Archive for October, 2010

The ABC Link in Iran

I’ll get this paper and review it in due course. Iran is not known for its Catholics or Catholic guilt, so I wonder what Louise Brinton would have to say about recall bias.

From Lifenews.com:

Babol, Iran (LifeNews.com) — Researchers in Iran have published the results of a new study showing women who have an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. On the other hand, women who carry a pregnancy to term find a lowered breast cancer risk compared with women who have never been pregnant.

The study folllows on the heels of new reports indicating Komen for the Cure gave $7.5 million to the Planned Parenthood abortion business in 2009.

The findings were reported in the April 3, 2010 issue of Medical Oncology but are coming to the public’s attention only now.

Hajian-Tilaki K.O. and Kaveh-Ahangar T. from Babol University of Medical Sciences compared 100 cases of women who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer compared with 200 age-matched controls to review several reproductive factors.

The researchers discovered abortion significantly elevated breast cancer risks. Also, having a first pregnancy at an older age increases the breast cancer risk by 310 percent — which has implications for women who have relied on birth control and delayed a first pregnancy until later in life.

The Iranian scientists also confirmed what other studies have found, namely that increasing parity or the number of births reduces the breast cancer risk significantly.

Reporting on the study, the FoodConsumer web site indicated women with parity equal to or greater than 5 reduced their breast cancer risk by 91 percent compared with women who had never been pregnant and not given birth. Each additional birth also reduced the breast cancer risk by 50 percent.

The Iranian study came just before another research study conducted by scientists in Sri Lanka, which found women who had an abortion in the past were 242 percent more likely to contract breast cancer.

That study was published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology and found a 3.42 odds ratio against women having abortions compared with those who kept their baby.

Abortion was the most significant factor in the study on breast cancer risk and researchers found a significantly reduced risk associated with prolonged duration of breastfeeding a newborn.

Malintha De Silva and colleagues from the University of Colombo led the study.

Combined with the Iranian study and others from the U.S., China and Turkey, five studies in the last 18 months have shown abortion elevates breast cancer risk.

In the one from the Unite States, Louise Brinton, a NCI branch chief, served as co-author.

She and her colleagues admitted that “…induced abortion and oral contraceptive use were associated with increased risk of breast cancer.” The authors cited a statistically significant 40% increased risk of breast cancer following an abortion.

“It’s becoming increasingly difficult for the NCI to keep its fingers and toes in the dike,” said Malec, “especially since many researchers in other parts of the world do not depend on the agency for grants.”


Read Full Post »

Re-Post: A while back, Jill Stanek wrote two brilliant articles in World Net Daily, detailing Susan G. Komen Foundation’s multi-million dollar donations to Planned Parenthood. They are presented here.


The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation had noble beginnings, launched by Nancy Goodman Brinker in response to a promise she made to her dying sister, Susan Goodman Komen, to do all she could to eradicate breast cancer. Komen succumbed to the disease in 1980 at age 36. Nancy went on to contract the disease herself and is now a survivor.

SGK has a noble mission, “to save lives and end breast cancer forever.”

But for years pro-lifers have opposed contributing to SGK because it not only denies that induced abortions may cause breast cancer, it also bestows financial grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Pro-lifers believe that for all the good SGK does, it shoots its mission in both feet by refusing to educate women about the abortion-breast cancer link while funding the United States’ largest abortion provider.

Disregarding decades of worldwide studies concluding there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, logic alone says abortion increases the risk.

On its website, SGK acknowledges that childbearing protects women from breast cancer, and the more children a mother bears and the younger she begins bearing them the better. SGK also acknowledges breast-feeding protects against breast cancer.

But abortion blocks all those preventative measures.

Only last week a new study got lots of press that found breast cancer survivors lower their risk of dying by 42 percent simply by getting pregnant.

But abortion blocks that protection.

SGK acknowledges never having children increases a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer, and delaying childbearing, particularly after age 35, also increases the risk.

And abortion increases the risk of both those risks.


It would seem logical that with all the controversy surrounding abortion’s role in breast cancer, SGK would simply back away from involvement with it in any way if wanting to stay true to its mission “to save lives and end breast cancer forever.”

That would include SGK’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

But SGK is not backing away. Between 2003 and 2008, SGK gave $3 million to Planned Parenthood. In Fiscal Year 2008 alone, Planned Parenthood got $805,000 from SGK.

SGK now has a webpage dedicated to defending its involvement with Planned Parenthood, including message points and a letter from a “pro-life Catholic.”

Most recently added to the webpage, in March, was an open letter from SGK’s chief scientific adviser quoting two Catholic ethicists who “concluded that it was morally permissible for the church to be involved with Komen in light of its funding agreements with Planned Parenthood … specifically and solely for breast health services. …”

SGK maintains there are certain places in the United States where Planned Parenthood is the sole provider of breast-cancer screening, education and treatment.

I don’t believe it, but that is SGK’s defense. Even if so, is it really “morally permissible” to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?

Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006.

PPGNW is Washington’s largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.)

Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.

Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK’s board.

Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, “This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre.”

But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available.

So there is much still unanswered. Why didn’t PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn’t Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.

Eric wrote in his e-mail only “20 of Komen’s 122 U.S. Affiliates fund breast-health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics.” SGK states the total money given represents “less than one percent of the total granted by affiliates.”

My question then is why bother? Why play with fire?

Whatever, the fact remains that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, who is also a member of the board, owns a business – a mall – together with a Planned Parenthood affiliate.

The irony. Susan G. Komen’s nephew is financially enabling an abortion business.

And condemning more women to develop breast cancer.


In my previous column, I revealed that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is in a joint business venture with Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.

Located in Washington state, PPGNW holds a 12.5 percent share of the Metro Centre mall in Peoria, Ill., where Nancy Goodman Brinker’s son Eric Brinker maintains “controlling interest,” according to an e-mail he sent me.

Eric is also a Komen board member.

This only matters because Komen refuses to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer while it insists on bestowing grants to affiliates of the United States’ largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

That Eric Brinker is in business with one of those affiliates thickens the plot.

Brinker wrote me that only “20 of Komen’s 122 U.S. affiliates fund breast health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics.”

Coincidentally, two of those 20, Komen Puget Sound and Komen Boise, fund Brinker’s business partner, PPGNW.

Komen has gone to quite a bit of trouble to protect what it claims is an infinitesimal relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Stating Planned Parenthood receives “less than 1 percent” of its donations, Komen now has a webpage, message points and a dispensation letter from a Catholic named Norman dedicated to sanctioning their relationship.

Why? If there were even the remotest chance abortion causes breast cancer, which several worldwide studies conducted over the course of many decades confirm, wouldn’t a responsible breast-cancer foundation back away from any risk of facilitating it?

Eric wrote in his e-mail to me, in bold, “There is no conclusive link between abortion and breast cancer.” “Conclusive,” interesting. Was Eric subtly acknowledging there is an inconclusive link?

Eric also wrote that Komen only funds Planned Parenthood “in areas where Planned Parenthood clinics are the only venue for women to receive breast screenings.” He and other Komen officials I spoke with stressed these are in underprivileged areas.

That this may be true is only because Planned Parenthood locates clinics in poor and minority areas specifically to control their populations through contraception and abortion. Komen merely corroborates this fact.

But that is no excuse to partner with Planned Parenthood. Early detection of breast cancer through screening should not be the goal. Prevention should be the goal.

All five PPGNW Planned Parenthoods involved with Komen either commit or refer for abortions. All dispense birth-control pills and emergency contraceptives.

Which leads to another point. Komen states on its website:

A large analysis that combined the results of many studies found that while women were taking birth-control pills (and shortly thereafter), they had a 10 to 30 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who had never used birth-control pills.
(Column continues below)

As for the emergency contraceptive pill, which contains 10-15 times the amount of artificial hormones as a single birth-control pill, its labeling states it is contraindicated if one has a current or past history of breast cancer.

In fact, it appears hormonal contraceptives are more seriously implicated in breast cancer than previously known.

In 2009 a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention showed that the risk for women under 40 of contracting a newly identified and virulent form of the disease called triple-negative breast cancer rose by 320 percent if using hormonal contraceptives for a year or more.

That same study, co-authored in part by two of the very National Cancer Institute researchers who in 2003 denied a link between abortion and breast cancer, also acknowledged a 40 percent increased risk of contracting breast cancer under the age of 40 if a woman had had an abortion.

So there are several reasons for Komen to part company with Planned Parenthood.

A final point. Tragically, Susan Goodman Komen was only 33 years old when contracting breast cancer, and she died three years later. Her sister Nancy contracted breast cancer at age 39. She is now a 25-year survivor.

Both were under 40.

Would recognition that one’s reproductive history may be implicated in breast cancer be too hard to handle within the upper echelon of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation?

Would it make the disease less noble?

Read Full Post »

The ABC Literature: #12

For easing newcomers along , please consult the glossary of terms that I’ve written to make the terminology very understandable. Also, consult the post that explains the essential background

Title: Reproductive risk factors for endometrial cancer among Polish women.

Authors: LA Brinton*,1, LC Sakoda1, J Lissowska2, ME Sherman1, N Chatterjee3, B Peplonska4, N Szeszenia-Dabrowska4, W Zatonski2 and M Garcia-Closas1

1 Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Blvd., Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852-7234, USA; 2 Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Cancer Center and M. Sklodowska-Curie Institute of Oncology, W.K. Roentgena 5, Warsaw 02-781, Poland; 3Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20852, USA; 4Department of Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz, Poland.

Journal: British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 1450 – 1456

In this study, conducted in Poland, the authors consider reproductive risk factors associated with endometrial cancer. It is included as a validation of the biological model associated with breast cancer and the effects of estrogens. It is also included to shed some light on the games Dr. Brinton plays with her characterization of statistics.

The study is a case-control study involving 551 women with endometrial cancer (Cases) and 1925 healthy women (Controls).

Results are reported with 95% CI relative risks are reported as odds ratios (OR’s), which for our purposes are essentially the same.

Risk Factors:

Ever had a Full Term Birth

No OR=1.00 (This is the control/reference value)
Yes OR=0.53 (A 47% reduction is risk)

Number of Full-term births

0 OR=1.00
1 OR=0.63 (37% reduction in risk)
2 OR=0.54 (46% reduction in risk)
3+ OR=0.31 (70% reduction in risk)

Number of Induced Abortions

0 OR=1.00
1 OR=1.34 (34% increased risk)
2 OR=1.32 (32 % increased risk)
3+ OR=1.33 (33% increased risk)

Ever problem with Infertility

No OR=1.00
Yes OR=1.33 (33% increased risk)

Of the results, the authors have the following to say:

“A significantly decreased risk was associated with parity (OR adjusted
for parous vs nulliparous ¼ 0.51, 95% CI 0.4 – 0.7) (Table 2).”

{So a 47% decrease in risk with endometrial cancer associated with parity is a significant reduction in risk (As opposed to increased risks in breast cancer ranging from 30%-90% which are discounted as “statistically insignificant”).}

“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.”

{Here 70% becomes substantial}

Later in the paper, Brinton et al. dismiss the induced abortion data as being possibly contaminated by recall bias, yet they offer no discussion of the biological effects of estrogens in inducing cancer. They make this omission in spite of estrogen being a WHO group 1 carcinogen.

So in this paper, we see the protective effect of full term pregnancy in preventing endometrial cancer.

We see an associated increased risk with induced abortion as well.

Most importantly, we see that when the discussion involves other cancers, Brinton regards 47% as significant and 70% as substantial.

Important data as we move the discussion along.

Read Full Post »

Ms. Karen Malec

I wasn’t there. This wasn’t even on my radar screen at the time. But Karen Malec was involved in a big way and wrote all about Dr. Louise Brinton’s sham. Rather than try to retell the story, I present it to you exactly as Karen Malec has written it and posted it on her site. Again, there is a beauty about people like Karen who stand down the tyrants with the truth. Here, in her own words, Karen Malec on the travesty of 2003:

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 152, Palos Heights, IL 6046




1-877-803-0102 (toll free)


Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Scientific Debate That Never Happened

Scientists attending the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) workshop in late February entitled, “Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop,” were charged with the responsibility of conducting a comprehensive review of the research associating induced abortion with increased risk of breast cancer and debating its merits. Although some of the attendees’ own research found significant risk elevations, these scientists disavowed their earlier research and, with a sweep of their hands, announced that an “induced abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk.” This supposed finding was classified as level 1, meaning “well-established.” This contradicts the overwhelming biological and epidemiological evidence supporting a positive relationship.

It is significant that the scientists did not challenge the biological rationale for the abortion-breast cancer link. Scientists recognize that estrogen overexposure is related to most of the known risk factors for breast cancer, that women are dramatically overexposed to estrogen starting early in pregnancy, that estrogen is a tumor promoter and that it stimulates breast cells to multiply. They hypothesize that only a third trimester process provides protection from estrogen overexposure by transforming breast cells into cancer resistant cells. It is not possible for scientists to refute this hypothesis. It makes too much physiological sense.

For seasoned observers of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link, what transpired at the NCI is not at all surprising, considering the well-documented history of scientific misconduct and deception, which has plagued this research since the publication of the first study in 1957. [1] The agency receives its funding from Congress. It is not immune to political pressures. The NCI has been accused of publishing blatant lies about the ABC link on its website. [2,3,4,5]

Nevertheless, the research is a medical and political time bomb, which will inevitably detonate sometime within the next decade as the Roe v. Wade generation ages and the number of cases of invasive breast cancer continues to surge. Sooner or later, women will hold the NCI’s feet to the fire and demand answers to their questions about the nation’s out-of-control breast cancer rates.

Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that the agency is losing the battle against cancer. The incidence of lung cancer, melanoma, prostate cancer and breast cancer are all surging. The agency’s revised statistics show that breast cancer rates have climbed .6% yearly since 1987. How does the NCI plan to reduce the incidence of the disease? The author, Sharon Begley, reported that scientists want still more funding for further research. [6]

One would not know by reading about the workshop on the NCI’s website, but at least one scientist disagrees with the majority, Joel Brind, PhD, an endocrinologist and biologist affiliated with Baruch College of the City University of New York. Despite the fact that he was the lead author of the only quantitative and comprehensive review of the research, his minority report to the NCI was not sought. [7] Moreover, the workshop was concluded prematurely and abruptly without his having had an opportunity to dissent.

Brind points to staggering evidence of a causal relationship: 1) Twenty-nine out of 38 epidemiological studies reporting risk elevations; 2) Sixteen out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk; 3) Thirteen out of 15 American studies finding risk elevations; 4) Seven studies reporting a more than twofold elevation in risk; 5) An animal study showing that more aborted rats develop breast cancer after exposure to a carcinogen than virgin rats and rats with full term pregnancies [8]; and 6) A sound biological explanation for the link. [Reference http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com]

Even though the workshop’s alleged purpose, according to NCI Director Andrew Von Eschenbach, was to formally evaluate and discuss the medical literature, the agency’s scientists thumbed their noses at women and orchestrated a radically different scenario. Only one viewpoint was presented – that there is no association between abortion and the disease.

Brind recently explained what transpired at the workshop in an interview with Agape Press. He said there was,

“no discussion, really, of the merits of any preceding data. I asked a couple of questions, but that was it. Nobody else was interested in discussing the merits or demerits of previous research. The answer I got when I asked, ‘How can you do this (deny an association between abortion and breast cancer) despite all the data going the other way?’ was, ‘There’s widespread agreement that (it) is true, that previous research is flawed.

“So you ask a scientific question, you get a political answer. It’s a very interesting state of play. The only thing that really surprised me was the sheer bluntness of this political assault. It was very clear they were going to do whatever it took to stamp out the abortion/breast cancer link once and for all from the public’s mind. … It was all just a very big fix.

“This is what’s happened any time any credible research has appeared. There’s been a backlash study to say, “oh, it isn’t true” for one reason or another … and they’ve kept raising the political stakes and the level of political action.” [9]

The medical experts selected to attend the workshop were not independent of the agency. On the contrary, they depend upon grants from the NCI or other federal agencies to conduct their research. Brind reported that some experts confidentially expressed concerns that they would be denied grants if they argued in favor of an ABC link.

Still other invited scientists are known to hold strong pro-abortion views. Two have appeared as expert witnesses for abortion providers: Julie Palmer and Lynn Rosenberg. They have testified in cases contesting parental notification laws in Alaska and Florida, respectively.

Leslie Bernstein of the University of Southern California made the only formal presentation at the workshop, and she presented the view that abortion is unrelated to breast cancer risk, despite the fact that her research has primarily addressed the protective effects of exercise and obesity. She revealed her fervent, pro-abortion bent when she said, “There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that, that you know, having babies is the way to reduce your risk.” [10]

Never mind that pregnant women, individuals with a family history of the disease and others might want that information. Never mind that American women have an extraordinarily high 12.5% lifetime risk of the disease. Never mind that tax dollars have paid for research showing that reproductive risk factors are related to a majority of the cases of breast cancer. Never mind that the best way for a woman to reduce her risk is by having more children starting at an early age and breastfeeding them.

Is it any wonder that 211,300 cases of invasive breast cancer are expected this year – an increase of almost 8,000 cases over last year’s estimate? Bernstein presented a new ABC study on Day 2 of the workshop showing a negative relationship, but flatly refused to make her data available to the participants. The three-day workshop was videotaped, but only Days 1 and 3 were made available on the NCI website. Day 2 was omitted altogether. It is the same day that Bernstein announced her new research.

Other scientists presented new research, as well, including Mads Melbye and Polly Newcomb. It was a fraud that their studies weren’t circulated among the scientists for their evaluation before the start of the workshop.

Melbye was the lead researcher in the Danish study, Melbye et al. 1997. [11] Partially funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, it has been widely used to dismiss 29 out of 38 studies reporting risk elevations. Even though NCI scientist Dr. Edison Liu once told Congressmen that “one study doesn’t make a conclusion,” scientists at the workshop largely used this study to support their final conclusions. [12]

Melbye et al. 1997 has been severely criticized for its misclassification of 60,000 women who had abortions as not having had abortions. This team explicitly corrected the errors in its statistical methodology in a 1999 study which found a more than twofold increased risk among women who have pre-term births. [13] These findings contradict the findings of the 1997 study. As one physician explained, a pre-term birth differs very little from an abortion, except with respect to the mother’s intentions.

Melbye et al. 1997 reported in the “Results” section of the paper that breast cancer risk rises 3% per week of gestation before an abortion is performed. This group found a statistically significant 89% risk elevation among women procuring abortions after 18 weeks. Not surprisingly, Melbye announced at the workshop that he “re-analyzed” his data, and this finding is no longer present in his research.

Scientists attending the workshop were seemingly anxious to persuade women of a short-term breast cancer risk associated with pregnancy because they concluded, “Breast cancer risk is transiently increased after a term pregnancy.”

This is a temporary risk, which is much smaller than that of the long-term abortion-breast cancer risk. It only exists among women who delay their first full term pregnancies (FFTP) until after age 25. [14]

Is it the objective of NCI scientists to eliminate the short and long term breast cancer risks? Or is their objective to discourage term pregnancies? If it’s to reduce risk, then why not embark on a public health awareness effort to educate married women about the benefits of an early FFTP before age 25?

It isn’t an argument that serves the abortion industry well. After all, the industry and related advocacy groups (i.e., the National Organization for Women) are in the business of delaying FFTP’s.

The workshop statement also said, “A nulliparous (childless) woman has approximately the same risk as a woman with a FFTP around age 30.” In fact, the risk of a woman with a late FFTP ultimately does fall. A pregnancy is protective at any age.

The workshop statement was submitted to the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Board of Scientific Advisors and Board of Scientific Counselors, which “unanimously” rubber-stamped the findings of the majority. The boards are made up of NCI scientists and scientists dependent on NCI grants, so they cannot be considered independent of the agency’s influence.

The scientists offered women further contradictory conclusions. While asserting that abortion is not related to increased risk, they also said: 1) “Early age at first term birth is related to lifetime decrease in breast cancer risk;” 2) “Increasing parity (childbirth) is associated with a long-term risk reduction, even when controlling for age at first birth;” and 3) “Long duration of lactation (breastfeeding) provides a small additional reduction in breast cancer risk after consideration of age at and number of term pregnancies.”

It is only logical that abortion impacts breast cancer risk by changing women’s childbearing patterns. The failure of scientists to at least acknowledge abortion’s undeniable role in this is both intellectually dishonest and a grave disservice to women.

Can women trust intellectually dishonest scientists to evaluate research supporting a second way that abortion causes breast cancer – an independent link between abortion and the disease? Such a link would mean that the woman who has an abortion has a greater risk of breast cancer than she would have if she had not become pregnant. In other words, an abortion leaves a woman with a greater number of cancer vulnerable cells than what she had before she became pregnant.

Malcolm Pike, the lead author of the first American study, Pike et al. 1981, is a respected researcher and Bernstein’s colleague at the University of Southern California. [15] He and his colleagues found a 140% risk elevation among women choosing to abort. During an interview with a Chicago Tribune reporter, Judy Peres, Pike asserted that his work was flawed because of an alleged problem called “report bias theory.”

Proponents of this theory say that interview-based studies are flawed because healthy women lie about their abortion histories, but not patients. They argue that only sick women can be trusted to tell the truth. They claim this is the only reason why more patients appear to have had abortions than healthy women.

Even though no scientists presently claim to have ever found plausible evidence of report bias, scientists say taxpayers should discard more than two dozen studies representing nearly a half century of research. Why? Because they say so! Do the nation’s scientists know how to practice science? What right do they have to ask taxpayers for more grants for future research?

Chris Kahlenborn, M.D. observed in his book, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, that if there is such a thing as report bias in interview-based studies, then “thousands of other studies in medicine might now be deemed ‘worthless.’ Every time one had a disease or ‘effect’ that was caused by a controversial risk factor (i.e., one of the causes), the study might be considered invalid based upon ‘recall bias.'” [16]

Undoubtedly, this would include AIDS research, research associating suicide attempts with history of child abuse, research linking cervical cancer with multiple sex partners, etc. It amounts to billions of dollars in research purchased by taxpayers. Will scientists junk that research too?

The entire workshop was a sham.


1. Segi M et al. “An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan.” GANN, Vol. 48, Supplement: April, 1957.

2. “National Cancer Institute shamelessly carries on cover-up,” Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, Press Release, March 20th, 2002; http://abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases.htm.

3. Joel Brind, Ph.D., “Latest web page from the National Cancer Institute: A well cooked bowl of factoids,” RFM News, March 23, 2002; http://abortionbreastcancer.com/Public_Policy.htm.

4. “National Cancer Institute pulls inaccurate web page repudiating abortion-breast cancer link,” Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, Press Release, July 2, 2002; .

5. Joel Brind, Ph.D., “NCI’s new ABC “facts”: Fewer lies: U.S. National Cancer lnstitute Changes Website Under Congressional Pressure,” AbortionBreast Cancer Quarterly; Fall, 1999; http://abortionbreastcancer.com/article_once.htm.

6. “New Statistics Show Increase in Cancer Rates, “Sharon Begley, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 16, 2002) pp. B1 & B14.

7. Brind J, Chinchilli, VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. JNCI (1996) 50:481-96.

8. Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol (1980) 100(2):497-512.

9. Pat Centner, “NCI Workshop ‘Stamps Out’ Abortion/Breast Cancer Link/Researcher Calls It ‘A Very Big Fix,'” AFA Online, March 7, 2003.

10. Rachael Myers Lowe, “NCI Scientific Panel Concludes Abortion Has No Impact on Breast Cancer Risk,” Cancer Page, March 3, 2003. Available at http://cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601; Visited April 1, 2003.

11. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med (1997) 336(2):81-5.

12. Dr. Edison Liu, M.D. testimony to the Committee on Commerce regarding “The State of Cancer Research,” (July 20, 1998).

13. Brind J, Chinchilli V. N Engl J Med (1997) 336:1834.

14. Melbye et al. Br J Cancer (1999) 80(3-4):609-13.

15. Lambe et al. (1994) N Engl J Med 331:5-9.

16. Pike et al. (1981) Br J Cancer 43:72-6.

17. Kahlenborn C, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, One More Soul (2000) p. 282-83.

Read Full Post »

A friend calling to mind a departed scandal monger remarked, “He really wasn’t a bad man, he was just a slob”.

One would like to say the same of New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn as she assaults E.M.C. Pregnancy Centers and the other crisis pregnancy centers in New York with proposed legislation that will,

“…compensate for ambiguities like unclear signage at the centers, the bill, set to be announced on Tuesday, would require, among other things, signs at the entrance and in the waiting rooms to inform women that the center does not provide abortions or contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and that it does not provide referrals for those options, either. Signage would also need to make it clear if no licensed medical professional is on the staff.”

according to a New York Times article today.

Chris Slattery, president of E.M.C., is quoted in the Times as responding:

Chris Slattery

“They don’t do pro-life counseling,” Mr. Slattery said, referring to Planned Parenthood. “Why don’t we have on Planned Parenthood’s door ‘No pro-life counseling, only pro-abortion counseling’ — O.K.? Let’s just have a level playing field.”

Indeed, how about legislation that requires Planned Parenthood to show 4D sonograms of the baby to the mother prior to abortion. Why not make the penalty one year in prison and loss of medical license for three years as a first offense, three years in prison and five year loss of medical license as a second offense?

Indeed, let’s level the playing field. Let’s require Planned Parenthood to stop the lies and tell women the truth about their babies’ developmental status and identity?

There is no reason to suspect that Ms. Quinn is a bad woman. But if she is closing her ears to what the post-abortive women are saying about Planned Parenthood’s lies, then she’s acting like a bit of a legislative slob. Our laws must be just. They must protect women by demanding that women be given all of the facts in order to make fully informed consent.

Ms. Quinn should stay her hand, and join us this January on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the gut-wrenching testimonies of post-abortive women who were lied to by abortionists. She must demand full and open hearings that listen to Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

She must listen to breast surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi and endocrinologist Dr. Joel Brind. She needs to hear the leaders of the post-abortive healing ministries.

She needs to willing to entertain ALL of the data. That’s the difference between great legislators and slobs.

Then if she still sees fit to wage war exclusively on CPC’s we’ll be in a better position to assess her goodness.

Read Full Post »

Interesting article from Weirdscience.com:

The impulse to be social is so deep-seated in human consciousness that it’s even evident in the womb, suggests a new study on the interaction of twins just a few months after conception.

Twin pregnancies offer “the unique opportunity to explore social behavior before birth,” wrote researchers led by psychologist Umberto Castiello of Italy’s University of Padova. “Newborns come into the world wired to socially interact. Is a propensity to socially oriented action already present before birth?”

The researchers used ultrasound recorders to make three-dimensional videos of five pairs of twins, once at 14 weeks and again at 18 weeks. By the 14th week, they were already reaching for each other. This was even more pronounced by the 18th week, when fetuses touched each other more often than themselves.

Though some contact is inevitable between two growing bodies sharing a confined space, kinematic analysis showed that fetuses used distinct gestures when touching each other, rather than touching themselves or uterine walls. Their hands lingered.

“Performance of movements towards the twin is not accidental,” wrote the researchers. Their findings were published Oct. 7 in Public Library of Science One.

Earlier research had shown that within hours of birth, newborns already imitate the facial gestures of other people, indicating an inborn capacity for social behavior. The researchers call this “the social pre-wiring hypothesis.”

The findings “epitomize the congenital propensity for sociality of primates in general and of humans in particular,” wrote the researchers. Put another way, it’s human nature to reach out and touch someone.

Image: Video frames representing a fetus reaching towards and “caressing” the back (left) or head (right) of a sibling./PLoS One.

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/social-babies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29#ixzz11z9aceLX

H/T: Fr. Steven Clark

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

As we consider Dr. Louise Brinton’s role in the official dismissal without cause of the scientific evidence concerning the ABC link, it should be noted that Dr. Kathleen Malone who is in on that denial was a co-author with Brinton on the last paper (#10), as well as coauthor on this paper which shows evidence refuting the recall bias assertion. Malone this past January supported the 2003 NCI “Fact Sheet” that denies the ABC link in no small measure because of the panel’s embrace of the recall bias myth that Malone’s own study, under review in this post, refuted.

Title: Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion

Authors: Janet R. Daling, Kathleen E. Malone, Lynda F. Voight, Emily White, Noel S. Weiss

Journal: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Vol 86. No. 21. Nov. 2, 1994

This is a Case-Control study of 845 women in three counties of western Washington State diagnosed with breast cancer between January 1983 and April 1990 (the Cases) and who were born after 1944, and 961 control subjects from the same three counties dentified through random digit dialing.

One of the parameters investigated by the researchers was the debate over recall bias and the assertion that women who had their abortions before the legalization of abortion would be more apt to conceal that information if they were healthy. Therefore, the subjects in this study were selected on the basis of age, ensuring that most of the subjects had most, if not all, of their reproductive years at a time when abortion was legal.

{Bear in mind that many states had legalized abortion for years prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision}


“Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women (95% CI)”

Other Results (Risk of in situ and invasive breast cancer in gravid women associated with prior induced abortion).
Remember that relative risk (RR) of 1.5 means 50% increased risk, 1.8 means 80% increased risk, 2.0 means doubling of risk, etc. All data have 95% CI

Age at first abortion:

30 RR=2.1

Gestational length of first aborted pregnancy

1-8 weeks RR=1.4
9-12 weeks RR=1.9
>13 weeks RR=1.4

Timing of first induced abortion

Before first birth RR=1.4
After first birth RR=1.5
Never gave birth RR=1.7

Interval between first abortion and reference date (years)

0-9 RR=1.4
10-14 RR=1.7
>15 RR=1.4

Family history of BC

None RR=1.4
Family history (sister, mother, aunt, grandmother) RR=1.8
Family history and abortion before age 18 RR=Infinitly High (All 12 cases, no controls)
Family history and abortion over age 30 RR=3.7

In a comparison of women who never had a pregnancy with women whose only pregnancy ended in abortion (63 case patients, 53 controls) RR=1.4

No increased risk of BC in miscarriage.

To assess the issue of recall bias, the authors looked at cases of invasive cervical cancer among women who reported induced abortion (214 cases) and 321 controls. The relative risk in relation to an induced abortion in the case of invasive cervical cancer was 1.0, meaning absolutely no difference, no recall bias.

This is a very important finding, as it suggests that the tight RR’s of 1.5-1.9 in the literature are indeed an indication of a valid physiological phenomenon at work in regard to induced abortion and breast cancer risk.

We now know that virtually all cervical cancers are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV). Thus, the known mechanism for cervical cancer would not be influenced by induced abortion. Conversely, the estrogen-driven proliferation of cancer-prone Type 1&2 cells early in pregnancy, and the denial of placental lactogen’s maturational influence in third trimester would deny the transformation of these immature cells into Type 4 cells.

The fact that there was no recall bias as regards an equally devastating and deadly cancer supports the validity of the studies indicating an ABC link, including this study. Final commentary on this article tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

For easing newcomers along , please consult the glossary of terms that I’ve written to make the terminology very understandable. Also, consult the post that explains the essential background

As I have moved forward with this project of reporting the link between induced abortion and breast cancer, I’ve realized that it involves presenting an enormous body of scientific literature to a general audience of people who were wise enough to steer clear of science as a profession. Science has its own culture fraught with politics, egos, competition for glory, grants, publications, promotions, and awards. Scientists are not saints in lab coats. Far from it. The best of us adhere to the ethical precepts that are meant to guide research , publication, and interpretation for the public.

As this project has developed, I have presented a representative sample of the various elements that comprise the debate and its foundations.

1. Normal breast physiology.
2. The effects of estrogen on breast physiology and pathophysiology.
3. The protective effects of full term pregnancy and breastfeeding.
4. The role of abortion within the context of 1-3 above.
5. The debate over recall bias.
6. The debate over retrospective vs. prospective studies
7. The debate over relative risk size and significance.
8. The politics of data interpretation vis abortion and oral contraceptives.

Admittedly, I have presented a few offerings in each area in an attempt to present the reader with a sense of the landscape. In doing so, I have attempted to integrate each piece of the puzzle, explaining its place and its relationship to the whole.

And that’s all that I have done so far.

As we progress, I shall continue to move about the landscape with a few articles in a row on one topic and then transition into a few on the next, rather than present everything on one topic, then everything on the next, etc. This would be easiest from a thematic organizational perspective, but would kill me with its repetitiveness.

Perhaps I am mistaken in this approach, and as in all things I welcome any and all feedback. However, familiarity with the integrated nature of the material seems to require the approach I have settled on.

Also, to those who think that I should only present the papers explicitly linking abortion and breast cancer, as we go along I hope that it will become evident why a consideration of all the data is vital in understanding the depths of depravity that the NCI panel has engaged in with their 2003 so-called “Fact Sheet” on the ABC link.

So, if folks tune out after a couple of weeks, they have seen the entire scope of the issue. If they hang in there over the next few months, they are as mad as I am (being mad is respectable among scientists, or at least being eccentric).

In the final analysis, I trust women. I trust them to do what is in the best interest of their health, and the health of their families. I trust women with the truth that sits on library shelves collecting dust for fear that it might upend Brinton’s, Palmer’s, Rosenberg’s and Bernstein’s narrow and pathetically distorted worldview. It is a worldview that sees the deaths of close to 2 BILLION babies worldwide through abortion as somehow essential to advancing women, the risk of breast cancer notwithstanding. It is a worldview that is hostile to women, their babies, their husbands, and their choices.

Finally, the principle of informed consent before a medical or surgical procedure leaves no room for discretion on the part of the clinician or the researcher. Risks MUST be divulged for the patient’s discernment. So when Dr. Bernstein famously declares:

“There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.”

{Editorial Note by GN: Bernstein says this in spite of all the data indicating that this is indeed the most significant means of reducing a woman’s risk.}

“I don’t want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument.”

the response of a responsible and ethical scientific and medical community should have been a swift and stunning rebuke.

But as we shall continue to see, where abortion and contraception are concerned, the laws of physics, biochemistry, and pathophysiology are steadfastly ignored, subordinated to a radical agenda that is at its core anti-life, be it the life of the fetus or its mother.

Read Full Post »

Ms. Karen Malec

One day their names will be spoken with profound gratitude and reverence, the way we speak of the giants in the field of microbiology who have relieved us of infectious disease’s scourge. Ms. Karen Malec, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi and Dr. Joel Brind have placed their professional lives, their professional credibility, their good names all on the line for women. They have endured ridicule, the back hand of peers, and stony silence and indifference from those who have done all to suppress the truth these three have fought valiantly to keep in the light. They are truly Children of the Light, and have done all the heavy lifting. There is a beauty about such people throughout the history of science and medicine who, for decades, have stood down the establishment armed with the truth and an unwavering spirit of dedication to the truth. It is at once humbling and a privilege for me to serve merely as science reporter and share their work with any who will stop and entertain that truth.

Today, a speech given yesterday by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi. It is a message of hope in a season when the big business of breast cancer research plays on women’s fears and suggests that we don’t know what causes this terrible disease. Please pray for these three giants, for their great work, and then pray over whether you can in some small way join their work by supporting their institutes linked below.

Here, words of great hope from a breast cancer surgeon who deals with this every day.

Decades of Hope

Speech in Somerville, New Jersey on Courthouse Steps
for Somerset County Cancer Coalition and Freeholders

By Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS
Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery
UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center
October 6, 2010

Breast cancer not only affects A woman. It affects her spouse, family, friends and most especially her children. Yet what we see here today are examples of women who rose to that challenge. What better way to conquer fear than the grace of hope. Hope in a cure. Hope in prevention. Hope that whatever it is they will be challenged with, that they will be able to surmount it and live their lives to fullest each day into their survivorship.

In October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we all hear that 1 in 8 women, or 12.5% of women, will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. That is the cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer, which is a statistically derived number that assumes all women will live to be the age of 82 and not die of something else first. Many times, women hear that number 1 in 8 and they look about the room and start counting off. 1, 2, 3…they believe that someone in that room will get breast cancer if there are more than 8 of them.

But we also need to know that if a women has no risks for breast cancer (other than that she is a woman, living in this country and getting older) her risk of getting breast cancer is only 3.3%. Unfortunately few women have no risk factors. But even if she has a risk factor the increases her risk 100%, or doubles her breast cancer risk, her risk is now only 6.6% That‟s a lot different from one in eight.

We also need to hear is that a woman’s chance of dying from breast cancer in this country is 1 in 35, or less than 3%.

So can we really hope for a cure?

Most women are unaware that it’s already happening.

Lots of women are being cured without great fanfare. You see, one is only officially cured of breast cancer when one dies of something else first, like a heart attack in old age. That’s just how statistics are done and reported. We hear about 5 and 10 year survival rates. Maybe some 10 year survivors will have a relapse of cancer. So we have to wait ’til they die of something else first before we say they were cured.

But what about women who have stage 0 breast cancer, also known as ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS ? With a partial mastectomy and radiation, they have a 97% cure rate. With mastectomy they have a 99.9% cure rate. No chemotherapy is needed to cure them. According to the American Cancer Society, there will be 62,280 women diagnosed with in-situ breast cancer in 2009. We can expect that a minimum of 60,411 to be cured! We just can’t know who they are
until they die of something else first.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi

What about women with Stage 1 invasive breast cancers? Those are the women with small tumors, less than ¾ of an inch, which have not spread to the lymph nodes under the arm. Those women have a 95% cure rate. Since there are many patients with Stage 1 breast cancer treated at Steeplechase, I would expect the vast majority to be cured to be with present treatment regimens.

At the Steeplechase Cancer Center where I work, 53% of all patients who are found to have cancer just because they went for a screening mammogram, (nobody thought they had cancer when they were screened), 53%, or over half, were Stage 0 and Stage 1. That’s why mammograms are so important. They give women excellent odds for a cure and no bookie would take a bet against them. Based upon data when treatment wasn’t as sophisticated and effective as it is now, the 5 year survival rate for tumors up to 2 inches and which had already spread to local lymph nodes, or Stage 2 breast cancers, is 86%. So I do believe there will be even higher cure rates in the future.

We know for sure that there is hope for prevention.

Look at what happened in 2002 after the Women’s Health Intiative Study became known to the public because it made the 6 o‟clock news. Women found out that hormone replacement therapy, Pempro, increased breast cancer risk by 26%. That summer 15 million or half of the 30 million women that were on HRT abruptly stopped. As one of my patients said, “I’d rather have hot flashes than cancer.”

Just a few years later in 2007, it was reported that there was an 11% decline in breast cancer rates in women over 50 with estrogen receptor positive cancers. After much scientific debate, those in the medical field conceded that the decline in rates was attributable to the reduction in the use of HRT. {Hormone Replacement Therapy}

Information that these hormones could cause breast cancer was in the medical literature for over 20 years. But when that knowledge was put in the hands of women who needed and considered it, many acted upon it and breast cancer rates fell.

What do you think will happen when women learn that these same hormones are in oral contraceptives but in much higher doses? Will half of the 75% of premenopausal women in the United States who take hormonal contraceptives stop these hormones like their mothers did after menopause?

What if they learn that in 2005 the UN’s World Health Organization listed oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens, the same group that contains asbestos and cigarettes? I bet that they will learn about the safer methods of fertility control, especially if they have a family history of breast cancer. Breast cancer rates will fall for women less than 50 too.

Dr. Joel Brind

What if women knew that having children and breastfeeding decreased breast cancer risk substantially?

Would we wait so long to have our children if we knew that a woman who waits to have her first child at 30 has a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than the woman who has her first child at 20? I wouldn’t have waited ’til I was 41 to have my first and only child if I had known. Unplanned pregnancies could bring unplanned joy and adoption could be a better option.

It is often said by cancer organizations that 70% of women with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors and that we should give them money to find a cure. It is simply untrue that 70% of all breast cancer patients have no identifiable risk factors. If 75% of women of reproductive age have taken oral contraceptives they are at increased risk. If 20% of the women in this country remain childless, they are at increased risk. If 50% of post menopausal women have taken hormone replacement therapy, they are at increased risk.

Let’s be more more than “aware” in Breast Cancer Awareness Month. You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to be aware that breast cancer exists and is a threat to many women. It’s on the TV news and cable channels, radio, the internet, magazines, newspapers, and even the shopping channel as a patient once told me. You can‟t even go to the grocery store in October without being faced with pink ribbons on food containers to benefit one organization or another.

Let’s be proactive and not just aware. Let’s be pro active make and women aware that breast cancer is curable in many cases if not in at least half those diagnosed with screening mammograms.

We already know lots about what causes breast cancer and what can increase a woman’s risk. Breast cancer is not the fickle finger of fate randomly pointed at women. There are many other avoidable risks. We can hope and expect to reduce breast cancer rates with prevention.

And what of the hope in survivorship?

There are 2.5 million survivors of breast cancer in our country right now. Wouldn’t it be a shame if they worried everyday that their cancer might come back, waiting for the other shoe to drop or with the sword of Damocles over their head? Not able to enjoy life to the fullest? Or didn’t do the things that would reduce the risk of it coming back? They need to know that there is a wonderful survivorship programs with the Wellness Community of Central NJ which is just down the street from here. The name of one program is Transitions. It is a national Wellness Community program that helps women to overcome the challenges of survivorship. There is also a Kids Connect program that helps children to
overcome the challenges of having a parent with a cancer diagnosis.

In a nutshell, hope comes through knowledge and the gift of faith. Both are free for the asking. And in that spirit I will give a copy of my booklet. Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention to anyone who asks me for it.

This October, please consider $upporting the following who desperately need our $upport to get the truth out*:

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

*I have no institutional affiliation or membership with either group. Karen Malec and BCPI have been great resources for me, utterly generous with their time and resources.

Read Full Post »

For easing newcomers in following along, please consult the glossary of terms that I’ve written to make the terminology very understandable. Also, consult the post that explains the essential background
We continue with our treatment of this paper from <strong>Part II.

One of the main components of this article’s investigation is the effect of Oral Contraceptive (OC) use on the development of Triple-Negative breast cancer. Induced abortion has only been one small component of the study. However, the data support the fundamental biological model of breast physiology, namely that high doses of estrogens stimulate breast lobule development, leading to a doubling of breast size and a dramatic increase in the number of immature, cancer-prone Type 1 & 2 cells which require the maturational effects of placental lactogen in the third trimester of pregnancy.

There were a great many parameters measured in the study, and AGAIN, I must stress that BC has MANY risk factors that are well known and well publicized. One need only visit Komen or ACS to see them. What they will not see is the ABC link, and the extent of the data on Oral Contraceptives (OC’s). That is our purpose here, to mine the data buried under a mountain of denials and distortions.

Again, refer to the glossary of terms for brief and user-friendly definitions of the statistical jargon.

All data were reported with 95% CI’s (meaning 95% certitude that the results were not due to chance). Using controls as reference values, the following Odds Ratios were established (meaning risk relative to the controls) OR’s of 2.0 mean a doubling of risk, 3.0 a tripling, 4.0 a quadrupling of disease incidence, etc.

{Fear not math phobes, it’s as simple as that!}

For patients with a family history of BC:

Triple-Negative Patients with a 1st Degree relative OR=3.5
Triple-Negative Patients with a 2nd Degree relative OR=1.8

Non-Triple-Negative Patients with a 1st Degree relative OR=2.8
Non- Triple-Negative Patients with a 2nd Degree relative OR=1.7

*We’ll return to these risks at a later date as regards abortion and family history.

For all breast cancer cases, triple-negative and non-triple-negative cases, in relation to oral contraceptive risk factors, stratified by age at diagnosis </=40

Oral Contraceptive Use (Year):

Triple-Negative Patients.

Never/<1year use. OR= 1.0 (Reference)
1+ year use. OR= 4.2

Non-Triple-Negative Patients

Never/<1year use. OR= 1.0
1+ year use. OR= 1.2

OC Duration (years):

Triple-Negative Pts.

1 to < 3 OR=3.0
3 to < 6 OR=4.9
6+ OR=4.7

Non-Triple-Negative Pts.

1 to < 3 OR=1.3
3 to < 6 OR=1.2
6+ OR=1.2

Age at First Use:

Triple-Negative Pts.

22+ OR=3.5
18 to <22 OR=3.7
<18 OR=6.4

Non-Trip. Neg. Pts

22+ OR=1.1
18 to <22 OR=1.1
<18 OR=1.8

Years Since 1st Use

Triple-Negative Pts.

<20 OR=4.2
20+ OR=4.2

Non-Triple-Negative Pts.

<20 OR=1.2
20+ OR=1.6

Years Since Last Use:

Triple-Negative Pts.

Current OR=4.5
1 to <10 OR=5.1
10 to 15 OR=4.2
15+ OR=2.1

Non-Triple-Negative Pts.

Current OR=0.8
1 to <10 OR=1.3
10 to 15 OR=1.4
15+ OR=1.2

These are simply devastating numbers. Considering how Planned Parenthood targets our daughters in their teen years and pumps them full of OC’s, this is just atrocious. Final analysis and commentary on this paper tomorrow.

Read Full Post »

For ease newcomers following along , please consult the glossary of terms that I’ve written to make the terminology very understandable. Also, consult the post that explains the essential background
We continue with our treatment of this paper from Part I

The authors found a 40% increased risk in all forms of BC, as well as in triple negative BC. Based on this, there are some who say that this is proof of reporting or recall bias, as the percentages are the same across the board. There are a few responses to this argument.

First, It may well be that Oral Contraceptives (OC’s) contribute to BC by a different mechanism than does abortion. Estrogens in abortion and Oral Contraceptives (OC’s) stimulate the proliferation of breast tissue, doubling the number of immature cells that need the maturational effects of placental lactogen, which differentiates them into cancer resistant cells. However, the synthetic estrogens in OC’s are also implicated in the processes of tumor formation. That this study shows such dramatic increase in triple negative BC associated with OC use, compared to other forms of BC suggests a unique influence by the synthetic estrogens in the drug, as opposed to the natural estrogens. That isn’t to say that the natural estrogens are not also implicated, just that their effects may not be so marked as the synthetic estrogens.

Thus the mechanism by which disease is caused is not monolithic.

Next, it is a curiosity that the self-reports are only alleged to suffer from recall bias when they are about past abortions, and not OC use, or any other element of the health history. We saw a few days ago with Dr. Leslie Bernstein, 2003 NCI pro-abortion panelist, exactly where the actual bias resides when she said after the fraudulent “Fact Sheet” was issued:

“There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.”

{Editorial Note by GN: Bernstein says this in spite of all the data indicating that this is indeed the most significant means of reducing a woman’s risk.}

“I don’t want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument.”

There are three “I’s” in there. Scientists are trained to step out of the spotlight when reporting the data and let the data speak for themselves. Here we see a scientist (speaking for the group?) who muzzled the data in order to allow her predilections take center stage. This is where the process gets corrupted. This is where the public is shielded from the truth because a self-appointed academic aristocracy decides what it is the public should and should not know about risk factors for disease, based upon a particular vision of social engineering.

Brinton and the rest of her like-minded colleagues may be sincere, but they are sincerely unethical and corrupt in publishing these data on the one hand, claiming in this paper that induced abortion is a known BC risk factor, and refusing to alter the NCI position paper from six years earlier which denies that link.

Further, Brinton, et al. returned to a 1990’s data set that they dismissed as contaminated by recall bias in 2003, and squeezed out another publication in 2009. They could have omitted the data on the ABC link in this 2009 paper, having already declared it invalid in 2003. They didn’t. It is impossible to speculate as to why they did not, as to why they listed induced abortion among the known BC risk factors. Any speculation as to motive is fruitless.

The fact remains that they have once again published a link. They have also reviewed and let stand (on January 12, 2010) their NCI position paper. Whatever their definition of women’s empowerment and how that may be negatively impacted relative to the realities of childbearing and rearing, the sight of a woman recovering from mastectomy, ravaged by radiation and chemotherapy, is hardly one that conjures an image of empowerment and hardly seems worth the trade.

The fact that Brinton, et al. don’t trust women with the information to discern that trade-off’s worth tells us everything we need to know about their brand of feminism. It is morally bankrupt, utterly untenable, and deeply hostile to women, children, and families. It is characterized by an arrogance and contempt so severe as to require the deliberate dismissal and distortion of over a half-century of scientific data regarding yet another deleterious consequence of abortion on women’s bodies, minds, and spirit.

It seems that the elitists of the feminist movement have imposed their own brand of chauvinism on their sisters, one with far deadlier and mutilatory consequences than the male chauvinism it replaced. Neither trusts women to deal with reality and organize their lives in a manner of their own choosing. Trading one set of chains for another is not liberation. The scientific data contain, both a validation of traditional moral norms and family life, as well as the way forward for any who care to stop and take an unbiased look.

In Part III, the frightening association between OC’s and triple negative BC.

This October, please consider $upporting the following who desperately need our $upport to get the truth out*:

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

*I have no institutional affiliation or membership with either group. Karen Malec and BCPI have been great resources for me, utterly generous with their time and resources.

Read Full Post »

For ease newcomers following along , please consult the glossary of terms that I’ve written to make the terminology very understandable. Also, consult the post that explains the essential background

Today’s paper is actually Saturday’s post. I seized a last minute opportunity to drive to Boston with my son to attend the BC-Notre Dame football game, and was busy all day yesterday. So today’s article, which covers a great deal of ground, will be considered in two posts to make the reading more manageable.

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

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

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

Journal: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 2009;18(4): 1157-1166

The current study investigates the etiologic (causal) factors for triple negative breast cancer, which is an extremely aggressive form of the disease. The cancer cells are negative for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor/human epidermal growth factor. I won’t be delving into the molecular biology of the disease in the posts in order to keep the focus of the project. However, we can discuss anything in the comments below.

The paper uses the data on patients from two previous population-based, case-control studies by the authors in the early 1990’s:

17. White E, Malone KE, Weiss NS, Daling JR. Breast cancer among
young United States women in relation to oral contraceptive use.
J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:505 – 14.

18. Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast
cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl
Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584 – 92.

“In-person interviews of comparable format, covering a broad range of risk factors that included lifestyle/demographic factors, reproductive history, and oral contraceptive use, were administered to participants in both studies. Tumor specimens were obtained for 1,019 of the 1,286 cases with invasive breast cancer who were accrued in the two previous studies. Tissue collection, pathology review, and testing for prognostic markers have been discussed previously.”

Tissue samples taken from the tumors in those women were frozen for future study and analyzed in the current study.

As we shall see in this 2009 paper, the risks for BC arising from induced abortion are consistent with earlier findings from the authors, and in the literature we have examined to date. In a sleight of hand that carries no merit in the scientific community, the authors seek to indemnify Dr. Louise Brinton from responsibility for the data refuting her NCI panel’s declaration that there is no credible link between induced abortion and BC. They note at the bottom of the first page:

“ Note: J.M. Dolle had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility
for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.”

While it is true that in large collaborative studies such as this one not every author can rigorously argue and defend every aspect of the study, it is nevertheless accepted that signing one’s name to the submitted paper is an indication that one takes ownership of ALL the data and stated conclusions. Thus the disclaimer may well make Dolle the principle author for a defense of the end-product of data analysis, but Louise Brinton has given her implicit agreement with Dolle’s contribution, and is thus responsible for now placing herself in the untenable position of either needing to withdraw thia paper, or withdraw her 2003 NCI “Fact Sheet”.

The note does not simply direct questions about the data analysis to Dolle. It suggests that she bears the responsibility for the data analysis in a manner that is disproportionate to the ownership of that analysis by every author who subscribed their name.

In this study, the authors boast of its robust size (which is no larger than most of the other retrospective studies claiming an ABC link) as being a strength:

“We undertook this study to evaluate the contribution of known and suspected breast cancer risk factors to triple-negative breast cancer in a large population-based study.” (pg. 1158)

“Our study has the strength of being population based and is the largest of its kind to evaluate breast cancer subtypes and etiologic differences in young women.” (pg. 1165)

These are important claims, as the authors invalidate the critique suggestive that only huge prospective studies involving scores of thousands to hundreds of thousands of subjects have the strength of numbers for making claims such as an ABC link. Further, if the authors dismiss the self-reports of women as regards abortion, then why would they have cause to believe the integrity of those self-reports regarding anything else? The authors list the known risk factors for BC, including OC use and induced abortion:

“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 (Table 1). 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. Risk was decreased in relation to greater number of births and younger age at first birth. Oral contraceptive use >1 year was associated with a modest increased risk for breast cancer, and among oral contraceptive users only, earlier age at first use further elevated the risk.” (1162-1163)

This statement validates all that we have covered together up until this point in our analysis of the literature, and Dr. Louise Brinton has accepted ownership of this statement. We shall consider this all in greater detail in Part II.

Read Full Post »

Choice on Parade

It lasted less than thirty seconds, but it was one for the books.

We were at our local Columbus Day Parade, watching our children march. All of the local politicians were out in force working the barricades. So were their campaign workers, including the boy no older than fourteen.

He was campaigning for Congressman Michael Mc Mahon, the Roman Catholic, Knight of Columbus who is ardently pro-abortion with the voting record to prove it.

The boy approached us, extending with a smile, a campaign leaflet. I returned his smile and said, “I’m sorry son, but in my home we only vote for pro-life candidates.” Immediately a man seated behind me snarled, “He’s a pro-life Catholic and I disagree with him.” (meaning me)

The boy stammered, searching for a few seconds for the appropriate response, and then it came, weak and half-hearted. Utterly programmed.

“You can’t be a single issue voter, sir.”

“Well son, I’m certainly glad to see that this single issue was pretty important to your mom when she was carrying you,” came my immediate and gentle reply.

He looked deflated, cast his eyes down, and walked away.

This is the corruption of youth. This is how it begins.

A boy just at the cusp of adolescence offering up an apologia for the “Constitutional Right” that has robbed him of 33% of his generation, friends he’ll never know, physicians who would have found a cure for the disease that will rob him of loved ones.

A boy whose parents will one day be taken from him years prematurely under the health care plan forwarded by Mc Mahon’s fellow travelers.

A boy parroting words he does not understand because he has in all likelihood never seen photos of aborted babies, listened with anguish to the testimony of former abortionists and the post-abortive mothers and fathers.

A boy who has no clue about the thousands of women who die annually from surgical and chemical abortions, or those who suffer the gynecologic, reproductive, oncologic, and psychological fallout.

He doesn’t know any better. He’s just a boy, and no doubt looks to his father the way my son looks up to me. To be fair, my children don’t know any of the fallout and the other realities of which this boy is ignorant.

But this much they do know:

They know that abortionists lie.

They know that a baby is murdered in its mother’s womb.

They know to pray for the deceivers, the deceived, and the slaughtered.

They know that all violence is sinful.

They know that their father and mother love life, embrace life in all of its imperfect beauty.

They know that they are loved by God and that God’s love demands that it be shared, not jealously hoarded, like the servant who hid his master’s money in the ground.

And they know that we expect them to be charitable in all things, with all people, and that this is never negotiable or for sale.

Not even if it means the highest office in the land.

Read Full Post »

Repost: I’m driving my son to Boston today for tonight’s Boston-Notre Dame Football game. I’ll post two ABC articles tomorrow, but for now this older article gets to the heart of the issue involving scientific orthodoxies.


“At the heart of science lies discovery which involves a change in worldview. Discovery in science is possible only in societies which accord their citizens the freedom to pursue the truth where it may lead and which therefore have respect for different paths to that truth.”

-John Polanyi, Canadian Nobel Laureate (Chemistry);
Commencement Address, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada, June 1990

In two perfect sentences, Polanyi throws abundant light on the difficulties surrounding scholarship that support the realities of the Culture of Life. There seems to be scientific data that supports both sides. How can this be? It depends on one’s understanding of how science is done, and the scientific culture in which it is done.

For most, their last formal encounter with science took place in high school, or a course in college, where the Scientific Method was taught as the only acceptable standard for discerning truth in the scientific community. As is the case with so many disciplines, that’s what one learns on the front end. For the workaday truth, one needs to stick around awhile.

The scientific community is made up of humans, not machines. We’re just as given to petty (and not-so-petty) jealousies, lust for power and glory, lust for fame and fortune as anyone else. We’re just as given to back-biting and back-stabbing as anyone else. We’re just as given to distorting the truth to fit our pre-conceived ideas as anyone else.

That’s a problem, a very big problem for a community whose training and skills make us best suited for distilling and discerning nature’s secrets.

It’s why we have codes of ethics. As the President’s Council on Bioethics said (quoted a few posts down):

“we are unable to imagine ourselves as people who could take a morally disastrous next step. We are neither wise enough nor good enough to live without clear limits.”

Still, even amongst the most ethical scientists, schools of thought on a given topic emerge and orthodoxies arise. People have much riding on those orthodoxies: grant money, publishable papers (which get more grant money), tenure, promotion, esteem, chairmanships on national boards and committees, etc. Such lucre clouds the objectivity of some of the most ethical amongst us, and often unwittingly gives rise to soft tyranny.

The history of science is fraught with tragic figures who challenged the prevailing orthodoxies of their day and were ostracized, dying broken and in obscurity only to be vindicated in death. One such figure is Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss, whose name should be spoken reverently by all pro-lifers. From the Semmelweis Society International

“Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 – August 13, 1865), also Ignác Semmelweis (born Semmelweis Ignác Fülöp), was a Hungarian physician called the “saviour of mothers” who discovered, by 1847, that the incidence of puerperal fever, also known as childbed fever could be drastically cut by use of hand washing standards in obstetrical clinics.

“While employed as assistant to the professor of the maternity clinic at the Vienna General Hospital in Austria in 1847, Semmelweis introduced hand washing with chlorinated lime solutions for interns who had performed autopsies. This immediately reduced the incidence of fatal puerperal fever from about 10 percent (range 5–30 percent) to about 1–2 percent. At the time, diseases were attributed to many different and unrelated causes. Each case was considered unique, just like a human person is unique.

Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis

“”Semmelweis’ hypothesis, that there was only one cause, that all that mattered was cleanliness, was extreme at the time, and was largely ignored, rejected or ridiculed. He was dismissed from the hospital and harassed by the medical community in Vienna, which eventually forced him to move to Budapest.

“Semmelweis was outraged by the indifference of the medical profession and began writing open and increasingly angry letters to prominent European obstetricians, at times denouncing them as irresponsible murderers. His contemporaries, including his wife, believed he was losing his mind and he was in 1865 committed to an asylum (mental institution). Semmelweis died there only 14 days later, possibly after being severely beaten by guards.

“Semmelweis’ practice only earned widespread acceptance years after his death, when Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease which offered a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis’ findings. Semmelweis is considered a pioneer of antiseptic procedures.”

Had his peers not been wedded to their pet hypotheses and been open to new ideas and hard data, how many women and children might have been saved? How much sooner might the germ theory of disease been established? We now know that Puerperal Fever is a type of ‘strep’ infection, caused by Streptococcus pyogenes.

Ideas have consequences, as does their rejection. In Part II, we’ll consider the specific application of the current rejection of Post-abortion Syndrome in the face of mounting data to the contrary.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: