Dr. Irving Kupfermann (Letter, May 21) had some problems with our May 5th forum at the Port Library on the topic "Breast Cancer and Abortion: Is There a Link? Has There Been a Coverup?" One problem Kupfermann had was that "there was very little in the way of opposing ideas." Yes, Kupfermann is correct, the only opposition came from the audience, and it would have been far better to have had an opponent of Dr. Brind's caliber as a main presenter to "debate" the issue with Dr. Brind.
But Kupfermann unfairly failed to mention what I clearly stated at some length in my opening remarks at the forum, namely, that I personally contacted nine of the most prominent representatives on the other side (which contends that, in spite of the overwhelming preponderance of studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer, the data is still "inconclusive") and could not get a single one of them to engage Dr. Brind in debate. Let me name names. I started with the National Cancer Institute's national headquarters and Dr. Louise Brinton, who gave me the names of the top people in the NY metro area. I also contacted Dr. Iris Obrams who heads the LI Breast Cancer Study Project and got names from her. I then called and invited Dr. Marilee Gammon, Dr. Al Nugut and Dr. Rubie Senie, all of Columbia University; I invited Dr. Dorothy Lane, Dr. Christine Leske and Dr. Geoffrey Cabot, all of SUNY-Stonybrook; finally, I invited Dr. Paolo Toniolo of NYU. All, except Dr. Toniolo, were invited some two to three months prior to the forum. All were offered the same honorarium we gave Dr. Brind, who traveled to Port from Poughkeepsie.
All of these opponents declined. Some admitted they were not as knowledgeable as Dr. Brind on the subject. Others were "previously committed." Others had no excuse, but were simply reluctant to engage Dr. Brind in debate. One, who seriously considered coming, acknowledged doing major research on this very subject involving NY women, and found a 90 percent increased risk of breast cancer following induced abortion. In a lengthy followup conversation, she said something which I believe is key to understanding what is happening on this issue. She said, "But I don't want to do anything that would hurt the pro-choice position." With those words, candidly uttered, we have an insight into what I had long suspected. Many scientists now view abortion as enshrined in political correctness to the degree that some (thankfully, not all) in the field of medical science are unwilling to debate the facts when the facts are at odds with a "pc" position.
Kupfermann said it is not "plausible that numerous prominent scientists would jeopardize their careers for such political ends." The candid words uttered by the researcher I quoted above suggest that Kupfermann is, unfortunately, incorrect. The sad truth today is that numerous scientists will not jeopardize their careers by engaging in scientific inquiry and debate if the result is inconsistent with the politically correct position. While this sorry state of affairs pertains to many, it certainly does not pertain to all scientists. Dr. Janet Daling and Dr. Chinciulli, both of whom are pro-choice, are two who courageously publicized their findings showing an increased risk of breast cancer following abortion. We need more scientists such as Daling, Chinciulli and Brind, committed to truth, and fewer "scientists" committed to political correctness. Thousands of lives are literally at stake.
Frank J. Russo, Jr.
State Director-American Family Association