-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
For those who oppose abortion no tactic is too sleazy. The scare tactic of stopping abortion by linking it with breast cancer was manna from heaven. The visceral fear of breast cancer would present the faithful with a weapon to be wielded with no regard for the facts. The fact that the scientific evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer fazed them not.
The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood publicity and Komen’s ties to this woo, has reanimated this long-dead controversy.
The Komen tie-in is via Jane Abraham, a member of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance board of directors. Abraham is also on the board of directors of The Nurturing Network, an organization founded and chaired by Mary Cunningham Agee. It was Agee who, in 1999, wrote in a Culture of Life Foundation newsletter that “the undeniable link between breast cancer and abortion is only the ‘tip of an iceberg’ of damage that medical science is now able to reveal about this procedure.”
Abraham is also founder and General Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List. On its website, the SBA List touts its Komen connection while claiming:
There are also studies that link abortion to breast cancer- which is precisely what SGK is supposed to be fighting against.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a lie.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a report, Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk, that found:
More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found:
Breast cancer: induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The American Cancer Society studied the link and reported the results:
- Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
- Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
These scientific results are known to the anti-abortion cadre, and they’d rather lie to women.
H/T: Jodi Jacobson, Catholics For Choice (pdf).
The abortion breast cancer debate is as bad as the Global Warming debate. Sooner or later you will feel like you been duped.
I Feel Duped on Climate Change
Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. “Perhaps it’s just part of my generation,” he says.
He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry’s toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname “Feuerfritze” (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. “I’m going to make enemies in all camps,” he says.
“The climate catastrophe is not occurring,” he writes in his book “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.
SPIEGEL: You claim that the standstill has to do with the sun. What makes you so sure?
Vahrenholt: In terms of the climate, we have seen a cyclical up and down for the last 7,000 years, long before man began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been a warming phase every 1,000 years, including the Roman, the Medieval and the current warm periods. All of these warm periods consistently coincided with strong solar activity. In addition to this large fluctuation in activity, there is also a 210-year and an 87-year natural cycle of the sun. Ignoring these would be a serious mistake …
“idealist”: Dr. Stuart Donnan, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, which published Joel Brind’s meta-analysis in 1996, wrote the following in an editorial in that Journal:
“Some readers may consider that the calculation made by Brind and colleagues of possible numbers of breast cancers following–conceivably caused by– induced abortion is alarmist. It is certainly true that a relative risk of only 1.3 adds up to a large absolute increase in risk with a very high prevalence of the underlying factor. However, in the light of recent unease about appropriate but open communication of risks associated with oral contraceptive pills, it will surely be agreed that open discussion of risks is vital and must include the people–in this case the women–concerned. I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called ‘pro- choice,’ you need at the same time to have a view which might be called ‘pro- information’ without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data.”
Bdaman, correlation does not equal causation.
A famous statistical study done as an exercise in just that phenomenon demonstrated a very high correlation between time of day of births at Chicago hospitals and train arrivals at a terminal in either Norway or Sweden (cannot remember which one). So, by that logic, train schedules in Scandinavia cause birth times in Chicago.
There is something called “intervening variables.” Oftentimes there are literally too many variables to study, because there will always be a wild card. Pollution levels change, living near sources of cancer and other environmental disasters, new and untried medications, and so forth. To say that a single variable causes another single variable in a meta-analysis is almost always going to guarantee a Type II error.
“”Monsanto’s Paid Scientist Richard Doll Participated in Abortion-Cancer Cover-Up”
The term, “Oxford University Cover-Up,” has taken on a new dimension. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer originally employed the term in an October press release to describe five, seriously flawed studies authored by researchers at the U.K.’s Oxford University – studies that have been widely used to erase the abortion breast cancer link from the public mind. [1,2,3,4,5,6]
The late Sir Richard Doll, Oxford’s esteemed lung cancer researcher, participated in the Oxford Cover-Up by signing on as a co-author in two of the five abortion-cancer studies. [2,4] Doll is best remembered for having demonstrated a connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer in 1950 and for having fingered the tobacco habit as “a major cause” of lung cancer.
Last week, the British press implicated Doll as a paid consultant for U.S. and British chemical corporations. [8,9] It is not considered unethical for a scientist to act as an industry consultant, but he (or she) is ethically obligated to disclose any conflicts of interest.”
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/061214/index.htm
From the Science-Based Medicine link above:
It’s hard not to note that one significant indication that the study is likely to be really, really, really bad is the very fact that it appeared in JPANDS.
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Ideology trumps science-based medicine
It is not an exaggeration to say that the AAPS, through its journal JPANDS, is waging a war on science- and evidence-based medicine in the name of its politics.
Elaine,
You are right. One of my favorite quotes. Isn’t alcohol use a risk factor in getting breast cancer? Shouldn’t the bishops be going on a campaign to bring back prohibition?
“Women who have abortions are not at higher risk of developing breast cancer, says a report out today.
Previous research had produced conflicting results, with some findings showing a link between terminations and a slightly-increased chance of contracting the killer disease.
However, an international study led by Oxford University – the biggest of its kind – has concluded that having an abortion or suffering a miscarriage does not heighten a woman’s risk of suffering breast cancer.
Soaring cancer rates
There had been fears that a record level of cases of the disease – more than 41,000 a year in the UK – was being driven by rising abortion rates over the last 40 years.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-228153/Abortion-cancer-link-doubt.html
Kindley,
You read studies like the devil reads the bible…..or worse.
The study was concerned with the effect of oral-contraceptives—-admittedly an area we must monitor closely.
But it’s results were mildly conclusive by own admission “considerable heterogenicity”.
And again, then followed by the old graphing sucker game.
An increase from one occurrence in ten million, to two in ten million gives an increase in risk factor by one-hundred percent. WOW!
Impressive yeah. It’s down in the noise factor, if you even understand what that is, or with the sample size, drawing such conclusions from such fine deviations is RIDICULOUS.
As you are, dear sir.
The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics
Trumped Science and Informed Consent
“Significantly, the absolute numbers of reported excess cases
agree with a prediction made in a 1996 review and meta-analysis.
Its lead author, Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of biology and endocrinology
at City University of New Yorks Baruch College, concluded
from a review of the 2001 report: Abortion can explain the
entire rise in breast cancer since the mid 1980s, and it’s not just
because the rise is in women young enough to have had an abortion.
It’s also that the absolute numbers of increased cases fall within the
range of the numbers we predicted in our 1996 meta-analysis
(Brind J, personal communication, 2002).
Brind et al. estimated that in 1996 an excess 5,000 cases of
breast cancer were attributable to abortion, and that the annual
excess would increase by 500 cases each year. They predicted
25,000 excess cases in the year 2036.”
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
The Breast Cancer Epidemic:
Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion
and Other Risk Factors
“Using national cancer registration data for female breast cancer
incidence in eight European countries—England & Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Sweden, the Czech
Republic, Finland, and Denmark—for which there is also
comprehensive data on abortion incidence, trends are examined
and future trends predicted. Seven reproductive risk factors are
considered as possible explanatory variables. Induced abortion is
found to be the best predictor, and fertility is also a useful predictor.”
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf
The Gorski article Mr. Drumm linked to is interesting. There’s this:
“Another thing that you need to know about the ABC claim is that the evidence is quite conclusive that spontaneous early miscarriages neither protect against nor decrease the risk of breast cancer. Other than possibly for women who have suffered more than three spontaneous miscarriages (the data are equivocal), pregnancy loss appears to be more or less neutral with respect to influencing breast cancer risk, neither increasing nor decreasing it. These observations are fairly strong suggestive evidence that an elective abortion would probably not behave any differently than a spontaneous miscarriage at the same point in pregnancy from a biological standpoint. These data are not enough to dismiss the ABC link in and of themselves, but they do lessen the biological plausibility of such a link. Not enough to reject further study, but enough to cast a skeptical eye on the retrospective studies that exist.”
It’s well known that miscarriages are typically characterized by estrogen levels not rising as they do in a normal, healthy pregnancy, but Gorski does not acknowledge this well-known fact, which even Planned Parenthood has explicitly admitted. The difference in epidemiological results for miscarriages and induced abortions actually support the biological plausibility of the induced abortion – breast cancer link.
There’s also this from Gorski’s article:
“These studies were all retrospective, with all the potentials for confounding factors to which retrospective studies are prone. Moreover, it was a study based on interviews, in which women were interviewed about their health history and known and suspected causes of breast cancer. Recall bias is a well-known confounding factor that plagues studies of abortion. One reason is that, because of the social stigma associated with abortion, women tend not to tell everything about their history when it comes to abortions, either not admitting to the procedure or, if they’ve had more than one, not admitting to all of them. This may have been particularly true for older studies, when abortion had even more of a stigma attached to it. The other reason is that women with breast cancer who have had an abortion in the past tend to be more likely to admit to having had an abortion they think it might be a cause of their predicament. It’s very hard to evaluate the significance of recall or response bias and how much they might have affected the results of individual studies. In any case, such problems are why prospective studies are less likely to produce spurious associations. . . . Other aspects that might make ABC more credible would be if there were a “dose-response” effect, in which more abortions would increase the risk even more, or some apparently biological specificity for certain subtypes of cancer. Neither of these exist, and this study sure doesn’t provide such evidence.”
The 1997 Melbye study on Danish women, which for a long time was touted as the “best evidence” that there is no “overall” increase in breast cancer risk associated with induced abortion, was a “prospective” study, with no possible chance of “recall bias” (which hypothetical explanation for the positive associations found in earlier retrospective studies has also been tested and disproved by other studies) influencing the results, and actually reported that “with each one week increase in the gestational age of the fetus there was a 3% increase in the risk of breast cancer” (a trend which was itself statistically significant), and found a statistically significant 1.38 relative risk associated with abortions performed after the first trimester. There’s your “dose-response” effect. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good account the Melbye study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis#Melbye
rafflaw,
As a wise person once said–reality has a liberal bias.
Nal and Elaine,
Please stop confusing the matter with the facts. 🙂
It is important for everyone to realize that when the Fat Cats in Washington start screaming loudly, there is something going on at the local level they don’t want you to notice.
Check out what the religious right and their republican allies are doing in your State legislatures … especially “Personhood” bills being introduced.
If you are stuck with a Republican representative in your district then reach out to the closest district with a Democrat. They will put you on their email list and keep you informed as to how the War Against Women is being waged in your state. If there isn’t a Democrat close then contact the State’s Democratic Party and they will keep you up to speed.
Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk
National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
Introduction
A woman’s hormone levels normally change throughout her life for a variety of reasons, and these hormonal changes can lead to changes in her breasts. Many such hormonal changes occur during pregnancy, changes that may influence a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer later in life. As a result, over several decades a considerable amount of research has been and continues to be conducted to determine whether having an induced abortion, or a miscarriage (also known as spontaneous abortion), influences a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer later in life.
Current Knowledge
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings can be found in the Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop.
NCI regularly reviews and analyzes the scientific literature on many topics, including various risk factors for breast cancer. Considering the body of literature that has been published since 2003, when NCI held this extensive workshop on early reproductive events and cancer, the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer. To view regular updates on this topic, please go to the Breast Cancer PDQ® summary, which is part of NCI’s comprehensive database.
Background
The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.
From the National Cancer Institute:
Factors of Unproven or Disproven Association
The RR [relative risk] of breast cancer for women with spontaneous abortion was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92–1.04 for those with prospective data collection and 0.94–1.02 for retrospective data). The RR after induced abortion was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89–0.96; P = .0002) if the information was collected prospectively but was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06–1.16) if it was collected retrospectively. Additional analyses of the number and timing of aborted pregnancies were performed, but none showed a significant association with breast cancer.
Emphasis added.
With all of the energy going on between the commentors here I have just one suggestion for a fair and balanced discussion of health vs. heathen issues and the role of the Susan G. Komen whatever foundation. If I was on that board of that Susan foundation I would take the G spot out of the name. It would be ok if it was Susan B. Komen as in Susan Be Comin. But the G spot just commingled with a Cure is too much. If an abortion causes cancer then how can more satisfying sex cure it? And why is she For the Cure/ How about In Favor of A Cure. How do we know that there is One Cure or The Cure?
Folks should not donate money to a collection of confused zealouts. Or is the word Sellouts? And what salaries are all of these people making who are komen and going into that foundation? Its kind of like Iran. The Iranians talk about a nuclear energy program but they have not broken ground to build the nuclear power plant. The Komen for the Cure is just a fishy.
What Gene said. A trial transcript or footnote in a ruling is not a scientific study. There are over1,600 professional journals being published in medicine and science. They are always looking for sound scientific content. One should not have to base opinions on shaky data in a thirteen year old paid advertisement.
Does anyone have a clue as to how many cutting edge research articles have been published in medical and biological science journals since 1999? I don’t, but it runs into the tens of thousands. If there was anything there, somebody would know about it.
Best evidence. Everyone ought to have some.
OS,
that is a great graphic!
Like you said OS, this study is an advertisement as stated clearly at the bottom of the article.
At the end of the Third Quarter, Kindley fumbles the ball! Drumm scoops it up, and suddenly wants to buy something pink…
OS: Great sign! On billboards across the country, please.