Microbiologist: Hundreds of Studies Confirm Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Life News ^ | 9/22/10 | Steven Ertelt

[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.

[Eagle Eye]

http://ww5.komen.org/Content.aspx?id=16162&terms=abortion

http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content/Footer/MediaCenter/planned%20parenthood%20winer-09.pdf

Have you actually read what Komen does or are you relying on threads like this?

First time I saw one of wagglebee’s threads like this I was horrified and went to the Komen site for more info.

To my surprise, nothing Wagglebee said was proven true and wagglebee offers no proof to counter what Komen says in their published public documents.

According to their documents, they grant an average of about $36,000 each to about 20 clinics. That looks like a couple of part time nurses or other clinical support and not a lot of overhead or keeping any PP clinics in business to me.

And I don’t have a problem with Komen spending their funds as they claim that they do.

But the idea that Komen is providing support for PP clinics so that those clinics can perform abortions is not supported by any evidence. And that makes threads like this dishonest.

[markomalley]

From the Susan J Komen foundation:

Here's the situation: every dollar that PP receives to perform non-abortion services frees up a dollar from their direct donors with which they can provide an abortion. In addition, any dollars from third parties they can spend doing something other than providing abortions gives them a credibility they don't deserve.

It doesn't matter whether this funding comes from Komen for breast cancer screening, from a public school district to fund sex education classes, from USAID to fund international "reproductive health" ((barf)) efforts, and so on. Every dollar that is donated for non-abortion services frees up a dollar that is donated without restriction to perform abortions.

And by the way, providing funding for breast cancer screening in inner city PP clinics is what they are admitting to directly. From what you can read on other sites, there appears to be a whole lot more funding going to PP than this leads one to believe. Keep in mind that funding may be direct or may go through third party foundations (sort of like nonprofit money laundering)

[BykrBayb]

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.

You're right. It was one hell of a shock to me when I found out I was supporting abortion by supporting Komen. I stopped on a dime.

[savagesusie]

Well, that is my exact thought, so I never took them.

They used much higher levels of estrogen or something back in the 70’s. I heard this in the 90’s— but on the net and hardly ever in the MSM. They were also linking it with higher breast cancer levels. At the time all these women in Marin were coming down with breast cancer....like a hot spot....they were on the pill and they had higher number of abortions.....so it could have been a combo...either/or...or some other toxin....maybe the soy in tofu. Ha

If it ever was in Time or Newsweek it was on a little space in the back of the magazine. I do believe I saw it in one of those magazines but it got very little coverage.

[metmom]

There are hospitals across the country which the poor can go to to get mammograms.

If the Komen Foundation wanted to really help in breast cancer screening, they could donate to them, or use the money to open breast clinics in poor neighborhoods. Or provide transportation for those poor women to get mammograms.

Women go to PP for abortions and birth control. Those of childbearing age are not the group that needs the breast cancer screening the most.

Giving money to an organization which doesn’t even cater to those at highest risk is ludicrous. It’s a total, irresponsible waste of money. They’re only lying by pretending to do something useful when they’re not.

[metmom]

I daresay there are more hospitals in poor neighborhoods than there are PP clinics.

The Komen Foundation giving money to local hospitals for breast cancer screening is going to reach far more needy women than giving it to PP clinics.

[wagglebee]

I will NEVER believe that there is a single place in this country where PP is the only free/reduced-cost health provider.

And, as I have mentioned before, mammograms ARE NOT recommended for women under the age of 40. Women who typically go to Planned Parenthood shouldn’t even be having mammograms.

[wagglebee]

Women go to PP for abortions and birth control. Those of childbearing age are not the group that needs the breast cancer screening the most.

Under normal circumstances, women under 40 aren't given mammograms AT ALL. They feel for lumps themselves and their doctors check during routine exam, no special funding is needed for this.

Unless someone can name a PP clinic which routinely treats significant numbers of post-menopausal women, this is a sham.

[netmilsmom]

Exactly!

Why not finance these?
http://gohave1.com/mobile-mammograms/mobile-screening-unit/

[metmom]

Under normal circumstances, women under 40 aren't given mammograms AT ALL. They feel for lumps themselves and their doctors check during routine exam, no special funding is needed for this.

Unless someone can name a PP clinic which routinely treats significant numbers of post-menopausal women, this is a sham.

There are so many better alternatives than to give money to the primary abortion provider (baby murderers) in this country.

Komen is lying about it being about breast cancer. It's a stealth way to support PP and sucker everyone into supporting them under the guise that they're doing something good.

And people are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

[Gene Eric]

>> yes Abortion is bad, but rooting for cancer is just creepy

The creepiness lies within your interpretation.

[trisham]

No one is “rooting for cancer”.

[trisham]

bump!

[Eagle Eye]

You make allegation and assertions and never offer proof.

Prove Komen wrong.

If you can.

[Paved Paradise]

Thanks Mark and also Metmom. I did not know there was such a close relationship b/t Komen and Planned Parenthood. I am saddened to hear about this.

[Paved Paradise]

Who did you think is “rooting” for cancer?

[Paved Paradise]

My logic works just fine - thank you. I was not aware of the connection of Susan Komen and Planned Parenthood. I HATE Planned Parenthood and hold its author, Margaret Sanger, in high disregard; well, worse actually... I think Margaret Sanger was an evil, Godless person.

Just keep in mind that most people can relate to breast cancer because they know somebody who had it - it is one of the most common(and survivable)cancers. Susan Komen made a promise to her sister and I still think the cause was noble and had good intentions. Obviously, not everyone is Christian or has a clue about some of the issues talked about on this thread. I like to educate people instead of attacking them.

I still think the comment I originally replied to was mean spirited and others on here were much clearer in making the connections to show what is going on.

Oh, and one last point. If you think that all women take birth control pills for birth control reasons, you are mistaken. There are many reasons for taking those drugs.

[metmom]

I will NEVER believe that there is a single place in this country where PP is the only free/reduced-cost health provider.

Especially when hospital ER's can't refuse treatment based on the inability to pay.

Women who typically go to Planned Parenthood shouldn’t even be having mammograms.

You're right. Considering that there is some controversy about the role the radiation from the mammograms might play in increased breast cancer risk, they don't advise having any more than necessary.

[Eagle Eye]

Why don’t you discuss this with Komen?

Oh, yeah, your mind is made up already and you know exactly how they should run their business...even without checking out the facts.

Is it possible that those 20 or so clinics that receive about $36,000 average actually service women who can’t get to a hospital for mammograms as the Komen literature says?

Oh, yeah, I’ll bet you didn’t even read what they had to say, did you?

Life is so much easier when you can simply shut your eyes to facts you want to ignore, isn’t it?

I read Komen’s documents and found them far more credible than the poster’s unsubstantiated claims. Did you read them?

[Paved Paradise]

Wagglebee, you know sometimes if people actually made clear statements on here, some of these threads wouldn’t get so out of hand. For instance, instead of making a comment about “funding abortionists,” it would have been much better to be specific and say that they support “Planned Parenthood.” I hate Planned Parenthood because they perform abortions. However, that is not ALL they do. In supporting one’s position, it is best to give all the evidence and information. Otherwise, one is truly acting like the Left and “spinning” the info. I know all about Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, the start of Planned Parenthood and the services they offer. Because they offer abortion services, I find the organization appalling,but I can see how others who do not have my Christian or pro-life beliefs would see Planned Parenthood in a different light and tend to focus on the services they extend to the poor.

I have talked to college students who have told me they use Planned Parenthood’s services b/c they do not have insurance and it is cheap to get birth control. I have discussed my dislike of PP with some of these kids and a few of them have told me they try not to think about it. If they need birth control (and I’ve heard a million stories about why they want birth control - don’t want to get pregnant before they finish their degree; aren’t married yet; etc. etc.), they can’t afford $125 a month (which is what one young lady said it would cost her) when Planned Parenthood will give it to them for $30 a month.