Awareness of the Breast Cancer Cover-up by Pro-Abort Operatives
This week’s column will focus mainly on the work of Karen Malec, the
president of the “Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.”
Karen, a survivor of Cancer has been trying to expose the truth -- that
abortions increase the risk of breast cancer. Her excellent article pulls
no punches -- it is a must read.
She discusses the misinformation which has been fed to women this fall by
physicians and organizations including: Y-ME, National Breast Cancer
Organization, Chicago Parent Magazine, Redbook Magazine and their
experts at Northwestern University Medical School (Chicago, IL) and
Magee Women’s Hospital (Pittsburgh, PA).
Dr. Susan Love is listed as a director of Y-ME National Breast Cancer
Organization. She is a founder and board member of the National Breast
Cancer Coalition and was asked by President Bill Clinton to join the National
Cancer Advisory Board. She authored the books, Dr. Susan Love’s Breast
Book and Dr. Susan Love’s Hormone Book. She is an Adjunct Professor of
Surgery at UCLA.
On her website and for that matter on MOST breast cancer sites, there is
no mention of the abortion risk of breast cancer.
This is appalling, because in her book, Dr. Love admits that a woman, who
aborts her first baby, increases her risk of getting breast cancer.
She does not use those exact words, because that would be destructive to
her ideology and the abortion industry.
She words it in this manner: “And the younger you are when you have
your first child, the lower your (breast cancer) risk.” [1995, p242]
Naturally, Dr. Love had to include this risk in her book, as it is common
knowledge to most informed physicians, but the manner in which Dr. Love
does it, is sickening. Notice her mincing of words -- to NOT mention the
word “ABORTION.”
The ACS (American Cancer Society) also admits to this risk -- the delay
of a first full term pregnancy (FFTP), but they also will NOT include this
risk
in their brochures, but will admit to risk factors that are minuscule.
When a childless woman chooses to have an abortion, she delays her first
FFTP -- common sense -- right? She does not know when she will
become pregnant again. It might be 1 year, or it might be 10-20 years --
maybe never, if she was made sterile by the abortion, or some other
reason. The older she is before her first full term birth, the greater her
risk
of breast cancer. If there is a history of breast cancer in the family, the
risk
is even greater.
There are TWO independent 'ABC' (Abortion-Breast-Cancer) risks.
1 - Delayed first full term birth. (abortion of first baby)
This risk is irrefutable -- a slam dunk.
NO ONE denies this, but they will STILL NOT report it.
2 - Interruption of any pregnancy -- The evidence here is also
overwhelming. This one, they say is inconclusive, which is pure
garbage. I don't think that 13 of 15 studies done in the United
States which revealed the risk and 28 of 37 studies worldwide
could be classified as inconclusive. Lab tests on rats also
revealed the risk.
It is difficult to comprehend why these so called organizations for
breast cancer wouldn't acknowledge the logical conclusion that
abortions INCREASE the risk of breast cancer, at least the aborting
of the first pregnancy, which is irrefutable, and inform women of the
dangers that abortion poses to a woman's health, especially
considering the fact that breast cancer is the greatest cause of
cancer death among middle aged women.
It is times like this, that as a physician and knowing full well that Dr.
Love,
the ACS and the bulk of the medical profession are trying to hide the truth,
that I think to myself -- who are these people -- did they not take an oath
to save lives?
And, isn't the sole purpose of the existence of the various breast cancer
groups, to inform women of ALL RISKS and not just the ones that will
not infringe on their ideology and political views? Does the protection of
the billion dollar abortion industry mean that much to them that they would
allow thousands of women to die every year, needlessly?
The following was written by Karen Malec, the President of the Coalition
on Abortion/Breast Cancer, 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.
At the end, Karen will ask for your help in writing to various organizations,
which participated in suppressing the truth about the abortion-breast cancer
research.
PLEASE HELP. You will be saving the lives of thousands of mothers AND
their children. Contact information is provided at the end of her column.
A Politically Incorrect Risk Factor for Breast Cancer
by Karen Malec
October was Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many efforts to create
awareness of the risk factors for breast cancer continue to be made, except for
the most preventable one -- induced abortion. Although most women who
have breast cancer have not had abortions, it has been estimated that
approximately 1 in 4 American women have procured abortions. Hundreds
of thousands of American women don't know that they're at increased risk
for breast cancer and cannot take steps to reduce their risks or seek proper
screening. Women haven't been told that scientists have been studying this
optional procedure as a risk factor for breast cancer for nearly a half of a
century. Why not?
The research has a long history of ideological bias in the American
scientific
and journalistic communities. In September 2001 Redbook joined the
effort to falsely reassure women of the safety of abortion. Relying on
University of Pittsburgh physician, Mitch Creinin, M.D., who had researched
the abortifacient, RU 486, the magazine told its readers that the
abortion-breast cancer link was a "myth." This month, Chicago Parent, the
Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization and a Northwestern University
Medical School physician, Valerie Staradub, M.D., teamed up to disinform
women about the research. Our women's group demands full retractions from
both publications.
Redbook, Chicago Parent and their experts acknowledge that having a first
full term pregnancy (FFTP) before age 30 and breast feeding reduce risk, but
they deny that abortion causes breast cancer. How does a childless woman
obtain the protective effect of an earlier FFTP and breast feed if she aborts
her child? Obviously, the truth that abortion causes breast cancer in this
way is too discomforting for the editors to say so.
Independent of this effect, abortion causes changes to take place in a
woman's breasts which make her cancer-vulnerable. Chicago Parent says
that it's pro-life mythology. As a cancer survivor, I'm offended by this
blatant
attempt to mix politics with science. It's a women's health issue. Even
Illinois Lieutenant Governor Corinne Wood, a pro-abortion breast cancer
survivor and spokesperson, testified before the Senate Executive Committee
against a resolution calling for a task force that would have examined this
research. She said that women should remain in the dark about the research
because they'd feel added "guilt." This is a strange argument. It was never
used with the tobacco-cancer link. What does she think women have to feel
guilty about?
Since 1957 -- starting long before any pro-life groups existed -- 28 out of
37 studies have associated abortion with breast cancer, most of which were
conducted by abortion supporters. Our website at
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com provides the references. The studies
were published in prestigious journals, including the Journal of the American
Medical Association and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, but
Redbook, Chicago Parent and Y-ME make it sound as if these scientists
don't practice science.
Various sources confirm that the "gatekeepers" in medicine know that
abortion causes breast cancer. Both a 1998 medical book called The
Breast and the1988 Henderson lecture published in the journal Cancer
Research say that a first trimester abortion increases risk. [1]
1. Robert B. Dickson, Ph.D., Marc E. Lippman, M.D., "Growth Regulation of
Normal and Malignant Breast Epithelium," The Breast: Comprehensive
Management
of Benign and Malignant Diseases, edited by Kirby I. Bland, M.D. and Edward
M. Copeland III, M.D.; (1998) W. B. Saunders Company; 2nd edition; Vol. 1,
p.
519; and Henderson, B.E., Ross, R., Bernstein, L.; "Estrogens as a cause of
human cancer," The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture,
University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles,
California; Cancer Res 48:246-253, 1988.
In 1986
Bruce Stadel of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Phyllis Wingo of
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and two other prominent
epidemiologists wrote to the journal, Lancet, and said, "Induced abortion
before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." [2] 2. Lancet, Feb. 22, 1986, p. 436. Their
statement was based on only two American studies linking abortion with
breast cancer. [3] 3. Pike et al. (1981) Br J Cancer 47:757-62; and Brinton et al. (1983) Br J
Cancer 47:757-62.
Why weren't women told?
Last year the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a
warning to its abortion providers by saying that this research "could not
be disregarded." [4] 4. Evidence-based Guideline#7 (2000) RCOG Press, pp. 29-30. Why weren't women told?
Since the publication of the first American study implicating abortion in
1981, there has been a shameless effort to discredit the research and to
deliberately design studies in order to achieve a negative result. [5] 5. Id Two
arguments, already effectively shot down within the scientific community,
continue to be employed to blow smoke on the research and to falsely
reassure women of the safety of abortion. Drs. Staradub and Creinin and
Y-ME used both arguments, although they are all in a position to know
that the arguments are lame excuses for denying a causal relationship.
The first argument is an unsubstantiated theory called reporting bias. The
theory says that healthy women underreport their abortions, but patients
don't (or, incredibly, that patients make up abortions that they never had).
If so, then this would explain why many more patients report having had
abortions than healthy women, and it would invalidate any studies relying on
interviews instead of medical records. The problem is that several groups
of scientists have tested for reporting bias, but none has produced any
plausible evidence that it exists. A Swedish group said it found evidence
that 7 patients had reported abortions that the computer said they'd never
had. In other words, the women either lied or over reported their abortions.
[6] 6. Lindefors-Harris et al (1991) Am J Epidemiol 134:1003-8. When this absurd claim was challenged by other scientists, the Swedes
withdrew it. [7]
7. Meirik et al (1998) J Epidemiol Community Health 52:209.
I challenge Y-ME and Drs. Creinin and Staradub to find one study whose
scientists currently maintain that they've found plausible evidence of
reporting
bias.
The second argument is a 1997 Danish study by Melbye et al. whose
bottom line was that abortion has no overall effect on breast cancer risk.
Readers weren't told that Melbye found a statistically significant 89%
increased risk related to induced abortion after 18 weeks gestation. [8]
8. Melbye et al. (1997) N Engl J Med 336:81-5. Page 7
Melbye's publisher, the New England Journal of Medicine, rejected Melbye's
conclusions three years after its publication when the journal published an
article and identified abortion as a possible "risk factor." [9]
9. Armstrong (2000) NEJM 342:564-71.
Melbye was
severely criticized for its many errors. [10]
10. Joel Brind & Vernon Chinchilli, Letter, "Induced Abortion and the Risk of
Breast Cancer," 336 NEJM 1834-35 (1997).
For instance, Melbye included
1.5 million women in the study, but 1.2 million hadn't had an abortion and
hadn't had breast cancer. Even a non-scientist can recognize that flaw.
Nevertheless, Melbye has served its intended purpose well.
It's unusual that a Chinese study published in the International Journal of
Cancer was used to represent the breast cancer risk for American women.
Fifteen American studies have been conducted and 13 show increased risk.
The Howe study conducted on New York women was ignored altogether.
Howe found a statistically significant increased risk of 90%. As a study
relying solely on medical records instead of interviews, it rules out any
possibility of reporting bias. [11]
11. Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4.
If Dr. Staradub and Y-ME wanted to
discuss Chinese studies, why didn't they discuss the Bu study which found
an almost tripling of a Chinese woman's risk if she has a single abortion?
[12] 12. Bu et al. (1995) Am J Epidemiol 141:S85.
Dr. Staradub said, "Some studies show that abortions make no
difference, while some studies show that they make a small difference." [13]
13. Chicago Parent (October 2001) p. 45.
In California three women are suing Planned Parenthood Federation of
America for having misled women about the safety of abortion. [14]
14. Bernardo et al. v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned
Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties.
The plaintiffs complain that Planned Parenthood's website identifies only 5
studies reporting increased risk and 5 reporting no increased risk. How
does Dr. Staradub's statement differ from Planned Parenthood's deception?
Drs. Staradub and Creinin should visit the website, ,
to read a Wisconsin Law Review article discussing the legal liability of
physicians who paternalistically censor this information from their patients.
Breast cancer risk should not be minimized. It is the greatest cancer
killer of women between the ages of 20 and 59. The incidence of breast
cancer among American women has risen 40% since Roe v. Wade legalized
abortion in 1973, while the incidence of all other cancers has declined.
There is no shortage of individuals willing to put ideology and greed ahead
of women's lives. This continuing effort to suppress the truth is
reminiscent of the tobacco industry's cover-up of the tobacco-cancer link.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is seeking women who've both had
abortions and developed breast cancer and who believe that they have no
other risk factors for this disease. If this describes your circumstances,
we would like to talk with you. Please call our toll free number at
1-877-803-0102.
Please spread the word and share this message with others on your
address list and publish our request in your newsletters.
Also, we urge our readers to voice their complaints to the following
individuals and organizations:
Joyce Marcus
Board President
Y-ME NATIONAL BREAST CANCER ORGANIZATION
212 W. Van Buren, Suite 500
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone: 312-986-8338
Fax: 312-294-8597
help@y-me.org
Nancy Monson
REDBOOK MAGAZINE
224 W. 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
212/247-1086 (fax)
redbook@hearst.com
Karen McCarthy
CHICAGO PARENT MAGAZINE
141 S. Oak Park Ave.
Oak Park, IL 60302
Kmccarthy@wjine.com
Valerie Staradub, M.D.
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL
251 E. Huron St.
Galter 3-150
Chicago, IL 60611
312/926-8060 (phone)
312/926-7404 (fax)
E-mail: Visit web page at
www.surgery.nwu.edu/content/fcontact.asp?link_ik=7
or visit www.surgery.nwu.edu/content/index.html
Mitchell Creinin, M.D.
MAGEE-WOMENS HOSPITAL
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences
300 Halket St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3180
(412) 641-1000 (phone)
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. Their address is:
Dr. Frank Joseph
For past columns by Dr. Frank, see PRO-LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS Archives
|
|
November 12-18, 2001
volume 12, no. 156
Dr. Frank Joseph's PRO LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS column
www.DailyCatholic.org
|
|
|