Posted on 01/04/2002 7:11:49 AM PST by Notwithstanding
In what may be the first case of its kind in the world, an Australian woman has reached a settlement with an abortionist whom she had sued for not telling her about research findings linking abortion to breast cancer.
The information was disclosed during a recent legislative session in the state of Tasmania, where lawmakers were debating abortion legislation. Attorney Charles Francis warned the legislature about the risk of future litigation against doctors who perform abortions.
Francis has represented several women suing abortionists for not warning them of the possible psychiatric consequences of abortion.
Last year, he represented a woman who included in her psychiatric damage lawsuit the additional failure to warn of an increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion.
The landmark case was settled out of court, Francis said by phone from the state of Victoria Friday.
His client cannot be identified because of a confidentiality clause in the settlement, he said, but he believed it to be the first case of its kind anywhere. Another, similar case was pending in the neighboring state of New South Wales, he added.
While preparing the cases, Francis said, "I had to go into all the evidence and the expert medical views for the purpose of presenting the case. It seemed to me, looking at it as a lawyer looking at evidence, the evidence was fairly strong - certainly strong enough, we thought, for [us to have] a good chance at winning."
Francis said there was no indication one way or the other that the doctor had decided to settle because he was worried about the cancer link claim.
Still, the doctor had not insisted that the cancer link claim be dropped before agreeing to settle.
"My impression is there is a good deal of reluctance to see this litigated in public. Often you have conflicting medical views [in court cases]. Doctors are called, give differing evidence and then the court decides what it thinks it the most likely situation."
The question of a link between abortion and breast cancer is a major source of contention between pro-life and pro-abortion campaigners. Each side points to research it claims backs its stance, questions the methodology of the other's research, and accuses the opposition of using the issue to promote its cause.
According to the U.S.-based Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, 27 out of 35 studies published since 1957 have found a link.
Groups advocating abortion, backed up by some leading medical bodies, deny that such a link exists.
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, welcomed news of the Australian settlement.
"The abortion industry and its medical experts know that it will be far more challenging for them to lie to women about the abortion-breast cancer research when they are called upon to testify under oath," she said in a statement.
"Scientists know that abortion causes breast cancer but are afraid to say so publicly in today's hostile political climate."
Dr. Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, is regarded by the coalition as a leading authority on the abortion-breast cancer link.
He believes there is a 30 percent overall increased risk of breast cancer after having an abortion, and an 80 percent increased risk for women with a family history of cancer.
Summarizing Brind's argument, Francis explained that upon conception, the level of estrogen in a woman's body increases dramatically. This results in the development of undifferentiated cells in the breast, which pose an additional cancer risk.
Late in the pregnancy, these cells become milk-producing cells, cease posing a greater cancer risk, and in fact provide added protection against cancer.
If a woman has an abortion before that stage - and the vast majority of abortions would occur before then - her body is left with a high number of undifferentiated cells which increase the risk of her contracting breast cancer, it is argued.
Francis said a woman who suffers a miscarriage well into a pregnancy - in a motor accident, for example - would face the same risk. However, in cases where a spontaneous, early miscarriage occurs, the woman would not have had the surge in estrogen in the first place, and therefore would not face the additional cancer risk.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Britain are among those who argue that there is no need to tell a woman considering an abortion that there may be an increased risk of breast cancer. Doing so would only add to the woman's anxiety at an already stressful time, representatives have said.
Brind and others have slammed the approach as "paternalistic."
"There is no other issue than abortion that would be so immune from the concept of informed consent," Brind was quoted as saying last month.
A court in Fargo, North Dakota will hear a case in March in which a woman is suing an abortion clinic for allegedly misleading women to believe there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
Plaintiff Amy Jo Mattson says pamphlets distributed by the Red River Women's Clinic quote the National Cancer Institute as saying there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriage.
"None of [the claims of a link] are supported by medical research or established medical organizations," the pamphlets reportedly stated.
From the article above:
Summarizing Brind's argument, Francis explained that upon conception, the level of estrogen in a woman's body increases dramatically. This results in the development of undifferentiated cells in the breast, which pose an additional cancer risk. Late in the pregnancy, these cells become milk-producing cells, cease posing a greater cancer risk, and in fact provide added protection against cancer. If a woman has an abortion before that stage - and the vast majority of abortions would occur before then - her body is left with a high number of undifferentiated cells which increase the risk of her contracting breast cancer, it is argued. Francis said a woman who suffers a miscarriage well into a pregnancy - in a motor accident, for example - would face the same risk. However, in cases where a spontaneous, early miscarriage occurs, the woman would not have had the surge in estrogen in the first place, and therefore would not face the additional cancer risk.
The only way to "prove" the link in a scientific sense would be to do studies where one cohort has an abortion, and one does not, controlling for other factors such as diet, smoking, drup use, exposure to environmental toxins, etc (which is indeed done in studies all the time)then 10 to 20 years later dissect the breast tissue to see the ratio of differentiated and metastatic cells from non differentiated in each cohort and compare them.
Since this is not feasible, retrospective studies and prospective studies comparing reported cancers and history of abortions are done.
Using the latter method, the only method available, 28 out of 35 studies, or 80%, found a positive link between abortion. Given this fact combined with the theoretical explanation given above,
HOW MUCH MORE "PROOF" DO WE NEED BEFORE WOMEN INSIST ON PROPERLY INFORMED CONSENT???
Personally, I consider "linkage" of any kind to be suspect.
What are you talking about? Two studies, looking at the SAME thing(so the story says) concluded percentages that differed by 100%. How can two valid studies, looking at the same "linkage" vary by that much? Makes no sense.
Oh, I totally agree wbout the pro-abort movement.
28 out of 37 studies, or 80%, show a link between abortion and breast cancer. One who insists on posting only abstracts from the 20% that do not is being disingenuous at best. I'm presenting the whole picture, admitting that 9 out of 37 studies do NOT show a link (even though most of them that did not PUBLISH a link had data that when examined did indeed reveal significant risk for breast cancers with abortion before FFTP---I've seen the raw data, so I won't even debate this FACT.)
Again, any objective reader can see where disinformation and selective reporting is going on here.
The readers can decide who to ignore.
I have access to all the raw data of all these studies, and I have seen the latest meta-analysis work in progress.
With 1 to 3 years, there will be no debate left.
The ABC link is medical fact.
Would you be as kind to let us know what a "proven link" is compared to an "unproven link".
How is this done? Would this person never eat fast food? Processed food? Live in a bubble with an oxygen tank? Never take man made drugs?
I will say it one more time. The average person ingests so much crap into their bodies that NO ONE can know what causes cancer. Anything and everything could be shown as a "link" due to there being an almost infinite number of variables(I say infinite because we do not know what may or may not cause cancer).
Decreased birth rate and breast feeding rates have a known risk factor. It is not enough to account for the increased overall risk of breast cancer over the last half century from 1 in 13 to 1 in 8.
Therefore some other risk factor must account for the rest of the increase. Since no studies have proven a link to diet/smoking/drugs/toxins they cannot account for the 1 in 13 to 1 in 8 increased risk.
However, multiple studies show an increased risk from the birth control pill and abortion.
Since
1)the overall risk has increased,
2)Decreased birth rate and breast feeding rates have a known risk factor but not enough to explain the risk increase
3)studies have failed to find evidence of a diet/smoking/drugs/toxins risk, and
4) 80% of studies reveal an increased risk from abortion, and the majority of studies reveal an increased risk from the pill
then why is it so hard for folks to accept the medical truth about the ABC link?
Well, so much for any credibility you had on this thread. You know NOTHING about epidemiology. Ignorance of basic science is a poor foundation upon which to build a rational debate.
Above, I publicly offered the book, free of charge (they cost $25 a piece, but this data is so important I'm willing to give them away), that lists all these studies and examines all of them in their minutiae. I make the offer again, for anyone willing to examine the definitive treatment of this subject:
I have six (I recounted...make that 8) copies of the book "Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill," by Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, MD, here on my desk in front of me. I will be happy to mail a copy to anyone who asks, if you Freepmail me with a name and mailing address.
Maybe you don't. But that ignorance shouldn't be paraded in a public forum. It hurts your side of the debate.
Ever hear of smoking causing lung cancer? How about HPV causing cervical cancer? Or Hep B causing liver cancer? What about radiation causing thyroid cancer? Chewing tobacco causing lip/mouth/throat cancer? DES causing breast cancer? Radon gas causing lung cancer? These are off the top of my head. Should I continue?
But the medical establishment in this country is so damn PC about abortion that they are literally willing to deny and obfuscate in order to cover up the link.
Many of these studies cited by the pro-aborts reveal a definite link between abortion and breast cancer when abortion occurs before FFTP. Yet this fundamental finding, so very obvious in the raw data, IS NOT EVEN INCLUDED IN THE PUBLISHED JOURNAL ARTICLE!!!
How many researchers, looking for a link to a disease, would ignore data in their own studies that show a link to the disease they study?
Only those with an agenda to protect, or those who know damn well their funding will evaporate if their findings go against the PC dogma.
Heck, even the Nat'l Cancer Institute, a gov't agency, WAS FORCED BY CONGRESS to change info on its web site regarding the ABC link because of their obvious bias and pro-abortion obfuscating. It is maddening that even the gov health agencies under Clinton was involved in this scandal, and that Bush's admin has allowed many of the same biased bureaucrats to keep their positions and thus continue the cover up of the ABC link.
A study in 1981 found that women who had an abortion before having a full-term pregnancy had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer, while another major study in 1994 found a 40% increased risk for the same category of women.
It is simply saying that
two different studies,
looking at two different groups of women,
both of which consisted of women who had an abortion before having a FFTP
both showed an increased risk of breast cancer.
What is so hard to comprehend?
Its like saying that two studies, one done in 1950, and one done in 1990, of men who drink beer and eat steaks every night, both displayed an increased risk of heart disease, one 40% and one 140%.
The essential finding is the absolute increase in risk, NOT the percentage increase in risk.
I have seen his current research, and read his current massive meta-analysis. The link is incontrovertible. There simply is no debate left when you review the research.
Abortion in general increases risk of breast cancer 30%. Abortion before first full term pregnancy increases the risk 50%. Abortion before first full term pregnancy under age 18 increases risk 150%. Abortion before first full term pregnancy under age 18 after 9 weeks gestation increases risk 800%.
In the only study of Abortion before first full term pregnancy under age 18 after 9 weeks gestation in women with a direct family history of breast cancer, EVERY SINGLE WOMAN GOT BREAST CANCER!!!
That is an INFINITELY increased risk of getting breast cancer in this small subgroup.
Even the studies cited in this thread, that claim no abortion/breast cancer link, found statistically relavant increased risk of breast cancer among those having an abortion before first full term pregnancy under age 18 after 9 weeks gestation. This is apparent when the raw data of the study is analyzed. Clearly those publishing this study must have seen this fact, but it seems they chose to bury it in the raw data, instead desiring an overall analysis that showed no overall increase.
Abortion and the birth control pill/Depo-Provera/Norplant are almost solely responsible for the explosion of breast cancer in the last 40 years. It is no longer even debatable.
Those who dissemble on this issue usually have a vested interest (Money, research grant funding, pharmaceutical industry profits, abortion industry profits) in seeing this fact undermined.
The American medical establishment is terribly biased on the abortion issue and refuse to cover this explosive link, to their shame.
But remenber, the tobacco industry STILL refuses to admit smoking causes lung cancer.
Expect the abortion industry and pharmaceutical industry to fight this knowledge and prevent its widespread dissemination with every fiber of their being and every penny in their coffers.
A medical expert for a group of Florida abortion providers represented by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Dr. Lynn Rosenberg of the Boston University Medical School, testified late in 1999 that postponement of first full term pregnancy (FFTP) via an induced abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. There is universal agreement in the science community that delaying a FFTP raises breast cancer risk, but women are not told that induced abortion results in postponement of pregnancy and, therefore, increases breast cancer risk.
Rosenberg's testimony is significant for two reasons:
First, she has contended that "there is a consensus of opinion that a link between induced abortion and breast cancer has not been established," in spite of the fact that her own research suggested otherwise.
Second, experts seeking to detract from the research demonstrating that abortion increases breast cancer risk INDEPENDENTLY of the effect of postponement of FFTP argue that it's not induced abortion which causes increased breast cancer risk, but postponement of pregnancy which does so. They attempt to obscure the issue and will avoid saying plainly that abortion increases breast cancer risk. For example, Melbye wrote a letter published in Epidemiology and contended that:
"A related misunderstanding is to argue that induced abortion enhances the risk of breast cancer because primigravida (first time pregnant) women having an induced abortion postpone the first birth they would otherwise have had. Nevertheless, this effect is again a biological effect of the first birth and not of the induced abortion." [7]
In his discussion on bias in American medical journals, Dr. Chris
Kahlenborn, author of the book, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, says:
For example, in 1992 the New England Journal of Medicine published a review on breast cancer and never mentioned abortion as a possible risk factor. In addition, the authors stated that “The use of oral contraceptives appears to increase the risk of breast cancer by 50%, but the excess risk drops rapidly after the drug is stopped, suggesting a late-stage tumor promoting effect.” As Chapters 9, 10, 11, and 12 will show, their statements and/or omissions are imprecise at best.
Unfortunately, three of the most prominent journals published in the U.S.. are closely tied to major medical groups such as the AMA (American Medical Association which publishes JAMA), the ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) which publishes Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) which publishes the journal of Pediatrics. [2] All three have endorsed early contraceptive use as well as induced abortion, with the ACOG going so far as to oppose a federal ban on partial birth abortion (October 9, 1997; The New York Times). It is therefore no surprise that certain American authors (e.g., Brind et al [3] and Howe [4,5] et al have ended up publishing their findings in the British literature. Apparently, the British have more “tolerance” to an open presentation of the controversial findings. The irony is that, although women in the U.S. are at higher risk for breast cancer due to their higher rates of abortion at a young age and early OCP (oral contraceptive pill) use, their own country’s medical establishment appears to be muzzling an open discussion of these very factors. (emphasis original) [6]
Organized medicine has been telling women for three decades that abortion is safe. Imagine what the general response of women would be if the above-named organizations reversed their position by informing the public that: 1) Abortion is not “health care;” (2) Abortion has been linked to breast cancer in well over two dozen studies published since 1957; and (3) Women should avoid this risk factor. Imagine the sense of betrayal that women would feel and consider the fact that these medical organizations would have to cope with the immense wrath that women are bound to have. It would be a public relations fiasco.
Rep. Dave Weldon M.D. called abortion a “health care time-bomb” and “a procedure which poses a significant health risk to women” in his August 24, 1999 letter to all members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Consider what the response from women would be if only the secular press would report this much of the truth. Our readers can read Rep. Weldon’s letter elsewhere on our web site's "Public Policy" page.
On July 20, 1998 Rep. Tom Coburn, M.D., an obstetrician/gynecologist
from Oklahoma, accused the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of “selectively releasing data” (including studies paid for by U.S. taxpayers) and misleading the public about the abortion-breast cancer research during a Committee on Commerce hearing called “The State of Cancer Research.” After reviewing the research and comparing it with the data on the NCI’s web site, he claimed that the data provided on the web page were not “scientifically driven on this issue.” He said to a representative from the NCI, Dr. Edison Liu, “...when I read your web page, what I find is what seems to be a bias for lack of what the facts are.”
Dr. Joel Brind, furthermore, accused the NCI of publishing “an outright
lie” about the data on its web site. Under pressure from Congress, the NCI revised its web site, but it is still conspicuous for what it does not tell women (i.e. that 27 out of 34 worldwide studies published since 1957 have linked abortion with breast cancer). Our readers can learn more about the NCI’s involvement in the cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer research by going to our "Public Policy" page.
It is true that the scientific community has been willing to revise its
recommendations when new treatments for various diseases have been discovered, such as treatment for ulcers. However, physicians haven’t been “doing” ulcers for three decades, as they have been “doing” abortions. The treatment for ulcers has not been linked with a deadly disease; nor has the public been listening to a drumbeat from ideologues for over three decades that ulcers are a “choice.”
| REFERENCES [1] McGinnis J, The Politics of Cancer Research, The Wall Street Journal, February 28, 1997. [2] American Academy of Pediatrics. The adolescent’s right to confidential care when considering abortion. Pediatrics. 1996; 97; 746-751. This author offered the following insight into American organized medicine: “The American Medical Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Public Health Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the (AAP) American Academy of Pediatrics, and other health professional organizations have reached the consensus that minors should not be compelled or required to involve their parents in their decisions to obtain abortions...." [3] Brind J, Chinchilli M. et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Jrnl of Epidemiol Community Health (1996); 50:481-96 [4] Howe H, et al. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J Epidemiol. 1989; 18: 300-304 [5] Somerville S. Before you choose: The link between abortion and breast cancer. Purcellville, VA Ann Intern Med. 1993 [6] Kahlenborn, Chris, M.D., Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, One More Soul, 2000, p. 69-70. [7] Melbye, et al. (1999) Epidemiology 10:467. |
Misrepresentation of one’s data is a form of scientific misconduct. A conventional definition of misrepresentation is to “omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or represents a material falsehood.”
In each of the following studies, the overall data offered by the scientists demonstrated that induced abortion was coupled with an increased risk of breast cancer; yet one would never have known this by reading the scientists’ conclusions. Here are some examples of this kind of scientific misconduct:
1. “perhaps all that can be definitively stated is that any risk associated with induced abortion is at most statistically marginal.” [1]
2. “Thus, our results indicate a lack of association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.” [2]
3. “Although we got the data described above, we are rather hesitant at the present moment in inducing some definite conclusions from them.” [3]
4. “These data suggest that the risk of breast cancer is not materially affected by abortion, regardless of whether it occurs before or after the first term birth.” [4]
5. “our data suggest that the risk of breast cancer associated with any pregnancy termination is likely to be small, if it exists at all.” [5]
Another tactic employed by scientists is to offer no overall data in one’s study concerning induced abortion and increased risk of breast cancer, but to include a statement within the conclusions that no positive association between abortion and breast cancer was found. Some examples include the following statements:
1. “The results are entirely reassuring ... there is no indication of any association between abortion before first term pregnancy and breast cancer risk.” [6]
2. “a history of stillbirth and abortion did not emerge as significant risk factors for breast cancer in our study.” [7]
3. “After controlling for other variables the risk significantly decreased with abortion history.” [8]
4. “history of ... artificial abortion was also not markedly different between the two groups (cases and controls). [9]
5. “there was no evidence that one type of abortion (spontaneous or induced) was particularly harmful.” [10]
Other scientists have been found to have stashed significant data showing abortion to be linked with breast cancer “in the file drawer.” A perfect example is the Australian study on breast cancer. [11] Rohan et al examined various risk factors for the disease, including dietary risk factors. Thorough reproductive histories were obtained from the women which included abortion history. However, when the study was originally published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1988, mention of its most significant risk factor -- abortion -- was omitted.
This did not come to light until seven years later when French researcher Nadine Andrieu et al published a small meta-analysis examining data from six studies and reported that “induced abortion had actually been found by Rohan et al to be the strongest (stronger even than family breast cancer history) and most significant risk factor for breast cancer in Australian women.” Andrieu found a synergistic effect (meaning that the whole exceeds the value of the sum of the two effects) between family history and abortion. [12]
Dr. Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, had this to say about Rohan’s omission: “It was the strongest risk factor they found. It was the only one that was clearly statistically significant. And this you don’t do. This is not what you see in scientific research, ever. I’ve never seen it before, where the most significant finding in a study is specifically left out of a research paper .... And we hypothesize that there is more of it.” [13]
As a matter of fact, there is more of it. Other studies finding a significant positive association between abortion and breast cancer faced multiple rejections by major medical journals, and this was not due to a lack of ability or prestige of the authors of the study. [14, 15] The Bu study done on mainland China was co-authored by noted epidemiologist, Janet Daling, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center located in Seattle, Washington. [14] This study’s disturbing results demonstrated that one abortion nearly tripled an individual’s risk of breast cancer. Its abstract was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1995, but publication of the full paper was rejected by three major medical journals.
Publication of the Howe study, the only statistically significant prospective study, took nine long years because it was rejected by several journals, including the American Journal of Epidemiology. Howe et al reported an increased risk of 90% among New York state women. [15]
Finally, scientists have also been known to write misleading abstracts suggesting that a link between abortion and breast cancer was not found, although their data reveal increased risk. [16] Others have published studies that are too small [16, 17, 18] to implicate induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
REFERENCES
[1] Lipworth et al (1995) Int J Cancer 61:181-4.
[2] Tavani et al (1996) Int J Cancer 65:401-5.
[3] Segi et al (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl):1-63.
[4] Rosenberg et al (1988) Am J Epidemiol 127:981-9.
[5] Newcomb et al (1996) JAMA 275:283-7.
[6] Vessey et al (1982) Br J Cancer 45:327-31.
[7] Rao et al (1994) Br J Cancer 70:129-32.
[8] Gandra et al (1993) Acta Med Portuguesa 6:129-33 (in Portuguese).
[9] Lai et al (1996) Proc Natl Sci Council, ROC 20:71-7.
[10] Wu et al (1996) Br J Cancer 73:680-6.
[11] Rohan et al (1988) Am J Epidemiol 128:478-89.
[12] Andrieu et al (1995) Br J Cancer 72:744-51.
[13] Joel Brind, Ph.D., “Abortion and Breast Cancer,” Lecture at Endeavour Forum Public Meeting, August 24, 1999, Malvern, Victoria, p. 16-17.
[14] Bu et al (1995) Am J Epidemiol 141:S85.
[15] Howe et al (1989) In J Epidemiol 18:300-4.
[16] Marcus et al (1999) Am J Pub Health 89:1244-7.
[17] Newcomb et al (2000) Cancer Causes Control 11:777-81.1.
[18] Lazovich et al (2000) Epidemiol 11:76-80.
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.