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.
I was shocked, too, when I first found out.
The thing that’s frustrating is that the Komen Foundation portrays itself like it’s doing something about breast cancer with this funding, and the funding is not even helping the demographic most at risk.
Even if the PP connection weren’t such an issue, it’s just such a waste of all that money that people have given in good faith.
Metmom, you can believe what you want, but I spend my days with college students and short of getting birth control through the university’s nurse, they have told me that Planned Parenthood is the cheapest for birth control and reproductive services. The kids often don’t have insurance... of course now with Obamacare allowing kids on their parents insurance til age 26, maybe it won’t matter so much.
I want to restate my disgust for Planned Parenthood but I understand why the kids use them.
Met... in spite of my sadness at learning of Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood (which means I will never donate money to them ever), I do think that your statement goes too far. Komen does raise money for breast cancer research and to imply that they do not is simply wrong.
Secondly, the reality is that if the Susan Komen Foundation made advertisements tomorrow that said what percentage of their money went to Planned Parenthood (as opposed to direct breast cancer research), they would still get millions of dollars in donations. In fact, some people might give more. Heck, people support Planned Parenthood itself.
Jim, I think the fact that you have no idea should remove you from the comments about birth control pills. I don’t think any drugs are “good” for us. Even aspirin is a serious drug and should not be taken so lightly but people pop aspirins, Tylenols, and other pain relievers like nobody’s business. Ditto for antacids and a host of other OTC meds.
The point is that people have the right to determine whether their quality of life can be improved drastically (or even lengthened)by drugs. I have a disease that totally incapacitated me. If you told me tomorrow that my life would be cut short b/c of that drug, it would be meaningless to me because without it, life was not really life at all.
There are far more hospitals than PP clinics. Any woman incapable of getting to a hospital is going to be equally incapable of getting to a PP clinic.
If she can get to a PP clinic, she can get to a hospital.
PP caters to women of childbearing age, women who are not advised to get mammograms. At the very least, even without the indirect funding of abortions that the money supports, Komen is wasting the money by targeting the wrong demographic and totally wasting all the money donated in good faith.
They’d be much better off donating the money to breast cancer screening clinics, local hospitals in poor neighborhoods, or mobile breast cancer screening centers.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
None of those options support the largest abortion provider in the country.
I never said otherwise.
Many insurance plans come with prescription plans and cover college students under their parents coverage as long as they are full time.
My guess is that many of them simply do not want to tell their parents they are on the pill to get it covered under the Rx plan.
Do you care to prove you assumptions?
Until you do, they are simply your unsubstantiated assumptions.
Komen says that they fund ‘about’ 20 clinics nationally.
Can you provide proof that the women in those areas can get to a hospital as you claim?
Logically, if Komen wanted to fund abortion they wouldn’t provide a paltry $36k to 20 isolated clinics, they dump 10 times that money into urban clinics.
You still haven’t read their documents on this, have you?
And if you haven’t then you are arguing from a position of being uninformed. Isn’t that also called ignorant?
Isn’t that also what you would expect to encounter dealing with a lib on DU or Salon.com?
Be fair to yourself, read what Komen says about the issue.
How far does $36,000 go in funding a medical clinic?
Metmom, I would venture to say that very few of these kids are “afraid” to tell their parents they are on the Pill, esp. when the parents’ lifestyles are sometimes as immature. Seriously.
Some of the kids are married now - young but married - no parental healthcare. And a lot of kids’ parents don’t have healthcare either.
For some reason, a lot of these kids seem to like to talk to me and come to me for advice so I know way more than I sometimes even want to... I do try to steer them in the right direction though (always pointing towards our Savior).
Blessings!
Komen refuses to accept, teach and promote the ABC (abortion & breast cancer) link; therefore, in some ways they are actually promoting breast cancer by hiding the truth. They also hide the fact that they support planned parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
I particularly HATE planned parenthood also....They are an extremely evil organization, as was Margaret Sanger.
I do think Susan Komen had wonderful intentions, that cannot be denied.
Did you know this little tidbit of history.....In 1950, while in her 80s, Sanger underwrote the research necessary to create the first human birth control pill. Sanger raised $150,000 for the project.
Logic obviously isn't your strong suit.
Here is more proof, it has been posted before and ignored by you. It shows that a few years ago, after Komen started giving grants to Big Murder, the number of abortions performed by Big Murder INCREASED but the number of breast exams DECREASED.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure awards 72 grants to Planned Parenthood in 2000-2005 period
Prove Komen wrong.
What exactly is there to "prove"? Komen acknowledges that it gives money to Big Murder.
Below is a statement from the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis where they spell out exactly why they refuse to support Komen AND point out that there are other groups working to cure breast cancer. There is some sort of absurd belief among many Americans that Komen is the ONLY group working to cure breast cancer, this is flat out wrong.
St. Louis Archdiocese: Position Statement on Susan G. Komen for the Cure
The Respect Life Apostolate of the Archdiocese of St. Louis acknowledges the beneficial work of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, formerly known as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, in the area of breast cancer detection, prevention, research and treatment. Due to its policy allowing affiliates to offer financial support to abortion providing facilities, its denial of studies showing abortion as a cause of breast cancer, and its endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, the Respect Life Apostolate neither supports nor encourages participation in activities that benefit Susan G. Komen for the Cure. This position is based on the following facts:
1) Public records indicate that Susan G. Komen for the Cure (“Komen”) affiliates (Missouri is not among them) provided grants to local Planned Parenthood chapters for breast health care services as recently as 2009.1
Though Komen’s grants were for breast health care services, Planned Parenthood (the largest single abortion provider in the country) stated in its 2007-2008 annual report that 31,729 fewer breast exams and 15,560 more abortions were provided in 2007 than in 2006.2
Donors cannot control how an organization designates its funds. Therefore, money donated for a specific service, i.e. breast health care, directly frees up funds to support other areas of an organization’s agenda, i.e. contraception services, “safe” sex education and abortion services.
2) The Komen website dismisses the link between procured abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.3 However, multiple studies invalidate a dismissal of the link. Recent studies include those of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center4, Joel Brind, Ph.D., a professor of Endocrinology and founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute5, and the work of Dr. Janet Daling, a leading cancer epidemiologist. Daling, a pro-choice advocate, said, “I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of what is.”6 As part of a comprehensive search for a cure, we encourage Komen to either fund further studies on the link between breast cancer and abortion, or avoid prematurely denying any possibility of a connection.
3) Komen endorses embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of embryonic human life, stating that, “embryonic stem cells are currently considered to have the most potential for use in the regeneration of diseased or injured tissues” for cancer stem cell research.7 The destruction of human life at any stage of development is never morally acceptable. Embryonic stem cell research is also unnecessary since adult stem cell research has a proven record of cures and treatments.
Based on these documented facts, the Respect Life Apostolate (RLA) does not endorse Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The RLA encourages you to contact Susan G. Komen for the Cure (5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250 ▪ Dallas, TX 75244) and call for an end to all associations between Komen affiliates and Planned Parenthood, for support of further studies on the link between breast cancer and abortion, and for an end to the endorsement of research that leads to the destruction of any human life. Our hope is that the Komen Foundation will focus all funds on research to find causes and cures for breast cancer and refuse to give financial or other support to any abortion provider or organization that promotes the destruction of human life.
The patients and families who are victims of this terrible illness remain in our prayers, and we encourage all to continue supporting all those who are suffering or in spiritual, physical or financial need. As of this publication date, we believe the following organizations support morally licit breast cancer research and prevention, however, as with all charitable contributions, we encourage you to obtain the most current information possible before offering your support.
The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
30 Rehill Avenue, Suite 3400
Somerville, NJ 08876 USA
Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133
Hoffman Estates, IL 60195-3051
2 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (2007). 2007-2008 Annual Report (677 KB PDF file). Retrieved June 3, 2010. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf
3 Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Understanding Breast Cancer, See "Factors Not Related to Breast Cancer." Retrieved June 3, 2010 from http://ww5.komen.org/breastcancer/researchtabletopics.html#riskfactors
4 Dolle, Jessica et al. “Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years.” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers, April 2009. Retrieved June 4, 2010 from http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.full.pdf+html
5 Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Online Brochure. Retrieved June 4, 2010 from http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
6 Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. "The Cover Up." Regrieved June 3, 2010 from http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/coverup3.htm
7 “Cancer Stem Cell Research Shows Promise (855.41 Kb file).” Frontline: The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation’s Newsletter. (Fall 2006). Retrieved 29 March 2007 from website.
http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=7700&terms=stem+cell
>>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?<<
Why not just provide transportation to a hospital?
Or buy a mobile unit that can be utilized in other places as well?
20 X 36,000. You do the math.
Details, details......
Like I said, some folks don’t let facts get in the way of a good agenda.
Some people simply do not understand that a major cost of running any business or organization is administrative and a portion of ALL money received goes to offset this.
Can someone name a SINGLE area in the United States where a healthy woman (keep in mind that sick women aren’t getting mammograms) would have Planned Parenthood nearby but NOT a hospital.
The Big Murder apologists can talk about “proof” all they want, but THEY are the ones making the outrageous claims that they need to prove.
I don’t know, my FRiend. We travel a lot to some REALLY remote areas. It seems there are always hospitals or satellites of hospitals near by. If Komen really wanted to do something, they would hand out bus tickets and mamogram certificates.
I don’t question that there are some remote areas without a hospital close by, but I have a hard time believing that there is a Planned Parenthood that’s closer.
I just flat out don't believe it.
If an area is so remote that there's no health clinic or satellite to a hospital, there's not going to be enough demand for a PP clinic.
And the abortion apologists would have us believe that there are dozens of such areas that have Big Murder clinics but no hospitals.
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.