At the recent 60th Meeting of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in Alabama, the cover-up of the Abortion-Breast cancer link was discussed.
Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer presented a paper: “Perversion of Science by Politics: Case Study-Informed Consent.”
Malec was the author of an article published in the summer issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, “The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent.”
The AAPS’ motto, “omnia pro aegroto,” means “all for the patient”. The group advocates for patients’ rights.
“The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the rest of the cancer establishment are making themselves irrelevant by covering up the Abortion-Breast Cancer (ABC) link,” said Malec.
“They’re stepping up their use of junk science for the purpose of manipulating public opinion and are severely damaging their credibility in the process. They’re selectively reporting flawed studies, which misclassify thousands of post-abortive women as non-abortive.
“They’re using a hypothetical problem, ‘report bias,’ to disparage more than two dozen studies linking abortion with breast cancer.
“We call on the cancer establishment to show the same regard for patients’ rights as does the AAPS,” said Malec.
Serious charges of impropriety were made against the cancer establishment in a recent Los Angeles Times commentary.
Dr Samuel S Epstein, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Dr Quentin D Young, Chairman of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, accused the cancer establishment of suppressing evidence of environmental and occupational links to cancer, as well.
For instance, it wasn’t until 1997 that the NCI informed the public about long-standing evidence of thyroid cancers from radioactive fallout resulting from atomic bomb tests in the 1950s.
These cancers could have been prevented with thyroid medication.
“The NCI is a corrupt agency,” said Malec. “It wasn’t until 1957 that it warned the public about the tobacco-cancer link. Even then, its warning was tepid because its political considerations are paramount.”
Epstein and Young charged that the American Cancer Society (ACS) accepts contributions from manufacturers of polluting chemicals and cancer drugs.
They declared that the Society’s “strong support from industry is reflected in its research choices, which are overwhelmingly aimed at treatment as opposed to prevention.
“As the Chronicle of Philanthropy, the nation’s leading charity watchdog, put it in a January 1992 article,” said Epstein and Young, “‘The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.'”
Known as “the world’s wealthiest charity,” the ACS pays a six-figure salary to each of its officers who head a division.
Less for more
Cancer deaths have jumped 30 percentage points and the NCI’s budget ballooned from $150 million to $4.6 billion since President Nixon’s “War on Cancer” began in 1971. “Paradoxically, it seems that the more we spend on cancer research, the more cancer we get,” remarked Epstein and Young.
“There is sufficient evidence,” argued Malec, “that cancer has become a business.
The evidence extends back to the 1960s when the American Medical Association and several top cancer research hospitals accepted grants from “Big Tobacco”.
“The NCI’s snow job on the ABC link is criminal,” Mrs Malec maintained. “The cancer industry should be investigated.”
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women’s organisation founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
According to the former head of the Food and Drug Administration, David Kessler, the tobacco industry gave grants to researchers at Harvard, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, and others.
He added that, “In 1964 the American Medical Association (AMA) was vigorously lobbying against pending Medicare legislation while the tobacco industry was fighting efforts to place health warnings on cigarette packs.
At the same time, the six major companies offered the AMA $10 million over a five-year period to fund research on smoking and health.
On February 12, 1964, Francis Blasingame, the AMA’s Executive Vice President, accepted the industry’s offer.
A little more than two weeks later, Blasingame sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, a strong advocate of warning labels.
“With respect to cigarettes,” he wrote, “cautionary labelling cannot be anticipated to serve the public interest with any particular degree of success.”
In Australia in February this year the Office of the Status of Women in Canberra held a conference on domestic violence sponsored in part by tobacco giant Philip Morris.
The Office of the Status of Women has given no support for the printing of the Endeavour Forum booklet on “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention”, but on the government website on women publicised by OSW the only paper on abortion is by Beryl Holmes, Queensland President of Children by Choice, an abortion promoting agency.
While the Cancer Councils in Australia claim that the abortion-breast cancer link is unproven, they are so intimidated by the feminist movement that they will not even give women information on research which they do accept.
Namely, that having more babies, having them at a younger age, and breastfeeding for longer will substantially reduce breast cancer risk.
- Babette Francis – [email protected]