Hey : Discussion Board soFeminine

I dont know if you have the patience for this, and sorry the fund raising foundation I mentioned earlier is Susan Komen, not Susan Coleman (Got my info from the radio, then did some research).

The pro abort groups maintain that women who have breast cancer are more likely to truthfully fess up to an abortion than women who are not sick. This is why (they say) that there 'appears' to be a link.

Even though a rat study demonstrated that more aborted rats exposed to the carcinogen, DMBA, develop breast cancer than virgin rats and rats having full term pregnancies. As one researcher sarcastically observed, rats dont give interviews, so that excludes the possibility that they furnished faulty reports of their abortion histories. [5]

also Tang et al. 2000 matched medical records with womens reports of their abortion histories to check for accuracy in reporting and concluded: "The authors' data do not suggest that controls (healthy women) are more reluctant to report a history of induced abortion than are women with breast cancer." [3]

Even though Melbye et al. 1997, a study anti-cancer groups and the abortion industry sing the praises of, fulfilled one of the six criteria used by scientists to determine a causal relationship. The study found a dose effect - meaning, the longer a woman is overexposed to estrogen before her abortion takes place, the greater her risk. [6]

Even though the Journal of the National Cancer Institute says breast cancer rates have risen precipitously - more than 40% since the procedure was legalized in 1973. The upturn has occurred exclusively among the women of the Roe v. Wade generation, not among older women. In 1973 the lifetime risk for the average American woman was 1 in 12. Now its 1 in 8. [8]

WHAT ANTI-CANCER GROUPS SAY ABOUT THE LINK

A conventional definition of scientific misconduct is to omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or represents a material falsehood. Anti-cancer groups continue to rely on report bias theory to dismiss 29 studies reporting risk elevations, despite the complete lack of evidence that the phenomenon even exists in the ABC research. Their websites, moreover, dont provide a comprehensive list of the ABC studies. As a matter of fact, the citations they use are often almost exclusively limited to the much smaller number of studies they favor - the ones reporting no increased risk.

For instance, the Komen Foundation identifies three large cohort studies in support of its allegations that abortion does not cause breast cancer: Melbye et al. 1997, Harris et al. 1989 and the Iowa Womens Health Study. [9] Melbye et al. is strongly favored by all anti-cancer groups, although it has been shown to have misclassified 60,000 women whod had abortions as not having had abortions. Its researchers, furthermore, started counting cases of breast cancer recorded during a five year period before abortions were recorded. One quarter of the studys subjects were under age 25 - far too young for many to have developed the disease - and some were teenagers as young as age 14.

As for the Harris et al. study cited by Komen, it was proven in 1998 that this group of researchers covered up an abortion-breast cancer link among Norwegian women. [10,11] Its the same group which originally proposed the concept of report bias which has been widely used to discredit ABC studies. It is the group which in 1991, when its researchers tested for evidence of report bias, absurdly found 7 breast cancer patients who said theyd had abortions, but which the computer said theyd never had. The team found itself in the embarrassing position of having to argue that the 7 women either lied or over reported their abortions. [12] Consequently, in 1998 they withdrew their claim of having found credible evidence of report bias. [4]

Lazovich et al., one of the published reports of data from the Iowa Womens Health Study, reported a non-statistically significant 10% positive increase in risk. Lazovich et al. suffered from a low 42.7% participation rate. Fewer than half of the women randomly chosen to participate in the study responded to the studys recruitment questionnaire. The study subjects were between ages 55 and 69. Since all of the women in the study whod had abortions would have done so before legalization in 1973, they would be the ones most inclined not to respond to the questionnaire. Furthermore, 76% of the women in the study were excluded because of their histories of breast cancer. Although the purpose of the study was to follow the subjects breast cancer rates over time after the study began, its researchers were negligent not to have recorded the abortions among the breast cancer survivors kicked out of the study. [13]

The National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) has deceptions on its website as well which we documented in our August 21, 2002 press release. [14] The NBCC even goes so far as to cite a study by a well known abortionist, David Grimes, M.D., who has a long record of attempts to debunk the ABC research in the United Nations and elsewhere. [15]

The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation website claims there is no relationship between abortion and the disease, but provides no support for its statement. Its website says, Abortion, either miscarriage or voluntary, does not have an effect on cancer risk. [16] This is a half truth. Miscarriages, generally, do not increase risk, whereas abortions do.

The American Cancer Society says on its website: Research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between breast cancer and abortion. . . .No link has been found between breast cancer and miscarriage or stillbirths. The research is not quite so clear with induced abortions and breast cancer.

On the contrary, there is staggering biological and epidemiological evidence of a causal relationship between abortion and the disease. A breast cancer surgeon affiliated with the Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine, Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., moreover, argues that the six criteria used by scientists to determine a causal relationship have been fulfilled. Four medical organizations have come to recognize the overwhelming significance of this research. [17]

The Societys website includes the falsehood that studies show report bias has been a problem with the studies reporting a positive increase in risk. The web page sings the obligatory praises of the Melbye et al. 1997 study which is greatly favored by the abortion industry. Finally, it implies that ideological viewpoint provides some basis for the positive scientific findings, as if ideology were at all relevant to the issue. [18]

References 1) Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4. 2) Lipworth et al. (1995) Int J Cancer 61:181-4. 3) Tang et al. (2000) Am J Epidemiol 151:1139-43. 4) Meirik et al. (1998) J Epidemiol Community Health 52:209. 5) Russo and Russo (1980) Am J Pathology 100:497-512. 6) Melbye et al. N Engl J Med 1997 Jan 9; 336(2):81-5. 7) Melbye et al. Br J Cancer 1999 May;80(3-4):609-13. 8) Howe et al. (June 6, 2001) JNCI, Vol. 93. No. 11. 9) Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation website: <http://www.komen.org/bci/abc/dc/dc_11.asp> 10) Harris et al. (1989) British Med J 299:1430-2. 11) Brind et al. (1998) J Epidemiol Community Health 52:209-11. 12) Lindefors-Harris et al. (1991) Am J Epidemiol 134: 1003-1008. 13) Lazovich et al. (2000) Epidemiol 11:76-80. 14) Press Release, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, National Breast Cancer Coalition Chided for Politicizing Abortion-Breast Cancer Research, Attempts to Intimidate US Rep. Hostettler, August 21, 2002; <www.AbortionBreastCancer.c om>. 15) Bartholomew LL, Grimes DA. (1998) Obstet Gynecol Surv 53(11):708-14. 16) Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation website: <http://www.cbcf.org/what.html>

This week Special Food & Drink : recipes from A to Z, by country, by duration, by type.
auFeminin Group:	auFeminin - enFemenino - alFemminile - goFeminin - soFeminine - Teemix - Joyce - Voyage Bons Plans - Santé AZ - Marmiton - Marmikid - Tiboo - Recettes de Valérie - Noms de famille - Toutes les villes - Parcours-Gourmand - Onmeda
Info Sites:	Art Gallery - Artists - Polyphonic ringtones

Hey : Discussion Board soFeminine - 5 September