Tag Archives: Joel Brind

New York City’s Class I carcinogenic mayor

Guest post by Joel Brind, Ph.D.

We could all go along happily with his anti-smoking crusade. After all, everybody knows cigarette smoking – and maybe even second-hand smoke – causes cancer.

Then there was the elimination of trans-fat. Well, okay, there’s some evidence that’s bad for you, and no one could taste the difference if a food has any in it or not.

Then we started getting a bit more troubled: We don’t get to choose how much salt content or the volume of a soft drink we can buy? But we still managed to chuckle a bit at the new restrictions on bottle-feeding infants in hospitals. At least we all know it is better for babies to be breast fed. So we could still be amused at our “Nanny Bloomberg,” for we could be sure of at least one thing: All those things he has mandated are beneficial to human health.

But now our nanny mayor wants to give our school children – orally and by injection, without parental knowledge or consent – cancer-causing steroid drugs.

Say what!? You read that right: cancer-causing steroid drugs. You thought “the pill” was harmless, right? Just a little bit of harmless hormones, to stem the tide of costly, unhealthy teen pregnancy. Sorry, “hormonal contraceptives” are indeed cancer-causing steroid drugs. Who says so? Why, the World Health Organization says so, but why pay any attention to them? They’re only class 1 carcinogens for breast cancer, cervical cancer and liver cancer, according to the WHO.

And the reason I put “hormonal contraceptives” in quotes is that it is not true. The pill contains no hormones – artificial or otherwise. They are steroid drugs that act like hormones (hormone agonists, to be professionally precise). In fact, hormones would not work as a pill, so they have to be synthetic drugs. In fact, they are really the same type of steroid drugs that professional athletes can go to jail for taking. They are just the female version (which makes the breasts grow), rather than the male version (which makes muscles grow).

If you read the small print on the package insert for “the pill,” you will find increased risk of stroke, because these steroids can cause blood clots. But cancer? How long have researchers known that? Not too long. The first high-profile, peer-reviewed paper that documented the increased risk of breast cancer was just published in 1987, only a quarter-century ago. Of course there have been scores of papers since then.

But what about the more modern injectable form, the “depo” that is also included in the Mayor’s plan for NYC schoolgirls? Isn’t that safer, since it contains no estrogenic drugs?

Yeah, they are newer, and it takes years for stuff to cause cancer. So the first good study in the peer-reviewed medical literature just came out a few months back. A prominent, National Cancer Institute-funded group just published their findings: Yes indeed, “depo” significantly increases the risk of breast cancer…

I think Mayor Bloomberg should certainly have known about all this. But even if all his politically correct wizards of smart conveniently ignored the cancer risks of contraceptive steroids, he could have just called me. After all, I’ve been a full-time professor on the faculty of Hizzoner’s own City University of New York, teaching human biology and endocrinology for almost 27 years now (and researching steroid hormones and drugs for more than 30 years).

Seriously Mr. Mayor, if you really want our city’s citizens to be healthier – not sicker – please, call me!

Readers are encouraged to forward this post to the mayor’s office. Just maybe it will wake him up. Here’s the link to his contact page.

What every pro-lifer (esp Mitt Romney) should know about Tim Pawlenty

Guest post by Joel Brind, Ph.D.

He may or may not be on Mitt Romney’s short list for VP, but journalists always seem to have his name near the top of their list. At least Tim Pawlenty’spro-life credentials are reliable, right?

Well if you ask me, the view from under the Pawlenty bus ain’t so pretty.

As you may know, I have been researching and trying to bring into public awareness the abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link) for twenty years with some success, no thanks to Gov. Pawlenty.

Oh sure, in 2003 he signed into law the Women’s Right to Know law that required informed consent before abortion, the law previous Gov. Jesse Ventura had vetoed. And yes, Minnesota is one of only a handful of states that specifically mentions breast cancer as one of the medical risks of abortion explicitly in the statute. And yes, under Gov. Pawlenty’s watch in 2003, and according to the new law, a “handbook” for pregnant women was posted on the Minnesota Dept. of Health website to explain the facts about pregnancy and the risks of childbirth and abortion, including increased risk of breast cancer with abortion.

But something else had also happened in 2003 that soon affected what showed up on Pawlenty’s decision desk.

Under pro-life Congressional pressure to acknowledge the ABC link (in the form of a letter signed by no less than 28 Representatives) the National Cancer Institute held a 3-day “workshop” to review the evidence. In reality, it was a political charade designed to give the NCI’s official imprimatur to the denial of the ABC link. (As one of 100 invited experts, I was a participant and the sole dissenter from the official denial. Read my minority report here.

The official denial of the ABC link by the corrupt federal bureaucrats at the NCI cast a worldwide pall over efforts to educate the public, to be sure, but who would expect that pressure from the organization that represents the abortionists would sway a pro-life governor to pull the ABC link info from his state’s informational website?

Yet that’s exactly what happened, as a letter from the CEO of the Minnesota Medical Society, Robert Meiches, was all it took for Gov. Pawlenty to summarily delete the ABC link info from the state Dept. of Health website.

But lest the reader rush to Pawlenty’s defense, as one who does not have the requisite expertise to determine which side was correct about the existence of the ABC link (although one might expect him to defer to his own majority voices in both houses of the state legislature!), his willful avoidance of being educated on the issue was telling indeed.

You see, one of the state legislators who had sponsored the new law, Tim Wilkin, knew the governor well, and contacted me in New York to see if I was willing to give the governor a briefing on the subject, as he knew of the Meiches letter and Pawlenty’s consideration of doing Meiches’ bidding. I absolutely was willing – and told Wilkin so – to make the trip to Minnesota at my own expense to do so, anytime that the Governor was available.

But alas, as Wilkin informed me subsequently, Gov. Pawlenty was not interested in learning about the ABC link, and rather summarily yanked the ABC link info from the informational website handbook for pregnant women.

Today, the Minnesota Dept. of Health website’s handbook for pregnant women is even worse, carrying the NCI party line. It cites the phony NCI “workshop” consensus and an additional high profile (but fraudulent) review by a group at Oxford University, which, according to the website, “also indicated there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.” (Check out this website, which also shows links to summaries of the NCI report and the Oxford paper.).

Meanwhile, in the years since 2004, many more studies have come out which support the reality of the ABC link. Several are ironically from despotic nations such as China and Iran, and one American study, published in 2009, was actually co-authored by NCI official Louise Brinton (pictured left). Brinton was actually the official who orchestrated the phony 2003 “workshop” that essentially banished the ABC link from the public mind, valid scientific evidence – even her own – be damned.

So the end result in Minnesota is that a law which was intended to warn women about the dangers of abortion, instead falsely reassures them of abortion’s alleged long-term safety.

Thank you, Tim Pawlenty. At least now we know that when push comes to shove, he will defer to the federal bureaucracy and the abortionists’ rep. Not exactly the kind of official who could be relied upon to say, defund Planned Parenthood.

Seems to me Mr. Romney has some much better genuinely pro-life veep candidates to choose from.

Playing pro-life political chess

Guest post by Joel Brind, Ph.D.

Many pro-lifers don’t trust Rick Santorum because of his 2004 support of Arlen Specter for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania in the 2004 primary election.

On its face, it appears that Rick wandered off the reservation and put party before life by endorsing pro-abortion Specter against pro-life Pat Toomey.

Specter beat Toomey by only 1%, and many pro-lifers blame Santorum, a fact to some extent responsible for the 18-point shellacking Santorum got in the 2008 general election for his Senate re-election. (The magnitude of that defeat is often cited as the main reason why it has taken so long for Santorum to gain traction in the current Presidential primary race.)

When Santorum is asked about this, he steadfastly maintains that he came down in 2004 – and always has – on the side of life, and that his decision was no mistake. Can this be so? Let’s take a detailed look at what happened.

Continue reading