Abortion Causes Breast Cancer (ABC Link) - Recent NCI Workshop a Sham!!!

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer ^ | April 2003 | Karen Malec

[Saundra Duffy]

NCI Workshop on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC Link) a sham!!

Just received this letter from Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer:

The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) workshop on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link was a sham! Its stated purpose was to evaluate and debate the merits of the research. Instead, only one viewpoint was presented – that abortion doesn’t raise a woman’s risk. Dr. Leslie Bernstein assumed responsibility for making this argument, although the ABC link isn’t even the focus of her work.

Dr. Joel Bring wasn’t invited to present his view that induced abortion raises breast cancer risk despite the fact that he was the lead author of the only quantitative and comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the worldwide research! *Jane Daling, the lead author of the first of two studies specifically commissioned by the NCI, wasn’t invited to discuss her findings either. ** Obviously, the NCI’s leaders had no intention of allowing evaluation, debate or dissent during the workshop. Why? Because they know that science isn’t on their side.

Bernstein exposed her rabidly pro-abortion worldview. She declared, “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.” ***

Imagine that! American women already have a high 12.5% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, but Bernstein wants to WITHHOLD information about the best way to reduce risk – having more babies, starting at an early age and breastfeeding them!

New studies were presented, but not made available to scientists before the workshop. Although scientists routinely provide their colleagues with their date, the authors of these new studies refused to do so on Day 2 of the three-day workshop. Not surprisingly, that’s the only day for which the NCI didn’t make a videocast available.

The NCI’s morally bereft leaders ended the workshop prematurely, thus thwarting any dissent during the workshop. But federally funded scientists issued a statement saying that abortion is not linked with increased risk of breast cancer. This is contrary to overwhelming scientific evidence of an ABC link.

The NCI’s website doesn’t identify the scientist who dissented after the workshop or provide his Minority Report. He is Dr. Brind, and his report is published at www.BCPInstitute.org. He told a reporter: ‘It was very clear they were going to do whatever it took to stamp out the ABC 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 . . . “ ****

I need your help now to fight this government cover up. Can you send a donation right away? The coalition incurred additional administrative expenses because of the NCI’s false reassurances that abortion is safe. I worked hard to correct this corrupt agency’s lies. I provided 13 radio and news interviews and wrote an article for an internet wire service belonging to Republicans for a Fair Media and for a news website owned by Illinois Leader. The Coalition received its 501©3 status from the IRS, so your gift is tax deductible.

Sincerely, Karen Malec President Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer P.O. Box 152, Palos Heights, IL 60463 Toll Free: 1-877-803-0102; Local 847-421-4000 response@abortionbreastcancer.com www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

*Brind et al. (1996) J Epidemiol Community Health 50:481-96. **Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1584-92. *** Rachael Myers Lowe, Cancer Page, March 3, 2003. Available at http://cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601. **** Pat Center, NCI Workshop Stamps Out Abortion/Breast Cancer Link/Researcher Calls It a Very Big Fix, AFA Journal Online, March 7, 2003.

[Saundra Duffy]

Just when you feel like giving up, someone has a surge of energy and starts the ball rolling again. Thank you, Karen Malec for being a courageous, Spirit filled, fighter for life! I feel somewhat energized. After the NCI issued its "findings" - which got national attention - I thought the fight was over. However, now I see we are just beginning.

Some of you may remember that I (Saundra Duffy-Hawkins) am a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood to force them to tell the truth about the link between abortion and breast cancer. We lost the first round and it's now on appeal. Say a pray for the success of this lawsuit. It is a matter of life and death.

For victory & freedom!!!

[Saundra Duffy]

Pro life Ping

[jlogajan]

Dr. Joel Bring wasn’t invited to present his view that induced abortion raises breast cancer risk despite the fact that he was the lead author of the only quantitative and comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the worldwide research!

A meta-analysis of flawed research will give a flawed meta-analysis. In this case the flaw in all those earlier studies was "recall bias." The Denmark study was one of the first to eliminate recall bias and it found no link between abortion and breast cancer.

You'll have to stop trying to bring back those flawed studies and come up with new ones that support your belief system. You're never going to get traction with old discredited studies, no matter how many times you regurgitate them.

[anniegetyourgun]

Sending up a prayer for your case. Also praying that someone/many will come forward in class action suit against RU-486 manufacturers and distributors. Results of that human pesticide are now moving close to the devastation of breast implants - less the killing of another human in the process.

Odd how the so-called feminists and leftist claim to 'care about women', eh?

[Darksheare]

Hoo-rah!
Someone's gotta have guts to do that.
Just wait for the NCI to make a reprisal soon enough.
We'll be ready for 'em.

[Search4Truth]

God bless you and give you strength in your most worthy endeavour. Your fight for life at home, honors those men who are fighting for life abroad.

I will pray for your success.

[realpatriot71]

Forgive me, because I have not looked at the studies on this issue, but do you know, or can you link me to a source, that gives the pathophysiology of the abortion/breast cancer link.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Odd how the so-called feminists and leftist claim to 'care about women', eh?

No doubt the feminists will soon be speaking out against the abortion/cancer link... as soon as they finish rattling their sabers over China's forced abortion policy... [crickets] and the second class treatment women received from the Taliban and Saddam's Baath Party [more crickets].

[gcruse]

I feel somewhat energized.

Wonderful news, indeed.  I am organizing
a pray-for-cancer circle among my friends!

[ChemistCat]

It's a mistake to fight against the murder of babies on such a purely practical basis. If they cure breast cancer, you're back to square one.

Fight abortion because it's murder, not because it increases the risk to the murderer of some disease.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Ya know, it's funny.

The Nazi's issued (by "official" researchers sponsered by their state "religion" of National Socialism) hundreds of "research papers" debunking and criticizing Einstein's theories ... once the Germans decided they didn't want a German citizen (a Jew) publishing his ideas.

Einstein was asked whether he was worried about the "mass" of these writers - all of whom argued against relativity.

Paraphrasing his reply, Einstein said, "Why worry? It would only take one writer to prove me wrong, if they could prove me wrong. Their many lies do not change the facts. Their lies do not disprove the theory."

You (wrongly) claim that the ABC link has been proven wrong by other research. To the contrary, the facts, the population studies, and the theory of massive cell growth early in pregnancies (that are suddenly and violently affected by the hormone changes by abortion) all indicate the ABC relationship is valid.

It is not POLITICALLY CORRECT, however, and so it is the abortion supporters must resort to distortion and concealment to hide their shame.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Some of you may remember that I (Saundra Duffy-Hawkins) am a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood to force them to tell the truth about the link between abortion and breast cancer. We lost the first round and it's now on appeal.

So, your case is that essentially the entire scientific and medical communities are all crazy or lying, and you and your fellow axe-grinders are [despite the absence of any dispositive supporting evidence] the sane ones.

Riiiight. And if you eat enough of the right kind of paper, you'll poop money!

Snidely

[Cicero]

I disagree with your characterization of the various studies. But even if you were right, a "workshop" on the dispute should have been open to representatives of all points of view. This was evidently one of those academic or scientific "workshops" where the conclusions were decided ahead of time. It's all too common.

Moreover, the coverup is all the more egregious because recent research has even turned up the probable mechanisms that lead to more breast cancer, especially in women who abort at an early age.

[Cicero]

Planned Parenthood regularly uses lawsuits against its opponents, taking full advantage of liberal judicial bias. If they are responsible for knowingly giving their patients false medical information that endangers their health, then a lawsuit seems most appropriate to me.

[cgk]

Hubby was remarking recently that it seems to stand to reason that the ABC link is precisely the foundation for the Left's adoption of Breast Cancer as their cause celebre. I am finding pink ribbons on everything, even Yoplait yogurt.

Have they made it their own because they KNOW that the legalization of abortion caused a severe spike in cases of breast cancer? If they act as the true social go-to experts on this disease, then they can give any reason they like for its causes. Abortion isn't one of them, trust me. But smoking is!

[Saundra Duffy]

You have a nice day.

[Saundra Duffy]

Results of that human pesticide

I had never heard RU 486 referred to in those terms. Fitting (but ghastly). Thanks for your post.

[Saundra Duffy]

Thank you for your prayers. You have no idea how much it means to me.

[Saundra Duffy]

I am organizing a pray-for-cancer circle among my friends!

Wow! That's the best news ever. Thanks!

[Saundra Duffy]

Abortion is murder. No doubt about it. However, many good things can come from our lawsuit. Just getting the word out will save many lives. I can see your point, though, but I still think it's better to save some lives along the way rather than wait until the whole disgusting procedure is banned. Thanks.

[RJCogburn]

This question has been so politicized we may have a difficult time knowing the truth, as both sides push agendas.

Too bad. Science should be impartial, going wherever the data lead.

[Saundra Duffy]

So, your case is that essentially the entire scientific and medical communities are all crazy or lying, and you and your fellow axe-grinders are [despite the absence of any dispositive supporting evidence] the sane ones.

Yep; that's pretty much it. But the scientific evidence is actually on our side. No kidding. LOL!

[RJCogburn]

I get it, even if Saundra in #19 does not. ;^)

[Saundra Duffy]

the facts, the population studies, and the theory of massive cell growth early in pregnancies (that are suddenly and violently affected by the hormone changes by abortion) all indicate the ABC relationship is valid.

Thanks for saying that. And this from an engineer . . . hummmm. For victory & freedom!!!

[gcruse]

;)

[Saundra Duffy]

What does ";)" mean? LOL!

[VeritatisSplendor]

You're wrong. The meta-analysis was not flawed.

If you want to get into a DETAILED debate on this thread, I'll be happy to oblige. Fair disclosure: I am a statistician who works professionally in survey research, and have a Ph.D. in math.

What specifically was wrong with Dr. Joel Brind's meta-analysis, and can you provide a link to the "Denmark study" you refer to? If it is the one I am thinking of, please read this.

[topher]

One scientific reason I have been told for the abortion--breast cancer think is what happens.

During pregnancy, the hormones of a woman/girl enlarge her breasts in anticipation of the unborn baby coming into the world.

When abortion occurs, the pregnancy is abonormally terminated -- suddenly stopping the flow of hormones.

It is the stopping of the hormones that causes a chemical imbalance in the woman/girl and encreases the risk of cancer.

So there is a scientific explanation of the "why" in the link between abortion and breast cancer.

The "biased media" will never tell you truth. Neither will NARAL, NOW, nor Planned Parenthood. They don't care about the woman/girl -- just about the politics of abortion.

[Saundra Duffy]

Thank you so much. I am not a technical person. Your help is much appreciated. For victory & freedom!!!

[Saundra Duffy]

It is the stopping of the hormones that causes a chemical imbalance in the woman/girl and increases the risk of cancer.

Exactly. Thanks. It's just common sense. The natural process is better than the unnatural; in this case VIOLENT interruption of nature.

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[nickcarraway]

ping

[nickcarraway]

There are (at least) two problems with using the study you are refrring to. That study (by Dr. Melbye et al)had severe problems. And more importantly, it did find an increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion!

1) Melbye’s data actually pointed to a 44% increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion, but they never printed this result; 2) The follow-up period for the “cases” (ie, women who had an induced abortion) was less than 10 years, whereas it was over 20 years for the “controls” (ie, women who did not have an induced abortion). A follow-up period of less than 10 years is not long enough to show the effect of an abortion (ie, too short of a latent period); 3) Over 30,000 women in the study who had abortions were “misclassified” as not having them — thus 30,000 women were counted as not having abortions, when in fact they really had abortions; and 4) The study did note that women who had an abortion after the 12th week sustained a 38% increased risk of breast cancer, whereas women who had late-term abortions (ie, after 18 weeks) had a statistically significant increase of 89%. Both of these results received little media attention.

[TXBubba]

Thanks. You brought up the information I had read also. Does anyone have a link to the study that detailed how the hormones ending early lead to the breast cancer?

It was also noted that women who have multible miscarriages are at a higher risk, obviously, due to the same result of the early end of a pregnancy.

[Saundra Duffy]

Thanks for the post. www.AbortionBreastCancer.com has links to all the studies (I think). For life!!!

[rabidralph]

You can watch the NCI conference via streaming video. It's the Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer. Scroll down the page to find three day's worth of viewing.

[Saundra Duffy]

Thanks; I'll check it out.

[jlogajan]

The natural process is better than the unnatural

I suppose you don't take any of those man-made medicines, ehy?

[topher]

There are two links:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com

and

http://www.prolifeinfo.org/upl2.html

The latter is not a study but an explanation why "aborting" the process is unhealthy for the body.

The first one, http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com has multiple studies.

[nickcarraway]

http://www.polycarp.org/ has some good stuff too.

[Saundra Duffy]

National Cancer Institute Still Wrong on Abortion-Breast Cancer
by by Karen Malec

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Karen Malec is the President of the
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.]

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a farcical workshop
for scientists late in February whose alleged purpose was to
comprehensively evaluate the abortion-breast cancer (A/BC)
research and debate its merits. Although NCI director, Andrew Von
Eschenbach, told the New York Times on March 11 that this had
been done, the reality is that an evaluation and debate never
took place. The workshop simply was not organized in such a way
as to allow for it. Only one viewpoint was invited--that abortion
is unrelated to increased risk of breast cancer--and this was the
conclusion presented to the world at the end of the three-day
workshop.

In keeping with its half century long practice of concealing the
A/BC research from the American people, the NCI posted minimal
information on an updated web page, dated March 25, 2003, which
shows that an unnamed scientist dissented against the workshop
statement. The web page is entitled, "Summary Report: Early
Reproductive Events and Cancer Workshop." Visitors to the NCI's
website are now being informed that the unnamed dissenter
recognizes "a real, independent, positive association between
induced abortion and breast cancer risk." Little more than that
is said.

The dissenter, however, is Joel Brind, Ph.D. His Minority Report
is not included on the NCI's web page. By concealing Brind's
identity and failing to post his report, the NCI creates a
stumbling block for women wanting to learn the rationale behind
his dissent.

Furthermore, the NCI's web page states that the agency's Board of
Scientific Advisors and Board of Scientific Counselors,
"unanimously approved the workshop findings." In addition, Dr.
Brind's Minority Report wasn't given to either board for their
consideration.

It appears the NCI is shilling for the abortion industry and
offering political cover for abortion supporters in Congress. The
web page address is:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report

The legal profession takes a dim view of the methods used by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) to determine a causal
relationship between an exposure and an outcome. Nancy Dreyer
authored an article for the International Association of Defense
Counsel in 1994 entitled, "An epidemiologic view of causation:
how it differs from the legal." The agency uses consensus panels
to decide whether an exposure is causally related to a disease.
She specifically labeled this practice as a "spurious method."

The practice was likened to the use of a jury to decide a
question of fact. It is well known that juries don't always
provide a fair or an unbiased verdict. A physician shared her
opinion of the NIH's method. She said, "The truth isn't reached
by consensus." [Dreyer N, "An epidemiologic view of causation:
how it differs from the legal." Available at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/implants/legal/defensejournal2.html
Visited April 10, 2003]

Indiana attorney John Kindley found a relevant quote from Albert
Einstein which calls into question the NCI's use of a consensus
panel to determine whether abortion causes breast cancer. His
quote sheds light on the deficiencies of consensus panels. In the
1930s, 100 scientists wrote a collection of essays which
disparaged Einstein's theory of relativity. When a reporter asked
the esteemed scientist for his comment, Einstein cleverly
replied, "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough."

Similarly, the NCI needed 100 grant dependent scientists to
disparage the A/BC link, but not one of them has ever refuted the
biological explanation for it. Why not? Scientists know that
estrogen overexposure is linked with most of the known risk
factors for breast cancer and that it promotes the growth of
tumors. They also know that pregnant women--if they are carrying
normal pregnancies not destined to miscarry--are exposed to more
estrogen starting early in their pregnancies than at any other
time during their lives. Scientists hypothesize that only a third
trimester process corrects that estrogen overexposure and
transforms cancer vulnerable breast cells into cancer resistant
cells. This is why women who bear more children, starting early
in their childbearing years, have a lower lifetime risk for the
disease.

Dishonest scientists will continue to design phony
epidemiological studies, purporting to explore a statistical
relationship between abortion and breast cancer, in an effort to
falsely persuade women of the safety of abortion. However, they
cannot change the biological evidence of a link or disprove the
rationale behind it.

Einstein's quote demonstrates that the NCI's efforts to debunk
the research cannot withstand the test of time. Ultimately, the
truth will be told to women.

--
We make it easy for you to contribute to the Pro-Life Infonet
using your credit card. Point your web browser to
https://secure.entango.com/donate/pE6bLWyec4s to make a donation
online. To make a contribution via PayPal, email
news@prolifeinfo.org for details.

[Saundra Duffy]

I suppose you don't take any of those man-made medicines, ehy?

My mother died of cancer. I have had two bouts with skin cancer. My sisters and I made a pact to get colonoscopies. All three of my sisters did very well - thank God - but when I woke up, they put me in an ambulance headed straight for Kaiser Hospital where I had major surgery during which they removed 18 inches of my colon. (They had blown a hole in my colon during colonoscopy.) So now you can call me a perfect ass-hole if you want to.