Dear Friends:
A new article by
Alisa Harris in World Magazine
discusses the relationship between Komen and Planned Parenthood.
Her
story includes misinformation and omissions about the abortion-breast
cancer link for the magazine's Christian readers.
Following this
message, you will find my open letter to the editor of World
Magazine. In that letter, I wrote:
"I
challenge Komen, the American Cancer Society and other cancer groups
that have the audacity to deny the ABC link to either prove Brind wrong
or stop misleading women and causing more breast cancers than they
prevent."
ACTION
ITEM: Write or call the magazine to request a correction.
Letters to the
editor:
Email: mailbag@worldmag.com
Phone:
828-232-5415
Fax: 828-253-1556
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on
Abortion/Breast Cancer
ABORTION-BREAST
CANCER NEWS HEADLINES
"An
Open Letter to World Magazine"
By Karen Malec,
president, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Re:
"Life or death? ABORTION PRESENT: Group that fights breast cancer
maintains troubling ties to Planned Parenthood," By Alisa Harris,
January 17, 2008. Available at: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/article.cfm?eid=A7F4B067-EC95-B315-9BF5442343E44C33
Dear editor:
A
new article in World Magazine discussed the disturbing financial
relationship between the breast cancer group, Susan G. Komen for the
Cure, and an organization that is the primary cause of the breast
cancer epidemic in the U.S. - Planned Parenthood.
The author,
Alisa Harris, correctly reported that basic medical textbooks
acknowledge that full term pregnancies offer women a considerable
reduction in breast cancer risk. Logically, that means that the
woman
who chooses not to have a baby (i.e. by having an abortion) has a
higher breast cancer risk than does the one who has a baby. The
loss
of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy is the first of three
ways that abortion is linked with increased breast cancer risk (known
as the "ABC link").
Harris' story,
however, included
inaccuracies and omitted important facts. Eight medical
organizations
acknowledge that abortion further raises a woman's risk (independently
of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing) by leaving her
breasts with more places for cancer to start. [1]
I am
troubled that Harris left her readers in doubt about the existence of
the independent link. She said Komen's officials dispute the
independent link because:
"In 2003, 100
experts from the
National Cancer Institute concluded there was no link between breast
cancer and either miscarriages or induced abortions. Harvard University
and Oxford University have found similar results in the past two years."
If
Harris would read the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) workshop
conclusions, she would find that the federal agency acknowledged the
protective effect of a full term pregnancy, but then blatantly
contradicted itself by denying an ABC link.
Research shows
that abortions raise risk, but most miscarriages do not raise
risk.
The NCI throws up fairy dust and confuses the public by mixing up these
effects. More about that later.
It is
disheartening that Harris
did not inform her Christian readers about a shocking quote from Dr.
Leslie Bernstein, a lead moderator at the NCI's workshop (which has
been called a "political sham"). The quote reveals Bernstein's
motivation for concealing the ABC link from the public. After the
workshop, she told a journalist at CancerPage.com that an early first
full term pregnancy (before age 24) provides women with the best way to
prevent the disease, but Bernstein doesn't want women to know about
it. She said:
"The biggest
bang for the buck is the first birth
and the younger you are the better off you are...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.
"I don't want
the issue relating to induced abortion to
breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced
abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it
should
not be part of the argument." (Available at: http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id+5601)
Bernstein's
abandonment of fundamental ethical principles is not uncommon among
scientists today whose own textbooks encourage them to become
activists. (For example, see: Understanding the Fundamentals of
Epidemiology: An Evolving Text by Victor J. Schoenbach, Ph.D. and Wayne
D. Rosamond, Ph.D. Available at <http://www.epidemiolog.net>)
The
journal Nature published an article, "Scientists behaving badly," in
2005 showing that in an anonymous survey of several thousand career
scientists who receive funding from the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), an astounding percentage admitted to participating in the most
egregious misbehaviours. [2] For instance, 15.5% were willing to
admit
they had "changed the design, methodology or results of a study in
response to pressure from a funding source" (that would be the NIH)
within the previous three years.
When scientists
become unethical, they can do great harm to the dignity of mankind.
The
biological reason for the ABC link is extremely compelling, but Harris'
article (and even Komen whose mission is to "eradicate breast cancer")
omits any discussion of it. Even the most virulently pro-abortion
scientists - who (appallingly) testify as expert witnesses for abortion
providers in lawsuits challenging state parental notice and consent
laws that protect minors from predatory abortion industry practices -
have never attempted to refute the biological reason for the ABC link
because it is physiologically correct.
Harris,
furthermore, inaccurately quoted New Jersey breast cancer surgeon
Angela Lanfranchi. Harris wrote:
"But Lanfranchi
would add that abortions, both spontaneous and induced, create
cancer-vulnerable breast tissue...."
Lanfranchi's
medical journal articles make it abundantly clear that most
miscarriages do not raise risk, but abortions do raise risk.
[3,4]
Most miscarriages are abnormal first trimester pregnancies with low
hormonal levels that are insufficient to maintain those pregnancies,
but most abortions are normal pregnancies with elevated hormonal
levels. Studies have demonstrated that doctors can predict when a
woman will have a miscarriage by drawing her blood and measuring
hormonal levels.
The ABC link is
about cancer-susceptible breast
lobules being overexposed to the hormone estrogen, which is known to be
a cancer-causing agent. Most of the lobules in a childless woman's
breasts consist of cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. That is
where 95% of all cancers originate.
During a normal
pregnancy, estrogen causes breast growth by stimulating the lobules to
multiply, so the woman who has the abortion is left with more places in
her breasts for cancers to start (the independent link). However, the
woman who has a full term pregnancy experiences a protective process
during the last months of pregnancy known as "differentiation," which
by the time of delivery, matures 85% of her lobules into fully
cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. That explains the protective
effect
of a full term pregnancy.
There is strong
biological support
for the independent link in other related scientific evidence.
Similar
biological events should have similar results. Several studies
have
found that a premature birth before 32 weeks of pregnancy increases
breast cancer risk. [5,6,7,8] Why? For the same biological
reasons
explained above. The mother experiences the same hormonal
influence on
her breasts as the one who has an abortion. She, too, is left
with
more places in her breasts for cancers to start.
Scientists do
not challenge the evidence supporting a link between premature birth
before 32 weeks gestation and breast cancer, but they disingenuously
challenge any findings that implicate their beloved surgical procedure
- abortion - as an independent link for the disease. Komen (and
other
cancer groups) does not reveal this uncomfortable truth to its
supporters either.
A Danish study,
Melbye et al. 1997, found a
3% increase in risk for every week of pregnancy that passed before an
abortion took place. [9] The biological explanation is very
simple.
The longer the mother is pregnant before her abortion takes place, the
longer she is overexposed to estrogen, and the greater the number of
cancer-vulnerable lobules that her breasts grow.
Importantly,
the Institute of Medicine recognizes abortion as an "immutable medical
risk factor for premature birth." [10] The Stop Cancer Coalition
in
Vancouver reports that some 100 studies support that link.
Therefore,
it can be concluded that abortion can cause a woman to have a premature
birth in a subsequent pregnancy and - if she gives birth before 32
weeks of pregnancy - it puts her at risk for breast cancer (not to
mention the fact that her premature child is at risk for cerebral palsy
and other serious conditions).
Harris' article
omitted other
important facts. The overwhelming majority of epidemiological studies
report risk increases for women who have had abortions. One study in
2007 found abortion to be the "best predictor of breast cancer" for
eight European nations. [11] Patrick Carroll, a statistician and
actuary, proved that he could predict future breast cancer rates for
England and Wales for the years 2003 and 2004 with nearly 100% accuracy
by using abortion rates.
The British
insurance magazine, The
Actuary, reported his findings in November of 2007 [12]; and the Royal
Statistical Society sponsored a panel discussion of it last year.
Strangely, Komen (and other cancer groups supposedly dedicated to the
eradication of breast cancer) does not talk about that study either,
not even during Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
As for the
studies by Oxford and Harvard researchers that Komen likes to use to
deny an ABC link, women have a right to know that these studies have
been criticized in medical journals for having serious flaws. [13,14]
The Oxford study received criticism from four researchers
(independently of one another) in five separate medical journals.
[15,16,17,18] That fact doesn't seem to faze Komen's officials.
The
Harvard study received criticism for violating a basic scientific
principle of allowing sufficient time to pass after an abortion before
following-up to see how many subjects in the study have developed
breast cancer. [19] A minimum follow-up time of eight to ten years is
considered ideal.
According to
Joel Brind, president of the
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, opponents of the ABC link are fond
of incorporating a lack of follow-up time in the prospective studies
that they use to deny an independent link. [19]
In 2005, Brind reviewed 10 prospective studies that
abortion zealots use to deny the independent link (including the Oxford
study). [20] He concluded that they are severely flawed and
cannot be used to deny the much larger body of studies that support
that link. Although the journal that published Brind's review has no
time limit for critics to send letters proving Brind was wrong, no one
has ever challenged his conclusions.
I challenge Komen, the American Cancer Society and other cancer groups
that have the audacity to deny the ABC link to either prove Brind wrong
or stop misleading women and causing more breast cancers than they
prevent.
There is no doubt that Planned Parenthood causes more women to develop
breast cancer through its sales of cancer-causing hormonal
contraceptives/abortifacients. The World Health Organization
assigned combined (estrogen + progestin) oral contraceptives ("the
pill") and combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) the highest level
of carcinogenicity - Group 1 - in 2006. [21,22]
Both contain the same type of drugs - estrogen + progestin. In
the case of combined oral contraceptives (drugs which can be delivered
through the pill, IUD, injection, vaginal ring or transdermal patch),
exposure often takes place during the most cancer-vulnerable time of a
woman's life - before first full term pregnancy when nearly all of her
breast lobules are cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules.
Recognition of the evidence of a breast cancer risk involving either
use of the pill or HRT containing estrogen and progestin also provides
additional biological support for an independent link between abortion
and breast cancer. The biological basis is the same. It's about
cancer-vulnerable breast lobules being overexposed to estrogen while in
the presence of progesterone.
According
to a 2008 report from STOPP International, Komen gave Planned
Parenthood $711,485 between April 2005 and April 2006. [23] Is it
reasonable for Komen to entrust Planned Parenthood with the important
job of breast cancer screening, even when there are so many legitimate
organizations that already carry out this function? Certainly,
not! It
is as scandalous and offensive as if the American Lung Association had
entrusted the tobacco company, Philip Morris, with funds to screen its
customers for lung cancer!
Komen's former
Latina adviser, Eve
Sanchez Silver points out that Planned Parenthood does not even serve
the right demographic for breast cancer screening. Planned
Parenthood's customers are young people. Breast cancer occurs most
often in women 50+ years old.
In conclusion, I
ask World Magazine to correct Harris' misinformation.
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on
Abortion/Breast Cancer
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
References:
1. For a list of
the medical organizations recognizing the independent link, see: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm
2. Martinson B,
Anderson M, de Vries R. Commentary: Scientists behaving badly. Nature
2005;435.
3.
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
4.
Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the
abortion breast cancer link. Imago Hominis 2005;12(3): 228-236. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf
5.
Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-M N, Westergaard T, Andersen PK.
Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Bri J Cancer 1999;80:609-13.
6.
Hsieh C-c, Wuu J, Lambe M, Trichopoulos D, et al Delivery of premature
newborns and maternal breast-cancer risk. Lancet 1999;353-1239.
7.
Vatten LJ, et al. Pregnancy related protection against breast cancer
depends on length of gestation. Br J Cancer 2002;87:289-90.
8.
Innes K and Byers T. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent
breast cancer risk among young women. Int J Cancer 2004; 112:306-311.
9.
Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen
K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl
J Med 1997;336:81-85.
10. Richard E.
Behrman, Adrienne Stith
Butler, Editors. Preterm birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention.
Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy
Outcomes. Institute of Medicine. Appendix B, Table 5, p.
519.
Available at: <http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625>.
11.
Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on
abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall
2007) 72-78. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.
12. Carroll P.
The Breast Cancer Epidemic. The Actuary (November 2007) p. 30-31.
Available at: <http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/pdfs/07_11_30-31.pdf>.
13.
Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of
Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion:
collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies,
including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet
2004;363:1007-16.
14. Michels K,
Xue Fei, Colditz G., Willett W.
Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among
Young Women. Arch Int Med 167:814-820.
15. Schlafly A.
Legal
implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys
Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf>.
16.
Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic
Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. Available at: <http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>.
17. Lanfranchi
A. The abortion-breast cancer link revisited. Ethics and Medics
(November 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-4.
18. Furton E.
The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004)
Vol. 29, No. 12, p. 1-2.
19.
Brind J. Induced abortion and breast cancer: A critical analysis
of
the report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. J Am Phys Surg
2007;12(2)38-39.
20. 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>.
21.
Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F.
Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and
menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.
22. 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>.
23.
Baggot, M. "Report Reveals Komen Gave Over $700 Thousand to Planned
Parenthood in One Year / STOPP calls for end to Komen funding,"
LifeSiteNews.com, April 10, 2008. Available at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041002.html
#####
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.
Click here
to make tax-deductible, credit card donations. Donations can be mailed
to:
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
Breast Cancer Prevention
Institute
Polycarp Research Institute
This
newsletter can be viewed online by clicking here.
Click here to
view past new articles.