficult to discern WHAT the evidence is, or WHAT the rational conclusions to be drawn from that evidence is. She’s a bit of a cretin herself, apparently more interested in grandstanding than in enlightening anyone.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some truth in here somewhere. Nobody who is sincerely pro choice should have any problem with the data, or with assessing the risk factors. After all, doctors who recommend bariatric surgery have to frankly tell their patients that there is a 1% fatality rate. Its not the diet method of choice — it may be a reasonable risk for individuals who are at serious risk of death anyway from morbid obesity, and have not succeeded by any other method in reducing their weight.
TS,
The study is available for purchase online. I intend to stay well within ethical and legal parameters surrounding copyright law.
Second, you hold a doctorate, so I needn’t tell you that this sample size is more than acceptable in epidemiological circles.
Third, having not read the paper, you suggest that I stoop low while you speak from a position of what? Not having read the methods, results or conclusions, you accuse me of amplifying statistical noise, not perceived as such by even the authors themselves, noise that exists in your mind and is a function of your being wed to abortion.
Fourth, I’m rather surprised that a fellow doctor would post the sort of terrorist suggestions that you do on your site. Why not renounce such postings and join me on the high road?
Fifth, Your scurrilous descriptions of me on your site leave me less than inclined to dialogue with you. I’d be glad to do so just as soon as you distance yourself from those remarks, your post on Robert George and your ugly comments about Jill Stanek. If you are half the scientist you claim to be, you wouldn’t host such an ugly website. What is it that you fear which has caused such a wild departure from the standards of decency that ought to become you? Reset the parameters to the sort of respectful dialogue that best becomes fellow scientists, our differences in world view notwithstanding, and I would be more than happy to engage you in dialogue about the science.
“…I needn’t tell you that this sample size is more than acceptable in epidemiological circles.”
absolutely!
What continually amazes me, is that those who support abortion and OC continue to demand that the bar be placed so high as to be unattainable for studies that support prolife positions
all the while accepting much less rigorous studies or producing outright lies (such as the number of women who allegedly died prior to Roe vs Wade).
“This may explain why the NCI has not changed its position.”
um, NO.
What explains the NCI and other Cancer orgs extreme reluctance to accept this and many other studies which prove the ABC link is the politically charged nature of abortion and contraception…
Imagine, abortion being harmful to women? Perish the thought.
All of a sudden we are back in the dark ages of women’s emancipation.
No more reproductive freedom. 😦
Unless of course you want to take that chance – your life along with your baby’s life.
And what about the millions upon millions of women who have had abortions?
Gerard, suture self! It’s your blog. But answering my questions with ad-hominum is not impressive, as I am sure you learned before or during your oral/prelim exam in grad school.
To answer you, re: terror, I am not the one who turned the conflict over abortion in USA into a terror war. Right-to-lifers did that. And still it’s a completely one-sided terror war. Maybe the only one in the world! Where else in the world does one side commit regular, predictable acts of terror in response to every political defeat, and never suffer any sort of terror or diffuse counter-violence such as military action or counterterror? I cannot think of any other totally one-sided terror war anywhere in the world, can you?
RE: “More than acceptable size”
Sure, it’s big enough to be published, but its still small.
Just because a study is big enough to be published doesn’t mean it gets the right answer.
For instance, here’s another study by (among others) the right-to-lifers’ beloved Janet Daling, published in THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, which reports that in their sample, oral contraceptives did NOT increase breast-cancer risk. This contradicts this recent study you’re talking about, which says that they do; the NEJM study also contradicts the well-known fact that OC’s DO increase b/c risk. It’s NEJM 346:2025-2032. If you want the link it’s AICH-TEE-TEE-PEA://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/346/26/2025
Robbie George and Jill Stanek are not out there toting guns, nor do they advocate as much. You know that. As a matter of fact, they abhor the few murders that there have been of abortionists, as do I.
That’s the very essence of pro-life, as opposed to anti-abortion. We take the fundamental truth of embryology that a new human organism exists at birth and claim for it the intrinsic dignity, the unalienable rights of natural law. Abortionists have no less intrinsic dignity, nor is it ever justifiable to deprive them of their unalienable right to life, even though they make their living doing the same.
So why do you find the need to get ugly about this stuff? I condemn it every bit as much as you do. That’s a good common ground, no?
Mary Catherine, a question please. You wrote: “What explains the NCI and other Cancer orgs extreme reluctance to accept this and many other studies which prove the ABC link is the politically charged nature of abortion and contraception…”
Please explain, why have REPUBLICAN Surgeons General, serving under PRO-LIFE presidents, never warned the public in USA about the abc-link? Are you saying the Surgeons General under Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush (the most pro-life President in USA history!) were afraid to discuss the abc link because of the “politically charged nature” of the subject???
Do please explain.
Gerard, I understand that. However, Professor George and Jill Stanek do profess “abortion is murder”. That implies that murdering an abortion worker is no worse than what the abortion-worker was doing and would continue doing if left alive. Saying something like that is INCITEMENT, morally if not legally.
It’s like a Muslim/Islamist who says “The 9111 hijackers did something wrong, but what they did was no worse than what the people they killed were doing.” What would you call someone who said that? What ever you would call him, you must also call Professor George and Jill and anyone who professes “abortion is murder”.
In the face of the ongoing, regular terror campaign, in order to have clean hands you must admit that abortion, whatever it may be, is not murder, or at VERY least you must admit in some form that murdering an abortion worker is WORSE than doing any number of abortions-on-demand. But if you admit that, you’re not pro-life, are you? This is why I consider all right-to-lifers to be collectively guilty.
I see no incitement here.
BTW, may I address you by your name, or do you prefer anonymity?
If one holds that the human embryo and fetus are persons, then it necessarily follows that abortion is objectively murder. The degree of subjective culpability on the part of mother and abortionist depends on the degree to which they understand that this is a human being being killed.
That is still not incitement, as genuine pro-lifers have denounced the killing of abortionists ad also denounce capital punishment, as do I on both counts.
I’m still not following you on what you believe constitutes a terror campaign. Also, are you an MD, Ph.D., both? If MD, have you performed abortions?
Gerard, “OC” will do.
RE: “If one holds that the human embryo and fetus are persons, then it necessarily follows that abortion is objectively murder. ”
No, it doesn’t! There is such a thing as justifiable homicide.
Gerard, regarding your other question, some of my publications must not be showing up.
50 million justifiable homicides in the US since 1973? 1.8 BILLION worldwide since 1960? And you are a scientist or physician? Really?
Was this the dream that sustained you in your doctoral studies? Was this vision of butchering babies what quickened your step?
It’s never too late to pull back from this, to seek and receive God’s forgiveness, to abandon this defense of killing the most defenseless among us.
In any system of jurisprudence, justifiable homicide requires that the one doing the justifiable killing was under a proportional threat.
How is the abortionist threatened by the baby at all, let alone in a manner proportional to the taking of the baby’s life?
RE: “Not incitement”
If someone (Person A) says “by killing Gerard Nadal you can prevent him from murdering many other people”, I think that’s incitement EVEN THOUGH if you pressed Person A he might say “but killing Dr. Nadal still wouldn’t be right, because no one should ever be killed, not even a bloody-handed babykiller like Dr. Nadal.”
The number of ’em doesn’t make them any less justifiable.
If another person is inside your body, living on stuff taken from your bloodstream, injecting metabolic end-products INTO your bloodstream, and preparing to subject you to major medical/surgical trauma, trauma which is not life-threatening only because we have very expensive care available, then killing that person at your request is justifiable homicide, no matter how many times it happens.
RE: “In any system of jurisprudence, justifiable homicide requires that the one doing the justifiable killing was under a proportional threat.”
Wrong. Police are allowed to kill in order to protect others besides themselves. In some states even private citizens are allowed to kill in order to protect someone.
Can you cite an instance where George or Stanek have said anything like this? I’ve heard George speak and he has been the soul of prudence and charity. Same for Jill Stanek.
Have you performed abortions? Is this perhaps why you are operating on such a deeply personal level here?
No leader in the pro-life movement suggests that killing abortionists will slow abortion down. Besides, prayer is the single greatest weapon against abortion-prayer offered out of love for all concerned, including the abortionist.
OC,
This isn’t about the babies, nor about the mothers. This is about someone who visited unspeakable trauma upon you and violated you to your core.
Your positions here are not those of any of the most ardent pro-choice scientists whom I have known. This is intensely personal for you-that much is abundantly evident.
You have my deepest prayers and sincerest best wishes.
God Bless.
RE: Dreams during training.
OK, now I ask you one:
Is this how YOU dreamed of using your scientific expertise while you were acquiring it? Promoting lies about cancer, trying to scare women into following your religious imperatives rather then their own? YOU can walk away from the dishonest path you are currently following. Instead of propagating medical lies, how about making an HONEST pro-life argument?
Like for instance: “Abortion is not murder, and it won’t give you cancer or make you go nuts, and probably you won’t even feel guilty (most patients don’t), and you’re entitled to do it, but please don’t, because it’s a baby?”
Or how about preventing abortions by means of rewards? Not little nothings like diapers and toys, but some real money? I bet some of the patients would be willing to grow their pregnancies for you for say, a hundred-thousand bucks.
If the fat-cats who fund the right-to-life movement, the Coors’ and the Scaifes and the Catholic Church were serious about wanting to prevent abortions (rather than wanting to punish women for having sex without permission) they would be doing this.
Gerard, the proposition “abortion is murder” says the same as what I said above, just more compactly.
Robert George went further: after Paul Hill murdered Dr Britton, Prof George wrote that he (George) was “only moderately pro-life with regard to abortionists”, and that only because he was Catholic and therefore pro-life for everyone. A stupid, juvenile joke about the beginning of a terror-campaign, based on equating Paul Hill’s murders with the abortions his victims were doing.
OC,
You need to hold yourself to the standard that you would have others adhere to. I do.
It’s obvious that we are miles apart, yet I wish you no ill, though you have said some unsavory stuff about me on your website. In blogging, I’ve always striven to imagine the person I am addressing as sitting with me at dinner, and comporting myself accordingly. No cheap shots.
You’re obviously a bright fellow and more than capable of dissecting any juvenile or reckless arguments from a position occupied on the high ground. No?
Here’s what Professor George wrote in the more-prestigious-than-classy journal “First Things”, an article called “Killing abortionists–a symposium”
“I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice. ”
Har har har de-har har. Someone should shoot Professor George through the eye in his church, during a religious ceremony. I wanna make jokes about it!
Gerard, RE: “Yes, part of what sustained me through graduate school was a vision of promoting and defending life at every stage,… ”
That’s not what I asked you. I asked, were you sustained by the prospect of defending life BY SPREADING MEDICAL LIES?
If, as you say, your issues are not with the potential sequelae but with the abortion itself, then why not focus on the abortion itself? Your description of the biology, personhood etc may actually appeal to some people! Why pollute your blog with medical lies, and obvious ones to boot?
Come On!
You know quite well that George is using the pro-choice argument turned in on itself to illustrate how mean-spirited the pro-choice argument is.
It’s called irony, and its an effective rhetorical tool. No sane person of good will would infer anything other from George’s words.
Because I’m not convinced that the emerging body of literature are lies, and merit serious consideration. If the abortion-breast cancer link is as strong as several papers report, then women who have abortions need to be vigilant and perhaps receive earlier screenings.
The emotional toll is beyond question for a great many women.
If you read this blog, then you know I spend a fair amount of time addressing the abortion itself, the issues of personhood and dignity.
There are a great many MD’s and Ph.D.’s who are emerging with data that do not cast abortion in a favorable light. As a scientist, I want to know about these data. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and if these data don’t withstand scrutiny, then that is a good thing too.
However, you only read the abstract of this study and accused me of amplifying statistical noise that you presumed and projected into a body of work about which you had no knowledge.
It’s late and I have some other tasks before retiring.
God Bless
Cut to the chase. What are YOUR thoughts? Do you believe the research is sound or not? I know when I’m being baited into a cat and mouse game of gotcha’s. I’ll say x and you’ll counter with y, etc, ad nauseam Give it to us in one solid critique.
Please expound upon his “bias”, how it is constituted, how it manifests. What specifically does bias mean to you in this context?
So when a microbiologist in the third world who specializes in leprosy, who has spent over a quarter-century performing research and doing healing work,states that he wants to rid the world of this dread disease, that he wants plenty of antibiotics available to knock out the organism in the earliest stages of disease, is his research somehow contaminated by his missionary zeal?
Does a researcher who performs both clinical counseling and academic research on rape victims somehow have a body of contaminated data because of her ardent desire to ameliorate this scourge at the root?
No, Asitis, people whose life’s work bring them face-to-face with the enormity of human suffering do not have a bias, contaminated data, simply because they undertake to systematize what presents itself before them.
There are two co-equal branches of scientific research:
1. Hypothesis-based
2. Discovery research
If Reardon over the course of his career has come to view abortion as the etiologic agent for a particular form of post-traumatic stress disorder, I fail to see where his wanting to ban such legalized causality constitutes anything but sound judgment based upon his being the expert voice in the field. As for publication in leading journals, I’ve written extensively on this blog about scientific orthodoxies and how they resist challenges.
You are a trained scientist, one who accepts the body of literature on global warming. If you then push for laws that would reduce/reverse the trend that you accept as valid in the data, does that constitute bias? Does that contaminate you because what you accept as overwhelming evidence has motivated you to seek redress through the political/legal arena?
Odds Ratio,
You’re welcome to post here and join the discussion when you can demonstrate honesty and civility. You never read the paper, yet accused me of intentionally amplifying statistical noise that you presumed to be present, but could not state for certainty, not having read the paper.
That’s both dishonest and uncivil. Believe what you will, but here the prerequisites for discourse are honesty and civility.
You have denounced me as a fake scientist. Accepting that charge at face value, we have nothing to say to one another until such time as you retract your statements.
I wish you no ill, only peace. However, as others have modified their strident rhetoric in order to participate here, so must you.
I’m heading out Bethany. If you have anything to add, I’ll check back later.
haha, too funny!
Except I’m betting Bethany is very sweet to her husband! 😉
Dr. G could you also do a post on the history of the birth control pill, how it was developed and how it was tested?
Also how it has changed over the years?
you given the typical liberal abort reaction here.
you don’t like your “logic” used against you.
😀
Certainly. Anyone knows that it takes a long time to convince doctors and scientists that some thing different might be happening.
Consider the case of helicobacter pylori which was found to be the cause of ulcers.
It took many years to convince doctors of this – in fact, if memory serves me correctly, the doctor involved had to INFECT himself to prove his case.
I think we have a little of this going on here mixed with some very politicized issues.
OC/abortion = womens emancipation
if abortion harms women, where does that leave womens rights?
hmmmm 🙂
Bethany, you’ve done a really good job on this thread.
I can’t say that strongly enough. A REALLY GOOD JOB! 😉
funny your logic doesn’t demonstrate this belief
you are a big one for ignoring “reality” 😉
I generally disapprove of surrilous descriptions of anyone. I even find an occasional kind word to say about George W. Bush, despite all the damage he did to our nation out of what I’m convinced was very sincere cluelessness and incompetence. But I can’t identify the antecedent comment from TC, so it is difficult to know what to think of him, or her, as the case may be.
I can freely say that I appreciate the humor, much as I disagree with the premises and the conclusions. A same person can laugh at a well-done turn of phrase from the mouth of an opponent. However, this well done turn of phrase could reasonably lend itself, in the mind of some listeners, to the notion that this is a coded signal that it is OK to kill doctors who have performed abortions. I am reminded of an article of mine which was rejected for publication, which envisioned American right-to-lifers hijacking planes all over southeast Asia, and crashing them into embryonic stem cell research towers in Singapore. The editor thought this “too hot to handle,” and I had to agree that some jihadist might read it and say, never mind the Americans, we could do this.
Meaning no disrespect to Bethany, did you really mean to imply that Bethany is NOT pro-life?
The above comment was meant to be a specific reply to a one liner of Gerard’s further up. Something about Bethany being deadly. OK, we all know hosting softward isn’t perfect.
When I saw there were 101 comments, I thought, oh, there must be some lengthy tit-for-tat series. Indeed there were.
I find it both repulsive and ineffectual when any partisan of a deeply held position starts lining up this or that bit of scientific research to make a smidgeon of a case that their own preconceived position has just a little more merit than was previously recognized. For God’s sake, if it is true, then it is true regardless of whether your party finds it convenient or not. And when two or more sides are deeply entrenched, nobody is going to move much due to a mere inconvenient fact. The one scientest quoted above, who said, yes, this research surprised me, no, it didn’t change my core beliefs, yes, it should be published and disseminated, is the most honest one of the bunch.
I have no doubt that abortion can cause serious emotional disturbance, or depression. That does not dispose of the question, is it the killing of a human being? It is a fact relevant to consideration of a medical procedure, and one which should be given due weight. Research into the specific ramifications should continue, and should be widely considered.
THIS post, on the other hand, was meant to appear in chronological order at the end — that is, IF the present caveat even appears beneath the one it is meant to appear under. There IS a serious problem with the softward.
I may not agree with you on much, Siarlys, but I definitely agree with this post. Well said!
I’m sorry about the order of the posts, by the way. When You read them from top to bottom they aren’t in the same order they were when we were debating- not totally sure how this could problem could be fixed but maybe WordPress has a solution.
MC, that is really kind of you to say.
Dr. G hope you feel better soon!
as an aside for those who might be interested from a LifeSite News article:
Mosher, who is fluent in a common Chinese dialect, related how while living in a Chinese village he had witnessed women, some his personal friends, who became pregnant with an “illegal” second child and who were subsequently forced to have an abortion. Those mothers who refused were arrested and jailed and underwent daily propaganda, or brain-washing sessions, until they agreed to abort their child. Those who remained in prison until they went into labour “were taken to the abortion clinic crying, by force, and they were given a poison shot.”
“You cannot witness the abortion of a woman who is seven months pregnant, and not know exactly what it is that’s happening,” said Mosher, who was able to intimately observe and interview the arrested women, even so far as accompanying them to the abortion clinics. “What is happening is the wounding of a mother and the death of a child.”
Stephen Mosher “I began to realize that China’s problems, China’s backwardness at that point in time, hadn’t been caused by the fact that there was so many Chinese people, or that the Chinese people were having too many problems, but was caused because there was a corrupt government in power, a government that instead of letting the Chinese people develop China, had stood in the way.”
“Demographers have no conception of overpopulation. What they mean is poverty,” he alleged. “Famine and starvation does happen in the world, but it happens as a result usually of government interference with the production of food… We produce enough grain that everyone could eat a couple pounds of grain a day. We have a problem with distributing food, but we don’t have a problem with overall food production. The world today could feed about 12 to 14 billion people.”
The great famine under Chairman Mao, Mosher explained, had absolutely nothing to do with an actual shortage of food or an excess of population, but was rather the result of an escalation of destructive administrative errors, culminating in the direct confiscation of desperately needed grain from the poor and a refusal to seek assistance from wealthy Western countries.
Mosher prophesied that since it is impossible to sustain a population that is aging faster than any other population in history, in the next number of years “what we may see in China is another population control program, not directed at the very young, but directed at the elderly…They will use propaganda campaigns. They will order the elderly to come to meetings; they will subject them to long lectures on the need for them to serve the state and serve their country by ending their life.”
end of quote.
If you read any books (and there are many now) about the Cultural Revolution you will see how and why China got to this point.
BTW, it was Stanford, Mosher studied at and he was punished because Stanford was told by the Chinese government unless this happened no other Stanford scholar would ever be allowed back into China.
This was done solely to discredit Mosher. It was effective – he’s considered a right wing extremist and alarmist even though he’s been proven correct.
He was a proabort atheist when he went to China and is now a prolife Catholic with 9 children. 🙂
Thanks MC. Done in by the microbes!
Asitis,
I deleted that last comment. Come up with a less condescending way of pointing to seeming lacunae in an argument.
Civility
I don’t know that Asistis should get the last word on this topic…
Gerard,
Thank you for your comments at 9:03 AM regarding the “Ph.D”. You wrote exactly what I was thinking but wasn’t able to put into words.
I know Mr. Reardon and know him to be an intelligent, dedicated and honorable man. I am tired of pro-aborts calling him “biased” because his research hurts their cause. Your article yesterday “Post Abortion Agony” demonstrates negative effects abortion has on women and men that cannot be denied. (I doubt very few pro-aborts would be willing to sit and listen to those stories for all the tea in China. They would be risking a change to their precious point of view.)
Janet, how does Reardon deal with the alleged problems associated with his credentials?
Of course we all know having a PHD does not guarantee the integrity of a person’s research.
The cloning researchers from Korea proved that one.
“Janet, how does Reardon deal with the alleged problems associated with his credentials?”
Mary Catherine,
Good question. The issue has not come up in conversation, so unfortunately I can’t answer your question.
thank you Janet.
I was just wondering and of course, it wouldn’t.
Have a blessed Sunday!
Whoever the drunk under the lampshade was, it wasn’t me. I generally only drop in once a day or so. I really appreciate the kind words from Bethany. When we argue so much, any common ground is a treasure. If we keep looking fearlessly for the truth, we can have all kinds of conflicting opinions along the way. As for Reardon, I don’t much care. If he’s right, he won’t be the only one to show it. If he’s wrong, his paper will be lost in the great ocean of published papers. A Ph.D is a fine thing to have, and often is good evidence that a person has mastered a certain body of information, plus demonstrated the ability to use it in ferreting out something new, but, it is definitely not the only way to know something.
“As for Reardon, I don’t much care. If he’s right, he won’t be the only one to show it.”
exactly and this is just what’s been happening! 😉
among others, Karly Houldsworth’s article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the recent paper co-authored by Brinton.
This will be the tip of the iceberg.
Methinks the pharmaceutical companies would really want to stop all this – they could be facing BIG lawsuits some day…….
Asitis,
Forgive me for saying so, but I think you need a bigger rock to hide behind. By all means get the Brinton paper and read it for yourself, but I quoted that paper, in context, in the post. Brinton and Malone are unequivocal that induced abortion and OC are KNOWN RISK FACTORS for BC. Period.
Aristotle teaches us that a thing can’t be and not be simultaneously. Their paper, quoted above, and the Brinton-authored NCI statement cannot simultaneously stand as true. Their statements are utterly contradictory. Having thus been presented with the documentary evidence, I think it’s a bit of a dodge to say you are waiting to read the paper, after its first paragraph of the results were presented.
Next, you are less than convincing in focussing on Reardon to the exclusion of the rest of the body of literature. Can you present a somewhat comprehensive list of papers to show that you are not using Reardon as a smokescreen? If you can’t, then you demonstrate that you really don’t know how extensive the literature is. If you can, you’ve defeated your own argument.
As for convincing women of abortion’s utter destructiveness, my poor powers of persuasion are grossly insufficient. As a scientist, I allow the data to speak. I don’t think that you can be persuaded by the data so long as you continue to blind yourself to such grotesque self-contradictions on the part of ‘respectable’ Ph.D.’s such as Brinton and Malone.
Further, read my post on Post-Abortion Agony. These women and men speak with the power of raw agony arising from their experiences of abortion. If sitting through a procession of these folks’ testimonies doesn’t persuade people, little else will.
Finally, I agree with you about not believing pro-life researchers, as they have the same sort of agenda the HIV researchers, breast cancer researchers, childhood leukemia researchers, STD researchers have. They have been so motivated, so moved by the compelling body of evidence that they dedicated their lives to research into the etiology and treatment of a particular disease. Such motivation clearly invalidates their life’s work. What we need are disinterested, detached automatons just showing up to punch a card and put in a day’s work.
Unfortunately for your argument, that’s not the way things go. I’m rather late to the table on pro-life issues because for years I simply had other priorities, and while I thought it a sin for a doctor to kill an unborn baby, I anesthetized myself to the rising tide of innocent blood all around me. The experience of my three children’s births changed that for me.
Mark my words. The reason that the mainstream research community will not allow itself to research the harm done to women by abortion is because they all have ironclad position papers written by radical feminists to the contrary. However, the carnage to women is mounting right along with the body count of dead babies. The timbers supporting this gallows are beginning to creak under the weight, and the whole thing is going to come crashing down on the heads of the feminists. The very institution used to advance their cause will be their undoing.
The pro-life community has grown and become rather sophisticated, highly educated, and highly organized. AGAIN I say, science doesn’t create reality, it discovers and reports it. If mainstream science will not do so, there are a number of us with Ph.D.’s who will do so. As the destruction is very real and very prevalent, our reporting is gaining traction with an ever-increasing number of people. It’s no accident that every year the pro-life march in DC grows by tens of thousands.
And it grows because another part of our message is being received; with God there is complete mercy and forgiveness. There is no more powerful and persuasive voice than a post-abortive woman or man who has experienced that mercy and forgiveness.
Gerard, your last two posts were absolutely perfect. You have hit the nail on the head.
Look, I don’t, as Bethany suggests, hold abortion sacred. I do not want to see suppressed any real and significant risks that my exist to women’s health due to contraception and abortion.
I think you do, Asitis.
Instead of being willing to look at the data that has been presented to you, you always hide behind the excuse, “I haven’t seen it, and won’t bother to look, therefore it doesn’t exist or isn’t relevant”.
If you refuse to look at it, you are dismissing data for biased reasons…that is dishonest.
By the way, speaking of the link between OC and cancer, did you know that the World Health Organization lists Oral contraceptives as a group 1 carcinogen?
It gives protection from uterine cancer, but gives “permission” for estrogen to affect the DNA of the breast.
Here is an explanation of how the prolonged use of estrogen causes cancer:
http://bcpinstitute.org/booklet4.htm#estrogen
(written by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi , who is a breast surgeon in private practice in Bound Brook, NJ)
Oh, here is the WHO link, so you won’t assume I’m making it up:
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/crthgr01.php
Finally, I agree with you about not believing pro-life researchers, as they have the same sort of agenda the HIV researchers, breast cancer researchers, childhood leukemia researchers, STD researchers have. They have been so motivated, so moved by the compelling body of evidence that they dedicated their lives to research into the etiology and treatment of a particular disease. Such motivation clearly invalidates their life’s work. What we need are disinterested, detached automatons just showing up to punch a card and put in a day’s work.
Really!
Bethany, doncha know there’s probably SOMETHING in Angela’s education that disqualifies her from being legit, and which prevents her research from being accepted.
It’s really no use trying to present any data to proaborts like Asitis.
They believe what they want to believe. Period.
I think even if there was a definitive study proving a link between OC and cancer, most feminists would NOT accept it.
The consequences are simply too far-reaching.
Imagine, millions of women would actually have to go back to behaving like “real” women again. Gasp!
They might have to turn men down for sex. Them might have to stop prosituting themselves! They might actually GET pregnant. There might actually BE consequences to sex outside of marriage.
The horror of it all is simply overwhelming.
(I feel a hysterical fit coming on…….) **sob, sob**
I think that Asitis probably considers the World Health Organization to be a reputable organization though. They list OC as group 1 carcinogen. Are they lying?
well so far there are some rather interesting effects from OC’s
1. the disruption of the woman to choose a genetically compatible mate
2. PERMANENT lowering of libido
3. may cause prostate cancer and bladder disease in the mother’s children
4. increased arterial plaque
5. decreased bone density
6. increased chance of strokes
7. blood clots
WHO placed the combined estrogen-progesterone OC on the list of Class 1 carcinogens
substances are placed on this list ONLY “when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.” (emphasis theirs)
it’s also interesting to note that there are 100 million women worldwide who use OC’s
the medical fallout with these numbers will be substantial
MC, I wasn’t aware of some of those on your list. Very interesting.
I can personally attest to the loss of libido that I experienced while on the pill several years ago.
Thankfully, I didn’t take them very long – that one side effect, among many other side effects, emotional and physical, are what convinced me to stop taking them- WAY before i knew of any of the other risks involved.
Bethany, I think most of these harmful affects were likely never dreamed of years ago when the pill was developed.
We know a heck of alot more today about how a woman’s hormonal system works – it’s more complicated and there nuances I’m sure the male researchers never dreamed of! 😉
Good Morning Ladies,
Quite a weekend on this thread. Looks like pro-life gladiator camp!
Bethany,
Thanks for sharing the WHO link. Seems that OC is in great company there with arsenic, asbestos, radium, and plutonium.
Makes me appreciate NFP and Humanae Vitae all the more.
Asitis,
You started a great debate with a roar. Too bad you end it with a whimper. The truth is that you are not familiar with the body of research done by those with credible doctorates. You simply invoked Reardon as a smokescreen to cover the monstrous lies of Brinton and Malone.
That’s dishonest, and you won’t get away with it here.
“I think that Asitis probably considers the World Health Organization to be a reputable organization though. They list OC as group 1 carcinogen. Are they lying?”
Well, hopefully by now you have seen my respose to your previous post and realize I am aware of this a do not question this classification nor the reputation of the WHO.
I also am not concerned enough by a Group 1 classification in itself to stop using the pill. Or drinking wine.
“PERMANENT lowering of libido”
Not sure where you found that one Mary Cat, but personally I haven’t experienced that! And if it has been lowered against my knowledge, it was probably a good thing 😉
“hanks for sharing the WHO link. Seems that OC is in great company there with arsenic, asbestos, radium, and plutonium.”
And alcohol too Gerard. Heavens! I bet you wish you could take back that suggestion to have some wine and cheese 😉
And now, this dragon slayer needs some steel-cut oats for breakfast.
“I do not question for one moment that there are people who are adversely affected by their abortion. What portion is this? What are the risk factors? These things need to be determined through rigorous and sound research. done by neutral and credible researchers.”
First of all, we will likely NEVER know exactly the number of women who are adversely affected by abortion both emotionally and physically.
This is because when a woman presents to her doctor or emerg with symptoms, the abortion is not generally noted on her file.
A woman who sees a doctor 5 years postabortion having difficulty getting pregnant is not going to have her condition labelled as an effect of abortion. It might not be, but it might very well be. She could have had a mild secondary infection, scarring or whatever that has now rendered her infertile. How will we EVER know for sure.
Similarily a woman seeing her doctor 20 years later complaining of depression may never disclose to her doctor that she had an abortion. Even if she does, there is no way to connect the dots for many of these cases.
Many women who have abortions don’t go to their family physician. They go to an abortionist. And we’ve seen the type of records abortionists keep for their patients.
The woman doesn’t call the abortionist up 5 months later and tell him she’s depressed. He quite frankly, couldn’t give a flying fig. She calls her doctor.
What is neutral and credible research? Who is a neutral and credible researcher? An abortionist? A prolife doctor? Most researchers hold some sort of view on abortion. No one will say, I don’t care.
Surprisingly most of the research IS done by abortionists or those supporting abortion rights. And surprisingly they are finding problems. In North America these researchers do not report their findings accurately in their conclusions. In Europe and Asia the situation is better because the issue is not so politicized.
as for OC’s:
“As with everything, users need to be aware of the risks and choose for themselves.”
yes, because PP and others pushing these pills on women are so concerned about them knowing the risks?
I don’t think so.
PP doesn’t want women to know fully the risks
ask any woman what are some of the risks of taking OC’s and most can’t name even one!
How many women know that OC’s raise the risk of getting STI’s? Would a woman take them if she knew this?
“Clearly you have a different view of sex and womanhood than I , and most women, do Mary Cat.”
yes, I’m not a prostitute.
I also don’t believe that every man gets to use my body for his own self-gratification, nor do I believe I have the right to use my body in such a way.
And I have enough self-control and self-respect to realize that my body is a gift that I bring to my marriage and to my husband and my husband only.
My body is sacred. Thus I won’t profane my body nor the man’s by trivializing it through repeated, meaningless, sexual encounters. 😉
Did you know alcohol is also a Group 1 carcinogen?
Absolutely. Prolonged exposure to alcohol, especially in excessive amounts, is extremely bad for your health, obviously.
In moderation, of course it has health benefits. As does estrogen, in moderation – NATURAL estrogen your body already produces naturally in those moderate amounts.
Birth control pills contain artificial estrogen and progestogen. Not natural. How moderate do you consider your artificial estrogen use to be, in comparison to what your body needs? Do you realize that the periods you experience are not actually periods but hormone withdrawal bleeding?
Do you not consider the accumulative effects of all of these artificial hormones to your body over the years? I would at least be concerned enough to do a little research about it.
I sincerely hope that you have yourself checked by a doctor every so often. It might not be a bad idea to get a mammogram.
Gentles ALL,
This is getting a little too personal here, and your Censor Librorum will be forced to close down the thread. Please stay on point and leave the predilections of the boudoir safe within their snug and cozy confines. It’s not often that I blush, but my cheeks are rather rosy. Thank You. 🙂
I have no concerns for my health and neither does my doctor. To be perfectly honest, I have outstanding health and fitness. Don’t hate me for it 🙂
I definitely don’t hate you for it, Asitis. What I would hate is if you had developed anything bad as a result of the pill.
That is one reason I want to warn people of it’s ill effects. To educate people and allow them to make an informed decision on whether they really want to put something like that in their bodies. If you still do, obviously, you have that right, and I’m not stopping you.
Just another thought – everyone who smokes doesn’t end up having lung cancer either- in fact, my great-great grandmother smoked cigars every day and lived to be 98. That doesn’t mean that smoking is good for you, or that we should recommend smoking to everyone.
Okay,
There is a big difference between airing the issues and the dirty laundry. Comments have been deleted and this thread is closed until later today.
Well, as I said Bethany, we are informed of any possible risks, small as they are just as we are informed of any benefits when we request the pill.
I was never informed of ANY risks of taking the pill, asitis.
I wholeheartedly agree. While not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer, the risk of cancer from tobacco is simply too high to “recommend smoking”….. to anyone.
Similarly, the risk of breast cancer from oral contraceptives is too high to recommend it to anyone in good faith.