Once again, JPANDS, the mouthpiece of the AAPS, has it all wrong. The contradictory missions of the AAPS often lead to humorous juxtapositions of policy. For example, the AAPS wants the physician-patient relationship unsullied by any outside forces—unless that relationship pisses them off. They intervened in the Terry Schiavo case, they wish to make abortion illegal—in other words, they’re libertarians, unless AAPS disapproves of your decisions…
Their big beef in the current article is that there has been a conspiracy to hide the dangers of oral contraceptives and abortion. You see, apparently these cause breast cancer and the NIH doesn’t want you to know. Straight to Godwin:
The NCI Workshop on Early Reproductive Events is reminiscent of an event that occurred in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Hitler was displeased because “Jewish” science was coming to prominence. The government assembled 10 physicists, including two Nobel laureates, to each write an essay against Einstein’s theory of relativity. The book was published as 100 Essays Against
Einstein. Einstein remarked to an inquiring reporter that were they correct, “it would have only taken one.” In a similar way, our government has interfered with the scientific process of conducting studies and relaying the relevant information to the general public.
Wow. Let me clarify a few things here. First, the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCPs), and breast cancer is muddy to nonexistent. Huge studies have been conducted to try to clarify the issue of exogenous estrogen use and the jury is still out. There are a number of reasons to use both OCPs and HRT, and sometimes reason to avoid them. Most of these reasons have to do with blood clotting disorders rather than cancer.
Anyway, the one issue that is not unclear is the abortion-breast cancer question. Here is a short list of citations for articles that have shown no link between abortion and breast cancer:
- NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
- British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
- Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
- Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
- American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
- British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
- American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
- International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
- European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
- Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
- Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
- American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
- Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
- International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
- Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
- International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
- British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
- International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
- Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
- American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
- British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
- Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
- Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
- International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8
And here is a list of all the well-done studies showing a clear link:
So, why abortion and OCPs? Why not hormone replacement therapy? Why not smoking? Because the radical cult Christians and quacks that run AAPS hate women. Period. They want to put control of women and their bodies back where it belongs—in the hands of Christian cult manly men.
Thankfully, the AAPS is a fringe cult group. But people do listen, and they hear what they want to hear. Shameful, really.
March 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Thanks for posting this. I believe there is also a theory out there that alleges that women who have never had children are at higher risk of having cancer, can’t remember if it’s breast or ovarian.
March 10, 2008 at 6:31 pm
There is some truth that women who have children late, or not at all, have some increased risk, but that does not translate into recommending that 16 year olds get knocked up.
The problem with studies that show relationships between on event and another is that people naturally wish to make extrapolations that aren’t warranted by the data.
March 10, 2008 at 8:21 pm
PalMD, not all or even most Libertarians want to make abortion illegal, Gene Burns who ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in the 80’s for instance says that making abortions illegal is like locking up pregnant women in jail for 9 months.
Wikipedia (I know it’s a controversial source, but it makes sense in this instance) says that Libertarians are split as equally as the mainstream as to whether abortions should be legal or not.
March 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm
a little more from the Libertarian Party on abortion:
The U.S. Libertarian Party platform states that “abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides”. It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because “the government should be kept out of the question”.
which happens to fit my opinion perfectly….
March 10, 2008 at 9:03 pm
The point is that AAPS are faux-libertarians. They are libertarians as long as everyone agrees with them all the time.
In other words, they are religious fascists disguised as libertarians.
March 11, 2008 at 1:59 am
want to hear something funny? I’ve never met a libertarian that wasn’t just a republican that was annoyed with taxes.
March 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm
In your quote from the article “The government assembled 10 physicists, including two Nobel laureates, to each write an essay against Einstein’s theory of relativity. The book was published as 100 Essays Against Einstein.”
It seems the author is innumerate, 10 people each wrote ‘an’ essay. That resulted in 100 essays? Also, I am quite sure the title was “100 ‘Scientists’ Against Einstein.” But, hey, when one is writing fiction such trivia are truly inconsequential.
March 12, 2008 at 2:50 pm
On the other hand, there is real evidence that abortion has an effect on uterine cancer. Specifically, there is an inverse correlation or protective effect. Not that women should run out and get pregnant then have an abortion to protect themselves against uterine cancer, of course.
References:
One
Two
March 25, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Correct Joe the Hitler inspired publication was “100 Scientists Against Einstein”. If this minor error is all that you can find to criticise with this post, well why try and score cheap points with your “fiction” jibe?