My apologies for the weeklong absence. I’ve been under the weather and will be playing catch-up all week.
Today we consider a prospective study out of Harvard, involving 105,716 women, which declares no association between induced abortion and breast cancer. We shall consider several other of these ‘gold standard’ studies which indicate no link between induced abortion and BC. Far from being the last word, they are riddled with methodological flaws, which according to Dr. Joel Brind, “fits a pattern that is disturbingly familiar.” It is an assessment with which I heartily concur.
An editorial word before we look at the paper. When professional societies and National Institutes exert political muscle to force a termination to debate, they do violence to the truth. They do violence to the scientific process. They do violence to untold numbers of future patients by prolonging through obfuscation the process of ascertaining truth and the formulation of just law and sound public health policy. Eventually the truth cuts through the din like sunlight through fog.
The proper disposition of the NCI ought to have been a workshop that welcomed Dr. Brind, Dr. Lanfranchi, and Dr. Kahlenborn as equals at the table.
The proper disposition of Dr. Brinton should have been that of an honest broker.
The proper proceedings of the workshop should have been a full debate and vetting of each side’s list of methodological weaknesses that it saw in the other’s presentation of the research.
The proper resolution ought to have been a series of collaborative projects where all methodological issues could be resolved in a series of studies that could be agreed upon as valid in design and execution.
Pro-lifers don’t need to waste their time chasing clouds. If such studies were to indicate that the data aren’t there on this issue, then it would free researchers to pursue other, more fruitful areas of research. That said, the data all line up to support the contention that induced abortion raises breast cancer risk, especially when one considers the flaws in the other side’s critique of the retrospective studies and execution of their own prospective studies.
However as is so often the case in the history of science, the first party to employ the draconian tactic of declaring the debate over, (which is anathema to how science is done) and ruling with the iron rod of grant funding and editorial control, is always the party shown by history to have eventually been disproven by the data which compel the community to change course.
Usually not before the needless loss of so many lives.
Worse still is that every paper funded by NCI, including today’s, that was funded after the 2003 workshop is contaminated. Authors are loathe to bite the hand that feeds them. This is especially pronounced in the environment of the past twenty years that has seen a steadily drying pool of grant money. Also, the process of grant funding after such non-scientific, imperious pronouncements, tends to select against known contrarian authors whose design might reignite debate. It tends to select for authors of a like mind, thus reinforcing the bias and agenda that drove the dishonest and politically charged workshop and fraudulent conclusion in the first place.
We’ll consider the paper and its flaws in Part II.
