Posts Tagged ‘Louise Brinton’

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 »


Dear Friends:

We are sharing with you four stories in our Abortion-Breast Cancer News Headlines (below) concerning the link between abortion and breast cancer. All but one discusses the latest findings from the study, Dolle et al. 2009, whose authors included National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton.

As our readers know, Jessica Dolle, Louise Brinton and their colleagues reported that “…abortion and oral contraceptive use were associated with increased breast cancer risk.” The increased risk for an aggressive, deadly form of breast cancer – triple-negative breast cancer – among users of oral contraceptives was astounding. Users under age 18 multiply their risk by 3.7 times. Recent users within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times.

Try finding a report concerning the study, Dolle et al. 2009, on the websites of the pro-hormonal steroids for women crowd. We could not find any mention of it. You know what groups I mean – those who talk a good talk about being “pro-woman” and “caring about women’s health,” like the Feminist Majority and the National Organization (supposedly) for Women.

We cannot find any mention of the study, Dolle et al. 2009, on the websites of the American Cancer Society (which downplays the link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer) and Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Nor do they display the least concern about the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s evident misconduct in covering up the abortion-breast cancer link at its infamous workshop in 2003.

Even though the agency’s position on the abortion-breast cancer link is clearly at odds with its branch chief’s (Louise Brinton’s) position. Even though the agency’s videocast shows that only studies showing no risk elevations for women with abortions were permitted to be examined at the workshop.

But wait, ladies! Be encouraged! Komen is teaming up with yet another new breast cancer foundation called the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Foundation. And guess what! Together, they will “fight” triple-negative breast cancer and “find a cure” by raising funds for “breakthrough, life-saving research.”

Research is necessary, but it would not be as necessary if they would just tell the truth about how to avoid highly carcinogenic exposures, such as abortion and use of oral contraceptives.

Our January 2010 press releases broke the news about the Dolle team’s findings, and they generated many news stories about it. If you want us to continue our important work of protecting women’s lives, then please send us a contribution today.

Don’t forget to read the news stories below.

Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer


“Correcting the bs on the abortion-breast cancer link”
By Dennis Byrne
February 12, 2010
Available at: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/02/correcting-the-bs-on-the-abortion-breast-cancer-link.html

“Ignatieff’s abortion push unhealthy”
By Ian Gentles
Calgary Herald
February 15, 2010
Available at: http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Ignatieff+abortion+push+unhealthy/2565292/story.html

“Politically correcting the abortion-breast cancer link”
By Gerard M. Nadal, PhD
Headline Bistro
February 22, 2010
Available at: http://www.headlinebistro.com/en/columnists/nadal/index.html

“Medicine and the true cost of being in denial”
By Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, PhD
Director of Education, National Catholic Bioethics Center, http://www.ncbcenter.org
Colorado Catholic Herald
January 15, 2010
Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Medicine&truecostofdenialsm.pdf

Read Full Post »

Jill Stanek runs an excellent commentary concerning the ongoing fallout from the recent study showing a forty percent increased probability of breast cancer among women who have had abortions.

Two of the paper’s authors are noteworthy. Dr. Louise Brinton chaired the infamous 203 National Cancer Institute panel that declared no link between abortion and breast cancer, dismissing a good number of retrospective studies indicating otherwise in favor of premature analyses of prospective (longitudinal) studies whose subjects lacked sufficient time to have developed breast cancer. The decisiveness of this linkage denial, dismissing a body of sound, mature data in favor of data not yet ripened was stunning.

The other author in question is Dr. Kathi Malone, who dismisses the significance of her own paper, stating, “There are no new findings related to induced abortion in this paper because the results of these women were published previously.” These words need to be considered in light of the paper’s own clear and unambiguous statements.

The study in question, Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years, actually lists abortion and oral contraceptive use under, “The following known and suspected breast cancer risk factors were examined…”

Lest any seize upon abortion and oral contraceptive use as only being suspected, and not known risk factors, consider the first paragraph of the paper’s Results section.

In the results section of the paper,

“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. 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.”

So if Malone is correct in stating that the linkage is nothing new, having been reported before, why hasn’t NCI revised its position paper on the breast cancer-abortion link? Taken at her word, not only are these linkage data not new, but they have been confirmed by Brinton and Malone.

These are some of the several signifiant and disturbing features of this story, all of which undermine the essential trust of the citizens, who fund this research and stand to gain from it, and the scientific community.

Abortion is held out by women as an absolute good for women. If the epidemiological data suggest that abortion harms women, then why are these data being downplayed? It is precisely such a doctrinaire, ideologically driven approach that science and the scientific method are meant to ameliorate for the good of humanity. The a priori assumption that abortion is an absolute good with neither significant physical or psychological sequelae is increasingly being challenged by an emerging body of literature to the contrary.

But scientists are slow to relinquish their orthodoxies, especially those which have become woven into the fabric of the body politic. Nevertheless, the scientific community would be well advised to pull back from this unqualified endorsement of abortion, as its credibility is on the line.

A doctoral degree, especially the research-oriented Ph.D., is the gold standard for any who would perform research. The granting of a Ph.D. is an acceptance of the graduate student as a peer at the highest levels of academia, and carries with it the imprimatur of the scientific community, assuring all that this individual can be trusted to perform and report credible research in an independent and ethical manner without the need for oversight. It is at once a great honor and an awesome responsibility. It is a sacred trust, a covenant.

Betrayal of such trust by a single act of partisan orthodoxy which leads to the denial or suppression of the data and their conclusions forever shatters the trust of one’s peers and the public. Such has been the case with these researchers who have suppressed critical data repeatedly, beginning with the spurious premature interpretations of the data sets on two large prospective studies that led to the infamous NCI and American Cancer Society declarations in 2003 denying a link between breast cancer and abortion. The denial of the plain meaning of their own text, and hewing to the NCI position, despite their own report is an egregious act of politically inspired scientific fraud.

If Brinton and Malone cannot stand by their own words, if they cannot revise the NCI position to one of at least uncertainty, then they have committed the unforgivable sin among Ph.D.’s. They’ve lied.

Women are dying and we need to know why. If NCI and ACS can’t cobble together a panel of honest scientists, the sin upon their heads, and a pox on both of their houses.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: