HOW NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE SCIENTISTS BETRAYED WOMEN

Scientists attending the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) workshop in late February entitled, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop," were charged with the responsibility of conducting a comprehensive review of the research associating induced abortion with increased risk of breast cancer and debating its merits.

Although some of the attendees’ own research found significant risk elevations, these scientists disavowed their earlier research and, with a sweep of their hands, announced that an "induced abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk."

This supposed finding was classified as level 1, meaning "well-established." This contradicts the overwhelming biological and epidemiological evidence supporting a positive relationship.

It is significant that the scientists did not challenge the biological rationale for the abortion-breast cancer link. Scientists recognize that estrogen overexposure is related to most of the known risk factors for breast cancer, that women are dramatically overexposed to estrogen starting early in pregnancy, that estrogen is a tumor promoter and that it stimulates breast cells to multiply.

They hypothesize that only a third trimester process provides protection from estrogen overexposure by transforming breast cells into cancer resistant cells. It is not possible for scientists to refute this hypothesis. It makes too much physiological sense.

For seasoned observers of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link, what transpired at the NCI is not at all surprising, considering the well-documented history of scientific misconduct and deception, which has plagued this research since the publication of the first study in 1957.

[1] The agency receives its funding from Congress. It is not immune to political pressures. The NCI has been accused of publishing blatant lies about the ABC link on its website. [2,3,4,5]

Nevertheless, the research is a medical and political time bomb, which will inevitably detonate sometime within the next decade as the Roe v. Wade generation ages and the number of cases of invasive breast cancer continues to surge. Sooner or later, women will hold the NCI’s feet to the fire and demand answers to their questions about the nation’s out-of-control breast cancer rates.

Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that the agency is losing the battle against cancer. The incidence of lung cancer, melanoma, prostate cancer and breast cancer are all surging. The agency’s revised statistics show that breast cancer rates have climbed .6% yearly since 1987. How does the NCI plan to reduce the incidence of the disease? The author, Sharon Begley, reported that scientists want still more funding for further research. [6]

One would not know by reading about the workshop on the NCI’s website, but at least one scientist disagrees with the majority, Joel Brind, PhD, an endocrinologist and biologist affiliated with Baruch College of the City University of New York. Despite the fact that he was the lead author of the only quantitative and comprehensive review of the research, his minority report to the NCI was not sought. [7] Moreover, the workshop was concluded prematurely and abruptly without his having had an opportunity to dissent.

1) Twenty-nine out of 38 epidemiological studies reporting risk elevations; 2) Sixteen out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk; 3) Thirteen out of 15 American studies finding risk elevations; 4) Seven studies reporting a more than twofold elevation in risk; 5) An animal study showing that more aborted rats develop breast cancer after exposure to a carcinogen than virgin rats and rats with full term pregnancies [8]; and 6) A sound biological explanation for the link. [Reference www.AbortionBreastCancer.com]

Even though the workshop’s alleged purpose, according to NCI Director Andrew Von Eschenbach, was to formally evaluate and discuss the medical literature, the agency’s scientists thumbed their noses at women and orchestrated a radically different scenario. Only one viewpoint was presented – that there is no association between abortion and the disease.

Brind recently explained what transpired at the workshop in an interview with Agape Press. He said there was,

"no discussion, really, of the merits of any preceding data. I asked a couple of questions, but that was it. Nobody else was interested in discussing the merits or demerits of previous research. The answer I got when I asked, 'How can you do this (deny an association between abortion and breast cancer) despite all the data going the other way?' was, 'There's widespread agreement that (it) is true, that previous research is flawed.

"So you ask a scientific question, you get a political answer. It's a very interesting state of play. The only thing that really surprised me was the sheer bluntness of this political assault. It was very clear they were going to do whatever it took to stamp out the abortion/breast cancer link once and for all from the public's mind. ... It was all just a very big fix.

"This is what's happened any time any credible research has appeared. There's been a backlash study to say, "oh, it isn't true" for one reason or another ... and they've kept raising the political stakes and the level of political action." [9]

The medical experts selected to attend the workshop were not independent of the agency. On the contrary, they depend upon grants from the NCI or other federal agencies to conduct their research. Brind reported that some experts confidentially expressed concerns that they would be denied grants if they argued in favor of an ABC link.

Such invincible ignorance.

Is it that you have not read the studies linking abortion to breast cancer because you don't want to, or you haven't read them because you're not competent in statistics, or you have read them and judged they are wrong?

I'm sure it's none of these three. I'm sure you believe they are wrong because someone with a Ph.D. says they are wrong.

Sorry, that ain't enough, because there are many Ph.D.'s who say the opposite. You can't simply pick your expert, you have to either read the actual research or admit you are incompetent to.

By the way, I have a math Ph.D. and I HAVE read the research, and I will be very happy to engage in a civil, public, DETAILED debate with you on this thread regarding the RESEARCH. But you aren't allowed to dismiss the research just because the results of the research make some religious fanatics happy, you have to use real logic and not silly sophistries.

No, There is no significant link between the two, In a rare case the liberals have it right.

What is funny is these Liberals will (rightly so in this case) point that out while at the same time embrace the Junk Science of the dangers of Second hand smoke.

Forces had good commentary on this issue

http://www.forces.org/

March 10 - Gore the wrong sacred cow and there is hell to play - What do abortion, secondhand smoke and breast cancer have in common? In the scientific realm they have noting in common but in the public arena each are linked by political considerations that have nothing to do with scientific evidence or even health.

Late last year Congressman Henry Waxman, D-CA, along with 11 House Democrats, wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson questioning "the administration's commitment to the tradition of scientific excellence and science-based decision-making at HHS." The letter complained about the deletion from government web sites of valuable scientific information, removed, say the Democrats because it did not support the Bush administration's agenda.

One item addressed by Waxman and his colleagues is of interest to those who recognize that the agenda to rid so-called public places of secondhand smoke is driven by politics, not science.

Soon after the Environmental Protection Agency issued its famous report that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers, studies showing that abortion increases the risk for contracting breast cancer hit the news outlets. The reception these anti-abortion reports received was far different from the massive media overload generated by the EPA's report. If covered at all, the tone of the news stories ranged from skeptical to highly critical. Some papers saw fit to editorialize against the notion that abortion could lead to breast cancer. Pro-choice politicians and activists denounced the reports as examples of politically-motivated junk science. And who could argue with them?

The abortion research found a 30 percent increase in breast cancer among woman who had undergone an abortion as compared to those who hadn't. In epidemiology, the method used for both the abortion and the secondhand smoke studies, a 30 percent increase translates to a relative risk of 1.3. Relative risks less than 2 are negligible.

The National Cancer Institute, various university epidemiologists and the American Cancer Society issued statements assuring the public that although a 30 percent increase seems high, such a percentage indicates the association is weak and is no cause for alarm.

"This is a fight between science people and pro-life people. It is a great mistake to start issuing warnings about risks or possible risks when the evidence is so unclear," said American Cancer Society vice president Clark Heath.

Despite the weak risk, the government web site that refers to studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer recently removed wording noting that the National Cancer Institute debunked the studies reaching that conclusion.

"Removal of this information strongly suggests an ideological rather than a scientific agenda at work," Waxman wrote in his letter to Tommy Thompson while the American Cancer Society warns that "the public is not well-served by false alarms" about the causes of cancer.

Quite a different tune was sung by the same organizations, legislators and media outlets when the EPA determined that there is a 19 percent increase in lung cancer (a relative risk of 1.19) with nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke. For that risk, even less than the one finding abortion may cause breast cancer, a full front assault on smoking was launched that has succeeded in banning smoking in several states and countless municipalities.

Congressman Waxman and the American Cancer Society in particular have been unequivocal in their assertion that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, as well as a host of other diseases. The abortion as conduit to breast cancer report may have been debunked by the National Cancer Institute but the EPA's secondhand smoke report has been debunked as well and even vacated by a Federal District Judge. Not a word about "false alarms" from the American Cancer Society or declamations about ideology trumping science from Congressman Waxman. That a 30 percent risk is negligible while a 19 percent risk must result in a quarter to a third of the population being demonized for enjoying a legal product clearly shows that the war on individual and property rights is based solely on a political agenda. Waxman has an excuse. He is a politician who receives political donations from the health and pharmaceutical industries, both of which make money whenever smoking is banned. The American Cancer Society, as a non-profit health charity, has no excuse.

Right on!!! This has ceased to be what it truly is: a health issue, pure and simple. It has been politicized by the Gloria Steinhems and Patricia Irelands of America, those diehard i-wanna-kill-a-baby-when-it's-inconvenient-for me soulless females, and opportunistic politicians, appeasing the female voting block.

To all who haven't thoroughly read the article, PLEASE note that dissenting views were either given short shrift or excluded from the presentation. So .. whose health is being protected here?? Who's being given ALL the facts?? The agenda here is preserving the left's wish to kill babies at will, and stifling any opposing information.

Unless you're a female who's had to do research regarding estrogen and progesterone and know something about this issue, or a health professional who's studied the subject, you might want to check it out.

It's pretty basic and logical: powerful hormones are released in pregnancy for certain purposes at certain times by design. Pre-empting their natural course changes the whole physiologic dynamic and can have unintended consequences. Check out the breast cancer statistics in young women ... never before heard of numbers of gals in their 20's are getting it, and it's increasing. This could be just ONE reason .. but nonetheless warrants inclusion in any study results released by a so-called "creditable" institution, especially one that's funded by our taxes.

It's a ferocious liberal political issue, and it's outrageous that ANY information regarding full and complete disclosure of possible health impact would be squelched.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.