As expected, pro-aborts did not take well to my WorldNetDaily.com column this week, "Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link."
In "The truth about breast cancer and abortion," RH Reality Check's managing editor Amie Newman relied heavily on one of the researchers publishing the study - to dispute the results of her own study:
According to one of the researchers and authors of the report, Kathi Malone (pictured right), "There are no new findings related to induced abortion in this paper because the results of these women were published previously."...
Dr. Brinton's co-researcher and co-author, Kathi Malone, is clear about what this and all peer-reviewed studies show thus far on the link between abortion and breast cancer: "The weight of scientific evidence to date strongly indicates that abortion doesn't increase the risk of breast cancer."...
As an aside, Louise Brinton's name is key in all this because she's the National Cancer Institute researcher who chaired the infamous 2003 panel of experts that concluded there was no abortion/breast cancer link.
Both are indeed listed as authors the study about which Newman is disputing, and importantly, Brinton identified herself with the NCI (click to enlarge)...
Newman wrote about Brinton...
But what is not true is that Dr. Louise Brinton has "changed" her position on the link between abortion and breast cancer, at least publicly, because there is no new information on this link.
So the first obvious question is, are Malone and Brinton calling the study bearing their name erroneous? (Read study pdf here.) Are they denying these words from their own study, from the bottom of page 1160 and top of page 1161 (click to enlarge)?
...and this, bottom of page 1162 and top of page 1163, from her own study (click to enlarge)?
Note this statement not only confirms that breast cancer is linked to abortion in the current study, it agrees with previous studies that came to the same conclusion.
Newman reiterated over and over that this study concluded nothing new as far as the ABC link was concerned, even quoting Malone, as I mentioned above, which leads me to wonder if Malone even read her own study. Newman wrote, for instance (italic emphasis hers)...
The only problem with reporting on this as if anything were new is that, well, nothing is new.
This paper simply took older information....
In fact, the only reason abortion was included at all was because it was a factor in the old studies....
Again, the study results released last year, on which Dr. Brinton was a researcher, do not include any new information on the overall risk of breast cancer among women who have had abortions....
[T]here is no new information....
Extremist, religious anti-choice web sites are using old data from an old study as proof of a cause and effect relationship even while the NCI and one of the study's own authors clearly state that over the course of years of research, including those old studies, overall evidence indicates no connection between the 2....
Newman is simply wrong.
Triple-negative breast cancer was only first described in published papers in 2007. It is an extremely aggressive form of breast cancer with a poor prognosis. It strikes women under 45, often African-American.
For this study researchers tested 897 saved cancerous breast tissue from 1,286 previously studied cases for triple-negative breast cancer. (See also the "Results" blurb above.) One reason? To assess "reproductive history" as it may relate (click to enlarge)...
The results concluded abortion raises the risk of triple-negative breast cancer by a ratio of 1.4, or 40%, the same as other breast cancers. This makes sense, given the etiology of breast cancer due to abortion (click to enlarge)...
A huge new finding of this study was that oral contraceptives are highly suspect as causers of triple-negative breast cancer. Newman noted in her close that this study "lay[s] the groundwork for... a possible connection between oral contraceptives and triple negative breast cancer."
This is absolutely true.
So a few questions.
Why did Newman so readily accept this study's conclusions on the contraceptive-breast cancer link but not the abortion-breast cancer link?
And where in the world has the National Cancer Institute been in the 9 months since this bombshell study was published on the contraceptive/cancer link? Is it again being held hostage by feminist ideologues?
Newman blamed "[e]xtremist, religious anti-choice web sites" as fanning the flames by broadcasting this study.
But Newman's problem isn't with us. Her problem is with the NCI, Brinton, Malone, and liberal feminists.
Oooh, those scary "extremist religious anti-choicers" with their positions based in biological fact and sound medical research! The horror!Posted by: Kelsey at January 15, 2010 9:51 AM
"Why did Newman so readily accept this study's conclusions on the contraceptive-breast cancer link but not the abortion-breast cancer link?"
Because the study was looking at the link between oral contraceptives and this particular type of breast cancer, not a link between abortion and breast cancer.
"So the first obvious question is, are Malone and Brinton calling the study bearing their name erroneous?"
Considering they are the scientists who actually performed the study, I would take their word over a blogger's. What is your background in science? What qualifications do you have to interpret the tables in the study?
Is the PDF you posted here the full study? If so, do you have permission to post it, free of charge? Don't you have to pay to get a copy of it? Are you violating the Journal's copyright? Or are you posting incomplete or fake information?
I'm not a scientist, but when the scientists who conduct the study tell me what they found, I am, strangely enough, inclined to believe them. (I tend to do that when experts say things about their area of expertise.)
How can you claim your position is based on "medical research" (as Kelsey claimed above) when you refuse to acknowledge what the scientists who conducted that medical research says??Posted by: Criss at January 15, 2010 11:12 AM
Ok, so no *new data* has been found.
What's new, then, is the *analysis* of the old data. Either the old analysis is correct and there's no link, or the new analysis is correct and there's a link. (Or they're both wrong.)
Given the that obvious fact, perhaps the question that should be asked to Ms. Newman is, "What's wrong with the new analysis?"Posted by: Mtm at January 15, 2010 11:59 AM
Apologies -- my last sentence should read: "Given that obvious fact, perhaps the question that should be asked to Ms. Newman is, "What's wrong with the new analysis?"Posted by: Mtm at January 15, 2010 12:01 PM
Scientists and researchers, because their human, have a tendency to want to read their own biased conclusions into studies they perform, even when it is not supported by the data. That's why all good researchers always have their studies reviewed by independent peers as a sanity check.
The data is pretty obvious. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that a 40% increase in triple-negative breast cancer in women who have had abortions compared with the control group indicates a link.
If you're a pro-choice scientist you've already seared your conscience by lying to yourself, denying the fact that abortion kills an innocent, developing human being. It's not a big stretch to deny that a 40% increase in a very dangerous form of breast cancer observed in women having abortions is indicative.
Particularly if you are a "doctor" or an organization like Planned Parenthood that can make a lot of money killing little unborn boys and girls.
Who cares if women are dying or losing their breasts?
There's $$$ to be made!Posted by: Ed at January 15, 2010 12:32 PM
The fact that the NCI has been silent on this issue is unconscionable.
They have betrayed the public's trust. The deception continues to this day and women are paying an enormous price with their health and their lives.
It's similar in practice to the MSM refusing to acknowledge, publicize or report on the corruption at ACORN, but the consequences are far worse.
Yes, ACORN is an insidious, corrupt organization, that has defrauded taxpayers millions of dollars and has helped many politicians of questionable character get into office, by hook or by crook.
What the National Cancer Institute is doing, as an institution entrusted with the responsibility of watching out for our nation's health, is dereliction of duty.
And women are dying.Posted by: Ed at January 15, 2010 12:54 PM
Criss, This is Jill Staneks blog, and This is a free country, and I think she is permitted to post what what ever she wishes! If you don't like what she's posting, then don't read this blog!And not only that, She is an exlent colomnist, unlike your proabort friend at MSNBC, and that Christian bashing Godless Keth Olbermon! Jill, this is your blog! RJPosted by: RJ Sandefur at January 15, 2010 6:06 PM
Criss's real issue with this blog (some writing from Criss):
I also hesitate to post it because of the language used (which is the language anti-choicers use all the time). We all know that a fetus has the potential to develop into a baby, but the fetus is not a baby. And it's not an "unborn baby," any more than I am an undead corpse; it is a developing fetus, one that could develop complications (or maybe already has). It is a parasite.
A baby is a living, breathing, autonomous human being (dependent, but autonomous -- it breathes on its own, eats and digests on its own. It can't hold the bottle, but it sucks and swallows and digests all on its own. For the purposes of this specific situation, that's an autonomous being); a baby has already been born and it is no longer part of the "incubator," no longer attached to them and dependent solely on them for survival -- a baby is dependent on someone, but since it is not attached to any one person's uterus, any other person, besides the person from whose uterus it came, can assume the caretaker role.
Many people who have an abortion do want children, and love children and babies, but for a wide variety of reasons, cannot carry that pregnancy to term at that point in their life. Therefore the flippant talk of babies and nurseries in the Onion video, as if the fetus were already a baby, can be triggering for those people who had to make a difficult choice -- for their sake and the sake of that potential child.
...I think I'm just overly-sensitive to that language. It's not "political correct-ness," it's suggestive language (I'm not getting the right words... calling a fetus a baby bugs me.)Posted by: xalisae at January 15, 2010 6:24 PM
Carla can help you, Criss.Posted by: xalisae at January 15, 2010 6:29 PM
Grand Slam Jill!!
I borowed from you pdf clippings and slammed the authors hard as researchers over at my place.
This is war!
GerryPosted by: Gerard Nadal at January 15, 2010 6:32 PM
Sorry about the multiple posts. I'm on a nasty old computer.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at January 15, 2010 6:35 PM
We have BABY showers, not "fetus" showers.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at January 15, 2010 6:41 PM
My unborn niece is NOT a "Fetus". She is an unborn baby just waiting to be born at the end of April.
This is obviously another post-abortive mother lashing out. I'm just in terrible awe at the deranged nature which seems to overtake people in the aftermath of abortion. Looking at the post-abortive women here (Megan, Ashley), and the abortion survivors (Artemis, SoMG)...I'm just starting to find it all so disturbing.Posted by: xalisae at January 15, 2010 7:50 PM
You people are being rude to Criss and awfully insensitive. You don't know her or anything about her. Show some respect and treat her like a person. Yeah, you disagree with her about abortion, but that's no reason to bash her in such self-righteous ways. Have a little heart!Posted by: Bekah Ferguson at January 15, 2010 8:00 PM
Her blog told me all I need to know. I did little else than to bring her own words here for all to see, so she can stop pretending to be objective.Posted by: xalisae at January 15, 2010 8:55 PM
"A baby is a living, breathing, autonomous human being (dependent, but autonomous -- it breathes on its own, eats and digests on its own. It can't hold the bottle, but it sucks and swallows and digests all on its own."
There are many babies who cannot do these things after they are born...so we don't call them babies? They are not "human beings"?
Your logic is flawed...time you realize that the Truth shall set you free also.Posted by: ann marie at January 15, 2010 11:07 PM
xalisae - you did call her and other post-abortive mothers "deranged" which is pretty insensitive. We all come from different walks in life. "Deceived" would be a better word to use in this case. :)Posted by: Bekah Ferguson at January 16, 2010 8:58 AM
Gerard, thanks very much.
All, I've been having a continuing debate with NYCprochoiceMD, etc., at RH Reality Check if you'd like to read more:Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 16, 2010 9:13 AM
Posted by: Ed at January 15, 2010 12:32 PM
Who cares if women are dying or losing their breasts?
My wife is woman and I kind of like her and her breasts.
I would not want to lose one any of the three.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at January 16, 2010 9:30 AM
Posted by: xalisae at January 15, 2010 6:24 PM
I think I'm just overly-sensitive to that language. It's not "political correct-ness," it's suggestive language (I'm not getting the right words... calling a fetus a baby bugs me.)
Like the message we used to get on the screen during the old B&W TV days,
'The problem is not with your set.'
The problem is with YOU.
Mass muderin muslims have problems with recognizing the humanity of Jews.
There are some 'white supremecist' bigots in this country who are 'bugged' by people who insist on referring to non-aryans as 'human'.
Everyone knows non-Aryans are at least 'less' human.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac
at January 16, 2010 9:43 AM
Ready. Fire! Aim.
Friendly fire warning.
I apologize xalisae. I confused myself again.
mea culpa, pedrdoname, forgive me.
Time out for yor bro ken.
I have to re-boot my brain by kicking myself in the buttocks.
I was not only wrong. I was bad.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at January 16, 2010 9:50 AM
correction previous post at 9:43am by kbhvac should have been aimed, directed, addressed to
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at January 16, 2010 9:54 AM
Have you been reading the posts from these people, Bekah? I can think of no better term than "deranged" with the amount of anger and venom spewed either at us or directly at gestating human beings themselves. If they were/are simply deceived, there wouldn't be anger involved.Posted by: xalisae at January 16, 2010 10:47 AM
And, no worries, Ken. After I wrote the post, I realized that I had failed to alter the author's text in any way and it might be rather confusing to readers. I just want pro-aborts to be labeled as what they are before they start grasping at straws trying to refute the abortion/breast cancer link, as they are frenziedly doing right now.Posted by: xalisae at January 16, 2010 10:54 AM
The 'studies' have been skewed for years. The link between the pill and later cancers is there and it is frightening. But the demonic agenda wants not only the early death of conceived children in their first days but also the later physical death of the mother later. Only God knows how many chemical abortions there are.
And how many spiritual deaths as well.Posted by: Magdalene at January 17, 2010 7:15 PM
xalisae - I think the anger arises from the deception. For one thing, imagine how horrifying it would be to realize and/or come to terms with the fact that you ended the life of a real human being - your child. Who could bear to acknowledge that? So they defend abortion left right and center to appease their conscience. Secondly, because they are deceived, they genuinely believe that prolifers don't care about women, and this makes them furiously defend the "rights" of women.
So, I wouldn't go so far as to call them deranged. If only the deception could be removed and they could put all their fighting power and passion toward the prolife cause - imagine them then. Would you call them deranged then? :) They are just zealous, you know? And for those who are post-abortive, they have to justify what they've done else risk post-traumatic stress disorder which really could lead to severe mental illness if untreated.Posted by: Bekah Ferguson at January 18, 2010 8:27 AM
Thank you so much for your comment. I totally agree.