HOW NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE SCIENTISTS BETRAYED WOMEN

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer ^ | 3/1103

[STARWISE]

It is breathtaking .... the lengths the liberal establishment wackos go to conceal the truth ... they'd rather be able to convince ladies that it's ok to murder babies than to save future victims from cancer. There will literally be HELL to pay for these animals.

[Jeff Chandler]

www.bcpinstitute.org

[APBaer]

Let's see, in evaluating the conflicting claims,
in one corner we have the NCI,
in the other corner monomaniacal religious fanatics,
which is more likely to want to bend the findings to further an agenda?

Gee, even I can answer that one.

[Coleus]

Does anybody have any abortion and breast cancer links from "peer-reviewed Scientific Journals" and not just from homemade web sites? I need some Information for a project on which I am currently working, thanks. I've done searches on Medline and Pubmed and couldn't find anything conclusive--and they don't give you the full article only abstracts.

[TruthNtegrity]

There was a valid report - the findings of which were supposed to be presented and they weren't.

What in the name of heaven has that to do with any anti-abortion groups?

Meanwhile, the women who have had abortions will continue over the next 20 years to develop breast cancer at alarming rates, and you don't think we should say something to them like "Hey - have this procedure and this is what can happen?"

If you are going to have your appendix out, it is mandatory that the Hospital and Doctor tell you the ramifications of such surgery, but in this case, we let women make an "informed" decision to exercise her "rights to choice" without bothering to inform them of years of clinical statatistics?

Shows me how maniacal and money-driven NOW and Planned Parenthood are for that abortion money. God forbid we let facts get in the way.

[APBaer]

"It just perpetuates the myth that people in the pro-life movement are a bunch of fanatical psychos looking for a way to scare women."

A "myth"-
oh, but you're too kind.

[goodnesswins]

I'm not sure what to think of all this, as I have been reading different articles here for the past couple of years....BUT, I DO KNOW one THING - I don't trust the AMA either.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Such invincible ignorance.

Is it that you have not read the studies linking abortion to breast cancer because you don't want to, or you haven't read them because you're not competent in statistics, or you have read them and judged they are wrong?

I'm sure it's none of these three. I'm sure you believe they are wrong because someone with a Ph.D. says they are wrong.

Sorry, that ain't enough, because there are many Ph.D.'s who say the opposite. You can't simply pick your expert, you have to either read the actual research or admit you are incompetent to.

By the way, I have a math Ph.D. and I HAVE read the research, and I will be very happy to engage in a civil, public, DETAILED debate with you on this thread regarding the RESEARCH. But you aren't allowed to dismiss the research just because the results of the research make some religious fanatics happy, you have to use real logic and not silly sophistries.

[org.whodat]

This item has been posted about a zillion time, still doesn't mke it true, See Post #7 Thank You

[qam1]

No, There is no significant link between the two, In a rare case the liberals have it right.

What is funny is these Liberals will (rightly so in this case) point that out while at the same time embrace the Junk Science of the dangers of Second hand smoke.

Forces had good commentary on this issue

http://www.forces.org/

March 10 - Gore the wrong sacred cow and there is hell to play - What do abortion, secondhand smoke and breast cancer have in common? In the scientific realm they have noting in common but in the public arena each are linked by political considerations that have nothing to do with scientific evidence or even health.

Late last year Congressman Henry Waxman, D-CA, along with 11 House Democrats, wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson questioning "the administration's commitment to the tradition of scientific excellence and science-based decision-making at HHS." The letter complained about the deletion from government web sites of valuable scientific information, removed, say the Democrats because it did not support the Bush administration's agenda.

One item addressed by Waxman and his colleagues is of interest to those who recognize that the agenda to rid so-called public places of secondhand smoke is driven by politics, not science.

Soon after the Environmental Protection Agency issued its famous report that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers, studies showing that abortion increases the risk for contracting breast cancer hit the news outlets. The reception these anti-abortion reports received was far different from the massive media overload generated by the EPA's report. If covered at all, the tone of the news stories ranged from skeptical to highly critical. Some papers saw fit to editorialize against the notion that abortion could lead to breast cancer. Pro-choice politicians and activists denounced the reports as examples of politically-motivated junk science. And who could argue with them?

The abortion research found a 30 percent increase in breast cancer among woman who had undergone an abortion as compared to those who hadn't. In epidemiology, the method used for both the abortion and the secondhand smoke studies, a 30 percent increase translates to a relative risk of 1.3. Relative risks less than 2 are negligible.

The National Cancer Institute, various university epidemiologists and the American Cancer Society issued statements assuring the public that although a 30 percent increase seems high, such a percentage indicates the association is weak and is no cause for alarm.

"This is a fight between science people and pro-life people. It is a great mistake to start issuing warnings about risks or possible risks when the evidence is so unclear," said American Cancer Society vice president Clark Heath.

Despite the weak risk, the government web site that refers to studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer recently removed wording noting that the National Cancer Institute debunked the studies reaching that conclusion.

"Removal of this information strongly suggests an ideological rather than a scientific agenda at work," Waxman wrote in his letter to Tommy Thompson while the American Cancer Society warns that "the public is not well-served by false alarms" about the causes of cancer.

Quite a different tune was sung by the same organizations, legislators and media outlets when the EPA determined that there is a 19 percent increase in lung cancer (a relative risk of 1.19) with nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke. For that risk, even less than the one finding abortion may cause breast cancer, a full front assault on smoking was launched that has succeeded in banning smoking in several states and countless municipalities.

Congressman Waxman and the American Cancer Society in particular have been unequivocal in their assertion that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, as well as a host of other diseases. The abortion as conduit to breast cancer report may have been debunked by the National Cancer Institute but the EPA's secondhand smoke report has been debunked as well and even vacated by a Federal District Judge. Not a word about "false alarms" from the American Cancer Society or declamations about ideology trumping science from Congressman Waxman. That a 30 percent risk is negligible while a 19 percent risk must result in a quarter to a third of the population being demonized for enjoying a legal product clearly shows that the war on individual and property rights is based solely on a political agenda. Waxman has an excuse. He is a politician who receives political donations from the health and pharmaceutical industries, both of which make money whenever smoking is banned. The American Cancer Society, as a non-profit health charity, has no excuse.

[Desdemona]

The AMA and the American Cancer Society have a vested interest in maintaining their prestige in order to keep donation levels up. They are going to present the side that they think will play best.

The link is there. I know too many women who have been advised by their physicians of this very link to doubt it anymore.

[flushed with pride]

Are you suggesting that NOW, NARAL, PP, and the Guttmacher Institute are objective sources of information without any taint of political agenda or financial objectives? Or that no 'blind to the truth' fanatics exist within these organizations? I'm not suggesting the abortion-causes-breast cancer arguments are entirely convincing, but the research and discussions certainly deserve to be heard. Currently ANY discussion that might possibly be remotely interpreted as critical of abortion is squelched by the abortion industry lobby (hey, after all, there are a lot of doctors, nurses, and clinic managers making a killing off of the procedure (no pun intended)).

You might want to rethink your comments and check back in when you care to have a rational discussion.

[APBaer]

"Are you suggesting that NOW, NARAL, PP, and the Guttmacher Institute are objective sources of information without any taint of political agenda or financial objectives?"

Not at all, they have "bias and interest" in the outcome of a study. Evaluations by them or by either the pro/or/anti abortion cheering galleries would naturally be suspect.

[swheats]

I'm not medically inclined, but even I can see the connection with this one.

To think that once a woman becomes pregnant her body becomes in optimum shape to carry a child for nine months. If that process is aborted the woman's system turns against itself and destroys it. There's not only one death, but now the possibility of two. One is just a slower process which could be hastened by stress and unhealthy living.

I hope that all the pet projects the dems have been able to browbeat us with for many years are no longer off limits. This study will help down the road to overturn RoeVWade.

[STARWISE]

Right on!!! This has ceased to be what it truly is: a health issue, pure and simple. It has been politicized by the Gloria Steinhems and Patricia Irelands of America, those diehard i-wanna-kill-a-baby-when-it's-inconvenient-for me soulless females, and opportunistic politicians, appeasing the female voting block.

To all who haven't thoroughly read the article, PLEASE note that dissenting views were either given short shrift or excluded from the presentation. So .. whose health is being protected here?? Who's being given ALL the facts?? The agenda here is preserving the left's wish to kill babies at will, and stifling any opposing information.

Unless you're a female who's had to do research regarding estrogen and progesterone and know something about this issue, or a health professional who's studied the subject, you might want to check it out.

It's pretty basic and logical: powerful hormones are released in pregnancy for certain purposes at certain times by design. Pre-empting their natural course changes the whole physiologic dynamic and can have unintended consequences. Check out the breast cancer statistics in young women ... never before heard of numbers of gals in their 20's are getting it, and it's increasing. This could be just ONE reason .. but nonetheless warrants inclusion in any study results released by a so-called "creditable" institution, especially one that's funded by our taxes.

It's a ferocious liberal political issue, and it's outrageous that ANY information regarding full and complete disclosure of possible health impact would be squelched.

[STARWISE]

Just by the inferences in the article, it's easy to see
how this political hot potato wouldn't be on a typical
medical/academic institution's agenda, right? It would be
a fight .. so it appears that most research is being conducted by "un-sanctioned" (by typically liberal academia) groups.

[STARWISE]

See post #16 .. your labeling of "junk science" demeans
the actual study that was done and ignored by the NCI. Are you someone who's in the know about this study, an insider?
Otherwise, your cynicism and bias are showing. Maybe keeping an open mind and considering ALL the information available would be helpful.

[STARWISE]

If it was posted, I didn't see it. If it bothers you that
it was posted again, please just ignore it. Thank you.

[STARWISE]

I have refused to donate to them for years, and will continue to do so. Too much politics .. too much lobbying from the pharmaceuticals.