In denial: breast cancer establishment continues to reject abortion link
In the debate surrounding the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (ABC link), there has arisen a core of individuals whose demeanor can best be described as zealous. This group has all but abandoned the core scientific principle of allowing themselves to be led, without prejudice, by the preponderance of the scientific data. It is a dangerous tack that they have taken for as scientists we are trained in a method that is meant to protect us, and the public who listen to our informed opinion, from the errors that come with thinking not in empirical terms, but from hewing to outmoded orthodoxies.
Scientists and physicians fall into this error time and again, which precludes being open to new information. Currently the abortion breast cancer debate swirling in Australia as one of the chief proponents of this link (Dr. Angela Lanfranchi) is there to give a presentation on the topic. This debate provides us a window into this issue of orthodoxies creeping into the scientific community and taking stubborn hold. (snip)
When a woman becomes pregnant her estrogen levels increase 2,000 times greater than baseline. The immediate effect is a swelling of breast tissue as the number of ductal cells roughly double. These cells are immature, undifferentiated, and cancer-prone. In the latter part of the second trimester and during the third trimester human placental lactogen is produced by the placenta, which matures and differentiates about 85% of the breast tissue from the cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells to milk producing and cancer resistant Type 3 and Type 4 cells. With breast-feeding and successive pregnancies the remaining 15% of cells are successively transformed to cancer resistant cells.
This is not only true in humans, but has been repeatedly demonstrated in animal models as well.
These facts are not in dispute by either side. Neither are the data showing that women who suffer first trimester miscarriage have no increased risk of breast cancer compared to women who have induced abortion, as their hormone levels never really increase appreciably. Neither in dispute are the data that demonstrate the earlier a woman has a first full term pregnancy, the lower her risk for breast cancer. Neither are the data by Danish epidemiologist Dr. Mads Melbye who discovered a 3% increased risk of breast cancer for every week after week seven of gestation where women have an induced abortion. He found an 89% increased risk of breast cancer after week eighteen in women who have had induced abortions. Melbye, it must be noted, denies the validity of his own statistically significant data.
Let that sink in for a moment. (snip)
Political orthodoxy has trumped the science and reason of hundreds of epidemiologists all over the globe, in scores of studies. Predictably the deniers will as a last resort point to the religious faith of some, suggesting that people of faith are incapable of adhering to the scientific method and discovering truth. Such orthodoxy prevents the funding by NCI of further studies along the ABC line of investigation, which only hurts women and their families in the long term.
The heart of science isn’t facts, it isn’t data and it isn’t research. It’s people. And contra Dawkins with his obsessive anti-religion mania a scientist isn’t a man with no religion, he’s a man with a different religion.
I challenge you to look, to really look at the Ancel Keys story. See what really happened and ask yourself how it could be prevented? Make all the rules you want and true believers such as Mr. Keys will blow through them like a house of cards. Because at the end of the day science is chock-a-block full of very smart people, some of whom have very poor ethics.
Can politics be removed from science? How about funding? How about beliefs such in the story above? Or, that fat is bad and carbs good?
At the end of the day the real problem with science is that it’s made out of fallen sinful human beings. And while their is a cure for that it is not to be found in the halls of academia.
Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds
Findings Are Latest Challenge to Benefits of Aggressively Low Sodium Targets
This is my whole point in a nutshell. Whatever lunatic can get their sweaty, crazed hands on the megaphone apparently wins the day. And how do you stop that?
Lots more very good stuff at that last link, read the whole thing!