Posts Tagged ‘Breast Cancer’


It is humbling to announce that following the untimely death this past May of Karen Malec, the 16-year president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, that I’ll be taking the helm to succeed my great mentor as president and CEO of the Coalition. Five years ago Karen spent a great deal of time educating me about the link between abortion and breast cancer, sharing with me all of the scientific papers, and informing me of the history of this issue and how it has all unfolded. She was utterly generous with her time and considerable knowledge, her talents, and her gracious good humor.

What Karen and the Coalition have done over the past 16 years has been truly remarkable. She built a website that is encyclopedic in nature, and was indefatigable in presenting the truth of peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper to any and all who would listen. Through it all she labored as a colon cancer survivor, only to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer last autumn. On 5 May of this year, God saw fit to bring this happy warrior home.

In discussions with the Board of Directors at the time of my election, I laid out a vision of where I think the work needs to go over the next ten years. At age 55, I am one of the youngest of the scientist/physician community who advance the understanding of this link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Do the math. Where will this community be in ten years? How easily this issue can fade away.

It is for that reason that the Coalition needs to build on the rock-solid foundations laid by Karen Malec, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, Dr. Joel Brind, Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, and others. While keeping the issue alive in the pro-life movement, we need to reach out to young medical professionals in training: pre-med students, medical students, nursing students, and pharmacy students. Schools simply ignore this issue, and swallow wholesale the sham conference at the National Cancer Institute in 2003 that denied the link, in spite of consistent evidence since 1957. Indeed, papers are coming in from all around the world substantiating this link.

So, some of our larger goals going forward are these:

Hold regular conferences to update our knowledge about the link between abortion and breast cancer, and to teach the history of the issue to young medical professionals who desire to practice good, moral, Hippocratic medicine. We’ll name this conference series after Karen.

Karen Malec

Karen Malec

More immediately, redesign the website to make it more intuitive and user-friendly, and with a format that works well on mobile devices. The website will archive all of the relevant scientific papers, as well as video of the Malec Conference Series. It will also archive a series of short educational videos that will be readily grasped by the layperson, as well as medical professional.

As the estrogen/progestin birth control pill causes breast cancer by similar mechanism as induced abortion, and inasmuch as the combined pill and estrogen replacement therapy are listed by the World Health Organization as Group 1 Carcinogens, this work will become more a part of the Coalition’s work. Karen began this a couple of years ago, and we’ll continue in this direction.

The development of educational videos and materials for the public and for medical professionals in training will also be pursued.

All of this is more than possible. It’s very easy to do. There are many groups already serving pro-life students in colleges, nursing and medical schools. The work of this coalition will not be to compete with these groups, but to serve them. But all of this is going to require a solid base of pro-life people to join the Coalition and its donors to raise awareness, reach out to people, and help to fund the mission.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I’ll be publishing all sorts of educational posts and making the rounds on radio shows. The Coalition is not the only group doing this work, either. Drs. Joel Brind and Angela Lanfranchi run the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and Dr. Chris Kahlenborn runs the Polycarp Research Institute. With Karen, they have been the leaders in the field for decades.

All during September I’ll be offering ideas/suggestions for how people can raise awareness of the contributions of the birth control pill and abortion to the ranks of women with breast cancer, and offering the papers that give the consistent data substantiating the link. I’ll also be suggesting how people can raise money during this month of awareness to help the Coalition, and our two cousin organizations mentioned above in helping women to prevent this dread disease.

The nation is focused on the horrors of abortion as never before. We need to shine the light of truth on the real war on women. Join us in September and October as the Coalition advances the great work begun by Karen, and takes it to the place she was headed with it all. And most of all, pray for those of us who labor in this difficult field of getting people past the lies and accepting of the truth of science.


Read Full Post »

For those women who go to Planned Parenthood, this is a sight that you have not seen to date. It’s a mammogram machine. It’s what Planned Parenthood led people to believe they had and used.

They lied.

Foundations don’t like it when they give an organization millions of dollars for services that are not rendered. They’re just funny about stuff like that, and Susan G. Komen is to be applauded for finally putting their foot down and pulling Planned Parenthood’s funding.

SGK Chairwoman Nancy Brinker is Susan Komen’s sister and has been making good on a deathbed promise to Susan to find a cure for this disease. Brinker could simply put all of her eggs in the research basket and go full throttle on research.

She doesn’t. She has taken a humane and balanced approach by also funding breast cancer screenings for middle-aged women, and preventive education for younger women.

The problem is that she gave millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, who said they performed mammograms, but only performed manual breast exams (feeling for lumps). That’s a problem. In the spectrum of clinical services, a manual exam is orders of magnitude less effective at detection than a mammogram.

The narrative against Komen is that needy women will now suffer because Komen is going to…

…wait for it…

…Fund organizations that will do actual mammograms for needy women.

So vexed is the Planned Parenthood crowd that New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has offered Planned Parenthood a $250,000 matching grant for fundraising. This means that PP will have $500,000 within a week to continue their manual breast exams on women.

Too bad New York’s billionaire mayor didn’t seize on the opportunity to purchase an actual mammogram machine for New York’s hundreds of thousands of low-income women. Instead, he continues to fund the building of PP’s Potemkin villages.

Though it seems longer, it was only last year that Lila Rose released undercover videos of PP nurses advising a “pimp” and his bottom girl to take their teenage prostitutes to the county health department for free services if they lacked health insurance or cash.

Is that not the reason why city, state, federal, and foundation money (such as Komen’s) was given to PP in the first place?

Hear the lie directly from Cecile Richards’ own mouth, and the truth from PP employees regarding the mammograms:

The response of PP is to claim that they provide referrals for mammograms, which is pretty weak, at best. PP may also have reimbursed some centers for mammograms, but why the middle-man?

Not detecting a lump by manual exam does not mean that there are no lumps. If palpation were as good as a mammogram, we wouldn’t perform the mammograms at all. That’s pretty basic stuff. So why does PP need Komen’s money? Because PP needs money. Period.

For the best chance at catching cancer in its earliest stages, women will need a mammogram referral anyway, regardless of lump detection. So why can’t PP just give the referral over the phone when women call, or hand it to them when they walk in off the street?

Because mediocrity never concerns itself with excellence in patient care. Mediocrity is all about the money. Komen has made a wise and ethical business decision by cutting out the middle-man and funding actual mammograms. Mediocrity’s reply?

Women are going to suffer and die because Komen prefers to fund actual mammograms over squeezing breasts.

What PP has not said is that they are so committed to women’s health that their staff are all donating five hours per week to perform their manual breast screenings and give referrals for mammograms.

They haven’t said it because that’s not part of the business model.

This is PP’s most dire hour. If Komen is allowed to pull up stakes without being savaged, plenty of big corporations will pull up stakes as well. Plan to see corporations abandoning Komen, not out of anger at Komen, but for fear of Planned Parenthood. There is a simple strategy to blunt PP’s attack.

Komen, TODAY, needs to announce a new inner-city initiative where they will purchase mammogram machines for the neediest urban centers, where local governments will provide low-cost, and medicaid-subsidized mammograms as the answer to PP’s cheap squeeze. They should then issue a call to all major corporations to join in this effort.

And what better month to do it in than Black History Month where we turn our attention to racism’s residue, which has left us with enduring inequities? Given the frightful incidence of breast cancer in the Black community, it’s an initiative whose time has come.

Komen can seize this opportunity and lead the way with excellence as the antidote to Planned Parenthood’s mediocrity.

Read Full Post »

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 »

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 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.

Aristotle taught that a thing cannot be, and not be at the same time. Either it exists or it does not, but both cannot be simultaneous phenomena. It’s common sense. However, as Voltaire also reminds us, common sense is the least common of all the senses.

This is true especially as regards all things pertaining to abortion.

Today is the first day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and our continuing analysis of the literature now brings us to the woman who has done violence to the truth, to scientific integrity, to the ability of women to receive fully informed consent prior to commencing with an abortion. We turn our attention to Dr. Louise Brinton, Head of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Brinton chaired a panel of ‘experts’ in 2003 at NCI whose stated purpose was to evaluate the professional literature purporting a link between abortion and breast cancer. They evaluated the retrospective studies which are the self-report studies accused of being contaminated by recall bias. They also evaluated the prospective studies which are far larger and do not rely on self-reports, but as we shall see throughout the month of October, there was a great deal of inappropriate conduct at this three day panel, so much in fact as to be profoundly disturbing, and Dr. Brinton is at the center of the storm.

Dr. Louise Brinton

For now, here is the “Fact Sheet” produced at the workshop.

Two bits of hypocrisy, lies actually.

First, note this statement from the “Fact Sheet”:

“Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies.”

Well now. The same Dr. Brinton made this statement about one of her 1990’s papers to be reviewed by us next week, which contained a number of subjects that was in line with many of the other retrospective studies we’ve reviewed thus far:

“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.”

So, as we shall see, when Louise and the gang are writing in epidemiology journals, their studies are large, well-constructed, and statistically sound. When they report on the data to the general public, suddenly the studies are too small, statistically insignificant, and riddled with recall bias.


Because they stacked the panel, as we shall see, with radical feminist researchers who are ardently pro-abortion, researchers such as Dr. Leslie Bernstein who after the panel concluded its three day session betrayed her ideologically driven approach to the task just completed:

“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.”

“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.”

I don’t want? “I” Don’t want???

That isn’t the way scientists and physicians are trained to speak. “I” am not the issue. The data do the talking in science. The data determine what we report to the public. The data determine public health policy, not some self-appointed reproductive dictator.

Read it all and listen to MP3’s of Bernstein here at Cancerpage.com

So despite the eye-popping smattering of studies reviewed thus far on this blog, and their obvious relation to and reinforcement of one another, Bernstein gives us a peek behind the veil. SHE doesn’t want women being told the greatest truths in the literature:

The earlier a woman has children, the lower her risk of BC.
Her risk decreases 7% for every child she has.
Her risk decreases 4.3% for every 12 months that she breastfeeds.
Her risk of BC increases 50% with induced abortion prior to FFTP.
Her risk of BC increases 30% with induced abortion after FFTP.

This is a level of imperiousness, condescension, and arrogance that is staggering.

More tomorrow.

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 »

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 »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: