Father, I'm against abortion. Not to be flippant, but I'm against cancer as well. (My mom died of cancer, albeit not breast cancer.)Nonetheless: Does it not give you pause that Dr. Chris Kahlenborn could not manage to get his work published by a scholarly (peer-reviewed) press? I know that many pro-life folks will say, well, the deck is stacked against a pro-life viewpoint in the medical community. But really--NO experts (scholars) out there would back up his research strongly enough that a scholarly press would see Kahlenborn's research as credible enough to publish? (If a book on Catholic theology were published and no scholarly press, nor established Catholic theology publishers, would touch the book, would that lack of endorsement/verification not cause you to question the quality of the writer's research/scholarship?) As you well know, anyone can self publish a book. Medical research, however, generally has a much, much higher standard. (Would you make a decision about cardiac health based on a book that a doctor had to self publish?)
No, it doesn't bother me.On the one hand, can you provide evidence to support your claim that Dr. Kahlenborn "could not manage to get his work published by a scholarly (peer-reviewed) press"?On the other hand, there have been numerous peer-reviewed articles that have been shown to be false (one need only think of the many foods that have been declared healthy and then suddenly unhealthy [I know food and cancer are not altogether similar, but the point remains). Simply because something is peer-reviewed does not guarantee it's findings.
There aren't "guarantees" that something published in a peer-reviewed (scholarly) journal or by a scholarly press is 100% accurate; you're right about that. But is there a strong likelihood that medical knowledge is more likely to be accurate if a group of respected experts are all examining it closely? It certainly seems likely, I'd say. You're also right, of course, that I do not have proof that Dr. Kahlenborn tried and failed to get his work published by a scholarly press. It seems logical to assume, however, that he realized the credibility of his argument/findings would have been enhanced had they been published by a scholarly enterprise. I'm guessing he would have welcomed such credibility--had it been an option. I do know that when the new Mississippi River bridge near St. Louis is constructed, I will feel more confident if I know it was designed by an engineer whose articles on engineering were published in well-recognized, peer-reviewed engineering journals, as opposed to a magazine (People magazine, for instance, or Field & Stream) put out by some none-engineering group someplace that is accountable to no experts at all. When it comes to matters of health and safety, I really do like my decision-making information to come from not one but many experts. They're experts for a reason. The member of the profession who doesn't produce work that can be trusted and verified by by others in that field may simply be a lone wolf. But to each his or her own, I guess.
Kahlenborn is far from the only researcher to find the links. Some have been published & peer-reviewed. The Turkish study comes to mind. There's more. Check out Karen Malec's info at Abortion Breast Cancer Coalition.The American Cancer Society lists hormonal contraceptives as a carcinogenic on their website. I've seen it myself. But they fail to warn women in their numerous breast cancer awareness campaigns. Wm
The WHO lists the contraceptive pill as a class one carcinogenic.