It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion Breast Cancer Link

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Plagirism? It's not plagirism when the parts of the article I posted have stated the NEW YORK TIMES, WHO, and STUDIES.

And we now know how you feel about alternative medicine and where your viewpoints stem from. You'll probably believe saturated fat causes heart disease and everyone should be on lipitor as well. LOL.


It is absolutely plagiarism when you post someone else's words (this case, Sherrill Sellman). No where in her article does she cite studies or provide data. In fact, her heading for gastrointestinal cancer has ONE SENTENCE, reading:

"It also should be noted that tamoxifen has also been associated with gastrointestinal cancers."

WOW! Well boys, close up shop! Ms. Sherill has clearly presented an open-and-shut case on tamoxifen and GI cancer. Clearly, the piles of data she has provided paint an obvious picture. Wait, what's that? She hasn't presented ANY data, and has, instead, given one vague statement with no scientific backing? Hmm...interesting.

No where in her article does she cite any articles of the opposing side. I understand that tamoxifen is carcinogenic, which makes perfect sense given it's mechanism. That's why we don't given it to patients for infections, though it would certainly clear out any problems. It is indicated ONLY for use in breast cancer cases, because it is the only drug known to be truly effective with marginal risk. I'll ask again: if you knew this drug caused remission in 90% of breast cancer cases, with a 1% increase in endometrial cancer risk, would you turn it down when diagnosed with breast cancer?


And yes, I do hold a slight grudge against alternative therapies, mostly because a few can have deadly consequences when taken in combination with chemotherapeutics. If a patient's medication and CAM (complementary/alternative medicine) aren't contraindicated, however, I don't care. Take all the herbs, teas, etc. that you wish, as long as they don't hurt you.

It IS, however, readily apparent where YOUR biases lie, when you will whole-heartedly believe someone who has slapped together an article devoid of any scientific citation or study. I mean, seriously, LOOK at the article! There are TWO scientific citations in it (neither of them support the claims of GI cancer) with NO detail given about the data, PERIOD. Do you just take someone's intepretation of data at face value? That is horrible science. You must always examine the data for yourself and decide if the methodology was properly designed, if the correlative value is strong, and if the experiment as a whole is worth anything. Basing your opinions on an appeal to authority is highly ignorant.




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


First off I never said that information was the END all BE ALL of the tamoxifen debate. But it does a pretty good job of getting the dialogue started. You've offered nothing in terms of studies to back up your claims.

You make Nolvdex sound like a benign wonder drug cure for breast cancer. You remind me of the veterinarian profession that is constantly scaring people into getting their dogs neutered and spayed and instilling fear into them constantly by brainwashing them with pyometra risk. Hardly EVER do vets ever talk about the risks and side effects invovled with these all too often promoted surgeries.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
A report in September 2009 from Health and Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality suggests that tamoxifen, raloxifene, and tibolone used to treat breast cancer significantly reduce invasive breast cancer in midlife and older women, but also increase the risk of adverse side effects.[29]

[edit] Bone
A beneficial side effect of tamoxifen is that it prevents bone loss by acting as an estrogen receptor agonist (i.e., mimicking the effects of estrogen) in this cell type. Therefore, by inhibiting osteoclasts, it prevents osteoporosis.[30][31] When tamoxifen was launched as a drug, it was thought that tamoxifen would act as an estrogen receptor antagonist in all tissue, including bone, and therefore it was feared that it would contribute to osteoporosis. It was therefore very surprising that the opposite effect was observed clinically. Hence tamoxifen's tissue selective action directly led to the formulation of the concept of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs).[32] In contrast tamoxifen appears to be associated with bone loss in premenopausal women who continue to menstruate after adjuvant chemotherapy.[33]

[edit] Endometrial cancer
Tamoxifen is a selective estrogen receptor modulator.[34] Even though it is an antagonist in breast tissue it acts as partial agonist on the endometrium and has been linked to endometrial cancer in some women. Therefore endometrial changes, including cancer, are among tamoxifen's side effects.[35] With time, risk of endometrial cancer may be doubled to quadrupled, which is a reason tamoxifen is typically only used for 5 years.[36]

The American Cancer Society lists tamoxifen as a known carcinogen, stating that it increases the risk of some types of uterine cancer while lowering the risk of breast cancer recurrence.[37] The ACS states that its use should not be avoided in cases where the risk of breast cancer recurrence without the drug is higher than the risk of developing uterine cancer with the drug.

[edit] Cardiovascular and metabolic
Tamoxifen treatment of postmenopausal women is associated with beneficial effects on serum lipid profiles. However, long-term data from clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a cardioprotective effect.[38] For some women, tamoxifen can cause a rapid increase in triglyceride concentration in the blood.[citation needed] In addition there is an increased risk of thromboembolism especially during and immediately after major surgery or periods of immobility.[39] Tamoxifen is also a cause of fatty liver, otherwise known as steatorrhoeic hepatosis or steatosis hepatis.[40]

[edit] Central nervous system
Tamoxifen treated breast cancer patients show evidence of reduced cognition[41] and semantic memory scores.[42] However memory impairment in patients treated with tamoxifen was less severe compared with those treated with anastrozole (an aromatase inhibitor).[43]

A significant number of tamoxifen treated breast cancer patients experience a reduction of libido.[44][45]

[edit] Pre-mature growth plate fusion
While tamoxifen has been shown to antagonize the actions of estrogen in tissue's such as the breast, it's effects in other tissues such as bones has not been documented fully. There have been studies done in mice showing tamoxifen mimic the effects of estrogen on bone metabolism and skeletal growth. Thus increasing the possibility of pre-mature bone fusion. This effect would be less of a concern in adults who have stopped growing.[46]

WIKIPEDIA
Khalid A Osman; Meissa M Osman; Mohamed H Ahmed (2007). "Tamoxifen-induced non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: where are we now and where are we going?". Expert opinion on drug safety 6 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1517/14740338.6.1.1. PMID 17181445.
^ Paganini-Hill A, Clark LJ (November 2000). "Preliminary assessment of cognitive function in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen". Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 64 (2): 165–76. doi:10.1023/A:1006426132338. PMID 11194452.
^ Eberling JL, Wu C, Tong-Turnbeaugh R, Jagust WJ (January 2004). "Estrogen- and tamoxifen-associated effects on brain structure and function". NeuroImage 21 (1): 364–71. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.037. PMID 14741674.
^ Bender CM, Sereika SM, Brufsky AM, Ryan CM, Vogel VG, Rastogi P, Cohen SM, Casillo FE, Berga SL (2007). "Memory impairments with adjuvant anastrozole versus tamoxifen in women with early-stage breast cancer". Menopause (New York, N.Y.) 14 (6): 995–8. doi:10.1097/gme.0b013e318148b28b. PMID 17898668.
^ Mortimer JE, Boucher L, Baty J, Knapp DL, Ryan E, Rowland JH (1999). "Effect of tamoxifen on sexual functioning in patients with breast cancer" (abstract). J. Clin. Oncol. 17 (5): 1488–92. PMID 10334535. jco.ascopubs.org...
^ Cella D, Fallowfield L, Barker P, Cuzick J, Locker G, Howell A (2006). "Quality of life of post-menopausal women in the ATAC ("Arimidex", tamoxifen, alone or in combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer". Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 100 (3): 273–84. doi:10.1007/s10549-006-9260-6. PMID 16944295.
^ Karimian E, Chagin AS, Gjerde J, Heino T, Lien EA, Ohlsson C, Sävendahl L (August 2008). "Tamoxifen impairs both longitudinal and cortical bone growth in young male rats". J. Bone Miner. Res. 23 (8): 1267–77. doi:10.1359/jbmr.080319. PMID 18348701.
^ Goetz MP, Rae JM, Suman VJ, Safgren SL, Ames MM, Visscher DW, Reynolds C, Couch FJ, Lingle WL, Flockhart DA, Desta Z, Perez EA, Ingle JN (2005). "Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen biotransformation is associated with clinical outcomes of efficacy and hot flashes". J Clin Oncol 23 (36): 9312–8. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3266. PMID 16361630.
^ Beverage JN, Sissung TM, Sion AM, Danesi R, Figg WD (2007). "CYP2D6 polymorphisms and the impact on tamoxifen therapy". J Pharm Sci 96 (9): Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1002/jps.20892. PMID 17518364.
^ Information about CYP2D6 and tamoxifen from DNADirect's website
^ Schroth W, Goetz MP, Hamann U, Fasching PA, Schmidt M, Winter S, Fritz P, Simon W, Suman VJ, Ames MM, Safgren SL, Kuffel MJ, Ulmer HU, Boländer J, Strick R, Beckmann MW, Koelbl H, Weinshilboum RM, Ingle JN, Eichelbaum M, Schwab M, Brauch H (October 2009). "Association between CYP2D6 polymorphisms and outcomes among women with early stage breast cancer treated with tamoxifen". JAMA 302 (13): 1429–36. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1420. PMID 19809024.
^ Jin Y, Desta Z, Stearns V, Ward B, Ho H, Lee KH, Skaar T, Storniolo AM, Li L, Araba A, Blanchard R, Nguyen A, Ullmer L, Hayden J, Lemler S, Weinshilboum RM, Rae JM, Hayes DF, Flockhart DA (2005). "CYP2D6 genotype, antidepressant use, and tamoxifen metabolism during adjuvant breast cancer treatment". J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (1): 30–9. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji005. PMID 15632378.
^ Staff Reports (Summer, 2009). "ASCO Updates: Antidepressants Reduce the Effectiveness of Tamoxifen.". CURE (Cancer Updates, Research and Education). www.curetoday.com...
^ Information about Tamoxitest and how DNA testing can help in the selection of the



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The bottomline is if this breast cancer nolvadex debate is ANYTHING like the cholesterol debate I'll ALWAYS believe the alternative viewpoints and opposing viewpoints that tend to substantiate the opposite views of the established medical-pharmaceutical-government complex.

The lipid hypotheses which is one of the most heavily studied and most heavily funded areas of medicine is probably one of the biggest scames in the history of the AMA and western medicine. There isn't ANY conclusive evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease and in fact cholesterol drugs are a lot more dangerous than scientsists and doctors and the AMA will admit. So why should anyone trust you or any other doctor or the AMA for that matter?

The United States has some of the best trauma services in the world.......if you are in a life threatening car wreck you'll receive some of the best care in the world........however, everything else is second rate and ridiculously oversold and expensive.

I suggest you study the other side of healing......you can start with the book Politics in Healing by Daniel Haley.....



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


You have yet to answer my simple question:

If you were diagnosed with breast cancer, and were told there was a drug that causes remission in 90% of breast cancer cases, but increases the risk of endometrial cancer about 1%, would you take it?

You keep moving the goal line in your argument. First, you say tamoxifen causes GI cancer. Then, when you realized that argument is silly, you move to other effects or unrelated CAM issues. The point of the matter is, ALL drugs carry side effects and risks. In the case of tamoxifen, you have to weight the following: by NOT taking the drug, you WILL die of breast cancer 100% of the time. It is a terminal disease when untreated. Period. If you DO take the drug, you have a 98% 5-year survival prognosis, and about an 85% 10-year survival prognosis, precluding any other unrelated conditions. Do you honestly think dying of breast cancer is better than taking the small risk that something negative will happen to you?

[edit on 1/11/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


You're WRONG! All DRUGS carry side effects but not all things considered medicine carry side effects LEAST of all toxic and deadly side effects. Seriously, I suggest you study alternative medicine a little more closely and instead of using websites like Quackwatch and Snopes read actual books on the history of alternative medicine.......like I said one of the best is Daniel Haley's Politics in Healing. It talks about Hoxsey's horse treatment, Krebiozen, DMSO, colostrum and a whole host of other nontoxic cancer therapies that have been prove beyond a doubt to treat and cure cancer. But you like many others will continue to toe the indoctrinated line instead of broadening your thinking. After all you are probably being educated in a university or college right here in the USA and someday hope to be one of those gallant and brilliant researchers or MD's funded by the drug companies right?

And to answer your question no I would not take nolvadex nor would I take chemo or radiation if I was diagnosed with cancer. That's how much I believe in alternative medicine. And when I say alternative medicine I don't mean the BS you see that comes in pill form or bottles. There are TONS of snake oil salesman selling alternative medicine. Nope. ............I would bury myself in a library reading books on botany and plant science..........nutrition, etc. Until I had enough information to approach my diagnosis of cancer with an open and honest assessment. The problem with western society is everything we are taught is a by product of FEAR. And this is no more apparent than in US and western medicine. Don't eat this.....take this drug to prevent this...........watch this......watch that.......not only that did you ever notice how EVERYTHING in medicine has a number attached to it??????? Electrolyte levels.........cholesterol levels.............blood pressure levels.........120/80 used to be a perfect blood pressure........now it's considered prehypertensive???????????????????? LMAO! Eggs we were told were bad for us. Now they are great. Butter was evil now we know margarines are worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


You're WRONG! All DRUGS carry side effects but not all things considered medicine carry side effects LEAST of all toxic and deadly side effects. Seriously, I suggest you study alternative medicine a little more closely and instead of using websites like Quackwatch and Snopes read actual books on the history of alternative medicine.......like I said one of the best is Daniel Haley's Politics in Healing. It talks about Hoxsey's horse treatment, Krebiozen, DMSO, colostrum and a whole host of other nontoxic cancer therapies that have been prove beyond a doubt to treat and cure cancer. But you like many others will continue to toe the indoctrinated line instead of broadening your thinking. After all you are probably being educated in a university or college right here in the USA and someday hope to be one of those gallant and brilliant researchers or MD's funded by the drug companies right?


During our first year of medical school, my classmates and I had to take a course in complementary and alternative medicine, taught by a homeopathic doctor. She was a alternative as you get, and yet neither she nor her colleagues (who lectured in her place on occasion) could produce a single double-blind study that showed alternative treatments were effective.

Can you?


And to answer your question no I would not take nolvadex nor would I take chemo or radiation if I was diagnosed with cancer. That's how much I believe in alternative medicine.


Then I truly hope you never get that diagnosis, especially under my care. I absolutely hate having a patient die, especially when the patient refuses effective treatment because of fear, misunderstanding, or ignorance. I've had one patient refuse tamoxifen, and she died about one year later after spending her last six months in a painkiller-induced near-vegetative state in hospice care. It hurt me in every way possible to know she was literally killing herself and causing herself massive pain purely to "show me" that doctors don;t "know best".

And you know what, we don't always know best. But the vast majority of us simply want to make you better, or as comfortable as we possibly can. We're not drug peddlers, we're not empty-headed pharma reps. We are simply normal people who are using the best tools modern science has given us to HELP YOU. Right now, as an intern, I make the same amount of money if I see one patient or one hundred patients a day. I am not allowed to take money or gifts from pharma reps. I am not allowed to get kickbacks for prescribing more of drug X or Y. And you know what I would still say if a breast cancer patient came through my ward? Push the tamoxifen, and check back in one week for a follow-up. Every. Single. Time.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Of course there isn't going to be a controlled double blind study on alternative medicine. Research at that level is completely controlled by the drug companies and it requires a crap load of money the alternative medicine group doesn't have nor will probably ever have as long as allopathic medicine controls everything.

I suggest you research alternative medicine a little more. Royal Rife, Hoxsey, Krebiozen, DMSO, colostrum. ALL THESE have SUBSTANTIAL proof of being effective and safe for cancer treatment. And here's the funny thing about the gold standard of the placebo controlled double blind study..............THEY WERE USED IN THE LIPID HYPOTHESIS.......and it's still one of the BIGGEST SCAMS in the history of medicine.

If I tell my doctor that I drink raw milk he'd probably look at me like I was a loony. But I've also never been sick not even from a common cold since I started drinking raw milk years ago. I don't need you, the AMA, doctors, or the government telling me what works and what doesn't work. There are PLENTY of scientists, MDs, and even government officials fighting the good fight and going against the establishment of organized medicine. And we will ALL be better off for it.

And your beloved Rockefeller who pretty much funded and created the AMA was under the care of not only an allopathic but also a homeopathic doctor up until his death. Yet he lambasted and crushed homeopathy in the US. And you wonder why people don't trust doctors nor the government least of all organizations like the FDA and AMA.


[edit on 12-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Of course there isn't going to be a controlled double blind study on alternative medicine. Research at that level is completely controlled by the drug companies and it requires a crap load of money the alternative medicine group doesn't have nor will probably ever have as long as allopathic medicine controls everything.


A phase I and II controlled double-blind study would set you back about $20,000. The government gives hundreds of thousands, if not million, of dollars annually to small start-ups in biomedicine, ntot o mention the NIH has an entire bracket of their grants reserved for research into alternative treatments. Additionally, university professors comprise the large majority of medical researcher. They are not paid for more or better research, typically. With this information in mind, why don't we see more "groundbreaking studies" about your alternative therapies?

Which do you think is more likely...the drug companies are simultaneously bribing EVERY graduate student, professor, doctor, and research lab manager in the WORLD (comprising hundreds of thousands of people) to suppress positive results for alternative therapies, or do you think it's more likely that the data just doesn't support your theory?


I suggest you research alternative medicine a little more. Royal Rife, Hoxsey, Krebiozen, DMSO, colostrum. ALL THESE have SUBSTANTIAL proof of being effective and safe for cancer treatment. And here's the funny thing about the gold standard of the placebo controlled double blind study..............THEY WERE USED IN THE LIPID HYPOTHESIS.......and it's still one of the BIGGEST SCAMS in the history of medicine.


Please provide this "substantial proof". You keep using this phrase, but you've provided absolutely nothing.


If I tell my doctor that I drink raw milk he'd probably look at me like I was a loony.


No, he's probably ask you to come in immediately if you notice any symptoms of bacterial infection. Other than that, I doubt he'd care. We see lots of people like you in the ER annually.


But I've also never been sick not even from a common cold since I started drinking raw milk years ago.


Correlation doesn't equal causation. I've been wearing new shoes for the past six months, and I haven't developed prostate cancer. Do you think I have a new cure on my feet, or am I falsely attributing the timespan of being cancer-free to a non-event?


I don't need you, the AMA, doctors, or the government telling me what works and what doesn't work. There are PLENTY of scientists, MDs, and even government officials fighting the good fight and going against the establishment of organized medicine. And we will ALL be better off for it.


Can you provide any information or studies that these "plenty of scientists, MDs and even government officials" have given you that makes you think we're all out to get you?


And your beloved Rockefeller who pretty much funded and created the AMA was under the care of not only an allopathic but also a homeopathic doctor up until his death.


Um, why would he be MY beloved Rockefeller? I am not a member of the AMA by choice. They're a lobbyist group first and a physicians group second, so I chose to not join when I was offered membership.


Yet he lambasted and crushed homeopathy in the US.


Maybe because he knew from personal experience it was bunk?


And you wonder why people don't trust doctors nor the government least of all organizations like the FDA and AMA.


In the real world, I've seen very few people with a mistrust of physicians. Of course, most of the people I see are coming to a public health hospital, so they don't have the same benefits someone like you (being somewhat well off) has: they cannot take bad treatments for their ailments and have mdoern medicine to fall back on. These people generally can't afford (both in time and money) to waste effort on pointless homeopathy.

Homeopathy will never help you when you're having a heartattack. It will never help you when you have pneomothorax. It will never stop anaphylactic shock. These are just a handful of things I deal with on a daily basis. I defy you to give me ONE treatment for these problems that has any merit, whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
What does acute trauma care have to do with cancer and chronic disease?????? Of course homeopathy isn't going to help with emergent medical trauma and surgery. Duh. That's not the argument.

The SUBSTANTIAL proof is in lots of books. Politics in Healing by Daniel Haley is a good start.

The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Calpo is another.


$20K for a placebo controlled double blind study?
Not one that is worth it's weight in paper.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
What does acute trauma care have to do with cancer and chronic disease?????? Of course homeopathy isn't going to help with emergent medical trauma and surgery. Duh. That's not the argument.


Your argument is that doctors are idiots and pharma shills. My argument is that you only think that is the case when you feel you don't need them. In cases of acute distress, you, like many before you, run to the doctors. Don't you see a problem with you logic if this is the case? Why am I able to treat you for a heart attack, but not a bacterial infection? I'm using drugs from the same companies, and I'm using the same medical education/training.


The SUBSTANTIAL proof is in lots of books. Politics in Healing by Daniel Haley is a good start.


Books aren't peer-reviewed, or reviewed at all for that matter. You can publish anything in a book and sell it as a "cure", just look at Kevin "convicted of tax fraud and evasion" Trudeau. I want REAL scientific evidence, held to a controlled standard.


$20K for a placebo controlled double blind study?
Not one that is worth it's weight in paper.


The last such study I was involved in cost about 3/4 of the price tag. What makes you think it costs so much? Typically, the researcher's salaries are not paid with funds for running the study, which brings the cost down substantially. Also, many studies offer small compensation for the participants ($100 in the case of the last study I worked on with a classmate). Beyond that, the costs are few.

Stop making excuses and provide either peer-reviewed studies for your supposed remedies, or give a plausible explanation for why there aren't any. I've already given mine a few posts ago.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


You're measly little studies are never going to make it in JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine. Those studies require millions of dollars in funding and are the only real studies people especially professionals pay attention to. I.e. ones that are "published".

And I never said I hated all doctors. Far from it. I hate doctors that toe the establishment line and swallow everything the AMA, government, pharma companies tell them. And it's not just in the area of alternative medicine. It's in healthcare overall.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


You're measly little studies are never going to make it in JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine. Those studies require millions of dollars in funding and are the only real studies people especially professionals pay attention to. I.e. ones that are "published".


Basic science studies absolutely cost millions. These studies start with a question and typically end with a clinical product or new discovery, costing millions of dollars and several years.

What I'm referring to in my other posts are simple efficacy trials. These usually take about 6 months, are conducted by graduate or medical students, and cost very little.

Perhaps you should learn a little more about the types and heirarchy of research before you pose yourself as some sort of expert on cost and structure of such studies.


And I never said I hated all doctors. Far from it. I hate doctors that toe the establishment line and swallow everything the AMA, government, pharma companies tell them. And it's not just in the area of alternative medicine. It's in healthcare overall.



So, you are ready to poo-poo most of the advances of Western medicine and replace them with your homeopathic remedies because of a few bad apples in the medical community. That's hilarious.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   


Instead, they quietly sat on it to appease their feminist supporters.


I'm not going to waste time with all of the loopholes, or the fact that this study is flawed.

Feminist supporters? I don't think so. Unless those supporters could pay them off that is not why they didn't release it. The reason, if this was an accurate study, probably would have something to do with the companies that produce birth control.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by RowenaMcQueen]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by RowenaMcQueen
I'm not going to waste time with all of the loopholes, or the fact that this study is flawed.
[edit on 21-1-2010 by RowenaMcQueen]


This is a NEW study conducted by a highly regarded scientist from the NIC. I haven't heard of any flaws in the study or even of any attempts yet to try to debunk the new study.

If you have information on flaws in this NEW study, please provide a link to your sources.

In the meantime, here is an update on the story;



Why is National Cancer Institute Covering up Link?: Abortion Breast Cancer Coalition Letter to Congress

WASHINGTON, January 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The US National Cancer Institute (NIC) has again denied the link between abortion and breast cancer to a Globe and Mail reporter, despite one of their leading researchers being named as co-author on a study that admitted up to a 40 per cent increased risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion.

In 2003, Louise Brinton, NCI’s chief of the Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology branch, was an organizer of the NCI workshop in 2003 that told women it is “well established” that “abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk.” Then, in 2009, Brinton was co-author of study, published in April last year by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, in which she admitted that abortion raises breast cancer risk.


Despite the admission by one of their leading researchers, the NCI website continues to carry the “well established” claim that there is no connection between abortion and breast cancer.

On January 8 the Globe and Mail’s Gloria Galloway wrote that she received another denial from the NCI when she attempted to receive confirmation on the study. The NCI’s Michael Miller told Galloway in an email, “NCI has no comment on this study.” Instead, Miller forwarded a link to the NCI’s official statement denying the breast cancer link that refers back to the 2003 workshop. Further requests for information, Galloway said, went unanswered.

At the same time, the Washington-based Coalition for Abortion/Breast Cancer has issued a letter to Congress asking that the NCI be called to the carpet for what the coalition says is NCI’s ongoing efforts to ignore or cover up the evidence supporting the link.

“We ask Congress to exercise its proper oversight authority and investigate the US National Cancer Institute’s failure to protect American women by issuing timely warnings about breast cancer risks,” the letter said.

The letter is signed by Karen Malek, the group’s president, Dr. Joel Brind, a professor of endocrinology and deputy chair of Biology and Environmental Sciences at City University of New York, and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. It says that thousands of women’s lives are put at risk “in part due to confusing and conflicting messages from our own National Cancer Institute.”

The letter states that researchers invited to participate in NCI’s 2003 workshop, despite the claim that it would comprise a “comprehensive review” of the existing data, were explicitly prohibited from reviewing current data demonstrating a link between abortion and breast cancer.

“Women need to be aware that abortion can affect both her breast cancer risk and health of future children,” the letter said. It notes that the NCI website was updated on January 12 this year, after news about the recent study broke, and now includes the claim that “the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer.”

“In the face of recent publication of results to the contrary ... reported by an NCI Branch Chief Dr. Brinton, this appears disingenuous,” says the coalition’s letter.

“The evidence is overwhelming that the NCI is in direct conflict with its own mission. The NCI is not providing accurate information that would permit women making choices about contraception and abortion to avoid the dangers of the increased risk posed by these exposures, even though they are reported by one of NCI’s top scientists in the field.”

Life Site News



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


It's worth noting that the site reporting this "news" is lifesitenews.com, an obviously anti-abortion site with a great deal of bias. There has been no discussion of the actual study, and no data has been divulged, either by the news site or those who signed the letter mentioned in the article. I searched PubMed (the database for all currently published or accepted but yet-to-be-published scientific literature) and Ms. Brinton's name does not appear on any studies relating to abortion in any way, as claimed by the article above.

When the study is picked up by a peer-reviewed journal, then it will have credibility. Being printed in a journal would certify that is has been held to at least SOME level of scientific standard. There are literally thousands of journals on an array of topics, so unless this new study has not merit, it should be published sometime soon. I guess we'll just have to play the waiting game, though I wouldn't hold my breath on this new "study" being published anytime soon.

[edit on 1/22/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


It's worth noting that the site reporting this "news" is lifesitenews.com, an obviously anti-abortion site with a great deal of bias. There has been no discussion of the actual study, and no data has been divulged, either by the news site or those who signed the letter mentioned in the article. I searched PubMed (the database for all currently published or accepted but yet-to-be-published scientific literature) and Ms. Brinton's name does not appear on any studies relating to abortion in any way, as claimed by the article above.

When the study is picked up by a peer-reviewed journal, then it will have credibility. Being printed in a journal would certify that is has been held to at least SOME level of scientific standard. There are literally thousands of journals on an array of topics, so unless this new study has not merit, it should be published sometime soon. I guess we'll just have to play the waiting game, though I wouldn't hold my breath on this new "study" being published anytime soon.

[edit on 1/22/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]


That's a fair criticism. LSN is definitely biased. So I did a quick web search and found a few more articles about the study. I left out religious and pro-life sources for the sake of objectivity.

Medical News Online

Medical News Today

These ones give you access to the actual study but a membership is required to access the study (and they can be pricey $$);

American Association for Cancer Research

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center


Edit to add: if you have the time and resources to look at the report, I would be interested in the opinion of someone with medical training on the study.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by FortAnthem]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Thanks for the link, ForAnthem. It's always nice when someone here will actually take the time to look into what they're posting
.

I read over the study (I have access to the journal through the hospital). I'll try to summarize the findings, since access is somewhat limited. Basically, they assayed oral contraceptive use, lifestyle, and reproductive history to see what impact any of these factors might play in developing SPECIFICALLY triple-negative breast cancer (so-named because it tests negative for three hallmark biomarkers of breast cancer: progesterone, estrogen, and HEGF). This sort of breast cancer is very aggressive and hard to treat, but only comprises about 15% of breast cancer cases (though the rate is higher in African-American and hispanic women, and tends to occur in younger patients rather than older). This study, however, focused purely on caucasians, though this shouldn't interfere too much with the data, I would think.

The study group included only women who had a reported history of breast cancer. All of them were interviewed regarding lifestyle, oral contraceptive use, and reproductive history.

After interviewing the women and going through what seems life extensive analysis, here are their results: oral contraceptive use seemed to confer a risk varying from 0% to about 1% depending on the person's age, length of use, amount used, and age at first use. This variation increases to about 4% in individuals who are obese, have taken oral contraceptives for more than a year, and had taken it less then a year before developing triple-negative breast cancer. After the age of 41, however, there was zero correlation between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer.

Now, having said that, even the authors admit a few major flaws to their study. The first and foremost is: we don't know HOW oral contraceptives would have a risk on breast cancer, if they even do. The authors are purely using statistics in this study, not biological research. Obviously, statistics can point you in the right area to examine for problems or new ideas, but the numbers aren't always right. Additionally, they admit that there are many, many confounders to their work that they just can't reasonable control for. Did the women with triple-negative breast cancer have a family history? Do they smoke? Do they live with a smoker? Do they live in/near a large city? The list goes on and on, which makes any sort of statistical analysis difficult at best.

What I would like to see is these researchers take their statistical information and apply it in the laboratory. If they can demonstrate this risk in animal models, that would be a much stronger correlation than trying to tease the information out of about a thousand patient interviews (which I can tell you from personal daily experience, PATIENTS LIE when it's about something bad).



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Thanks for the summary.

I hope someone does like you said and conducts some lab research to determine if the conclusions of the study are true.



What I would like to see is these researchers take their statistical information and apply it in the laboratory. If they can demonstrate this risk in animal models, that would be a much stronger correlation than trying to tease the information out of about a thousand patient interviews (which I can tell you from personal daily experience, PATIENTS LIE when it's about something bad).


If these things do increase a woman's risk, the info needs to get out to the public so women can make an informed decision.

Guess we'll have to wait for further studies. I hope too many people aren't unnecessarily put at risk in the meantime.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by FortAnthem]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Thanks for the summary.

I hope someone does like you said and conducts some lab research to determine if the conclusions of the study are true.
[/QUOTE[

I'm sure there are plenty of university labs chomping at the bit to do this research. University research is competitive and effective, especially in America.





If these things do increase a woman's risk, the info needs to get out to the public so women can make an informed decision.

Guess we'll have to wait for further studies. I hope too many people aren't unnecessarily put at risk in the meantime.



I agree 100%. If there IS a demonstrated risk, it needs to be disclosed to patients at the time the therapy is offered. Granted, the risk demonstrated in the current study is minimal, but the patient should always have as much information as humanly possible.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join