OXFORD, UK, October 18, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Oxford scientists first covered up the abortion-breast cancer link with the publication of a 1982 study, and are at it again with another study released this week according to the Abortion-Breast Cancer Coalition (ABCC). The latest study is the fifth study by the university’s scientists denying an abortion-cancer link.
In the first such study in 1982 Vessey et al., claimed, “The results are entirely reassuring, being, in fact, more compatible with protective effects (of abortion) than the reverse.” The study, however, was deemed irrelevant because it included, as it admitted “only a handful of women” who’d had abortions.
The latest study, led by Gillian Reeves, conceded that childbearing reduces risk, but failed to compare the effect of having an abortion with the effect of having a full term pregnancy. “They covered up the substantial increase in risk associated with the loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy,” says ABCC in a release.
Two breast cancer risks are associated with abortion – the loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy (the universally recognized risk) and the independent link (the debated risk). The study, Reeves et al., concerns only the second risk. The independent link addresses this question: Does the woman who has an abortion have a higher breast cancer risk than she would have had if she hadn’t had that pregnancy?
By contrast, the first risk (omitted by Reeves et al.) has to do with this question: Does the woman who has an abortion have a greater risk than does the woman who has a full term pregnancy? Experts universally agree that the post-abortive woman does have a higher risk than does the woman who has a baby.
Professor Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, maintains that the methodology is “seriously flawed in the direction of covering up the link.” Both abortions and breast cancer diagnosis were included right up to the same year – 2000. Many women were over 40 when abortion was legalized in their respective countries. Therefore, many younger women with recent abortions were compared to older breast cancer patients who were too old to have been exposed to legal abortions during most of their fertile years.Â
Brind said, “This sort of bad science is becoming disappointingly familiar. It is similar to the flaws in the Danish study, Melbye et al. 1997.”
Reeves et al. is one of 28 studies with unpublished abortion data that had been included in a review of 52 studies for the journal Lancet in 2004. The review, Oxford’s fourth attempt to cover up the link, is still used to mislead women about the cancer risk, says ABCC. Four experts criticized the review, independently of one another.
Last year, Dr. Brind authored a review of ten studies, including two Oxford papers. He concluded that they “embody many serious weaknesses and flaws” and “do not invalidate” the larger body of research supporting a link.
“Cancer researchers are supposed to be dedicated to protecting human lives, not serving the abortion industry,” asserted Karen Malec, president of the Coalition.