by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 25, 2004
Hoffman
Estates, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A group that monitors developments
in research about the abortion-breast cancer link says some prominent
medical journals are censoring the views of researchers who have established
the connection.
According Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, the journals Lancet and Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention refused to publish letters to the editor debunking a study that claims no link exists.
"The editors of these journals are silencing experts who dissent from the view that abortion is unrelated to increased risk of breast cancer," Karen Malec, president of the coalition, said.
"The editors don't want a full scale scientific examination of the abortion-breast cancer link because they know abortion causes breast cancer," Malec explained. "If science were on their side, then they wouldn't have to resort to petty censorship."
Emails sent to the publications from LifeNews.com requesting comment were not returned.
The British journal Lancet rejected letters authored by two experts on the abortion-breast cancer link, Chris Kahlenborn, MD, and Patrick Carroll.
Kahlenborn is the author of a book on the subject and Carroll is a statistician and the director of a population research institute in London whose research on the link has been published in other medical journals.
Meanwhile, the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention refused to publish a letter written by Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York.
Brind is considered the world's foremost expert on the abortion-breast cancer link and has published numerous studies, including a comprehensive review of all previous studies on abortion and breast cancer.
The three researchers authored letters debunking the claims that studies showing a link are flawed by "recall bias." They also said researchers from Oxford who claim no link exists were relying on incomplete data.
Kahlenborn said Oxford scientists failed to "critically examine the quality of the prospective studies" and that over one-third of their data represent unpublished studies which other scientists "will never be able to double-check."
Carroll added that many of the patients who appear in the Oxford study had abortions that were performed in other countries that were illegal. Therefore, women in other countries will be more reluctant to admit to having had abortions than British women.
"The editors' censorship should be a red
flag for women," Malec said. "Scientific misconduct and bias
against positive findings have been a serious problem plaguing abortion-breast
cancer research for a half-century."
Related web sites:
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer - http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
