U.S. Revises Sex Information, and a Fight Goes On

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 — The National Cancer Institute, which used to say on its Web site that the best studies showed "no association between abortion and breast cancer," now says the evidence is inconclusive.

A Web page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to say studies showed that education about condom use did not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity. That statement, which contradicts the view of "abstinence only" advocates, is omitted from a revised version of the page.

Critics say those changes, far below the political radar screen, illustrate how the Bush administration can satisfy conservative constituents with relatively little exposure to the kind of attack that a legislative proposal or a White House statement would invite.

Bill Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, scoffed at the idea that there was anything political about the changes, saying that they reflected only scientific judgments and that department headquarters had had nothing to do with them. "We simply looked at them, and they put them up," he said of the agencies involved.

The new statements were posted in the last month, after news reports that the government had removed their predecessors from the Web. Those reports quoted administration officials as saying the earlier material had been removed so that it could be rewritten with newer scientific information. The latest statements are the revisions.

Those statements have drawn some criticism, as did the removal, though like the issue itself it has gone largely unnoticed. Fourteen House Democrats, including Henry A. Waxman of California, senior minority member of the House Government Reform Committee, have written to Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, charging that the new versions "distort and suppress scientific information for ideological purposes."

Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the new statement on abortion and breast cancer "simply doesn't track the best available science."

"Scientific and medical misinformation jeopardizes peoples' lives," Ms. Feldt said, adding that any suggestion of a connection between abortion and cancer was "bogus."

The earlier statement, which the National Cancer Institute removed from the Web in June after anti-abortion congressmen objected to it, noted that many studies had reached varying conclusions about a relation between abortion and breast cancer, but said "recent large studies" showed no connection. In particular, it approvingly cited a study of 1.5 million Danish women that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. That study, the cancer institute said, found that "induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer."

The Danish research, praised by the American Cancer Society as "the largest, and probably the most reliable, study of this topic," is not mentioned in the government's recent posting, which says the cancer institute will hold a conference next year to plan further research.

Dorie Hightower, a press officer at the cancer institute, attributed the revision to the institute's periodic review of fact sheets "for accuracy and scientific relevance." Asked whether the institute now thought that the Danish study failed on either count, Ms. Hightower said no. But she said there was no scientist available to explain the change.

As for the disease control centers' fact sheet on condoms, the old version focused on the advantages of using them, while the new version puts more emphasis on the risk that such use may not prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and on the advantages of abstinence.

Posted on Dec. 2, the new version begins, in boldface: "The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for S.T.D.'s, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of S.T.D. transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any S.T.D."

A different Web page maintained by the centers, referring to studies of uninfected people at risk of H.I.V. because of sexual relationships with infected people, does say on the other hand, "The studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100 percent of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected."

But the recently revised page warns that evidence on condom use and other sexually transmitted diseases is inconclusive, though it says the uncertainty demonstrates that "more research is needed — not that latex condoms do not work."

The new version also omits a passage on sex education and condom use that appeared in the earlier document. "Studies of specific sex education programs," the earlier version said, "have shown that H.I.V. education and sex education that included condom information either had no effect upon the initiation of intercourse or resulted in delayed onset of intercourse."

In an interview, Dr. David Fleming, the disease control centers' deputy director for science, defended the new version. "We try as hard as possible," Dr. Fleming said, "to state objectively what is known about condom efficacy without nuancing language beyond what is supported by the science."

He said that the document reflected consensus of the centers, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, and that none of its conclusions had been influenced by those agencies' parent, the Department of Health and Human Services.

The letter to Secretary Thompson from House Democrats said that by alteration and deletion, the disease control agency "is now censoring the scientific information about condoms it makes available to the public" in order to suit abstinence-only advocates. And it said the breast cancer document amounted to nothing more than "the political creation of scientific uncertainty."

"Information that used to be based on science," the lawmakers said, "is being systematically removed from the public when it conflicts with the administration's political agenda."

How many articles has this Clymer written about the creeping politics during Demonrat administrations?

And, I guess Clymer couldn't find any of these people.

The following experts recognize that abortion independently causes breast cancer, irrespective of the lost advantages of an early first full term pregnancy (FFTP), childbirth and breastfeeding which serve to reduce risk.

Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., a clinical assistant professor of surgery associated with the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey, told the press at a conference sponsored by the Population Research Institute in Santa Clara, California on April 5, 2002 that a teenager who procures an abortion has, “At best ... a 30% risk of breast cancer in her lifetime.” She added that “At worst, if she also has a family history of breast cancer, it will nearly guarantee this.” For this reason, she said taking a teenager in a crisis pregnancy for an abortion amounts to “child abuse.”

Dr. Lanfranchi declared under oath in a California lawsuit that “Over the past three or four years, I have spoken with many authorities and people in a position to be well-informed. Some have been straightforward and said that they know it is a risk factor but felt it was ‘too political’ to speak about.” She explained that she’d discussed the research with many physicians and encouraged them to get reproductive histories from their patients. Among those who have, they’ve “found as I did that ... cases of breast cancer in young women are associated with an abortion history.” [[Agnes Bernardo, Pamela Colip, and Saundra Duffy-Hawkins v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties; Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, August 15, 2001]

Thomas Stuttaford, M.D., an abortion supporter and a medical columnist for the London Times, authored an article entitled, “Fresh Line of Attack,” on May 17, 2001 in which he wrote that: “Breast cancer is diagnosed in 33,000 women in the U.K. each year; of these, an unusually high proportion had an abortion before eventually starting a family. Such women are up to four times more likely to develop breast cancer.” He added that, “A report by the Royal Statistical Society shows that a termination of pregnancy interrupts the cellular changes that occur in the breast during pregnancy. Once the woman has had children, the effect is less because the cellular changes have been completed....” (emphasis added)

Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., author of the book, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, wrote that,

“A woman’s breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (i.e., cancer producing) influences before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (i.e. the female sexual hormones), and hCG (human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells. If this process is artificially interrupted by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop suddenly and dramatically, thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman’s breast cells. This is referred to as a ‘hormonal blow’ by researchers. These cells are now ‘vulnerable’ to carcinogens because they started the maturation process but were never able to complete it. (Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation).” [One More Soul, Dayton, Ohio (2000) p. 21]

Charles B. Simone, M.D., author of, Breast Health: What You Need to Know, is Clinical Director at the Simone Protective Cancer Institute in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. He is a medical oncologist, radiation oncologist and immunologist. He wrote that:

"When conception occurs, hormonal changes influence the breast. The milk duct network grows quickly to form other networks that will ultimately produce milk. During this period of tremendous growth and development, breast cells are undergoing great change and are immature or ‘undifferentiated’; hence, they are more susceptible to carcinogens. But when a first full term pregnancy is completed, hormonal changes occur that permanently alter the breast network to greatly reduce the risk of outside carcinogen influence. When a termination occurs in the first trimester, there are no protective effects, and many of the rapidly dividing cells of the breast are left in transitional states....It is in these transitional states of high proliferation and undifferentiation that these cells can undergo transformation to cancer cells.” [Charles B. Simone, M.D., M.M.S., Breast Health: What You Need to Know, Avery Pub. Group, Garden City Park, N.Y. 1995 (p. 147) ISBN 0895296608]

John R. Lee, M.D., David Zava, Ph.D. and Virginia Hopkins, authored the book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer. They reported that more and more studies are finding that abortion increases breast cancer risk and suggested that this is providing support for elevated risk independent of the effect of postponing a FFTP. He and his co-authors wrote the following statement about abortion as a risk factor for the disease:

"As you've probably noticed throughout this book our message is that estrogen is the smoking gun when it comes to breast cancer. Granted, it's not estrogen per se but rather unbalanced estrogens, synthetic forms of estrogen, and estrogens forced down harmful biochemical pathways that do the damage, but there is no doubt that it's the primary culprit in this disease." (page 216)

"Only the first full-term pregnancy conveys (breast cancer) protection. Interrupted pregnancy (miscarriages and abortions) do not afford protection, and research is accumulating that they can actually increase the risk of breast cancer. This may be because the tissue begins to differentiate (mature into cancer-resistant cells) and then is stopped part way through the process." (emphasis added) [Warner Books (2002) p. 30-31]

From here

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.