by Karen Malec
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a farcical workshop for scientists late in February whose alleged purpose was to comprehensively evaluate the abortion-breast cancer (A/BC) research and debate its merits. Although NCI director, Andrew Von Eschenbach, told the New York Times on March 11 that this had been done, the reality is that an evaluation and debate never took place. The workshop simply was not organized in such a way as to allow for it. Only one viewpoint was invited — that abortion is unrelated to increased risk of breast cancer — and this was the conclusion presented to the world at the end of the three-day workshop.
In keeping with its half century long practice of concealing the A/BC research from the American people, the NCI posted minimal information on an updated web page which shows that an unnamed scientist dissented against the workshop statement. The web page is entitled, Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Cancer Workshop. Visitors to the NCI's website are now being informed that the unnamed dissenter recognizes “a real, independent, positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk.” Little more than that is said.
The dissenter, however, is Joel Brind, Ph.D. His Minority Report is not included on the NCI's web page. By concealing Brind's identity and failing to post his report, the NCI creates a stumbling block for women wanting to learn the rationale behind his dissent.
Furthermore, the NCI's web page states that the agency's Board of Scientific Advisors and Board of Scientific Counselors, “unanimously approved the workshop findings.” In addition, Dr. Brind's Minority Report wasn't given to either board for their consideration.
It appears the NCI is shilling for the abortion industry and offering political cover for abortion supporters in Congress.
The legal profession takes a dim view of the methods used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to determine a causal relationship between an exposure and an outcome. Nancy Dreyer authored an article for the International Association of Defense Counsel in 1994 entitled, An Epidemiologic View of Causation: How it Differs From the Legal. The agency uses consensus panels to decide whether an exposure is causally related to a disease. She specifically labeled this practice as a “spurious method.”
The practice was likened to the use of a jury to decide a question of fact. It is well known that juries don't always provide a fair or an unbiased verdict. A physician shared her opinion of the NIH's method. She said, “The truth isn't reached by consensus.”
Indiana attorney John Kindley found a relevant quote from Albert Einstein which calls into question the NCI's use of a consensus panel to determine whether abortion causes breast cancer. His quote sheds light on the deficiencies of consensus panels. In the 1930s, 100 scientists wrote a collection of essays which disparaged Einstein's theory of relativity. When a reporter asked the esteemed scientist for his comment, Einstein cleverly replied, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
Similarly, the NCI needed 100 grant dependent scientists to disparage the A/BC link, but not one of them has ever refuted the biological explanation for it. Why not? Scientists know that estrogen overexposure is linked with most of the known risk factors for breast cancer and that it promotes the growth of tumors. They also know that pregnant women — if they are carrying normal pregnancies not destined to miscarry — are exposed to more estrogen starting early in their pregnancies than at any other time during their lives. Scientists hypothesize that only a third trimester process corrects that estrogen overexposure and transforms cancer vulnerable breast cells into cancer resistant cells. This is why women who bear more children, starting early in their childbearing years, have a lower lifetime risk for the disease.
Dishonest scientists will continue to design phony epidemiological studies, purporting to explore a statistical relationship between abortion and breast cancer, in an effort to falsely persuade women of the safety of abortion. However, they cannot change the biological evidence of a link or disprove the rationale behind it.
Einstein's quote demonstrates that the NCI's efforts to debunk the research cannot withstand the test of time. Ultimately, the truth will be told to women.
Karen Malec is the President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.
(This article courtesy of Steven Ertelt and the Pro-Life Infonet email newsletter. For more information or to subscribe go to www.prolifeinfo.org or email infonet@prolifeinfo.org.)
