In the ongoing discussion about Komen funding for Planned Parenthood, it is essential that people understand the central issue, which is Komen funding an organization whose activities actually contribute to the incidence of breast cancer. One commenter on yesterday’s post, Dave Bunnell, left a very succinct statement with a perfect analogy to capture the essence of this debate. I thought it deserved its own post. Thanks, Dave. You’ve nailed it!
Reblogged this on The Bunnell Blog and commented:
Planned Parenthood’s activities increase breast cancer rate more than anything else Komen Foundation does decreases it. For Komen to give into PP’s campaign of lies and pressure to give them money would be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving letting Budweiser shake them down for funds.
Coming Home 
Bearing false witness here?
The National Cancer Institute concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings can be found in the Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop….The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.”
The National Institutes of Health http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280 also weigh in on this topic.
Christians may not accept this, but educated medical professionals don’t rely on divine revelations by committee derived from church meetings. Spouting this handmade hooey does not in any way validate Dave Bunnell’s position.
Sorry, Stephen, but it is you who are wrong.
Dead wrong.
On the right side of the page on my blog is a box entitled “Categories” It lists many topics I’ve written on, including breast cancer. Click on breast cancer then scroll to the last article (which is the first written) and start working your way through them. It’s all right there, including the links to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, and the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. In short, NCI held a sham workshop that never allowed the other side to the table, and had there radical proabort researchers who have testified on behalf of the abortion industry against parental notification laws.
The science is consistent and conclusive.
You have staked out a position of being dedicated to scientific truth, and that requires you to now see for yourself that NCI lied. The same Dr. Louise Brinton of NCI who chaired the sham workshop in 2003, published an article in 2009 listing abortion as a known or suspected risk factor for breast cancer.
You have a great deal of reading ahead of you Stephen. I caution you…
Make damned sure of yourself before giving women “medical” advice that could lead them to the ravages of breast cancer. This isn’t religion or politics. This is women’s lives and the denial of scientific truth by radicals in the paid employ of the abortion industry.
As soon as an objector attacks the person or group with an ad hominem argument, immediately smell illogical posturing. Thank you Dr . Nadal.
[…] Source: https://gerardnadal.com/2012/02/07/planned-parenthood-komen-and-breast-cancer/ […]
Let’s also know that the use of contraception has also been documented to be a cause of cancer in women. PP doles out contraception RXs with this knowledge. The SADD/Budweiser analogy is very apt!
And you can be sure – your links to ABC are well used for all of my discussions. It quiets the other side down rather quickly… at least on that point….
Dr. Nadal – You are in my prayers everyday. Prayers that more like you come along on this fight for life….. Prayers that you are continued to be heard every day…. Prayers that you are around for a long, long, long time
There are two very distinct processes of thought here. The articles you reference make sound and logical points of view in favor of your position when applied to a committee structure argument. This type of thinking works well when applied to philosophy and social organization.
However, for the issue at hand we need science, utilizing the processes and thinking necessary for proper and factual assessments requiring clinical study, research, treatments, and trials. The National Cancer Institute is one of many conducting independent research into correlations between breast cancer and stress, hormonal, and other variables, including abortion. The National Institutes of Health have collaborated with other research being conducted worldwide to assure women that their conclusion concerning causal relationship between cancer and abortion is non-existent.
Unfortunately the ad-hominem arguments from your referenced articles will never carry enough weight to merit serious attention. You might better serve your efforts against abortion by concentrating on early sexual education and proper contraceptive practices.
Stephen,
I suggest that you actually read the professional literature, as I have. Trying to sound intelligent is no substitute for actually doing the intellectual heavy lifting that I and others have done.
If you wish to debate me on the literature, I welcome such a debate anytime, anywhere…
but you still need to read the literature in order to debate it.
AMC,
Thank you for your prayerful best wishes! Please be assured of mine!
God Bless.
Gerard, I think your concept of intellectual heavy lifting is based on the premise of value in relation to argument. No matter how refined in development you think your position has, in the end it is still based on a preconceived notion that your philosophical point of view equals in merit and applicability to actual clinical trial and studies. Science just doesn’t work that way. Like algebraic formulations, there are two sides to the equation that needs to be balanced to proof the formula, and they have to be applied to the same type field structure.
I have read the professional literature, and find no flaws or inconsistencies in the methods or conclusions from the National Institutes of Health or the National Cancer Institute. Since they have done the actual “Heavy Lifting” in this area, their conclusions meet the criteria of due diligence.
Stephen,
Again, all I’m seeing is posturing and no engaging of the specific studies, etc. I’ve written over 50 articles tackling the material. And before you accuse me of being led by philosophical a priori positions, I thought claims of an ABC link were pro-life flights of fancy.
I undertook a reading of the literature to disprove my pro-life friends. Now, unless you’re going to engage the material in a mature, serious, and substantial manner, I have no time for being lectured about how to analyze science. I did my undergrad science at Columbia University, two masters degrees and a Ph.D. in molecular biology at Saint John’s University under the direction of a superb, largely Ivy-educated faculty, and post-doctoral training in microbial genetics. Somewhere along the way in 16 years of scientific training, I think I picked up the ability to think rationally and analytically when engaging the scientific literature.
Now, do you wish to discuss the actual literature?
Not that anyone cares, or should care, but I performed my own meta-analysis of this topic with a graduate student, and at one time planned to publish it. But the controversy was too hot with emotions – so, the paper sits in a desk drawer and will likely stay there. My thought here, for what it’s worth, is that the literature has some mixed findings and that cogent arguments can (and have) been made on both sides. But, I see issues with the arguments from both sides as well. For example, some of the studies from (mostly) third world countries that supporters of the ABC link cite are, in my opinion, poorly conducted and show evidence of serious flaws. At least several of those studies that show a positive association with abortion also show positive associations with other factors that are clearly not associated with risk, at least not nearly at the magnitude shown in those studies. Therefore, the latter studies carry less weight with me than they have carried with ABC supporters. There are other methodological issues as well that weigh against some of the positive studies, issues that, in my opinion, have not been addressed adequately by ABC supporters. On the other hand, delaying a first full term birth is a known risk factor for breast cancer, and it stands to reason that an abortion would increase risk through this mechanism alone – at least among nulliparious women. If so, statistical adjustment for age at first birth could lead to the observation of no association with abortion, but the research question in that case would be whether abortion increases risk through mechanisms other than delayed first birth. Perhaps a result of inconsistent attention to this latter point, my unpublished meta-analysis could not rule out a “weak” ABC link; but the data analyzed were not consistent with a “strong” association; nonetheless, a weak association is worth knowing and has important implications, especially given the high rates of both the exposure and the disease. In any case, I agree with Dr. Nadal that Stephen should put his money where his mouth is and discuss the literature or move on to more productive pursuits. Dr. Nadal is willing to discuss the details, and that is where the arguments should focus.
Thanks, Howard. Actually, I’d be very interested in discussing your meta analysis with you. I’d like to see where yours and Dr. Joel Brind’s differ.
Stephen,
“Gerard, I think your concept of intellectual heavy lifting is based on the premise of value in relation to argument.”
Actually, Stephen, it’s based on something rather fundamental, like assembling the entire body of literature and then reading each paper critically, followed by a synthesis of the findings. You should try it some time.
This blog isn’t a place for drive-bys, and I don’t suffer fools well. If people are going to spend one of their most precious commodities, time, coming here and reading, then I owe them an honest forum. So yes, as Howard phrased my sentiments, put up or shut up.
As I have stated, my position of argument corresponds with the National Institutes of Health. My argument has thus been made for me. And again, the articles you reference make sound and logical points of view in favor of your position when applied to a committee structure argument, but lacks scientific reasoning. Empirical evidence for your position must include a concrete counterpoint to final conclusion with regard to any correlation between breast cancer and abortion. Assembling the entire body of literature and then reading each paper critically, followed by a synthesis of the findings is still at the end of your argument, conjecture.
Stephen,
You’ve had three shots at making an argument based on the science and not the corruption of science by scientists who make policy. You’ve proven your intellectual impotence. This is a site for thinkers, not parrots…
…or trolls.
Dr. Nadal. What is the best way to contact you? I would like to discuss a possible speaking engagement. Thank you.
Thank you, Tracey. You can email me at:
gerardnadal60@gmail.com