Posts Tagged ‘ABC Link’

The first paper I ever wrote in graduate school was a review of the literature on Leprosy. It is a disease transmitted by contact that we now know to be caused by a close first cousin of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis, and can be cured using the same antibiotics that we use against TB. This miracle of 20th Century medicine has emptied the leper colonies, arresting and eliminating the disease in its earliest stages before it maims and disfigures its victims.

Sunlight seems to be having the same salutary effect on the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and they have elected to leave the leper colony, as Planned Parenthood languishes with the increasing ravages of their disfigurement, unwilling to take the medicine that would end the insideous effects of their disease. It’s actually too late for Planned Parenthood, but for Komen, there is yet hope.

The sunlight began to pierce the darkness back in 2007, when Dorinda Bordlee, Vice President and Senior Counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund met Eve Sanchez Silver who told her about her about the Komen-Planned Parenthood funding link. Silver, a breast cancer survivor and charter member of Komen’s Hispanic/Latina Advisory Council, resigned from Komen, stating,

As a Christian and life affirming citizen I can not reconcile the Foundation’s decision to affirm life with one hand and support its destruction with the other.

Bordlee began to research Komen’s grant database to confirm Silver’s claims. The most recent data available to her back then were the 2005 numbers which showed over $700,000 in grants made by certain Komen state affiliates to their local Planned Parenthood clinics. Subsequent grant totals can be read here at BDF’s site. BDF’s initial findings were picked up and pursued by a great many who then launched their own investigations.

It was discovered that Komen Founder, Nancy Brinker (Susan Komen’s sister), sat on the board of Planned Parenthood in North Texas. Jill Stanek wrote two great articles about the links between Komen and PP.

At the heart of the matter lies three essential issues regarding the deplorable decision by Komen to fund PP:

1. The causal link between breast cancer and abortion (ABC link).
2. The causal link between breast cancer and oral contraceptives.
3. The fact that Planned Parenthood does NOT do mammograms.

Yes the ABC link is hotly disputed, and only because radical proabort researchers have lied through their teeth about the literature. I’ve written 56 articles dealing with this link, which can be read here. Placing that contentious issue to the side, along with PP’s complicity in placing women at risk for breast cancer through their abortion services, we need to look at the role of PP in dispensing oral contraceptives, which have been well established causes of breast cancer.

In 2009, the same Dr. Louise Brinton who is Branch Chief in Epidemiology at the National Cancer Institute, and who chaired the sham 2003 workshop denying the ABC link, coauthored a 2009 paper in which she listed abortion and oral contraceptives under known or suspected risk factors for breast cancer. The reference for the paper follows at the end of the article.

In their paper, the authors list in Table 4. Multivariate adjusted case-control odds ratios for all breast cancer cases, triple-negative
and non-triple-negative cases, in relation to oral contraceptive risk factors, stratified by age at diagnosis under age 40 and
41-45 y
, the following devastating information.

The risks for acquiring the deadliest, most aggressive and difficult to treat form of breast cancer, Triple Negative Breast Cancer based on age of first use of oral contraceptives is:

Age 22+: 250%
Age 18-22: 270%
Age Under 18: 540%

These numbers, from some of the finest minds in science, beg the question:

What would possess an organization such as Komen to ever fund an organization that dispenses birth control pills like candy? Could it be the claim that PP does life-saving breast screenings?

Certainly, Senator Barbara Boxer has been quite vocal about PP’s “mammograms”, as reported here.

In truth, PP does NOT perform mammograms. When one hears the term, “breast screening” or “breast cancer screening”, one tends to envision a mammogram. Instead, PP’s screening is a palpation of the breast, checking for detectable lumps. So, yes, if a lump is detected, and if the lump is cancerous, that could be lifesaving. But if no lump is detected? Is the woman given a referral for a mammogram?

It is the mammogram that is essential.

A woman’s best chances at beating her cancer are when the cancer is found through mammography before it is large enough to be palpated, or found through mammography in women whose breast density make it difficult to detect by palpation. By funding PP, Komen funded the abortions that lead to increased risk of breast cancer, the distribution of oral contraceptives which are well known to cause breast cancer, and the lie that women were receiving mammograms.

In an era where less than 10% of research grants are receiving federal money, there is no dearth of scientists in desperate need of funding for legitimate research purposes. One can barely walk the corridors of a university without bumping into them, so Komen should have no difficulty at all in finding and funding worthy Ph.D.’s and M.D.’s who simply cannot access the ever-dwindling supply of federal research dollars.

As far as funding prevention efforts, the neglect of the Dolle and Brinton study, or the many other papers showing oral contraception’s role in breast cancer is tantamount to a crime.

Komen is to be applauded for getting out of the leper colony and breaking its funding ties with one of the largest purveyors of death on the planet. The great work of antisepsis begun by Eve Silver and Dorinda Bordlee that was picked up and furthered by thousands will help Komen more fully achieve Nancy Brinker’s deathbed promise to her sister to do all she could to find a cure. Now that Komen is out of funding causality and lies, they may see a more robust financial future, which we all pray may help speed the end of this scourge which afflicts so many of our wives, mothers, sisters, friends, and other loved ones.

As for Planned Parenthood the mask has been ripped away, in no small measure by Lila Rose and her associates, revealing the true face of the leprosy lurking under the guise of women’s healthcare.


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

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

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4). April 2009


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 »

Those following daily are beginning to get confortable with the jargon (I hope). For ease of 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.

As we continue our analysis of the ABC literature, we turn our attention today to a study that validates the biological model of full term birth creating the terminal differentiation (maturing) of cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 breast lobule cells into cancer resistant Type 4 cells. This is an important paper, as it is an analysis of 47 epidemiological studies from 30 nations involving over 149,000 women.

It affirms what is called the protective effect of full term pregnancy, and does so in a striking way. The results of the analysis indicate that for every full term pregnancy, a woman decreases her risk of BC by 7%. For every year that she breastfeeds she reduces her risk an additional 4.3%.

For a great illustration-rich and detailed explanation of the protective effect from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, click here.

Those who seek to deny the ABC link in the literature often say that it isn’t the abortion that causes the BC, but the loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy.

That’s like saying the bullet didn’t kill the victim, it was the loss of blood.

Title: Breast Cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 52,302 women with breast cancer and 96,973 women without the disease.

Authors: Valerie Beral, et al. (Note, the paper copy I have refers to the additional authors being found on the web index to which I currently have no access).

Journal: The Lancet, Vol. 360 (no. 9328), 20 July 2002.

The authors are so clear in their language that what follows comes directly from the paper (all emphases are added by me):

Methods: Individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries that included information on breastfeeding patterns and other aspects of childbearing were collected, checked, and analyzed centrally, for 50,302 women with invasive breast cancer and 96,973 controls. Estimates of the relative risk for breast cancer associated with breastfeeding in parous women were obtained after stratification by fine divisions of age, parity, and women’s ages when their first child was born, as well as by study and menopause status.

Findings: Women with BC had on average, fewer births than did controls (2.2 vs 2.6). Furthermore, fewer parous women with cancer than parous controls had ever breastfed (71% vs 79%), and their average lifetime duration of breastfeeding was shorter (9.8 vs 15.6 months). The relative risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.3% (95% CI) for every 12 months of breastfeeding in addition to a decrease of 7.0% for each birth. The size of the decline in the relative risk (RR) of BC associated with breastfeeding did not differ significantly for women in developed and developing countries, and did not vary significantly by age, menopausal status, ethnic origin, the number of births women had, her age when her first child was born, or any of the other personal characteristics examined.

It is estimated that the cumulative incidence of breast cancer in developed countries would be reduced by more than half, from 6.3 to 2.7 per 100 women by age 70, if women had the average number of births and lifetime duration of breastfeeding that had been prevalent in developing countries until recently. Breastfeeding could account for almost two-thirds of this estimated reduction in breast cancer incidence.

Public Health Implications (excerpted and bullet-pointed):

• The short duration of breastfeeding typical of women in developed countries makes a major contribution to the high incidence of breast cancer in these countries.
• If in the future the mechanism of the protective effect of breastfeeding on breast cancer were understood, it might be possible to prevent BC by mimicking the effect of breastfeeding therapeutically or in some other way.
• If women in developed countries had 2.5 children, on average, but breastfed each child 6 months or longer than they currently do, about 25,000 (5%) breast cancers would be prevented each year.
• If each child were breastfed an additional 12 months, about 50,000 (11%) breast cancers might be prevented annually.

Now, what does all of this indicate relative to our ongoing analysis of the literature?

First, we have detailed the normal physiology of the breast and indicated how the number of immature cells doubles in the first trimester of a first pregnancy.

Second, we have discussed the role of placental lactogen in maturing 85% of these cells to cancer resistant cells beginning in the latter half of the second trimester, and finishing shortly after week 32 (mid-third trimester).

We have also seen here further evidence of the protective effect of full-term pregnancy and breastfeeding (with the continued maturational effects of lactation hormones on the remaining 15% of immature, cancer-prone cells).

We have seen studies that indicate a 30-50% rise in the general population of women in breast cancer if they have abortion before a FFTP, which points to the loss of protective effect in bringing the baby to term and further loss of protective effect when there is no baby to breastfeed.

We have seen that even ardent advocates of abortion (I have accepted the corrections offered me in not using ‘pro-abort’), such as Palmer and Rosenberg in paper #1 stand by their methods and numbers, but point to the discredited studies that suggest recall bias in a desperate attempt to blunt the impact of those data.

It is well known and uncontested that estrogen is a WHO group 1 carcinogen. It is well known and uncontested that estrogen levels rise dramatically in early pregnancy, stimulating a doubling of the immature, cancer-prone cells of the lobules. This giant analysis in The Lancet validates directly the protective effect of pregnancy and breastfeeding, and necessarily implies the consequences of no protective effect from induced abortion.

This is not unreasonable to conclude, as the authors are presenting such dramatic statistics based upon the remaining 15% of breast lobule cells after a FFTP! It is all the more certain that when induced abortion leaves the additional 85% of lobule cells in their immature and cancer-prone state that the incidence of cancer should rise proportionally to the number of cancer-prone cells left behind by abortion.

And we’ve only just begun!

Read Full Post »

Those following daily are beginning to get confortable with the jargon (I hope). For ease of 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.

Title: Pregnancy related protection against breast cancer depends on length of gestation

Journal: British Journal of Cancer (2002) 87: 289-290

Authors: LJ Vatten, PR Romundstad, D Trichopoulos, R Skjarven

Funding: Norwegian Cancer Society

So far we have seen research that has linked induced abortion with an increased risk of breast cancer. We have seen authors who stand behind their methods and results, but who attribute the increased link to a purported recall bias, which is claimed by the pro-abort researchers to be a function of these retrospective (self-report) studies. We have also seen one of the papers upon which these claims have been made, and have seen the appallingly sloppy and irresponsible statistics employed which simply strain credulity. Further, we have seen that spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) has no effect on breast cancer risk, as the estrogen levels in the mothers is abnormally low in these pregnancies. I have also been assailed by the usual suspects who claim that the retrospective studies are too small (a fair claim for a few, but not the majority).

Today we turn our attention to a paper employing a method touted by the pro-aborts: a prospective study. In this study National birth and cancer databases in Norway were employed to get an objective assessment of women from first birth in 1967 until the diagnosis of cancer, death from any cause, or the end of the follow-up period on December 31, 1997.

This study should please the pro-abort crowd for a couple of reasons. It’s prospective and it’s large, very large: 694,657 women.

Results: The study substantiated the data from some of the comparatively smaller studies we have thus far considered. For instance, it showed an increasing incidence of breast cancer with increasing age at first birth (95% CI):

Less than 20 years 1.0 (reference value)
20-24 years 1.10 (10% increased risk)
25-29 1.30 (30% increased risk)
30-34 1.48 (48% increased risk)
35+ 1.56 (56% increased risk)

So we see in a large prospective study the validation of the trends found in the smaller studies.

Now for the length of gestation in first pregnancy. As the length of gestation decreases, the risk of breast cancer increases (95% CI):

40 week gestation 1.0 (reference value)
37-39 weeks 1.08 (8% increased risk)
32-36 weeks 1.11 (11% increased risk)
less than 32 weeks 1.22 (22% increased risk)

So, from this short communication we see the validation of previous studies. We also see some major holes through which one could drive a truck.

In such a large data set, why didn’t the authors separate out spontaneous from induced abortions? They make an incredible claim that one study by Melbye shows no difference in breast cancer risk in women with either induced or spontaneous abortions. This, even though one of this study’s authors (Trichoupoulos from Harvard) published data to the contrary with 95% CI (We’ve already studied two of those papers here at Coming Home in the last week). So the authors lumped miscarriage in with induced abortion and still showed a 22% increased risk of breast cancer.

They could have, and should have, shown the data for induced and spontaneous abortions separately in this prospective study to put the issue of recall bias to bed, one way or the other. It would also be a good basis of comparison for those two categories’ results in the retrospective literature.

So why didn’t they?

The answer lies in the data reported. The data validate all other findings in the retrospective literature. The data also validate the proposed biological model, of placental lactogen maturing the breast cells in the last trimester.

Note even here the dishonesty built into the numbers, as week 32 (the earliest week reported) is in the middle of the third trimester. At this point, according to none other than Melbye, 90 % of the protective effect is already in place. Thus, the authors stratified the risk inherent in the remaining 10% of protective effect yet unachieved in the third trimester. They did nothing to show the loss of protective effect. In short, they lied.

A further masking of induced abortion’s effects is the lumping of miscarriage with induced abortion. As there are typically many more miscarriages than abortions, and since all earlier studies show no increased risk of BC with miscarriage, this too dilutes induced abortion’s real numbers.

Was this masking of the numbers regarding an ABC link intentional? I believe it was. The single greatest issue at stake in this paper was a refutation or validation of recall bias as an issue in the retrospective body of literature. The authors have all of the data before them and could re-crunch the numbers.

Taking the weak assumptions that underlie ‘recall bias’, the even weaker numbers (weak to the point of absurdity in an undergraduate statistics class) of the proposed evidence of recall bias by Rookus and van Leeuwen, the ham handed approach to an exquisite prospective data set of almost 700,000 women and the lack of population stratification to bolster the issue of recall bias, this scientist simply cannot believe that Vatten, et al. were so over-simplistic by any means other than intentional design.

This study validated every other trend in the body of retrospective literature. Even the 22% increased risk of BC in women whose pregnancies were interrupted in the middle of the protective effect period scream a validation of the 30-50% increased risks for induced abortions in the retrospective studies whose smaller numbers were not massaged.

Such recklessness constitutes a betrayal of women who are entitled to fully informed consent prior to a surgical procedure such as abortion. If any other surgical procedure raised women’s risk of breast cancer by 50% and the data were similarly massaged careers would end and lawsuits would abound.

When I was a graduate student we were taught that the only thing of value a Ph.D. has is his/her integrity, without which all else is naught. If these authors can’t be trusted to competently assess and report the data when millions of women’s lives hang in the balance, then what good are such people to society, to the scientific community? Is the next grant, the next paper, the next academic promotion, the adulation of pro-abort colleagues, the loss of one’s academic soul worth it?

One need only consider the epidemiologically marginal 50% increased risk of BC multiplied by the 1.8 BILLION women worldwide who have had abortions since 1960 (and the scores of millions more to come in the coming decade) to get the frightful numbers of women who have endured, and will endure the effects of such betrayal.

Scientific integrity matters.

Read Full Post »

The ABC Literature: #6

Those following daily are beginning to get confortable with the jargon (I hope). For ease of 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.

A very busy weekend, so here in #6 is the article that should have been published on Sunday. I will catch up by later today, so as to keep my word about a paper/editorial per day.

Rookus and van Leeuwen respond to Brind, et al. in the matter of recall bias. Yesterday in #5 we saw part of the critique presented by Brind, et al. Today, the response from that same Journal issue:

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, April 16, 1997; Vol. 89, No. 8, 589-590.

“ Dr. Brind and colleagues argue that the small number of subjects exposed to induced abortions (12 of 225 case patients and 1 of 230 control subjects) in the southeast {Catholic} region does not justify this conclusion.

“We agree with them that subgroup analysis based on small numbers increases the probability of chance findings. However, the choice for comparing the two regions was not arbitrary Rather, it was based on a sound hypothesis: Populations with different religions and attitudes toward induced abortion may differ in their willingness to report induced abortions. Indeed we ended up with small numbers in the southeastern region, but precisely these numbers were found to have a large impact on the estimated relative risk (RR) of breast cancer after induced abortion…”

That second paragraph is stunning. First, they agree with Brind about the unreliability of the appallingly low numbers they found in the Catholic southeast region of the country, but then go on to use them anyway.

Their justification: A sound hypothesis that Catholics are morally superior and more truthful by nature.

Of course they didn’t exactly say it that way. They just hypothesized that the one Church in western Christendom that encourages a nightly examination of conscience, and has as a sacrament the process of self-confrontation and confession of sin, would produce more conscientious and truthful individuals than would those Protestants and seculars who do not have such ascetical practice.

Actually, they were probably more motivated by the cultural caricature of Catholic guilt.

What further argues against such a hypothesis is the very country where this study took place-the Netherlands. Famed for their embrace of prostitution, euthanasia, and Catholic Church attendance rates in the teens (percentagewise), it absolutely strains credulity that anyone could accept such a hypothesis. The Dutch have long ago abandoned their faith. They lead Europe in decadence and debauchery, in callous disregard for human life.

It is the Netherlands that has recently announced its interest in building a “hospital” whose sole purpose is physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, and was on that track at the time of the study. Yet the authors hypothesize behavior of Catholics more indicative of what one would expect in medieval Spain. The hypothesis was not predicated on a valid reading of Catholicism as it exists in the Netherlands, but only as it exists as a cultural caricature in the minds of the researchers.

The authors conclude their second paragraph by boldly embracing both the low numbers of subjects and the spurious data they generated. One has to admire them for their chutzpah.

The authors then go on to respond to this from Brind, et al.:

“To bolster their claim, Rokus and van Leeuwen also compared self-reports with prescribers’ records of oral contraceptive use in the two regions. They found a slight but significant tendency for southeastern control subjects, compared with western control subjects, to underreport the duration of their oral contraceptive use. However, since the authors found no evidence of reporting bias between case patients and control subjects (who had been matched for region), reporting bias could not logically be held accountable for the observed positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer.”

Rookus and van Leeuwen go on to embrace the lack of 95% confidence in those data stemming from more flawed research design. One cannot compare reporting disparities between control groups in different parts of the country and then suggest that the same holds true, or not, in case patients, and then make the leap that there is a difference (not seen or measured) between case patients and controls.

Brind, et al. have completely exposed Rookus and van Leeuwen’s work as:

1. Flawed in its hypothesis
2. Flawed in its design
3. Flawed in its results
4. Flawed in its statistics
5. Flawed in its conclusions, based upon the flaws in #’s 1-4 above.

Then, referring to a similarly flawed Swedish study, the authors state:

“The Swedish study by Lindefors-Harris, et al. is the only study so far in which reporting bias was directly evaluated. We agree with Brind et al. that it would be highly unlikely for women to report an induced abortion that never took place, which shows that the registry was not complete. Even so, however, the study does provide suggestive evidence that reporting bias was present, if we assume that the chance to be registered at the time of induced abortion was equal for women who would and would not develop breast cancer later on.”

So the guys with a terrible hypothesis and no data of their own suggest that another study with incomplete data could have been valid if one assumes conditions and numbers to have been present that support the hypothesis of recall bias. Imagining that I had the winning lotto numbers for last week makes for nice daydreams, but it doesn’t make me a real millionaire. Similarly, imagining numbers that would have/could have supported their hypothesis doesn’t make the hypothesis a validated assumption of objective reality.

This is pretty much the extent of the evidence for recall bias so often quoted by pro-abort researchers such as Palmer and Rosenberg who are desperate to explain away the implications of their research.

I’m including these letters/editorials, as they are an integral part of the scientific literature. They are opportunities for scientists to refute/defend/discuss the studies. They help us enter into the minds of the authors and see the work through their eyes, see their rationale.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: