|
Dear Friends:
The journal Nature reported last year that scientific misconduct is far more widespread among government-funded scientists than most people realize. In June, the journal published a survey of U.S. scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors turned up some startling evidence and concluded that, "...U.S. scientists engaged in a range of behaviours extending far beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism that can damage the integrity of science."
For far too many years, cancer researchers have been relying on an absurd explanation for the continually increasing number of breast cancer cases in the U.S. during the last two decades. They attribute it to increased screening. If true, then for every new small tumor found, there would be one less large tumor reported. On the contrary, an increasing number of large tumors are being reported in the U.S.
Journalists must hold cancer experts' feet to the fire and demand better explanations, particularly when:
1) Documentation of the cancer-causing effects of oral contraceptives has been available for 25 years and medical texts reported evidence of a breast cancer link as early as 1991;
2) The World Health Organization acknowledged the link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer in 2005, a finding that strengthens support for an abortion-cancer link;
3) A 2001 annual report on the status of cancer showed that only the Roe v. Wade generation experienced the increased number of cancer cases; and
4) Nations that prohibit abortion (Poland and Ireland) have low breast cancer rates.
Two whistleblowers - Ed Furton (Ethics and Medics) and Joel Brind (Breast Cancer Prevention Institute) - have accused scientists of doing "shoddy research" to advance the notion that abortion is unrelated to increased breast cancer risk.
How will the cancer community ever regain its credibility, once women realize they've been cruelly deceived by government-funded scientists who fear stepping on Uncle Sam's toes? The U.S. National Cancer Institute funds most of the cancer research conducted in the U.S.
Spread the word.
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES
"The U.S. Government's 'Big Lie' / What scientists know about breast cancer and when they knew it"
By Karen Malec
February 2, 2006
In a December article discussing the difficulties of establishing environmental links to cancer, Professor Richard Peto of Oxford University offered New York Times writer Gina Kolata a disingenuous explanation for the increased incidence of breast cancer in the U.S. [1] He suggested it's an "artifact of increased screening."
Scientists have used this absurd explanation for far too many years. They must surely know by now that it requires a tremendous leap of faith. If the surge in breast cancer cases during the last two decades had been due to increased screening, then for every new small tumor found, there would be one less large tumor reported. That's not at all what's happening. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), there has been an increase in large cancers reported. [2]
How very strange that Peto did not discuss his scientific team's conclusions reported in the British journal Lancet four years ago. Their paper, Beral et al. 2002, was released with much fanfare and wide press coverage. [3] After reviewing 47 studies conducted in 30 countries, the authors concluded that breast cancer rates could be cut by more than 50% in developed countries if only women would have larger families and breastfeed their children longer.
They reported that differences in breast cancer rates between developed and developing countries can be attributed to differences in family size and duration of breastfeeding. However, in Asian and African countries, breast cancer rates have started to increase, especially in women under age 50, because "the average family size and duration of breastfeeding are declining rapidly."
The authors added that "The short duration of breastfeeding typical of women in developed countries makes a major contribution to the high incidence of breast cancer in these countries."
The nasty "A" word - abortion - was conspicuously avoided in their paper, although everyone knows that abortion causes women to have few or no children and to do little or no breastfeeding. So do contraceptives.
The increased incidence of breast cancer experienced in developed nations during the last half century was entirely forseeable. During this time, increased access to abortion and use of contraceptives caused women to dramatically change their childbearing patterns. Nevertheless, cancer authorities failed to inform the public that an increase in breast cancer rates was inevitable.
It's long been known that reproductive history influences breast cancer risk. Several centuries ago, scientists recognized that childbearing significantly reduces breast cancer risk. They reached this conclusion after observing that more nuns developed the disease than did women with children.
Twentieth century research provided the biological reasons why childbearing is protective. Angela Lanfranchi, MD, Associate Professor of Surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, explained the biological evidence in the journals Research Bulletin and Imago Hominis. [4,5] (Available at:
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf> and
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf> respectively)
Lanfranchi said that 8-10% of all breast cancers develop because of a faulty gene, and 90% of the other cases develop as a result of the effects of estrogen exposure and breast tissue maturity.
She cited research by Irma and Jose Russo (Fox Chase Cancer Center) showing that, at birth, girls have primitive, cancer-vulnerable breast lobules known as "terminal ductal lobular units" (TDLUs). Scientists say most cancers develop in TDLUs.
Childbearing reduces risk because a protective mechanism during the third trimester of pregnancy matures women's breast tissue into cancer-resistant tissue (Types 3 and 4 lobules). This mechanism, called "differentiation," protects women when they are overexposed to estrogen, a female hormone and a recognized carcinogen. Women experience estrogen overexposure starting early in a normal pregnancy (but not most miscarriages) and during their menstrual periods.
Childless women have a high breast cancer risk because they experience a lifetime of uninterrupted menstrual periods. Estrogen stimulates their TDLUs every month. This explains why women who have more menstrual periods throughout their lives have a greater breast cancer risk (i.e., menstruation starts before age 12 or menopause occurs after age 55). Childbearing and breastfeeding suspend menstruation.
Nearly two decades ago, the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment reported that early age at first full term pregnancy had "emerged as the strongest protective factor" against breast cancer. [6]
What's the biological reason? Delaying the birth of a first child means a delay in the development of breast tissue into cancer-resistant tissue. The longer a woman's breasts are in a cancer-vulnerable state during her reproductive years, the greater her risk is. [7] (See this bar graph:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/051201graphs/index.htm)
Dr. Susan Love uses a graph in her book that shows she agrees that women have a heightened vulnerability to carcinogens and cell mutations during this time frame. [8] However, she misleads women by suggesting that their breasts are cancer-vulnerable until first pregnancy. In fact, only a full-term pregnancy has been shown to protect women from the disease.
Bogus women's organizations equate delaying a first birth with "reproductive health," but cancer experts universally agree that it dramatically increases breast cancer risk.
For over 25 years, oral contraceptives have been linked to breast cancer in research, with a culmination of acknowledgment of more than 10 cohort studies and 60 case-control studies by the World Health Organization in 2005. [9,10] By the early 1990s, medical texts documented the cancer-causing effects of using combined oral contraceptives (OCs) before a full term pregnancy or when taken for prolonged periods at an early age. [11]
OCs and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) contain steroidal estrogens. Cancer experts knew in the 1980s that estrogen caused cancer and that estrogen is used in those drugs. [12] Nevertheless, governmental agencies and feminist-led cancer fundraising businesses did not tell women about the cancer risks until recently. These "cancer watchdogs" do not correct bogus women's groups when they equate "reproductive health" with the consumption of steroidal estrogens.
The biological basis for the links between breast cancer and use of OCs and HRT is the same as that for the abortion-breast cancer link.
How do cancer experts explain a report in 2001 compiled by scientists at the ACS, the NCI, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) showing that the abortion generation is alone in suffering the increased number of breast cancer cases that developed starting in the mid-1980s? This is the generation of young women who were under age 40 in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting abortion. [13]
Like the emperor who had no clothes, cancer researchers pretend it's not so. However, two authors of that report - Phyllis Wingo and Holly Howe - published earlier research (including a prospective study by Howe) showing that abortion raises a woman's risk for the disease. [14,15]
Wingo worked at the CDC in 1986 when she, Bruce Stadel of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and two other epidemiologists admitted in a letter to the Lancet that "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer."
Yet, Wingo and the other authors of the 2001 report didn't dare to use the nasty "A" word to explain the surge in breast cancer cases, nor did they care to suggest ways that women could reduce their breast cancer risk.
In 1996, Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College, City University of New York, and his colleagues at Penn State accurately predicted the increased number of cancer cases that would result from abortion. [16]
How did the cancer community respond? They didn't attempt to save lives by warning women about the risk. According to an international group of obstetricians and gynecologists, MaterCare International, scientists hastily published 10 studies "in an attempt to discredit Brind's conclusion." [17]
In other words, today's scientists are behaving like tobacco industry scientists once did when they tried to bury evidence of a tobacco-cancer link.
In a 2005 paper for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Brind revisited his team's 1996 conclusions. He wrote:
"It is not unreasonable, therefore, to attribute a substantial portion of the increase in breast cancer incidence since 1986 to induced abortion. Such an attribution is in complete agreement with predictions made in our 1996 review and meta-analysis. We predicted at least 24,500 abortion-attributable cases of breast cancer per year in the United States alone by the fourth decade of the 21st century. Incidence is still rising, with the number of total cases expected to reach almost 270,000 in 2005." [18]
(See <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>)
Brind reviewed the 10 prospective studies and showed that they are seriously flawed and do not invalidate the larger body of research supporting a link. He said scientists used such tactics as: 1) Violating the scientific method; 2) Choosing study subjects whose recent abortions increased the likelihood that it was too soon for breast cancers to develop; 3) Misclassifying tens of thousands of women who'd had abortions as not having had them; 4) Failing to control for confounding variables; and 5) Comparing abortions among young women who were under age 40 when abortion was legalized, and breast cancers among older women who were over age 40 when abortion was legalized.
Who could believe that a sincere desire to "eradicate breast cancer" exists in the cancer community? For the last 25 years, scientists have bent over backwards to mask the effects of abortion, without regard for the massive loss of lives worldwide.
Scientific misconduct is far more widespread than most people realize. A report in the journal Nature last year concluded that, "...U.S. scientists engaged in a range of behaviours extending far beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism that can damage the integrity of science." [19] The authors anonymously surveyed thousands of U.S. scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health about their behaviours. The authors reported percentages of scientists who say they participated in misconduct in the last three years. Some of their behaviours included:
1) Falsifying or 'cooking' research data (0.3%);
2) Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data (12.5%);
3) Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source (15.5%); and
4) Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based on one's own research (0.3%).
The authors hypothesized that scientists probably under-reported their misconduct "for fear of discovery and potential sanction," even though they were promised anonymity. The authors concluded that, "With as many as 33% of our survey respondents admitting to one or more of the top-ten behaviours, the scientific community can no longer remain complacent about such misbehaviour."
How will the cancer community regain its credibility, once women realize they've been cruelly deceived by scientists who fear stepping on Uncle Sam's toes? The NCI funds most of the cancer research conducted in the U.S.
If women are really the masters of their own bodies, then why aren't we being told about at least the recognized breast cancer risk associated with abortion - the loss of the protective effect of childbearing? Brind addressed this issue in his conclusions. He observed:
"It is therefore unarguable - as recently acknowledged by Thorp et al. - that any reasonable standard of informed consent for abortion should include the fact that a woman's long-term breast cancer risk will be higher if she consents to the abortion than if she does not." [18,20]
Adolf Hitler told the German people a "Big Lie" about the Jewish people in order to gain their support for exterminating Jews. The U.S. government's "Big Lie" is that abortion doesn't raise breast cancer risk.
The uncomfortable truth is that cancer establishment's misconduct means a massive number of cancer cases and deaths worldwide. It remains to be seen how long women will tolerate being exploited by the abortion and cancer fundraising industries.
References:
1) Kolata G."Environment and cancer: The links are elusive." New York Times, Dec. 13, 2005.
2) Ghafoor A, et al. Trends in breast cancer by race and ethnicity. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:342-355.
3) Beral V, et al. Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative re-analysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50,302 women with breast cancer and 96,973 women without the disease. Lancet 2002;360:187-195.
4) Lanfranchi A. The science, studies and sociology of the abortion-breast cancer link. Research Bulletin 2005;18:1-8. Available at:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf
5) Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link. Imago Hominis 2005;12(3): 228-236. Available at:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf
6) Krieger N. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (1989)13:205-223.
7) Trichopoulos D, Hsieh C, MacMahon B, et al. Age at any birth and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer 1983;31:701-704.
8) Susan Love, Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, Perseus Publishing, 3rd edition, p. 235.
9) Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005. See
<http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html>.
10) Cogliano V, et al. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.
11) The Breast: Comprehensive Management of Benign and Malignant Diseases, edited by Kirby I. Bland and Edward M. Copeland, 1991, p. 241.
12) Henderson BE, Ross R, Bernstein L. Estrogen is a cause of human cancer: The Richard and Hilda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture. Cancer Res 1988;48:246-53.
13) Howe HL, Wingo PA, Thun MJ, Ries LA, Rosenberg HM, Feigal EG, Edwards BK. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973 through 1998, featuring cancers with recent increasing trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:824-842.
14) Wingo PA, Newsome K, Marks JS, Calle EE, Parker SL.et al. The risk of breast cancer following spontaneous or induced abortion. Cancer Causes
Control 1997;8:93-108.
15) Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-304.
16) Brind J, Chinchilli, VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481-496.
17) Press Release, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, "7th Medical Organization Recognizes Abortion-Cancer Link / International Group of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists Finds Significant Risk Increase," December 7, 2005.
18) Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at:
<http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>.
19) Commentary. Martinson B et al. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005;435.
20) Thorp JM, Hartmann KE, Shadigian EM. Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: A review of the evidence. Obstet & Gynecol Survey 2003;58:1.
#####
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.
Tax-deductible, credit card donations can be made at www.AbortionBreastCancer.com. Donations can be mailed to: the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195. The IRS recognizes the coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
www.BCPInstitute.org
Polycarp Research Institute
www.polycarp.org
|
|
