After the treatment meted out to Eric Abetz, possibly the last thing I wanted to see in my email inbox was an article from a credible academic, with credible evidence, that there could indeed be a link between abortion and breast cancer.
But there it was, and it has been published today. Despite the media reports there is an argument that can be made, and the fact that some people might take offence to that argument is no reason to avoid it.
The abortion breast cancer link is not one that I had heard much of before this article by Dr Lachlan Dunjey we published last week.
Eric Abetz was attacked on The Project by Mia Freedman, because of the views of speakers at a conference held by an organisation he supports. Freedman specifically chose the claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer as her point of attack.
While there was a range of speakers of varying points of view, some of whom represented political parties at odds with Abetz’ Liberal Party, apparently there was only one speaker he was supposed to support entirely, and that was Dr Angela Lanfranchi, who asserts that the abortion link exists.
Indeed, on Freedman’s logic, I ought to be held responsible for Dunjey’s article as well.
Abetz has been criticised not just by Freedman, but by the AMA and others, on the grounds that this claim is scientifically incorrect and akin to alleging a link between autism and vaccination.
A quick search of the Internet was enough to prove this claim wrong. While the preponderance of medical studies shows no link, there are some that do. There were no studies demonstrating the autism/vaccination link.
So it is more like studies of mobile phones and cancer where some studies show a link, but most don’t. On that basis I have been using a mobile phone, holding it close to my head, and in a pocket in my trousers, for about 22 years. I don’t feel the need to castigate someone who produces a new study contradicting what I believe to be the likely science.
Abetz was correct in everything he said to Freedman, and as she cut him off, we only have his word for what he was going on to say.
Which leads to this morning’s article by Joel Brind, Professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York.
In the end the decision to publish was easy. Brind is an expert in the field, and the evidence to back his case is strong, recent, and published in peer reviewed journals.
I do not warrant that he is right, but I do warrant he has a right to be published.
The reaction to Eric Abetz is yet more of the soft fascism currently invading our society where anything that offends collective beliefs is to be ridiculed and summarily dismissed because it doesn’t suit powerful vested interests – in this case the medical and female identity industries.
The problem is that not only does the right to free speech, including the right to say things that might not be right, rest on the basis of human rights, but it is a scientific necessity.
Those who try to limit it not only limit individual rights, but are anti-science, disputing the very methodology that has given us our extraordinarily wonderful and technological modern world.
And if in 20 years time the scientific consensus has swung to support Abetz and Brind, how would our soft fascists like to be treated then?