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 »

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 »

The ABC Literature: #5

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 #5 is the article that should have been published on Saturday. I will catch up by later today, so as to keep my word about a paper/editorial per day.

The issue of recall bias stems from a paper we shall review this week by Rookus and van Leeuwen in the Netherlands. In the past week we have seen Palmer and Rosenberg refer to this study as the source of “reporting bias”, or “recall bias” as it is otherwise known. Before we delve into the Rookus and van Leeuwen study, we need to set the stage for understanding it and its assertion by considering a response to their study by Dr. Joel Brind of the City University of New York, along with fellow authors Vernon M. Chinchilli, Walter B. Severs, and Joan Summit-Long. Their response was a letter to the editor in:

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, April 16, 1997; Vol. 89, No. 8, 588-589.

Brind, et al., note that the Dutch paper reports a much greater relative risk (RR) of 14.6 {meaning 13-fold increase, which is gigantic} among women having had abortions from the Roman Catholic southeastern region of the Netherlands, compared to the more secular western region with a RR of 1.6 (30% increased risk). Clearly Roman Catholicism does not, when coupled with induced abortion, raise a woman’s risk of BC. How then to explain the whopping 13-fold increased risk in Catholic women, when the 30% increased risk in the more secular region is more in line with the similar data from around the world?

The answer resides in how the statistical analysis is performed. While a 95% CI was generated for these numbers, it is widely regarded in statistics that the actual sample size needs to be sufficiently large. For example, If I read in today’s paper that 66% of Americans are satisfied with the economic status of the country, I would become suspicious. If I then read that only three people were surveyed, my deep suspicions would be confirmed. The sample size was too small.

This is in fact what Brind et al., assert about the Dutch study. Only 13 women were included in the Catholic region of the country. In their own words, Brind, et al..:

“…this apparently huge difference was obtained by limiting the analysis to parous women only under the age of 45 years old, a subset containing only 13 subjects exposed to induced abortion in the southeast {Catholic region}. It is not prudent to make such a strong claim based on such a small sample, regardless of statistical significance.

“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.”

It is noteworthy to highlight the fact that the authors restricted the upper age limit to an age when many breast cancers are not yet detectable (45 yrs.), which serves to further skew the data.

When I was a psychology major as an undergraduate, we were made to take courses in statistics, quantitative analysis, research design, and tests and measurements. St. John’s University was rigorous in its emphasis on mastery of understanding valid vs. flawed research design and our ability to grasp the meaning of valid vs. invalid statistical analyses. The graduate program in biology was even more rigorous in this regard. It pays off abundantly when schools place such heavy emphasis in these areas, and young pro-lifers contemplating working in the pro-life field are well advised to take this coursework in college, regardless of their major, as Brind, et al. have demonstrated repeatedly that the great area of deception is here in the statistical arena.

As we go along, we shall see more of Brind’s exemplary work in exposing the shoddy research design and statistical analysis that served as the foundation for this fiction of reporting bias.

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 »

The ABC Literature: #2

So far, we have discussed the physiology of the breast and how it becomes prone to breast cancer (BC) under the influence of estrogen, a WHO Group 1 carcinogen. We have seen that the hormone placental lactogen, secreted in the third trimester, helps to mature 85% of the immature, cancer-prone cells of the breast into cancer-resistant cells. With each successive pregnancy, more of the remaining 15% of cancer-prone cells become cancer resistant. See here to catch up on the details.

I’ve written a brief glossary of the terms used in these studies here. If you see a term with which you are unfamiliar, you’ll find it in the glossary.

Today we look at an important paper in the breast cancer literature. This paper reports on the single greatest reproductive risk factor in the development of breast cancer: age at first birth. As we shall discuss after the summation of the paper, the results tie in very well with our model of breast physiology and the effects of induced abortion.


Authors: Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Chung Cheng Hsieh, Brian MacMahon, Tong-ming Lin, C. Ronald Lowe, Antonio P. Mirra, Bozena Raynhar, Lva J. Salber, Vasilios G. Valaoras, Shu Yuasa.

Journal: International Journal of Cancer, 1983, 31:701-704

{The authors of this international study are from Harvard University, Duke University, Yugoslavia, Wales, Greece, Taiwan, and Japan}

This case control study contained reproductive data from 4,225 women with BC (cases), and 12,307 hospitalized women without BC (controls). It is important to note that abortions prior to 5 months were excluded from the study.

Nulliparous women were used as controls for parous women.

All data are reported with the statistical significance of the 95% confidence interval.

Overall, the average age at first birth in this study was 24.8 years. The authors established an increase of 3.5% per year in the relative risk (RR) of developing breast cancer, for every year that women delay a first full term pregnancy (FFTP) after the age of 24.8 years.

The relative risk (RR) of breast cancer in parous women with multiple pregnancies is reported as follows for increasing ages with single through multiple births:

Age at first birth: 15. In these women, if the woman had one child per year beginning at age 15, then her RR of breast cancer was:

1 child- 0.52
2 children- 0.53
3 children- 0.38
4,5 children- 0.37

That means that this young mother’s lifetime RR is half of that of a nulliparous woman (52%) at one child and drops to almost 1/3 (37%) the risk of a nulliparous woman’s risk if she has 4 or 5 children.

Age at first birth: 18. In this group, if the women have a two-year interval between children, the RR’s are:

1 child- 0.58
2 children- 0.60
3 children- 0.45
4,5 children- 0.43

Age at first birth: 18 (that’s not a typo. It’s 18). Five-year interval between children. RR’s are:

1 child- O.58
2 children- 0.61
3 children- 0.49
4,5 children- 0.46

Age at first birth: 30. Two-year interval between children. RR’s are:

1 child- 0.87
2 children- 0.98
3 children- 0.84
4,5 children 0.8

Age at first birth: 35. One-year interval between children. RR’s are:

1 child- 1.03
2 children- 1.19
3 children- 1.05
4,5 children- 1.06

The numbers for the last category of women actually show slight increases in the risk for breast cancer.

Another curious phenomenon is the slight uptick in RR between a first and second pregnancy in all age categories, followed by a significant drop in RR in 3+ pregnancies. Even so, The RR’s are well below those of nulliparous women.

The results of this study are entirely consistent with what is known of breast physiology. The longer women delay a FFTP, the longer the immature Type 1 and Type 2 cells of the lobules have to become cancerous, and the longer the woman delays the protective effect of placental lactogen, which matures those cancer-prone cells in the last trimester.

These data present the most significant, but hardly the only, risk factor for BC. While the authors did not include women who had abortions, we shall see in many studies to come that there is a consistent RR of BC from induced abortion.

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 »

Today begins the inexorable presentation of the scientific literature on the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link. I’ve written a brief and simple glossary of the terms used (such as case-control, nulliparous, parous, relative risk, confidence interval, etc.) and their significance here. Please consult it as often as is necessary and ask questions liberally.

This gets easier to follow after a few rounds, so hang in there. Women’s lives depend on us getting the truth out to them. In short order we’ll generate plenty of pros armed with the simple truth of science!

Title: Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer (United States)

Authors: Julie R. Palmer, Lynn Rosenberg, R. Sowmya Rao, Ann Zauber, Brian L. Strom, M. Ellen Wershauer, Paul D. Stolley and Samuel Shapiro

Journal: Cancer Causes and Control, 1997, 8, pp 841-849.

• Drs. Palmer, Rosenberg, Shapiro and Ms. Rao are with the Slone Epidemiology Unit, School of Public Health, Boston University. Authors are also affiliated with the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer, New York, New York.

• It should be noted that the research was supported by U.S. National Cancer Institute grants RO1 CA55716 and RO1 CA45762

This study is a Case-Control study.

Cases- “1,835 women ages 25-64 years with pathologically confirmed, invasive breast cancer diagnosed within the previous year and no previous or concurrent malignancy other than nonmelanoma skin cancer.”

Controls- “4,289 women aged 25-64 admitted for nonmalignant or malignant conditions judged to be unrelated to reproductive factors.”

Nulliparous and parous women were analyzed separately because of the increased incidence of breast cancer in nulliparous women.


With a 95% confidence interval (meaning the researchers are 95% certain that the results are not due to chance) as the benchmark for statistical significance, nulliparous women who had 1 induced abortion only had a 40% relative risk of breast cancer , as did parous women with 1 abortion only. Remember that this risk is relative to women in the control group who had no induced abortions.

So in plain English, women who had 1 induced abortion, regardless of ever having had a child, had a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer over women the same age, with the same parity status who never had abortions, and the authors are 95% certain that there is no other explanation.

An interesting result is that in parous women (those who’ve had children) the relative risk of breast cancer is zero before a first full term pregnancy (FFTP) and 30% after a first full term birth. This is an inversion of the data found elsewhere. It could very well be explained by the effects of human lactogen in the subsequent FFTP, which matures those immature Type 1 and Type 2 cells that proliferated in the aborted pregnancy, but never matured. The maturing of those cells into Type 4 cells in a future pregnancy, before they had a chance to become cancerous, is a logical conclusion based upon the breast physiology and the relatively long incubation time for cancer.

That there is a 30% increased risk of cancer in parous women whose abortion came after a FFTP may well be explained by additional stimulation of the lobules by estrogen in the aborted pregnancy, without the benefit of lactogen at the end. This would leave an increased number of cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells behind.

Now, incredibly, the authors suggest that this study suffers from a form of recall bias. This after stating that they were 95% certain that the results could not be due to chance. The authors believe that women with breast cancer are less likely to underreport an abortion than women without breast cancer. They offer no proof of this phenomenon other than the same assertions made by other breast cancer researchers with similar data. In other words, the phenomenon is a baseless assertion reverberating in the pro-abortion echo chamber.

Are we really to believe that breast cancer brings women closer to telling the truth of their previous abortions? Why the acuity of memory in a breast cancer patient vs. the control patients? The abortion question was just one in a long, detailed history taken during the study.

There is no rational basis for believing that women with breast cancer are more apt to recall and report an abortion than any other women. Still, with no proof that the alleged phenomenon exists, no instrument to measure the alleged phenomenon, no numbers on the alleged phenomenon, the authors conclude:

“The small elevations in risk observed in the present study and in previous studies are compatible with what would be expected if there were differential underreporting by cases and controls.”

If I had pulled that crap during my dissertation defense, my committee would have laughed me out of the room. But, as we shall see over and over on a daily basis for months to come, this is what happens when ideology (and not physiology) becomes the prism through which data are filtered.

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 »

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a time that we turn our attention to a devastating disease that can potentially strike one out of every nine of our mothers, aunts, wives, sisters, cousins, daughters, and friends. Naturally as we focus on this terrible disease we concern ourselves with raising money to fund research for a cure. This is as it should be. However, precious little attention is paid to getting out the word on what the scientific community has already discovered relative to prevention.

We know with absolute certainty that oral contraceptives (OC’s) and abortion both raise a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. Renowned breast surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, along with City University of New York Professor of Endocrinology Dr. Joel Brind explain the mechanism:

Prior to a first full term pregnancy (FFTP) the cells that comprise the lobules of the breast are immature and cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells. Under the influence of the high levels of estrogen in OC’s and during pregnancy, the lobules of the breast roughly double in number. This results in a doubling of the number of cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells. In pregnancy, it isn’t until the third trimester under the influence of the hormone human placental lactogen that the immature cells mature into cancer-resistant Type 3 and Type 4 cells.

Read the details in this stunning pamphlet here.

The science is clear that the earlier a woman bears children, and the more she nurses, the greater her protection from breast cancer. The science of the past fifty years is also abundantly clear that having an abortion prior to a FFTP allows for the proliferation of the cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells, while terminating the pregnancy prior to the onset of the third trimester’s protective mechanism that converts these cells to the cancer-resistant Type 4 cells leads to increased incidence of breast cancer.. The risk of breast cancer in women having an abortion prior to a FFTP ranges from 40% to 90% in most cases. In girls under the age of 18 with a family history of breast cancer the risk becomes incalculably high.

Other institutes devoted to getting the word out about breast cancer in relation to OC’s and abortion are the Polycarp Research Institute, under the direction of Chris Kalenborn, M.D.; and The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, under the direction of Ms. Karen Malec. Malec’s website is loaded with links to the scientific data and refutations to the lies told by pro-abortion apologists such as Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute whose own research through the years has shown the link between abortion and breast cancer, and who convened a panel in 2003 to deny the validity of fifty years of research showing that link.

The full story on Brinton’s duplicity here.

Were all of that not enough Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been donating millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions and OC’s in the nation. Their claim is that PP provides mammograms (which aid in diagnostics but not the “Cure”). More on this here. In funding PP, Komen is contributing to new cases of breast cancer, a fact they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. The truth, however, is that PP dispenses OC’s like candy. They encourage a lifestyle of delaying childbirth while pumping young girls and women full of the OC’s that raise their risk of developing breast cancer. Their services and the concomitant oncological sequellae consistently described in the scientific literature are completely at odds.

Though I quote statistics, these are just numbers that do not truly convey the gravity of Dr. Brinton’s duplicitous behavior, behavior that is nothing less than a betrayal of women by denying them the truth that needs to inform their informed consent to abortion and the use of OC’s.

Therefore, in honor of women, in honor of the hundreds of researchers who have been besmirched by Brinton and her cronies, I shall publish the results of one research paper/editorial per day beginning tomorrow and will do so every single day until I have exhausted my library of papers sometime in December or January. I shall publish the complete reference including researchers names and affiliated institutions, a synopsis of what they did, the hard numbers from the results and the authors’ conclusions. They will all be stored in the “Breast Cancer” folder in the “Categories” panel to the right.

I am deeply indebted to Ms. Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer for her generous time and efforts at bringing me up to speed on this topic, both in long telephone conversations and in sharing with me her library of scientific literature, which has saved me over a hundred hours of research and library time.

As the nation returns from summer vacation and October looms large, the pro-life community can do much by spreading the word about Dr. Lanfranchi’s and Karen Malec’s institutes that aim at prevention, and can do much by helping to fund their efforts at that ounce of prevention which is worth a pound of (Komen’s) “cure”. This year, please encourage all whom you know to help fund these two great institutes in their efforts to prevent this scourge in women, rather than forever mopping up Planned Parenthood’s mess. As the reader will see daily in the months to come, Malec and Lanfranchi hold the key to this scourge.

Read Full Post »

The slow posting here at Coming Home in recent weeks has much to do with my keeping apace with developments in the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) literature, as well as developments in adult stem cell therapies. There will be announcements made next week about ABC developments, at which time I’ll be free to post several pieces.

This much may be said. Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute has been playing a dangerous game of duplicity in publishing studies linking abortion with breast cancer and doing so with 95% confidence intervals, while disseminating statements to the public denying the very links she has published. However, researchers in other countries do not depend on NCI grant money, and are not intimidated into silence. Much peer-reviewed literature has come out earlier this year to strengthen the causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer, and Dr. Brinton will have to eventually explain her duplicitousness.

More on Dr. Brinton next week.

Read Full Post »

Fathers for Good runs a column “Newsworthy Dads” I was interviewed on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link for this week’s column. My thanks to editor Brian Caulfield for his gracious offer and willingness to help get the word out about the ABC link via this interview.

The ABCs of Cancer

Gerard M. Nadal, who holds a Ph.D. in molecular microbiology, is taking a strong stand on the link between induced abortion and breast cancer (ABC). Many studies have shown the link, and basic biology provides the physiological reason for it, yet an abortion mindset in some halls of science and the media have worked together to keep these facts hidden from the public, he says.

Dr. Nadal is 49 years old, married, and the father of three children. He is currently pursuing an M.A. in theology through Franciscan University of Steubenville.

In this Fathers for Good interview, he outlines in layman’s terms some of the research that shows the ABC link.

Fathers for Good: Briefly explain what you see as the abortion-breast cancer link.

Dr. Nadal: I first learned of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link about three years ago when I came across a book entitled, Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, written Chris Kahlenborn, a medical doctor. It’s a great read for those who are not medical professionals.

In brief, when women become pregnant for the first time, they make vastly increased amounts of the hormones estrogen and progesterone, which stimulate the milk-producing tissue of the breast to undergo massive proliferation during the first trimester. These cells form the immature and cancer-prone Type-1 and Type-2 lobules. In the last trimester, hormonal changes will mature 85% of these lobules into cancer-resistant Type-3 and Type-4 lobules. Terminating the pregnancy through induced abortion robs these lobules of the last trimester’s maturation and leaves behind a great deal of newly made, cancer-prone cells.

Most women who have had miscarriages have miscarried precisely because they are not producing enough of the hormones estrogen and progesterone and have not undergone the proliferation of breast lobules. Therefore, they don’t share the same risk as women who have had induced abortions.

FFG: How is the birth-control pill implicated?

Dr. Nadal: The pill contains very high doses of synthetic estrogen and progesterone, which mimic a pregnancy followed by abortion on a monthly basis. Studies have shown frightening rates of breast cancer for women taking the pill or estrogen replacement therapy in menopause. They all share the same mechanism for cancer production as induced abortion. One recent study leads some of us to believe that the synthetic form of estrogen in the pill may be responsible for a particularly aggressive and deadly form of breast cancer called Triple Negative Breast Cancer.

Karen Malec is the President and Co-Founder of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, and has a very informative website: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/

FFG: Do you think there is a cover-up to protect abortion on demand?

Dr. Nadal: Unfortunately, it’s not so much an opinion as a matter of fact. On February 22, I wrote an article in Headline Bistro detailing this. Some researchers who favor abortion say one thing in epidemiology journals which few people read, then dismiss reality to craft public policy that protects and promotes abortion on demand, and hormonal contraception on demand. Yet they better than anybody know the harm being done to women – 1 in 9 of whom will contract breast cancer.

FFG: Some would say you are debating an interpretation of data and that there’s no objective truth, even in science.

Dr. Nadal: If anyone has ever had the misfortune of falling from a ladder or dropping Mom’s good china, then they can ably testify to the scientific truth of the law of gravity. Similarly, we know the factors that will increase the probability of contracting diseases, because we have scientific certitude about the normal physiology of the body and the pathophysiology that results when chemicals or microbes perturb that normal function. The same holds true for the abortion-oral contraceptive-breast cancer link.

When attempts are made to twist reality in order to accommodate an agenda the truth becomes the first casualty, and real people pay the price in their bodies, minds, and souls for denying objective reality.

When I ran college retreats, I used to describe God’s law as functioning as the guard rails on a mountain road. He knows the danger zones. In that light, his law becomes liberating and not at all constricting. It frees us to live lives unencumbered by needless suffering. The more empirical evidence we discover in science, the more one comes to an appreciation of those guard rails, and the more we are able to prevent some of that needless suffering.

For more information, visit Dr. Nadal’s blog.

Read Full Post »

Jill Stanek has written two brilliant articles in World Net Daily, detailing Susan G. Komen Foundation’s multi-million dollar donations to Planned Parenthood. They are presented here.


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

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

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

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

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

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

But abortion blocks all those preventative measures.

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

But abortion blocks that protection.

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

And abortion increases the risk of both those risks.


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

That would include SGK’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And condemning more women to develop breast cancer.


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

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

Eric is also a Komen board member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both were under 40.

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

Would it make the disease less noble?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: