Women have every right to know the connection.
Sheesh, wb, you sure bring out the trolls.
Posted on 09/22/2010 4:21:05 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A microbiologist says there are so many published studies confirming the link between induced abortion and breast cancer that he plans to publish one every day on his blog until he's mentioned them all. It will take Dr. Gerard Nadal so many weeks to cover them all, the blogging will continue until early next year.
Nadal, who has a has a PhD in Molecular Microbiology from St John's University in New York, has spent 16 years teaching science, most recently at Manhattan College.
He will report on one abortion-breast cancer study daily until he has exhausted all of the abortion-breast cancer studies and he anticipates he may be reporting on these studies as late as January or February of 2011.
"Today begins the inexorable presentation of the scientific literature on the abortion/breast cancer link," Nadal writes. "Women’s lives depend on us getting the truth out to them. In short order we'll generate plenty of pros armed with the simple truth of science!"
His first article reviews a 1997 epidemiological study by Julie Palmer, Lynn Rosenberg and their colleagues, "Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to breast cancer," published in the journal, Cancer Causes and Control.
Palmer and Rosenberg are not unbiased researchers, which makes their findings even more relevant for women. Instead, they are abortion advocates who have testified as expert witnesses on behalf of abortion businesses in lawsuits challenging the states of Alaska and Florida because of their parental notice or consent laws.
Their study, supported by U.S. National Cancer Institute grants, examined 1,835 women ages 25-64 years with pathologically confirmed, invasive breast cancer and 4,289 women aged 25-64 admitted for nonmalignant or malignant conditions.
Nadal says the study found women who had never had children and who had one case of an induced abortion raised their abortion breast cancer risk by 40 percent.
"So in plain English, women who had one induced abortion, regardless of ever having had a child, had a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer over women the same age, with the same parity status who never had abortions, and the authors are 95% certain that there is no other explanation," he said.
Nadal says the study further showed that for women who had a child previously, "there is a 30% increased risk of cancer" and it "may well be explained by additional stimulation of the lobules by estrogen in the aborted pregnancy, without the benefit of lactogen at the end."
Nadal says observers of the debate about the abortion and breast cancer link should pay attention to another part of the study where the authors attempt to undermine their own results in an effort to downplay the abortion-breast cancer link.
The authors claim their own study suffers from a form of recall bias -- despite their assertion that they were 95% certain that the results could not be due to chance. The authors believe women with breast cancer are less likely to hide their an abortion from the health questioners compiling the data than women without breast cancer.
"They offer no proof of this phenomenon other than the same assertions made by other breast cancer researchers with similar data. In other words, the phenomenon is a baseless assertion reverberating in the pro-abortion echo chamber," Nadal writes.
"Are we really to believe that breast cancer brings women closer to telling the truth of their previous abortions? Why the acuity of memory in a breast cancer patient vs. the control patients? The abortion question was just one in a long, detailed history taken during the study," Nadal continues. "There is no rational basis for believing that women with breast cancer are more apt to recall and report an abortion than any other women."
Despite that, the authors conclude in their study: “The small elevations in risk observed in the present study and in previous studies are compatible with what would be expected if there were differential underreporting by cases and controls.”
Nadal says that doesn't pass the scientific straight face test.
"If I had pulled that crap during my dissertation defense, my committee would have laughed me out of the room," he said.
However, as Nadal blogs about the abortion-breast cancer studies, he says this is a recurring theme.
"But, as we shall see over and over on a daily basis for months to come, this is what happens when ideology (and not physiology) becomes the prism through which data are filtered," he says.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
That was very mean-spirited. First of all, there are millions of women who have been dx with breast cancer (including my own dear mother) who never had an abortion. Are you saying that Komen funnels money to abortionists?
yes Abortion is bad, but rooting for cancer is just creepy
The hypocrites would rather women kill their babies and then suffer cancer than tell the truth.. I bet this will not be on CNN now either
Emotion has been linked to the body’s immune system’s functionality - depressed individuals get sick more often, and the like.
A terminated pregnancy, spontaneous or induced, is a traumatic event, and ought to have the same impact.
My mother died from breast cancer, but facts are facts.
Women have every right to know the connection.
Sheesh, wb, you sure bring out the trolls.
It is not mean spirited to get the truth out. These feminist organizations have been suppressing the truth for years. I heard from a European study over 10 years ago about the link, but you can not attack feminist’s sacred cow—abortion. I also read that the pill causes breast cancer— esp. the ones dished out in the 70’s. Again, silence to protect another sacred cow.
That is all this person is saying. The truth needs to get out in a free society where people can make “choices”. Of course, all breast cancer isn’t caused by abortions.
Your logic is acting like the Obama’s post-modernism, which refuses to believe in reason and fact and science.
I am well aware of this. There have been several women in my family that have had breast cancer, it is a horrible illness and everything possible needs to be done to cure it.
The fact is that I am not aware of anyone who hasn't had a relative or loved one diagnosed with breast cancer, so I'm not inclined to respond to any "you just don't understand" arguments.
Are you saying that Komen funnels money to abortionists?
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying:
My guess is that someone at CNN had done a story on it and it got yanked as soon as the promo was aired.
Who is "rooting for cancer"?
How is giving money to abortionists going to do ANYTHING to cure breast cancer?
How would you react if the American Lung Association was giving money to Phillip Morris?
Prediction: This microbiologist will soon be missing or found dead like many others /c2cam
Placemarker
Wagglebee hates Komen in a highly irrational fashion.
Wagglebee claims that Komen supports abortion because Komen grants funds to a relatively small group of clinics in rural and/or poor regions where these clinics are considered needed to provide women’s health screenings. The grants are designated for non-abortion activities and Komen’s documents state that they audit twice a year to ensure that those funds are spent as per the grant application.
Komen categorically denies that their grant monies are used for abortion and (as I recall from their documents) these grants amount to less than 1% of their grants.
Wagglebee offers no proof, no substantiation of the claims that Komen funds Big Murder except the idea of fungibility of funds.
Forget that Komen helps perhaps millions of cancer patients and others.
Forget that by extension that if Komen supports abortion (which they deny) so does everyone one of the millions of their supporters including every employee of every company that supports Komen in any way....which would be a shock to most of those supporters.
Wagglebee should apply the same standards to herself...since no person is 100% pure and perfect then nothing short of perfection can be tolerated no matter how much good comes from the 99%. Therefore the 99% must be demolished, right?
"Well, other than that, how was your trip to Dallas, Mrs. Kennedy?"
On the contrary, I am aware that they give money to a group that kills babies and increases the risk of breast cancer.
Wagglebee claims that Komen supports abortion because Komen grants funds to a relatively small group of clinics in rural and/or poor regions where these clinics are considered needed to provide women’s health screenings.
Let's be clear, they give money to the largest abortion provider in America.
The grants are designated for non-abortion activities and Komen’s documents state that they audit twice a year to ensure that those funds are spent as per the grant application.
However, these funds also offset the overall overhead costs of Planned Parenthood and allow PP to put more money toward abortion.
Komen categorically denies that their grant monies are used for abortion and (as I recall from their documents) these grants amount to less than 1% of their grants.
Yes, but since Planned Parenthood's abortion business is intermingled with it's other endeavors, that's an impossibility.
Wagglebee offers no proof, no substantiation of the claims that Komen funds Big Murder except the idea of fungibility of funds.
Which IS proof.
Forget that Komen helps perhaps millions of cancer patients and others.
I've never disputed that, but they could help MORE people if they didn't give money to an abortionist.
Forget that by extension that if Komen supports abortion (which they deny) so does everyone one of the millions of their supporters including every employee of every company that supports Komen in any way....which would be a shock to most of those supporters.
Most of Komen's supporters have NO CLUE that money goes to Planned Parenthood.
Wagglebee should apply the same standards to herself.
Actually, I'm a he.
since no person is 100% pure and perfect then nothing short of perfection can be tolerated no matter how much good comes from the 99%. Therefore the 99% must be demolished, right?
Your statement makes no sense.
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.