1. National Review uncovers abortion-cancer cover-up
2. Australian Researcher challenged to deny an Abortion-Breast-Cancer risk
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2001 125831 -0800 (PST)
Subject National Review Article/ABC Link
http//www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment012201a.shtml
[once at this site, just go to page 3 (no 'clicking' required]
The article discusses the hypocrisy of the abortion industry and various women's organizations on the left which for many years have been accusing their abortion opponents of not caring about women's health. The truth is that most women's groups have been utterly silent about the existence of the abortion-breast cancer research. Why? Abortion -- "reproductive rights" -- has been the centerpiece of their movement. It is the reason for their existence. As more women in the movement are diagnosed with breast cancer because of their abortion histories, these women's groups will witness an exodus of women from their ranks.
The first study to show a link between abortion and breast cancer was published in 1957 -- 44 years ago. As of this date, there are 27 out of 34 worldwide studies linking abortion with breast cancer. Some day the public will discover that the available evidence is overwhelming. The public will learn that the abortion industry has long known about the existence of these studies, but did not care enough about their patients to warn them about it. It will become apparent that this industry which had so little regard for the lives of the unborn also had little regard for the lives of its patients. Should it come as a surprise to anyone that the abortion industry is not pro-life for women?
Attorney John Kindley who was interviewed for the article has correctly pointed out that the abortion industry will some day be seen as another tobacco industry. This is what I call "the day of wrath." This is the day that the abortion industry and women's groups are postponing, but it is inevitable. When women discover that they have been cruelly deceived and exploited for decades, imagine the rage that will be directed against the abortion industry, women's organizations, politicians, anti-cancer organizations and other respected medical organizations and the media which promoted "abortion rights." This is the reason for their complicity in the effort to cover-up the abortion-breast cancer research.
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
AbortionBreastCancer.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Date Wed, 10 Jan 2001 172605 -0800 (PST)
From mike richmond <newscan@vcn.bc.ca>
To Prof Robert Burton <director@accv.org.au>
Dear Professor Robert Burton,
Hello. The public is not aware that for childless women, breast cancer researchers divide the 'ABC' (Abortion-Breast-Cancer) risk into two (2) independent risks
1. delayed first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) (an accepted risk that you acknowledged on 11 January 2000 (see P.S.))
2. so-called interrupted pregnancy risk.
Thus, when researchers such as Melbye (et al.) in the New England Journal of Medicine (1997), in a statistically INsignificant study, reported that induced abortion did not increase breast cancer risk, did 'Melbye' refer to both 'ABC' risks? Clearly no, since on page 85 of that study, they admit they first 'adjusted out' differences in breast cancer risk due to differences in ages at first full-term birth between cases and controls. Another example is the 1994 'Daling' study; again, Daling (et al.), aware of the BC risk from delayed FFTP, 'subtracted out' this component of risk. Why do most studies remove the delayed FFTP component of breast cancer risk? Since this is a KNOWN risk and the researchers want to quantify the SECOND ('interrupted pregnancy') breast cancer risk.
How important is the FIRST 'ABC' risk? You have read the 1983 study, co-authored by the great Harvard epidemiologist, Dr. Brian MacMahon. (International Journal of Cancer, 1983;31701-704). They reported that each one year delay in first birth (FFTP) increases relative BC risk by 3.5% (compounded). E.G. a 10 year delay in 'first full-term birth' increases relative breast cancer risk by 41%.
Professor Robert Burton, I am not aware of any reputable breast cancer epidemiologist who denies that (in general) an induced abortion delayed first full-term pregnancy increases breast cancer risk for young women (relative to having had a full-term birth instead of an induced abortion). Are you aware of any BC epidemiologist who does deny such an increased breast cancer risk? Thanks, in advance, for addressing this important question.
Informed Consent for Women,
Mike Richmond
P.S. Professor Burton concedes BC risk from delayed FFTP
Reply to the above letter:
Date Tue, 11 Jan 2000 163642 +1100
From Robert Burton <rburton@accv.org.au>
To 'mike richmond' <newscan@vcn.bc.ca>
Subject RE Very quick two liner The MacMahon Study only deals with the BC risk associated with delayed first birth; it is NOT interested in induced abortion per se. On 20 Feb 1998 Dr. Clark Heath (Am. Cancer Society) conceded the abortion delayed FFTP risk (I have his concession for any one who wants to read it) [end of message, M.R.]
Dear Mike, I agree that delayed FFTP increases the risk of breast cancer. Where does that leave our discourse? Happy New Year, Robert