Medical Journals Censoring Scientific Debate on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Medical Journals Censoring Scientific Debate on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, Says Women's Group

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer deplores the fact that two medical journals have resorted to censorship for the purpose of suppressing scientific debate and academic criticism of flawed research on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. [1,2] The journals, Lancet and Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, refused to publish letters critical of research showing little or no relationship between abortion and increased breast cancer risk.

"The editors of these journals are silencing experts who dissent from the view that abortion is unrelated to increased risk of breast cancer," argued Karen Malec, president of the coalition. "The editors don't want a full scale scientific examination of the ABC link because they know abortion causes breast cancer. If science were on their side, then they wouldn't have to resort to petty censorship. They could dispose of the link handily through the use of a full scale scientific investigation and debate.

"Recognition of the ABC link," continued Mrs. Malec, "could embarrass leading researchers and the cancer fundraising industry. Nevertheless, the increasing incidence and importance of female breast cancer merits the fullest scientific investigation and discussion."

The British journal Lancet rejected for publication letters from two experts, Chris Kahlenborn, MD and Patrick Carroll. Kahlenborn authored the book, Breast Cancer: It's Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill.

Carroll is a British actuary and statistician and the research director for the Pension and Population Research Institute in London. His research on the ABC link has been published by other reputable journals. [3,4]

The journal, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, rejected a letter from Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York. Brind was the lead author in the only quantitative and comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the ABC research. [5]

Carroll emphasized the limitations of all sample-based research. His research uses historic national data, not samples. It is free of any possibility of recall bias.

Brind and Kahlenborn provided evidence discrediting a favorite theory of abortion advocates known as "recall bias."

"The editors' censorship should be a red flag for women," declared Mrs. Malec. "Scientific misconduct and bias against positive findings have been a serious problem plaguing ABC research for a half-century."

The letters by Kahlenborn, Carroll and Brind and the coalition's explanations of their criticisms are published online, click here

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

References:

1. Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Lancet (2004) 363:1007-16.
2. Mahue-Giangreco M et al. (March 2003) Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, Vol. 12, 209-214.
3. "Pregnancy Related Risk Factors in Female Breast Cancer Incidence." International Congress of Actuaries, Transactions (2002) 4:331-75.
4. "Trends and Risk Factors in English Breast Cancers." British Journal of Cancer. Vol 91, Supplement 1, July 2004, page S24.
5. Brind J et al. (1996) J Epidemiol Community Health 50:481-96.

Link
 
K

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
First of all, this article did not publish any kind of response from the journals.

Second of all, historical aggregate data is notoriously unreliable. One dan find a link to brain cancer by showing a rise in tumours co-incident with the introduction of aspartame. Using the exact same data, you can show a link with cell-phone use.

The criticizers were implicitly stating that there was unprofessional bias in the recall of subjects. If they want to show this, they should repeat the studies.
 
B

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Why can't we just have one static thread for all of Rip's nutcase stories???
 
W

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,192
44
91
Back to the Stone Age we go. Probably advocating the science curriculum to come only from Biblical text next. Now that's a country I want to live in :frown::frown:


Women Wrongly Warned Cancer, Abortion Tied
1 hour ago
By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Women seeking abortions in Mississippi must first sign a form indicating they've been told abortion can increase their risk of breast cancer. They aren't told that scientific reviews have concluded there is no such risk.

Similar information suggesting a cancer link is given to women considering abortion in Texas, Louisiana and Kansas, and legislation to require such notification has been introduced in 14 other states.

Abortion opponents, who are pushing these measures, say they are simply giving women information to consider. But abortion rights supporters see it much differently.

"In my experience, this inaccurate information is going to dissuade few women from going ahead and having the abortion," said Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "What it does do is put a false guilt trip and fear trip on that woman."

More than a year ago, a panel of scientists convened by the National Cancer Institute reviewed available data and concluded there is no link. A scientific review in the Lancet, a British medical journal, came to the same conclusion, questioning the methodology in a few studies that have suggested a link.

Still, information suggesting a link is being given to women to read during mandatory waiting periods before abortions. In some cases, the information is on the states' Web sites.

"We're going to continue to educate the public about this," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an anti-abortion group.

The effort to write the issue into state law began in the mid-1990s, when a few studies suggested women who had abortions or miscarriages might be more likely to develop breast cancer. The warnings are now required in Texas and Mississippi, and health officials in Kansas and Louisiana issue them voluntarily.

Minnesota law requires its health department to include this information on its Web site, but the department backed down after an outcry from the state's medical community. Montana law also mandated the warning, but the state Supreme Court struck it down.

The brochures still in circulation tell women the issue "needs further study."

"They can do further research on their own and determine which of those studies they should put most attention on," said Sharon Watson, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. "We're just trying to provide all the information it's possible to provide."

Louisiana _ which elected a Democratic governor last year, replacing a Republican _ is going to change its official literature that mentions the cancer link, said Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the state's Department of Health and Hospitals. He said the department's new director did not know the state pamphlet included such information until contacted this week by The Associated Press.

"If there is scientific evidence, and it certainly appears there now is, we would certainly make the necessary changes in that brochure," he said Tuesday.

The brochure, he said, is a reflection of the "very, very strong pro-family, pro-life leaning" of Louisiana.

"Nonetheless, it's incumbent on us as the health agency to make sure any information is factually correct," he said. "We don't want to be misleading women who are making this important choice."

The issue continues to be debated in state legislatures, with bills considered this year in Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.

On the federal level, several members of Congress complained last year after the NCI Web site included material suggesting a link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriage. An expert panel that was asked to review the data reported in March 2003 that "well established" evidence shows no link.

Among the studies cited by the NCI expert panel was Danish research that used computerized medical records to compare women who had undergone abortions with that country's cancer registry and found no higher cancer rate.

"The virtually complete consensus was that the studies that purported to show a link were methodologically flawed," said Dr. Martin Abeloff, director of the Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University. Those studies that showed no link, he said, were almost all well done.

Still, anti-abortion activists are unconvinced.

Joel Brind, a biochemist at Baruch College in New York who advises the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, noted that a woman's chances of getting breast cancer go down if she gives birth at a relatively young age. He reasons that those who opt for abortion are giving up a chance of reducing their breast cancer risk.

Therefore, he says, abortion increases the risk of cancer.

He participated in the NCI debate _ filing a minority report _ and dismisses the panel's findings. "It was basically a political exercise," he said, "a charade if you will."
 
G

Gravity

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2003
5,685
0
0
What if the link exists? Will the multi-billion dollar abortion industry believe it? I think not.

If you believe in humans as being designed a specific way by their creator, then it's not a stretch to believe in PAS let alone a link to breast cancer as a natural consequence to abortion.

On the research side, this topic is hard to study because women who have had abortions will often NOT report it for any reason. Why? the main reason is shame.

It's still not a choice.
 
Y

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Back to the Stone Age we go. Probably advocating the science curriculum to come only from Biblical text next. Now that's a country I want to live in :frown::frown:
<snip>[/i]
Click to expand...

Aww.. someone is missing Riprorin :) Don't frown too much, it'll give you wrinkles!
 
R

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- An Associated Press reporter who wrote an article declaring that the abortion-breast cancer link is nonexistent is coming under fire from women's groups and doctors who say that the article reflects an inappropriate bias.

In her news story, "Women Wrongly Warned Cancer, Abortion Tied," AP writer Laura Meckler leads off by saying women in states with laws requiring information to be given to them about abortion's risks and alternatives, "aren't told that scientific reviews have concluded there is no such risk" of a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Meckler cites a Planned Parenthood medical director who blasts studies showing the link exists and then notes a political decision by the National Cancer Institute that declared no link exists and silenced attempts by a minority group of scientists and researchers to show otherwise.

Karen Malec, director of a women's group that disseminates information about the link, was quoted in the AP article. However, she says Meckler failed to present the whole truth.

First, the National Cancer Institute is "at war with itself," Malec says.

"It acknowledged that breast cancer risk decreases with increased childbearing, starting at an early age, and increased duration of breastfeeding," Malec explained.

According to Malec, "The NCI denied that abortion leaves women with an increase in cancer-vulnerable breast lobules, although the vast majority of the epidemiological studies, biological and experimental evidence, and a plausible biological explanation support abortion as an
independent risk factor for the disease."

Associated Press Abortion-Breast Cancer Article Criticized for Errors, Bias
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom