New Stanek WND column, “Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link”
In February 2003, Dr. Louise Brinton (pictured lower right), the National Cancer Institute’s chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, served as chairperson at an NCI workshop in Bethesda, MD, to assess whether abortion was implicated as a breast cancer risk.
In the opinion of “over 100 of the world’s leading experts,” said the subsequent NCI report, including Dr. Brinton, the answer was no….
At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but NCI workshop “experts” nevertheless concluded it was “well established” that “induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”…
Life went on, except for post-abortive women inflicted with breast cancer anyway.
But 6 years later something happened. Dr. Brinton either flipped her lid, flipped ideologies, restudied the evidence and decided to recant, or couldn’t sleep at night – and she began righting her wrong….
Continue reading my column today, “Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link,” at WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Our movement must find a way to use this to drive a long overdue stake through he heart of the abortion crime industry.
Maybe a class action lawsuit?
Any pro-life activist lawyers interested in pursuing this?
If this is relentlessly pursued, it could save the lives of staggering numbers of unborn children.
And their mothers, too.
Terrific article, Jill!
Informed consent if your state has these laws should include this information. I won’t hold my breath.
Thanks, preg-o Beth-o!
Yet another example of ideological ‘science’. Add it to Darwinian evolution and ‘climate change’ and you have a religious system that will not allow any opposition, regardless of what the data say.
Has this been picked up by any national news outlets? TV, Cable or print?
Also, the line from the pro-abort is laughable “bad science from the anti-choice media”. Really now, the isn’t all media pro-abort? And the answer to my question above will tell all.
Posted by: Joe at January 13, 2010 11:51 AM
If this is relentlessly pursued, it could save the lives of staggering numbers of unborn children.
————————————————–
It could also prevent a lot of unanticipated misery for post abortive women.
I know if my doc told me having a vasectomy would increase my risk for testicular cancer, it would give me pause for thought before I gave my consent for the elective sugery.
yor bro ken
Jeez Jill,
Your blog is riddled with errors.
For the second time, I did not quote the NCI (or RHRealityCheck) I quoted the ACS.
I know facts are hard for the anti-choice movement to handle but you really need to fix that.
The link, in case you missed it, is here: http://www.tinyurl.com/ACSABC
If you’re going to continue quoting me, please do it accurately.
Love,
Rabble
http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/
That link should work, and it’s pretty apparent how the author of the editorial manipulated Rabble’s statement. Clever indeed.
Oh, and I read Janet Daling’s ever-so-dramatized “admission.” Oh Lord, she really did capitulate to the pro-life position. If you’re going to report on something, why sensationalize? First, the article, “Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years,” focuses on women from the eighties, and black women at that. The report is subject to recall bias, since women might have been less willing to report a previous abortion (if they didn’t have breast cancer) given the highly politicized nature of the issue, PARTICULARLY in black communities. While Daling finds a potential ASSOCIATION between breast cancer and abortion (and any moron knows the difference between association and causation), the association is not statistically significant for the type of abortion (triple negative) on which her study focuses (CI: .9-2.2). Hmm.
So much for the triumphant defeat. Tell me, what does Joel Brind actually do besides criticize other people’s meta-analyses? Has he published anything of worth within the last ten years or so?
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.