-Caveat Lector- Scientific Evidence Ignored in Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Source: Chicago Tribune; July 2, 2001 [Note: The following article is by Chicago Tribune columnist Dennis Byrne. Mr. Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public affairs consultant.] When I wrote about a possible link between induced abortions and increased risk of breast cancer, I simply was suggesting that women have a right to know about the scientific evidence. Turns out we're not even supposed to talk about it, according to some indignant responses to my May 21 column. Just discussing it is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Disappointingly, some of this sentiment came from "scientists," who should know better. In general, they said, it was not enough to count up studies. Naturally, that had nothing to do with the fact that most studies establish a link between breast cancer and induced abortions. In science, the majority doesn't rule, they said. That's true, and I hope they send the same message to those who insist the global warming question is "settled" because "most mainstream scientists" agree that it is. Some of my critics wanted to argue from authority. We can do that, if we include a British authority, Thomas Stuttaford. A year ago he denied the existence of a "causative link" between abortion and breast cancer but then changed his mind, noting that among the 33,000 British women diagnosed with breast cancer each year, "an unusually high proportion had an abortion before eventually starting a family. Such women are up to four times more likely to develop breast cancer." So let's discuss the science itself. Among the few studies cited by those who don't want a public debate on the abortion-breast cancer link is the "Melbye" study. This supposedly trumps all other studies because it included every woman born in Denmark between 1935 and l978--1.5 million--more than 400,000 abortions and more than 10,000 cases of breast cancer. Its supporters say it proved that induced abortions "have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer." But just as the volume of studies do not automatically make a scientific premise correct, neither do large numbers of participants, as in the Melbye study. Cancer researcher Joel Brind (who produced an analysis supporting the ABC link) argues that Melbye is critically flawed: It only started logging abortions in 1973 and began logging breast cancer cases from 1968--a five-year difference. That left out 300 cases of breast cancer from the study that should have been included. It also left out as many as 80,000 abortions, but the 60,000 women who had them were included in the study. Why? The excuse was that Denmark legalized the right to an induced abortion through 12 weeks gestation in 1973. I say "excuse" because abortion rights had been incrementally liberalized in Denmark as far back as 1939. The study is, in a word, garbage. With 80,000 abortions expunged from the records, it's no wonder they said they found no ABC link, even though the numbers showed a 44 percent increased risk. To rid the conclusion of even that, they came up with a "cohort adjustment," which, to oversimplify, tried to explain away the link by adjusting for age differences. Unfortunately for the study's authors it didn't work, Brind said. When you cut through it all, not only do you find an ABC link, but in Denmark induced abortion is a particularly strong risk factor--somewhere between double or triple the risk, especially for those with a family history of cancer. This family history effect was found in another study by Janet Daling, in which 900 women with breast cancer were compared with a control group of 900 other women. This risk was particularly strong for a first abortion that occurred before age 18. Critics of the study say it is flawed by "recall bias"--apparently meaning that women's recollections of having an abortion were mistaken or deceptive. Specifically, that women with breast cancer made up abortions that they didn't have. One last study, not mentioned by critics of the ABC link: The "Adelaide" (Australia) study found several risk factors in breast cancer but didn't mention abortion. That stayed in the file cabinet because it showed a 160 percent increased ABC risk. This data wasn't made public until it was uncovered by another researcher. No one suggests that every woman who has breast cancer had an abortion; or that every woman who has had an abortion will get breast cancer. But the scientific evidence of an ABC link is growing stronger, and a paternalistic and self-serving abortion industry should not be trying to hide it from women. -- http://www.roevwade.org <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
