Posted on 04/25/2003 9:58:17 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
NCI Workshop on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC Link) a sham!!
Just received this letter from Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer:
The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) workshop on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link was a sham! Its stated purpose was to evaluate and debate the merits of the research. Instead, only one viewpoint was presented – that abortion doesn’t raise a woman’s risk. Dr. Leslie Bernstein assumed responsibility for making this argument, although the ABC link isn’t even the focus of her work.
Dr. Joel Bring wasn’t invited to present his view that induced abortion raises breast cancer risk despite the fact that he was the lead author of the only quantitative and comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the worldwide research! *Jane Daling, the lead author of the first of two studies specifically commissioned by the NCI, wasn’t invited to discuss her findings either. ** Obviously, the NCI’s leaders had no intention of allowing evaluation, debate or dissent during the workshop. Why? Because they know that science isn’t on their side.
Bernstein exposed her rabidly pro-abortion worldview. She declared, “There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that . . . having babies is the way to reduce your risk.” ***
Imagine that! American women already have a high 12.5% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, but Bernstein wants to WITHHOLD information about the best way to reduce risk – having more babies, starting at an early age and breastfeeding them!
New studies were presented, but not made available to scientists before the workshop. Although scientists routinely provide their colleagues with their date, the authors of these new studies refused to do so on Day 2 of the three-day workshop. Not surprisingly, that’s the only day for which the NCI didn’t make a videocast available.
The NCI’s morally bereft leaders ended the workshop prematurely, thus thwarting any dissent during the workshop. But federally funded scientists issued a statement saying that abortion is not linked with increased risk of breast cancer. This is contrary to overwhelming scientific evidence of an ABC link.
The NCI’s website doesn’t identify the scientist who dissented after the workshop or provide his Minority Report. He is Dr. Brind, and his report is published at www.BCPInstitute.org. He told a reporter: ‘It was very clear they were going to do whatever it took to stamp out the ABC link once and for all from the public’s mind . . . It was all just a very big fix. This is what’s happened any time any credible research has appeared . . . “ ****
I need your help now to fight this government cover up. Can you send a donation right away? The coalition incurred additional administrative expenses because of the NCI’s false reassurances that abortion is safe. I worked hard to correct this corrupt agency’s lies. I provided 13 radio and news interviews and wrote an article for an internet wire service belonging to Republicans for a Fair Media and for a news website owned by Illinois Leader. The Coalition received its 501©3 status from the IRS, so your gift is tax deductible.
Sincerely, Karen Malec President Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer P.O. Box 152, Palos Heights, IL 60463 Toll Free: 1-877-803-0102; Local 847-421-4000 response@abortionbreastcancer.com www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
*Brind et al. (1996) J Epidemiol Community Health 50:481-96. **Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1584-92. *** Rachael Myers Lowe, Cancer Page, March 3, 2003. Available at http://cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601. **** Pat Center, NCI Workshop Stamps Out Abortion/Breast Cancer Link/Researcher Calls It a Very Big Fix, AFA Journal Online, March 7, 2003.
Yep; that's pretty much it. But the scientific evidence is actually on our side. No kidding. LOL!
Thanks for saying that. And this from an engineer . . . hummmm. For victory & freedom!!!
If you want to get into a DETAILED debate on this thread, I'll be happy to oblige. Fair disclosure: I am a statistician who works professionally in survey research, and have a Ph.D. in math.
What specifically was wrong with Dr. Joel Brind's meta-analysis, and can you provide a link to the "Denmark study" you refer to? If it is the one I am thinking of, please read this.
During pregnancy, the hormones of a woman/girl enlarge her breasts in anticipation of the unborn baby coming into the world.
When abortion occurs, the pregnancy is abonormally terminated -- suddenly stopping the flow of hormones.
It is the stopping of the hormones that causes a chemical imbalance in the woman/girl and encreases the risk of cancer.
So there is a scientific explanation of the "why" in the link between abortion and breast cancer.
The "biased media" will never tell you truth. Neither will NARAL, NOW, nor Planned Parenthood. They don't care about the woman/girl -- just about the politics of abortion.
Exactly. Thanks. It's just common sense. The natural process is better than the unnatural; in this case VIOLENT interruption of nature.
1) Melbye’s data actually pointed to a 44% increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion, but they never printed this result; 2) The follow-up period for the “cases” (ie, women who had an induced abortion) was less than 10 years, whereas it was over 20 years for the “controls” (ie, women who did not have an induced abortion). A follow-up period of less than 10 years is not long enough to show the effect of an abortion (ie, too short of a latent period); 3) Over 30,000 women in the study who had abortions were “misclassified” as not having them — thus 30,000 women were counted as not having abortions, when in fact they really had abortions; and 4) The study did note that women who had an abortion after the 12th week sustained a 38% increased risk of breast cancer, whereas women who had late-term abortions (ie, after 18 weeks) had a statistically significant increase of 89%. Both of these results received little media attention.
It was also noted that women who have multible miscarriages are at a higher risk, obviously, due to the same result of the early end of a pregnancy.
I suppose you don't take any of those man-made medicines, ehy?
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
and
http://www.prolifeinfo.org/upl2.html
The latter is not a study but an explanation why "aborting" the process is unhealthy for the body.
The first one, http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com has multiple studies.
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.