| Did you ever dance with the Devil by the pale moonlight? |
|---|
 |
| Make the angry doctor even madder! Make a donation to Free Republic! |
Posted on 01/12/2004 8:33:22 AM PST by Land of the Free 04
During the last year, both the New York Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune published editorials opposing the efforts of public health agencies to educate the public about a public health risk, the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. [1,2] The editors at the first newspaper were displeased that the National Cancer Institute briefly informed the public late last year about the existence of research implicating their cherished sacrament - induced abortion - as a risk factor for breast cancer. In the case of the second newspaper, the editors feel aggrieved about similar efforts on the part of the Minnesota Public Health Department. Neither newspaper has informed its readers that five medical organizations recognize abortion as one of the causes of breast cancer.
Although it is relevant to the issue at hand, neither newspaper has since informed its readers that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons issued a statement early in November calling for "full disclosure" of a "highly plausible" relationship. Readers weren't told that the Catholic Medical Association passed a resolution on October 15 calling on the states to pass legislation, which would require doctors to inform patients about the research, and that the nation's first settlement of an abortion-breast cancer malpractice lawsuit took place on October 17, 2003.
Its predictable that many doctors and their medical groups will be exceptionally biased against the ABC research. Why? Many have either performed abortions or referred women to abortion doctors. Doctors feel an inherent revulsion toward medical malpractice lawsuits. Acknowledgement of the ABC link will only open the floodgates to more lawsuits. True to their own interests, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Minnesota chapter of the American Medical Association (AMA) have reportedly taken stands against informing Minnesota women about the breast cancer risk. [3] The AMA is on record as having put its financial interests ahead of patients interests. In 1964, the group accepted $10 million from the tobacco industry and then opposed efforts to pass legislation in Congress requiring warning labels on cigarette packages.
A recent column in the news weekly, The Wanderer, provides a second possible explanation for the suppression of the truth. In the column, "From the Mail," an anonymous author reflected upon the words of a 20th Century writer, Hilaire Belloc. [4] In his book, The Free Press, Belloc discussed the rise of small, non-corporate sponsored, weekly newspapers. He labeled them the "free press" and compared them with the "official press" - the large daily newspapers, whose views generally represent the objectives and morals of the ruling class.
Belloc elaborated on the success of the newsweeklies in the publication, The New Age. He said:
"Here is a force numerically quite small, lacking the one great obvious power of our time (which is the power to bribe), rigidly boycotted - so much so that it is hardly known outside the circle of its immediate adherents and quite unknown abroad. Yet this force is doing work - is creating at a moment when everything else is marking time; and the work it is doing is growing more and more apparent.
"The reason is, of course, the principle which was a common-place with antiquity, though it was almost forgotten in the last modern generation, that truth has a power of its own. Mere indignation against organized falsehood, mere revolt against it, is creative."
Belloc drew a distinction between hard news and suggested ideas. He argued:
"These two things are quite distinct in character and should be regarded separately, though they merge in this: that false ideas are suggested by false news and especially news that is false through suppression."
The Wanderer's columnist said this about Belloc: "In his view, the 'Free Press,' however, born in rebellion to the 'Official Press' which usually serves the interests of the governing classes, was growing in credibility for exposing the 'incapacity and falsehood' of many large newspapers."
Belloc further opined, "The Capitalist Press has come at last to warp all judgment. The tiny oligarchy which controls it is irresponsible and feels itself immune. It has come to believe that it can suppress any truth and suggest any falsehood. It governs, and it governs abominably: and it is governing thus in the midst of a war for life."
Belloc's concepts might explain why the nation's medical, scientific, political and journalistic elite has concealed the truth about the ABC research for almost a half-century. The suppression of the truth serves the interests of Fortune 500 corporations and the wealthiest members of society who fund population control efforts. Included among Planned Parenthood's long list of wealthy donors are the New York Times, George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and the Rockefellers. They aggressively fund causes which limit the size of families, even though increased childbearing starting before age 24 is the single most effective measure a woman can take in the fight against breast cancer.
The New York Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune do an exceptional job of serving the interests of the wealthy.
| Did you ever dance with the Devil by the pale moonlight? |
|---|
|
| Make the angry doctor even madder! Make a donation to Free Republic! |
Pregnancy immediately kicks the lactating hormones into overdrive. Breastfeeding is the natural goal and expectation of all this. But in instances where the pregnancy is terminated - miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, etc. - or the woman does not breastfeed her baby, the hormones keep the lactating features of the breasts stimulated without the natural release .... and it is apparently this unrelieved hormonal pressure that eventually triggers some breast cancers.
In many instances of miscarriage or a decision not to breastfeed, the doctors can administer other hormones that dial back the lactating mechanism. But in the case of the vast majority of elective abortions there is no such follow-up medical attention, so the lactating mechanism remains in overdrive for a prolonged period and this, from a lack of follow-up treatment for anti-lactation, is what probably leads to breast cancer.
Where's the evidence that the abortion-breast cancer link is "junk science"?
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
The Wanderer has been providing its readers with news and commentary from an orthodox perspective for more than 135 years. Click on their link and ask them to send a free, sample - it's a complete edition.
Such studies can prove only that the correlation falls below a certain threshold---it's in the nature of statistical analysis that they can never prove "no link."
as well as the studies which have analyzed the research which allegedly found a link, and spelled out exactly how their methodology was flawed.
I'd love to. Have any links?
I'm not doubting what you're saying, but I have a friend who does exactly what you describe to a "T" and she just found out that she has breast cancer. She's a real stickler about healthy eating and we were all shocked when we found out about her. Yes, just anecdotal, but I guess I wanted to make the point that some things just "happen."
Although....this woman is a big tofu fan. Are there some findings linking tofu to cancer?
However, for the most part I think disease comes from a lousy and destructive diet.
http://www.womenscancercenter.com/info/articles/brca.html
"Seven percent of breast cancers and ten percent of ovarian cancers are related to susceptibility genes, mainly BRCA1 and BRCA2. Obviously not all susceptibility genes have yet been identified. It is suspected that as many as 1,000,000 (about 0.5% - 0.6%) United States women are carriers of the altered BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Ashkenazi Jewish women are at particularly high risk with over 1% carrying the gene. Women that carry the mutation have an 82% risk of breast cancer and a 44% risk for ovarian cancer (BRCA1) by the age of 70. Interestingly, these women are often afflicted at a younger age with a 59% risk of breast cancer before the age of fifty, and often these patients will be afflicted with cancer before the age of 40."
Poor you. Store 'em in a text file.
And where's your proof, besides the flimsy assertions of the obviously biased "LifeSite" and the handful of pet researchers it relies on, none of whom have any significant credentials?
"Credentials" are not how science operates. Here is the research: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research.htm. Now let's have your proof.
The argument does not go this way about Global Warming.
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.