The Gift that Keeps on Killing
The Unholy Alliance of Bad Science and
Political Correctness, Part I
To add this article to your site, click the "+MySite" button
“Truth
is beautiful, without a doubt; but so are lies.”—Ralph Waldo Emerson
Given the topic, this article will
contain a certain amount of technical explanation and documentation, so it would
be tedious to try to tackle every bullet point all in one article.
Therefore, this broad topic will be covered in bite size installments so
that A) you don’t feel like you’re in a fifty
hour seminar, and B) I can peace meal it out
more quickly. That being said, let’s set some groundwork.
Science
is a mechanism, a
process—not a religion. It
is not truth; it
is a logical method of study that should help us to arrive at true conclusions.
As such, it can be wielded for good or bad purposes.
There is nothing inherently bad about discovery or knowledge; it is what
we do with that knowledge that can be classified as good or bad.
However, that is not
what I am talking about when I use the term ‘bad
science’.
Bad
science is when
the mechanism is used in a sloppy or dishonest manner
(to
make illogical leaps or fudge the study) in
order to get the conclusion you want.
The use of bad science cannot yield true knowledge because it cheats on
its homework, departing from the testing process that is central to the method.
What you
are left with is
‘cure all snake oil’; a product that is
good for no one except those can pawn it off on an uneducated society.
The snake oil salesmen promise the unsuspecting public it will cure
everything from the common cold to tuberculosis, but it is bogus; the only real
effect it has is heartburn. A
little research from honest, competent scientists can easily expose these
charlatans, and so the public can be protected.
Political
correctness is defined as conforming to
a belief that language
and practices which could offend political sensibilities or agendas are
systematically eliminated. Similar to bad science, it only cares about producing
consequences that are beneficial to the aims of the ideology—it doesn’t care
if it is right or wrong, only if it helps the agenda.
What happens when you marry the two?
If the ‘elite’ in the scientific community becomes co-opted by a
political agenda, then the snake oil salesmen now get the backing of the
governing body; they are made legitimate. Worse,
any honest, competent scientists who try to expose the charlatans are now
blacklisted and systematically eliminated from the field.
And if the snake oil itself is dangerous? Tough noogie!
That is where we find ourselves today;
political agendas have superceded public safety.
More often than not, it is because of either ideology or money (usually
both). Don’t believe me?
Well let’s take a look at one area where this has happened.
Breast
Cancer
We’ve all seen the pink ribbons, and many of
us have worn them—my own aunt died of breast cancer.
How would you react if I told you that the federal government, the power
elite in the medical community, and even the American Cancer Association have
all suppressed
information on the single largest external contributor to breast cancer?
Would that honk you off a little? It
should. The culprit is abortion. 
Here is an excerpt from
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
“In 1986, government scientists wrote a
letter to the British Journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause
of breast cancer. They wrote,
“Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast
cancer.” (Lancet 2/22/86, p. 436)
“Women were never told of their
findings.”
Now, I want to make it clear that I am
not a medical doctor.
I have no
medical training past first aid. My
father and brother are doctors, but I am not—so don’t take my word for it.
Listen to some doctors that are not in anyone’s hip pocket.
Here is some commentary from the December 2004 issue of Ethics
& Medics (Vol 29, Number 12) by editor Dr. Edward J. Furton M.A. PhD
in his article The Corruption of Science by
Ideology.
“The hypothesis that abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer makes perfect sense to any educated mind. The sudden removal of a child from a mother’s womb certainly must have some effect upon her physical condition. Or shall we suppose that such a sudden change makes no impression at all? The body of a woman who has become pregnant undergoes certain physiological changes in preparation for the birth of her child. Some of these involve changes in her breasts, which undergo a development that prepares them for nursing. When a pregnancy is terminated, that process is abruptly ended, and it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the developing tissues suffer some loss of direction. Following the removal of the child, all of the physiological processes alter, due to abrupt changes in hormone levels in the mother. Specifically, human chorionic gonadotropin, which is responsible for full and protective breast maturity, is eliminated by the termination, leaving the breast cells immature and susceptible to carcinogens. It should not be surprising that some of these cells should become cancerous.”
“In
fact, the majority of the scientific studies that have examined the possible
connection between abortion and breast cancer have shown a definite link.”
“The
unwillingness of scientists to speak out against the shoddy research that is
being advanced by those who deny the abortion-breast cancer link is a very
serious breach. The lives and health of millions of women are put at risk.”
“When
the public learns that a causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been
downplayed by the scientific community—for reasons that are ideological rather
than factual—the feeling of betrayal will be strong.”
“Secular
society has its own dogmas, and these cannot be challenged without incurring the
wrath of new inquisitors who know how to use tools that are as effective at
silencing dissent as those wielded against Galileo. Professional ostracism means
not only social isolation, but also exclusion from the major grants, speaking
engagements, and other professional opportunities that make for a successful
career.”
Sounds
almost gangster like, doesn’t it? You
blow the whistle in order to save lives and they end your career.
The doctors who are suffering this oppression are not even blocking
abortion—they just want people to be able to make their decision with all the
facts. In other words, they are
putting the patient’s needs before the needs of the abortion business—being good doctors.
Yet still they are bullied for the crime of telling the truth.
All of the legitimate studies prove there is a connection. How much of a connection?
Well, there is apparently enough to lose a lawsuit.
Here is a snippet from Patrick Goodenough.
“The
world’s first known abortion-breast cancer settlement was reported in
Australia in 2001. An Australian woman who’d obtained an abortion sued her
physician for medical malpractice. She claimed he failed to inform her of the
research linking abortion with breast cancer and the possibility of emotional
damage which she might suffer as a result of her abortion. Although she hadn’t
developed breast cancer, her attorney, Charles Francis, said she nevertheless
received a significant sum. [Patrick Goodenough, “First Case Linking Abortion-Breast Cancer Settled,” Cybercast
News Service, www.CNSNews.com,
January 4, 2002]”
Abortion is big business in this
country, and a lot of people stand to lose a lot of money if people are afraid
to get abortions. That covers the
money end of it. What about the
ideological end of it? What
possible motive could they have to suppress this that is ideological?
Ideologies have a way of
transcending political boundaries, and the Population Control crowd in the
global elite has supporters in this country as well.
The elite learned a long time ago that it is easier to bend laws and
policies to get their agenda through than it is to try to persuade the masses of
the correctness of their views. The
result is well documented by Dr. Stan Montieth, a west coast medical doctor, and
the host of www.radioliberty.com
He
details the abortion/breast cancer issue in his article, Population
Control Agenda.
Here is a sample:
“The Relationship Between Abortion, Breast Carcinoma, and Population Control
… “Despite the fact that 18 scientific studies published in both domestic and foreign medical journals have clearly demonstrated the direct causal relationship between first-trimester abortion and breast cancer, all efforts to disseminate that information here in the United States have been consistently blocked by those who favor abortion and population control. In the fall of 1996 a new scientific paper dealing with a meta-analysis of 23 different scientific studies on the relationship between first-trimester abortions and breast cancer was published in a British medical journal."
“That study clearly demonstrated a higher incidence of breast cancer
in women who had had first-trimester abortions. In response to that
publication, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Cancer Society
(ACS), and pro-abortion/population-control advocates joined together in an
unholy alliance to attack the conclusions of the authors, and to block all
efforts to disseminate that information to American physicians. All of the
organizations mentioned above continue to oppose
efforts to have physicians warn women of the risk they face when they
submit themselves to first-trimester abortions. Before carrying out all surgical
procedures in America "advised consent" is required, except for
abortion.
“The AMA. the ACS, and the pro-death lobby continue to insist that women must
not be advised of the risk they incur when they destroy the life of their unborn
child. Why is there such inconsistency? Current abortion policies in America are
absolutely necessary to reduce our population. That is why a minor child can be
taken from school to an abortion clinic without parental notification, yet that
same child cannot be given an aspirin without parental consent. It all has to do
with population control.”
It’s no accident that
our society has become so chaotic and upside down.
Someone who wants to either rip you off or take control of you cannot do
so in a stable, happy environment. Evil
always rides in on the back of a white horse, but it cannot ride in
Darren M. Turney
2 September 05