|
The Cover-Up
Risk Factors
Breast Cancer Prevention
Information Withheld from Women
Flawed Research Used
to Discredit ABC Link
Canadian Research Needed
Why the Cover-up
If you were to survey the information
available on the risk factors for developing breast cancer,
you would learn that 70% of women who are diagnosed with
breast cancer have no known risk factors. Many websites
offer information on the known biological and lifestyle
risk factors and advise women how to protect themselves
from breast cancer. Most well recognized risk factors are
related to an increased exposure of breast tissues to estrogen.
Induced abortion also leads to an increase in estrogen exposure.
Yet, because of the controversial nature of induced abortion,
most information sources, from government and cancer agencies,
to media, to medical personnel, omit mentioning this preventable
risk factor. Women are being kept in the dark about this
issue, and are paying for this imposed censorship with their
very lives.
Risk Factors
Well-recognized Risk Factors:
• age
• genetics
• family history
• early menarche or late menopause
• obesity
• high-fat diet
• hormone replacement therapy
• use of oral contraceptives
• delayed first full-term pregnancy
• nulliparity /or childlessness
Unconfirmed Risk factors
• use of underwire bras
• breast implants
• anti-perspirants,
• eating French fries between the ages of 3 to 5 years
of age
Obvious Risk Factor that is Ignored
There is one risk factor that is repeatedly ignored, which
could account for a large percentage of the "unexplained"
cases of breast cancer: induced abortion.
It is left out of the debate even though over 50 scientific
studies have documented the association in medical journals,
the first as early as 1957. For almost 50 years, evidence
of the link between abortion and breast cancer has surfaced
in medical literature worldwide but has yet to be seriously
considered by the mainstream medical and scientific communities.
This is unconscionable.
Back to the top of the
page
Breast Cancer Prevention
Information Withheld from Women
Women are constantly being warned to watch their diets,
limit their alcohol consumption, keep their weight down,
quit smoking and breastfeed their babies, but are not told
about the single most avoidable risk factor of breast cancer:
induced abortion. Before consenting to have an abortion,
women deserve to be told the truth about the procedure.
Some women may choose not to have an abortion because of
the implicated health risks. Of course, not all women who
have abortions will develop breast cancer later in life;
however, anyone who has undergone the procedure deserves
information on the link and should be encouraged to seek
regular, early screening for breast cancer. Early detection
and diagnosis leads to a better outcome and a better chance
for a full recovery. Women deserve the opportunity and legal
right to make fully informed choices about their health
and lives.
Back to the top of the
page
Flawed Research
Used to Discredit ABC Link
Many organizations which have chosen not to disclose abortion
as a risk factor for breast cancer either cite studies that
are seriously flawed, or attribute increased breast cancer
risk following abortion to "reporting bias," a
theory which has been tested many times and discounted.
The US National Cancer Institute which denies the link between
abortion and breast cancer is often quoted as well. However,
the National Cancer Institute took this position in 2003
after a “workshop” of invited experts in which
the evidence supporting the ABC link was not allowed to
be presented.
A review of the flawed studies follows:
2004 Lancet article
A major review (“collaborative reanalysis”)
of the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link data which was
published in the Lancet in 2004 claimed to have disproved
the ABC link. However, the study by Valerie Beral and colleagues
of the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast
Cancer omitted for non-scientific reasons 15 studies showing
the ABC link, i.e.:
a. “principal investigators ... could not be traced”
b. “original data could not be retrieved”
c. “researchers declined to take part in the collaboration”
d. “principal investigators judged their own information
on induced abortion to be unreliable” (even though
they had gone through peer review and been published)
or
e. no reason at all.
A combination of all the inappropriately excluded studies
show an 80% increased risk of breast cancer following induced
abortion. Despite the conclusion of the Lancet “reanalysis”
that abortions “do not increase a woman’s risk
of developing breast cancer”, the study only achieved
this result after the illicit exclusion noted above, and
only after comparing women having an abortion to their “never
having had that pregnancy”. “Never having had
that pregnancy” is not an option for a pregnant woman!!
Danish study
Many public health authorities still refer to a 1997 study
on women in Denmark, published in the New England Journal
of Medicine, as disproving the ABC link, because the study
was so large (1.5 million women including over 300,000 abortions
and over 10,000 cases of breast cancer) and because it relied
on medical records of abortions (rather than patient interviews
or questionnaires). However, the Danish study has since
been discredited, because:
a. it misrepresented the year of abortion’s legalization
in Denmark at 1973 (instead of 1939), which resulted in
b. the misclassification of 60,000 women who had legal
abortions as not having had any abortions.
c. it used breast cancer diagnoses beginning in 1968 even
though it only included abortions from 1973 onward, thus
violating the most fundamental rule of scientific research,
i.e., cause must precede effect, thus further misclassifying
women in the study and further underestimating the effect
of abortion.
d. it actually did find a significant effect of abortion,
showing risk increased with increased gestational age
at abortion, such that women with abortion beyond 18 weeks
gestation were at almost double the risk, but the authors
did not include these findings among their “conclusions”.
For more information see resources listed
at the end of the section Reporting Bias.
Reporting Bias
Many public health authorities dismiss the majority of
evidence which does show the ABC link, as flawed because
of something called “reporting bias” ( aka “response
bias”or “recall bias”). This theory assumes
that women with breast cancer will report their abortion
history more accurately in an interview or on a questionnaire,
compared to healthy “control” women, who would
be more likely to lie about their abortions. Hence, some
only accept the findings of studies based on data collected
before anyone got breast cancer (called prospective data,
as opposed to retrospective data). However, the reporting
bias theory has been tested many times and found not to
exist in ABC link research.
The only study that ever claimed to have direct evidence
in favor of the reporting bias hypothesis (a 1991 study
by a Swedish, World Health Organization group) compared
interview data with medical records on the same Swedish
women. However, they found significant evidence of reporting
bias only when assuming that breast cancer patients had
“over-reported” abortions, i.e., reported having
had abortions that had never actually taken place! This
preposterous assumption of “over-reporting”
was retracted in a published letter in 1998, by the group
that had originally proposed it.
Please see the following articles for more
information on these studies and arguments used to discredit
the ABC link.
 Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Link That Won't Go Away - by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi
The Science, Studies and Sociology of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link - by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi
Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data - by Dr. Joel Brind
The
Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Revisited - by Angela Lanfranchi
The
Abortion-Breast Cancer Connection - by Dr. Joel Brind
The
Corruption of Science by Ideology - by Edward J. Furton
Also visit www.abortionbreastcancer.com for a more complete overview of The Cover-up.
Back to the top of the
page
Canadian Research
Needed
Many attempts have been made to reveal the fact that a
link between induced abortion and breast cancer both exists,
and is clearly demonstrated by numerous statistically significant
studies. In addition, a number of articles and letters have
been published explaining the flawed reasoning cited by
those who claim that the evidence is inconclusive. Yet,
governments, cancer research organizations, the media and
abortion rights advocacy groups continue to ignore the association
or downplay the risk. Women’s lives and health are
being affected by this attempt to cover-up the evidence.
Women need to have access to all the information available
so they can make fully informed decisions about their health.
Failure to warn women considering abortion about the undisputed
link between abortion and breast cancer violates any reasonable
standard of informed consent. That is why, in every instance
in which failure to warn about the abortion breast cancer
link in a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff has won
a substantial settlement: one case in Australia in 2002
(settled out of court), one in Philadelphia in 2003 (settled
out of court), and one in Portland, Oregon in 2005 (adjudicated
in favor of the plaintiff by the court when the respondent
admitted its liability and agreed to pay damages).
Canadian women need a concerted effort by Health Canada
and organizations dedicated to cancer research and prevention
to establish a Canadian study on the link between induced
abortion and breast cancer. LifeCanada and its members believe
that by using government health care records a definitive
study could be conducted. Canada is in a unique position
to study this association since it has provided tax-funded
abortions to women for over thirty-five years. A study based
on health insurance payment records would contribute greatly
to the debate and could not be accused of a reporting bias
since the medical history would be gleaned from government
payment records and not from women themselves.
To date, Health Canada and the Canadian cancer research
institutes either ignore the abortion breast cancer risk
or try to downplay it by saying there is no conclusive evidence.
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada list
all the known risks yet make no mention of the abortion/breast
cancer link. (see http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ccdpc-cpcmc/bc-cds/publications/reduce_e.html and www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/diseases-maladies/breast-sein_e.html)
Canadian Cancer Society
The Canadian Cancer Society lists abortion in its section
“Factors not associated with breast cancer”
and claims that in the case of “abortion or miscarriage:
many studies examining this relationship have had major
weaknesses”. (http://info.cancer.ca/E/CCE/cceexplorer.asp?tocid=10)
This comment from the Canadian Cancer Society is quite
surprising since their own website says they are “committed
to providing information about how to prevent or reduce
the risk of cancer. We use the best available scientific
evidence and the precautionary principle to develop this
information. The precautionary principle states:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human
health or the environment, precautionary measures should
be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are
not fully established scientifically.”” ( http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_10139__langId-en,00.html)
Not providing the information about the ABC link seems
to go against the Canadian Cancer Society’s own precautionary
principle. The Canadian Cancer Society is seen as an authoritative
and reliable source for cancer information. Since it possesses
the public trust, it has a responsibility to provide complete
and accurate information. Only then can women make truly
informed decisions about their health.
The National Cancer Institute of Canada
The National Cancer Institute of Canada, funded by the
Canadian Cancer Society and The Terry Fox Foundation, boasts
about being the “longest-standing and most prestigious
cancer research organization devoted to advancing cancer
control.” Yet, it makes no mention of the link between
abortion and breast cancer.
In 2007, an estimated 22,300 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,300 will die of it. Last year, it was estimated that 22,200 would be diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,300 would die. Fewer women now die of the disease but unfortunately the number of women afflicted with breast cancer continues to rise. Breast cancer is
the most frequently diagnosed cancer in Canadian women,
accounting for an estimated 30% of all cancer cases. With
the high incidence of breast cancer affecting Canadian women
shouldn’t the link between abortion and breast cancer
be an area of concern worthy of investigation and research
by the National Cancer Institute of Canada?
Childbirth by Choice
Abortion rights organizations also deny the link between
abortion and breast cancer. The website of the organization
Childbirth by Choice says:
“What women can safely be told is that a review
of all of the studies regarding any link between abortion
and breast cancer shows no credible link.” (http://www.cbctrust.com/breastcancer.php)
HealthCastle.com
A website which provides health information offers the
following reassurance:
“Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk
Delaying a first full term pregnancy, or not becoming
pregnant at all, increases a woman's chance of developing
breast cancer. A spontaneous or induced abortion does
not independently increase a woman's chance of developing
breast cancer. Prolonged lactation (breast feeding) seems
to offer a weak protection from breast cancer.”
(http://www.healthcastle.com/cancer_general_breastrisk.shtml)
It is quite obvious that a pregnant woman who chooses to
terminate a pregnancy by having an induced abortion is “delaying
a first full term pregnancy.” It is undisputed that
a pregnant woman who chooses abortion will have a higher
long-term risk of developing breast cancer than if she chooses
not to have an abortion. That is because full-term pregnancy
(i.e., a pregnancy that lasts at least 32 weeks) leaves
a woman with breast tissue (lobules) which have been matured
during the third trimester (i.e., capable of producing milk),
and which are therefore cancer-resistant. Therefore, she
has fewer places for cancer to form in her breasts than
she had before she got pregnant.
Back to the top of the
page
Why
the cover-up?
It may seem illogical to many people that there would be
a deliberate attempt to ignore and suppress information
and research that links abortion to an increased risk of
breast cancer.
For more than two decades, women and women’s issues
have been centre stage in Canada. Breast cancer and breast
cancer research have very high visibility and support across
the country. There are several Canadian groups focused exclusively
on breast cancer— the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation,
the Canadian Breast Cancer Network, the Canadian Breast
Cancer Research Alliance, the Breast Cancer Society of Canada
and the CURE Foundation. In addition to these there are
other agencies, like the Canadian Cancer Society, Health
Canada, the National Cancer Institute and the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research which include breast cancer in their
field of study. Many private companies and organizations
in Canada work to raise awareness and money for breast cancer.
And yet, none of them mention abortion as a risk factor
for breast cancer. Several mention that delayed child birth
can be a risk factor for breast cancer but they don’t
make the obvious connection that abortion delays child birth.
They completely ignore its other effect: the termination
of a pregnancy leaving immature undifferentiated breast
tissue which is then vulnerable to cancer.
It is not because the evidence is weak. Health Canada warns
women to minimize their exposure to pesticides “although
there is no compelling evidence suggesting that exposure
to pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals is
related to breast cancer risk.” Health Canada’s
list of risk factors includes those which have consistently
been shown to increase risk and those which have “less
consistently found to increase breast cancer risk.”
Surely abortion, which has been found to increase risk in
over 50 studies since 1957 should be included in this second
list and a comprehensive study be launched to investigate
based on Canadian health records.
So why would all these groups engage in a cover-up?
We believe there are three reasons. The first, which would
apply to government agencies and departments and to medical
associations, is liability. Because abortion is paid for
by governments using tax dollars, politicians and government
officials have implicitly endorsed abortion as a healthy
treatment for women. In many cases, government officials
have explicitly stated that abortion is medically necessary.
Doctors and their professional organizations which endorse
and recommend abortion as an appropriate treatment for pregnancy
could face lawsuits if the link is recognized. This would
be similar to lawsuits over thalidomide, breast implants
and tainted blood. Already in the United States, women have
won two lawsuits against abortion providers who failed to
disclose the breast cancer risk to patients before they
agreed to an abortion.
The second reason is political and affects governments,
doctors and the many charitable and volunteer organizations
which work very hard to promote awareness and research on
breast cancer. By political, we don’t mean partisan
politics. We mean what is acceptable or politically correct
in Canada.
Abortion, or more specifically, criticism or even questioning
of abortion, is simply not a topic for polite discussion
in this country. Our politicians, elites and our media will
not tolerate any challenge to the status quo on abortion.
The status quo position is that abortion is legal, healthy
and supported by most Canadians. Our politicians tell us
that we have “social peace” on abortion. The
media tell us that Canadians are “pro-choice.”
Anyone or any group that challenges or disagrees with that
position is described as “fringe”, “far
right” or “fundamentalist.” In fact, Gallup
Canada, which has polled Canadians on abortion since the
early seventies, has consistently found that over 60% of
Canadians think there should be some legal restrictions
on abortions. Polls over the past three years by Leger and
Environics have also shown that two-thirds of Canadians
think human life should be protected before birth.
During the 2004 federal election, Conservative MP Rob Merrifield,
after being repeatedly pressured by a Globe and Mail reporter
for a comment on abortion, said that he thought it might
be good to ensure that women considering abortion received
counseling from a third party, that is, not the abortion
provider, before they consented. Mr. Merrifield and the
Conservatives were criticized and hounded over the comment.
Media reports said that Mr. Merrifield wanted to restrict
abortion and editorials talked about re-criminalizing abortion.
The reaction was over the top and ridiculous.
In April of 2005 the Globe and Mail newspaper ran a column
by Heather Mallick criticizing the Bank of Montreal for
its affinity credit card program with LifeCanada, a national
pro-life educational group. Ms. Mallick was appalled that
a bank would associate with an “anti-abortion group”
which she believes suppresses freedoms. Following publication
of the column, the bank decided not to renew the contract
with LifeCanada.
Any group that decided to warn women about the risk between
breast cancer and abortion would have to be prepared to
face the wrath of abortion advocates like Heather Mallick
and others in the media. Many large corporations have signed
on as donors and sponsors for breast cancer research. They
might reconsider their involvement when columnists and women’s
groups launch a campaign to boycott groups that acknowledge
the ABC risk. Corporations are reluctant to involve themselves
in anything that might create negative publicity.
Finally, feminists have been very active in the campaign
to increase awareness and funding for research into women’s
health and breast cancer in particular. Most feminists are
“pro-choice” and actively promote and support
abortion as a right. We propose they have been and will
continue to be reluctant to admit that there are serious
health risks associated with abortion.
|
