MONDAY-SUNDAY
November 12-18, 2001
volume 12, no. 156

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


Your email:
Your name:
E-mail it  to:

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
Return to Current Issue