Anti-Lifers Rip
Latest Study - by their own people - on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Link
As expected, pro-aborts did not take well to my WorldNetDaily.com
column this week, "Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer
link."
In "The truth about breast cancer and abortion," RH Reality Check's
managing editor Amie Newman relied heavily on one of the researchers
publishing the study - to dispute the results of her own study:
According to one of the researchers and authors of the report, Kathi
Malone (pictured above), "There are no new findings related to induced
abortion in this paper because the results of these women were
published previously."...
Dr. Brinton's co-researcher and co-author, Kathi Malone, is clear about
what this and all peer-reviewed studies show thus far on the link
between abortion and breast cancer: "The weight of scientific evidence
to date strongly indicates that abortion doesn't increase the risk of
breast cancer."...
As an aside, Louise Brinton's name is key in all this because she's the
National Cancer Institute researcher who chaired the infamous 2003
panel of experts that concluded there was no abortion/breast cancer
link.
Both are indeed listed as authors the study about which Newman is
disputing, and importantly, Brinton identified herself with the NCI...
Newman wrote about Brinton...
But what is not true is that Dr. Louise Brinton has "changed" her
position on the link between abortion and breast cancer, at least
publicly, because there is no new information on this link.
So the first obvious question is, are Malone and Brinton calling the
study bearing their name erroneous? (Read study pdf here.
http://www.jillstanek.com/Abortion%20Breast%20Cancer%20Epid%20Bio%20Prev%202009.pdf)
Are
they
denying these words from their own study, from the bottom of
page 1160 and top of page 1161?
...and this, bottom of page 1162 and top of page 1163, from her own
study?
Note this statement not only confirms that breast cancer is linked to
abortion in the current study, it agrees with previous studies that
came to the same conclusion.
Newman reiterated over and over that this study concluded nothing new
as far as the ABC link was concerned, even quoting Malone, as I
mentioned above, which leads me to wonder if Malone even read her own
study. Newman wrote, for instance (italic emphasis hers)...
The only problem with reporting on this as if anything were new is
that, well, nothing is new.
This paper simply took older information....
In fact, the only reason abortion was included at all was because it
was a factor in the old studies....
Again, the study results released last year, on which Dr. Brinton was a
researcher, do not include any new information on the overall risk of
breast cancer among women who have had abortions....
[T]here is no new information....
Extremist, religious anti-choice web sites are using old data from an
old study as proof of a cause and effect relationship even while the
NCI and one of the study's own authors clearly state that over the
course of years of research, including those old studies, overall
evidence indicates no connection between the 2....
Newman is simply wrong.
Triple-negative breast cancer was only first described in published
papers in 2007. It is an extremely aggressive form of breast cancer
with a poor prognosis. It strikes women under 45, often
African-American.
For this study researchers tested 897 saved cancerous breast tissue
from 1,286 previously studied cases for triple-negative breast cancer.
(See also the "Results" blurb above.) One reason? To assess
"reproductive history" as it may relate...
The results concluded abortion raises the risk of triple-negative
breast cancer by a ratio of 1.4, or 40%, the same as other breast
cancers. This makes sense, given the etiology of breast cancer due to
abortion...
A huge new finding of this study was that oral contraceptives are
highly suspect as causers of triple-negative breast cancer. Newman
noted in her close that this study "lay[s] the groundwork for... a
possible connection between oral contraceptives and triple negative
breast cancer."
This is absolutely true.
So a few questions.
Why did Newman so readily accept this study's conclusions on the
contraceptive-breast cancer link but not the abortion-breast cancer
link?
And where in the world has the National Cancer Institute been in the 9
months since this bombshell study was published on the
contraceptive/cancer link? Is it again being held hostage by feminist
ideologues?
Newman blamed "[e]xtremist, religious anti-choice web sites" as fanning
the flames by broadcasting this study.
But Newman's problem isn't with us. Her problem is with the NCI,
Brinton, Malone, and liberal feminists.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source:
jillstanek.com
Publish
Date: January 15, 2010
Link
to
this
article.
Send
this
article
to a friend.
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.