It is clear that the Brahmans of science - in this case those responsible in the obstetrics/gynecology field - have blood on their hands.

Why?

Abortion is a cause of breast cancer. (I didn't say the cause - I said a cause. There is a scientific, medical link between abortion and breast cancer - a link that is supported by dozens of scientific studies.)

This link has been known for some time. But now, it has been shown that the NCI, the American Cancer Society and medical journals - among others have produced fraudulent research and have deceived the public about this issue.

From a press release today from the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer:

"The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) should be criminally investigated," declared Karen Malec, president of the coalition. "If German scientists had played the same shell game with women's health during World War II, they would have been tried at Nuremberg under American jurisprudence."

The release also cites this article in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly by Dr. Joel Brind (that's PhD not MD) - which was just published. This is an article of impeccable science - and I mean that in terms of objectively seeking the truth with evidence - that produces clear and damning evidence of science fraud in the highest reaches of the scientific community (from the Coalition press release):

Brind's paper reveals a disgraceful, 48-year record of scientific misconduct and a reckless disregard for women's health involving the NCI, the U.S. Department of Defense, Oxford scientists, medical journals, the American Cancer Society (whose legal department attempted to intimidate the coalition for exercising its free speech rights), and others.

Brind's article is well worth the long read and is a first rate education on the subject of linkage between abortion and breast cancer.

Two very important points emerge from Brind's excellent work:

The reputation of abortion as safe for women—which claim is explicitly part of the Roe v. Wade decision—has rightfully come under serious question for many reasons over the years since Roe. One of the reasons that “safe abortion” has come under question is the evidence linking abortion to an increased risk of breast cancer (ABC link). The ABC link has been an issue that has been in and out of the limelight in recent years.

Read: There is a significant 'safe abortion' lobby that has an agenda to prove that abortion is safe and has an agenda to squelch any data that is contrary to that agenda.

And:

...the inherent conflict of interest between the NCI career scientists, who make the highly competitive grant funding decisions for the agency that funds most of the cancer research in the United States (and much of it elsewhere), and the supposedly independent research scientists who receive those grants, that dare not break with the party line.

Read: Money for cancer research goes to those 'scientists' that support the 'safe abortion' agenda.

Couple these overarching issues with Brind's explicit showing of repeated distortions of facts in 'scientific' studies and 'studies on demand' - and the fact that the NCI has altered its web site repeatedly in regard to this issue (anyone have cache's of this page over time?) - and you have a demonstrated showing of reprehensible fraud perpetrated on the public.

Particularly galling is the latest update that the NCI has made to the mentioned page. They have included a link to a cryptic page that alludes to a dissenting opinion - with no way to reach the actual dissent submitted or any way to find the actual research underpinning the dissenter's view - and the dissenter in question just happens to be : Dr. Joel Brind. The site might be changed again under the scrutiny that should occur because of Brind's publication so I'll snapshot it here:

Brind covers what happened with the NCI workshop and his resulting 'minority report' and the subsequent cover up in the referenced article.

(This is, unfortunately, a familiar refrain in several areas of 'scientific research' that we have discussed before - but let's not digress from this important issue.)

Brind ends his paper with these sobering words:

It is indeed unfortunate that—even assuming the truth will eventually win out—it may not occur until the issue is forced into the courtroom. We have estimated that upwards of 10,000 cases of breast cancer each year presently, and up to over 25,000 per year in twenty or thirty years hence, are or will be attributable to induced abortion.

How many thousands of women will be subjected to the pain and suffering of this horrible life-threatening disease, only because the doctors, the public health agencies, the media, and even the voluntary anti-cancer organizations are under the thumb of the “safe abortion” lobby?

But there is more to challenge the “safe abortion” mythology. Even as politically correct studies have been promulgated to neutralize the data proving the ABC link, even stronger data has emerged in recent years that firmly links abortion to premature births in subsequent pregnancies (which in turn raise the risk of breast cancer in the mother and cerebral palsy in the prematurely born children), and to suicide and other forms of premature death in women.

Many adjectives may be used to properly describe induced abortion, but “safe” is assuredly not one of them. The day will surely come when this is common knowledge, and for every day sooner that this happens, thousands of lives may be saved.

Many of us just spent most of the weekend being enraged - and rightly so - that Newsweek published an ill-advised story that resulted in lost lives around the world.

We should be even more enraged that the very institutions that utilize our tax dollars to use science to protect us or deliver us from disease have actually succumbed to a disease - a disease of agenda and funding - and that by implication they have chosen to knowingly expose a particularly vulnerable portion of our society to a prescription of disease and in some cases death.

How many tens of thousands of women are you prepared to sacrifice in the name of "safe abortion"?

Hat tip: LifeSite News

UPDATE: Bill at INDC discusses the importance of including chemotherapy data in a recurrence study that evaluates the effect of diet on breast cancer recurrence. If data regarding the impact of chemotherapy is required for scientific analysis of a diet study - certainly the impact of induced abortion history should be included as well. That assumes, of course, that the scientific environment would acknowledge that abortion is a risk factor in the first place.