• Home
  • About
  • BIO
  • Conferences
  • Contact
  • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
  • Speaking

Coming Home

Dr. Gerard M. Nadal: Science in Service of the Pro-Life Movement

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« The ABC Literature: #11, Further Refutation of the ‘Recall Bias’ Myth
Babies Want To Be Social Before They Are Born »

The Brinton Gang and the Art of the Lie

October 8, 2010 by Gerard M. Nadal

Dr. Louise Brinton


In the early 1970’s a comic send up of the hit movie, The Godfather, was released on 33 1/3 record: Everything You Wanted to Know About the Godfather, But Were Afraid to Ask. It was hilarious. In their riff on the crooked police lieutenant scene, the “Godfather” quips, “It’s guys like him that make me lose respect for the law”.

I could say the same about my regard of pro-abortion rights apologists when I think of Dr. Louise Brinton. She and her gang have been masterful in their duplicity. Another bit of duplicity here today.

In their renunciation of the substantial body of literature showing a link between abortion and breast cancer, with relative risks (RR) between 40%-90%, these odds have been dismissed by the Brinton Gang with a wave of the hand as being ‘statistically insignificant’. Data that are significant, we are admonished, reside in the RR range of 2.0 (doubling) or higher.

So how would Brinton characterize a RR of 1.7 (70%)? One would expect that 70% being between 40% and 90% would be, in their estimation, statistically insignificant, whether such a percentage were associated with increased or decreased risk.

The answer is: It depends!

It depends on whether or not we are discussing abortion. In the 2007 paper that we shall examine later today (#12), when the topic is endometrial cancer with parity as a risk factor, Brinton states the following:

“Similar to previous investigations (Brinton et al, 1992; Albrektsen et al, 1995; Hinkula et al, 2002), we found a substantially reduced risk of endometrial cancer associated with parity, with women having three or more full-term births being at a 70% lower risk than nulliparous women.”

So here, when abortion is not on the table, 70% is a “substantially reduced risk”.

But a 70% increased risk of BC arising from induced abortion is statistically insignificant.

When medical scientists subordinate truth to their pet agendas, people die. Women are dying because of these lies, because they are being denied fully informed consent. They are suffering the physical and emotional disfigurement that comes with mastectomy. Intimacy suffers frightfully. Families are upended. Children suffer the loss of mothers needlessly.

Need we discuss the avoidable medical costs in all of this?

And for what? For Brinton’s vanity. Bernstein’s vanity. Palmer and Rosenberg’s vanity.

Women are losing breasts, losing families, losing their lives, because these ardent pro-aborts can’t lose face. It’s difficult to admit that the means employed in attempting to realize noble goals that organized the worldview of one’s youth could have had such unforeseen and disastrous consequences. Admitting the mistake and breaking with the feminist establishment would no doubt exact a terrible price. Concealing it is selfish, cowardly, cruel, and unethical.

Having betrayed the ethical precepts of scientific inquiry, these liars have betrayed women in the scores of millions, the self-same women they purportedly champion.

The biological and medical sciences do not have as their ends the maintenance of positive law rights, such as abortion. Science has as its end the discovery of truth, including biological and medical truth. Policy debate comes after, and is predicated on the truth discovered. Knowing the truth of their discoveries, the Brinton Gang have much to fear on the policy front. They know well that women in significant numbers will opt out of abortion if they were presented with the truth. Why else would they go to the extent that they have in falsifying the truth?

The co-opting of a valid debate predicated on new information shows the imperiousness of this gang, their utter contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their vision, and even for those who do.

It is time to demand that Brinton make a decision. If she believes her 2003 NCI “Fact Sheet” is correct, then she must withdraw her subsequent 2009 paper identifying abortion as a known risk factor for BC. If on the other hand 70% is a substantial number, then her published papers are in direct opposition to her “Fact Sheet” and that document must be rescinded. Both cannot stand simultaneously.

This is the decade when the truth, long-suppressed, finally makes its way into women’s hands. The Brinton Gang will ultimately be remembered as politically driven hacks who never really valued the virtue of choice inherent in their brand of feminism and resorted to deception in order to keep the revolution alive. Fearing that women would actually choose husbands, children, and family life over career, the feminist leadership in every quarter has done all it can to drive women, like so many cattle, toward the promised land.

In so doing, they will be remembered as having contributed to visiting the horror of breast cancer on untold numbers of women, all in the name of sisterhood, and will have secured for themselves an ignominious place in the annals of biomedical ethics.

Science continues to grow and truth continues to be discovered. The harder one tries to suppress that truth, the more it leaks out of the crevices created under such pressure.

These are yesterday’s women.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Breast Cancer | 3 Comments

3 Responses

  1. on October 9, 2010 at 3:00 AM snaul

    Ad hominem’s are flung at Brind and Malec, et. al, by not a few sources. But I do not find them effective either way, even though the pro-aborts are ruthless. I need data, not ad hominems. If the data speaks, ad hominems are not needed, even though they are more interesting than statistics.


  2. on October 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    snaul,

    Conclusions based upon the data and how they are shielded from the public are fair and even necessary to make in assessing how well one is discharging their duty in such responsible positions. It’s not ad hominem. It’s the only way to root out misconduct and maintain scientific credibility in important agencies such as NCI. More to come on this. Much more to come.


  3. on October 9, 2010 at 2:22 PM thereserita

    please keep up the good work! I’m a postabortive mom who knew nothing of this research at all, of course. I very much resent Brinton/NCI et al taking it upon themselves to decide which info I need or is relevant & which isn’t. That infuriates me bc its not their job to decide…unless we live in communist country!



Comments are closed.

  • Archives

    • July 2021 (1)
    • January 2021 (7)
    • November 2020 (1)
    • May 2020 (2)
    • September 2019 (1)
    • May 2019 (2)
    • April 2019 (1)
    • February 2019 (1)
    • April 2018 (2)
    • January 2017 (1)
    • December 2016 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (10)
    • July 2016 (2)
    • June 2016 (1)
    • May 2016 (1)
    • April 2016 (1)
    • March 2016 (1)
    • February 2016 (3)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • November 2015 (2)
    • October 2015 (1)
    • September 2015 (1)
    • August 2015 (3)
    • April 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (1)
    • December 2014 (3)
    • November 2014 (1)
    • October 2014 (4)
    • September 2014 (15)
    • August 2014 (6)
    • June 2014 (5)
    • May 2014 (1)
    • April 2014 (2)
    • March 2014 (2)
    • February 2014 (1)
    • January 2014 (3)
    • December 2013 (17)
    • November 2013 (9)
    • October 2013 (12)
    • September 2013 (4)
    • July 2013 (2)
    • June 2013 (5)
    • May 2013 (2)
    • April 2013 (3)
    • March 2013 (6)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (1)
    • December 2012 (18)
    • November 2012 (6)
    • October 2012 (13)
    • September 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (10)
    • June 2012 (13)
    • May 2012 (8)
    • April 2012 (1)
    • March 2012 (11)
    • February 2012 (21)
    • January 2012 (5)
    • December 2011 (18)
    • November 2011 (3)
    • October 2011 (23)
    • September 2011 (24)
    • August 2011 (22)
    • July 2011 (22)
    • June 2011 (29)
    • May 2011 (8)
    • April 2011 (11)
    • March 2011 (18)
    • February 2011 (42)
    • January 2011 (26)
    • December 2010 (30)
    • November 2010 (34)
    • October 2010 (33)
    • September 2010 (16)
    • August 2010 (15)
    • July 2010 (7)
    • June 2010 (21)
    • May 2010 (33)
    • April 2010 (14)
    • March 2010 (41)
    • February 2010 (36)
    • January 2010 (59)
    • December 2009 (59)
  • Categories

    • Abortion (258)
    • Advent (26)
    • Biomedical Ethics (82)
    • Birth Control (51)
    • Bishops (87)
    • Black History Month (10)
    • Breast Cancer (65)
    • Christmas (26)
    • Cloning (4)
    • Condoms (16)
    • COVID-19 (1)
    • Darwin (2)
    • Development (6)
    • Dignity (119)
    • Divine Mercy Novenas (10)
    • DNA (3)
    • Embryo Adoption (2)
    • Embryonic Stem Cell Research (6)
    • Eugenics (29)
    • Euthanasia (8)
    • Family (44)
    • Fathers of the Church (11)
    • Fortnight for Freedom (1)
    • Golden Coconut Award (3)
    • Health Care (14)
    • HIV/AIDS (5)
    • Infant Mortality (2)
    • IVF (4)
    • Joseph (6)
    • Lent (17)
    • Margaret Sanger (19)
    • Marriage (6)
    • Maternal Mortality (2)
    • Motherhood (12)
    • Neonates (1)
    • Personhood (20)
    • Physician Assisted Suicide (4)
    • Planned Parenthood (64)
    • Priests (50)
    • Pro-Life Academy (23)
    • Quotes (10)
    • Radio Interviews (3)
    • Right to Life (34)
    • Roots (1)
    • Sex Education (25)
    • Sexually Transmitted Disease (12)
    • Stem Cell Therapy (7)
    • Transgender (1)
    • Uncategorized (206)
  • Pages

    • About
    • BIO
    • Conferences
    • Contact
    • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
    • Speaking

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Coming Home
    • Join 866 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Coming Home
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
    %d bloggers like this: