Dr. Joel Brind is a professor, scientist, and a leading advocate of the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis.[1] He is a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College and critiques abortion-breast cancer studies.
Contents |
Brind has a bachelors degree from Yale[2] and a Ph.D. from New York University in biochemistry, immunology and physiology.[3]
Brind has worked as a consultant and expert witness for pro-life groups like Christ's Bride Ministries, and has fought against the legalization of RU-486 testifying at a federal hearing that "thousands upon thousands" of women would develop breast cancer as a result of using the drug.[4] Brind was an invitee to the National Cancer Institute's conference on the ABC issue[5] where he filed the minority dissenting comment.[6] In a meeting between Colorado Right To Life and the Denver affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure regarding Komen grants to Planned Parenthood, Brind urged the breast cancer group to re-consider the evidence for the abortion link to breast cancer.[7]
In 1999, in collaboration with several physician colleagues, Brind founded the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute is a non-profit corporation, which educates healthcare professionals and the general public through research publications, lectures, and the internet, on ways to reduce breast cancer incidence.
Dr. Brind et al. (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 23 independent epidemiologic studies.[8] It calculated that there was on average a relative risk of 1.3 (1.2 - 1.4) increased risk of breast cancer. The meta-analysis was criticized for selection bias by using studies with widely varying results, using different types of studies and not working with the raw data from several studies, and including studies that have methodological weaknesses.[9]
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in March 2000 published evidence-based guidelines on women requesting induced abortion. The review of the available evidence at the time was "inconclusive" regarding the ABC link. They also noted "Brind's paper had no methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded." However, in 2003 the RCOG concluded that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer.[10] Some of the ABC studies RCOG reference as evidence (pg. 77) have been heavily criticized by Brind in 2005.[11]
Experts believe Brind overlooks methodological weaknesses of some studies he uses as evidence for an abortion-breast cancer link. Furthermore, medical researchers note Brind overstates his findings since his own research shows a "barely statistically significant" increase in breast cancer rates.[12] In reaction to the criticism an editor of the journal that published Brind's study noted with concern:
However, in the light of recent unease about appropriate but open communication of risks associated with oral contraceptive pills, it will surely be agreed that open discussion of risks is vital and must include the people – in this case the women – concerned. I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called 'pro-choice', you need at the same time to have a view which might be called 'pro-information' without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data.[13]