False Witnesses: A Rogues' Gallery of BAD Scientists

Everyone who writes or cares about reproductive justice, women's rights, science, etc. should bookmark this amazing feat of research, Reproductive Health Reality Check's False Witnesses project.

Here at DJ! we have an abiding interest in BAD science in general but in particular as it is applied to abortion and women's health.

"BAD" stands for biased, agenda-driven, or science-for-hire. And it is everywhere.

Here's RH Reality Check's explanation.

First Big Tobacco, then climate change denial, and now, the anti-choice movement.

The issues might have changed, but the techniques now widely used by conservatives to distort science and, with it, public policy, remain the same.

They create nonprofits, staffed with die-hard ideologues, and set about producing and promoting bogus science, to build the illusion of dissent or doubt over conclusions drawn by peer-reviewed scientific or medical research. They develop their own “research findings” to suit their ideological views. Then they deploy scare tactics, all with the goal of passing laws that suit their agenda.

And anti-choice has been at it for decades now. They've even got "institutes" and sciencey-sounding "research groups." Some we've tried to profile here but RH Reality Check has really dug and got the goods.

In the False Witnesses Gallery are 14 "scientists" for hire, some familiar to us, some not so much. They're mostly USian. Click on their photos to find out more.

The format for each profile is fabulous. Each is divided into sections: "Signature Falsehood," "Setting the Record Straight," "Role Within the Anti-Choice Movement," and "Blatant Errors," as well as their connections, credentials, and the amount of dough they've raked in with their obligingness. And they are all connected, all cite each other's publications.

In short, hours of fun reading.

And while there are no Canadians among them, these liars regularly show up at Canadian anti-choice events and venues.

Like Martha Shuping, who caused a fuss recently when she was invited to speak at Memorial University, and Angela Lanfranchi, who is Maurice Vellacott's go-to gal for bullshit on the "abortion causes breast cancer" canard.

Very gratifying for us here at DJ! is the inclusion of our fave Perfesser of Home Economics and Slut-Shaming, Priscilla Coleman, whose work has been so thoroughly and utterly dismantled it's a wonder she has the gall to show her face. Here's the RH Reality Check research on her.

We have one addition. There is a disreputable gang of Canadians operating under the banner of the Deveber Institute. Small and pretty lame, but all ours.

So, bookmark and browse.

And congratulations and grand merci to RH Reality Check.

More BAD Science

A commenter on yesterday's BAD Science post raised a new abortion 'complication'.

Abortion and autism.

I knew about the autism and vaccine, specifically measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), fraud but an abortion and autism link was new to me.

I got googling.

Found something from a couple of years ago that attempts the feat and look who's propagating it. Big Nursie.

The allegation is abortion is linked because the vaccines use 'dead babies'. SHRIEEEK!

Indeed. And the study in question, the one being cited here, briefly summarizes the other studies that have been done that have pretty much demonstrated that there is NOT a link between MMR and autism. NOT. Not is. Is not. No link. No link mentioned in this study.

No link shown anywhere else. The only link is in the feeble and demented brain of “blogger Jill Stanek.” Jeesh.

So the MMR – autism link is dead, so the fetal tissues don’t really matter, but what about that? Are dead babies used to prepare the MMR vaccine?

Well, no. Human cell lines have provided some of the substrate for one part of the MMR vaccine (the “R” part) in the past, some of that from old non-abortive tissue lines, some from abortive tissue lines. But there were religious objections for using the abortive tissue lines, so now, if I understand correctly, we use … cow fetuses and human tissues that are not from abortive material. Which is probably inferior (but I’m not sure if it makes a difference in this case)

Lies, fabricated links, bad information, scare tactics. What are they getting out of this dishonesty?

I found another from the infamous Elliot Institute linking (in a roundabout way) autism to abortion.

Is it biologically plausible that prior maternal induced abortions elevate a newborn baby’s autism risk? In a word, yes. This is because of two mechanisms — preterm birth (very preterm and extremely preterm) and raised parental age at delivery. Six significant studies report that prior induced abortions boost extremely preterm birth risk (under 28 weeks’ gestation).

Extremely preterm babies have about 25 times the autism risk as do full-term (at least 37 weeks’ gestation) babies. The older the parents are at delivery, the higher the autism risk. In a 2001 study of French women, Dr. Henriet reported that French women with more than one prior induced abortion had 2.4 times (i.e. 140% higher) the risk of maternal age over 34 at delivery compared to women with zero prior induced abortions.

The 'six significant studies' links to a PDF. What the hell. I downloaded and got 'Does Induced Abortion Account for Racial Disparity in Preterm Births, and Violate the Nuremberg Code?'

Seriously.

It was published in the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which bills itself as 'A Voice for Private Physicians since 1943'.

Here's what Wiki has to say:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative American non-profit organization founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine." The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 3,000 in 2011. Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey; the executive director is Jane Orient, a member of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

AAPS publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (formerly known as the Medical Sentinel). The Journal is not indexed by mainstream scientific databases such as the Web of Science or MEDLINE. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal has been criticized by medical and scientific authorities.

Or, more succinctly, here's RationalWiki:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a small group of "conservative" quacks, cranks and fundamentalist zealots which likes to rail against such timeless evils as abortion, vaccination and the idea of universal health care coverage.

So, add the Association and, in particular, its journal to our list of BAD Science purveyors.

PSA: BAD (biased, agenda-driven) Science

This article is from 2006, but the phenom is not only still going on, it's getting worse. B.A.D. (biased, agenda-driven) science.

Creating B.A.D. science is simple. In the anti-abortion movement, a handful of scientists with conservative political agendas first publish articles, studies and commentaries in scientific journals, generating scientific "knowledge" about the dangers of abortion with unsubstantiated claims using problematic approaches.

In the 1980s, they tagged onto a scientific debate about abortion and breast cancer that appeared in the journals beginning in the 1950s. By repeatedly making the same claims in a variety of publications, they create the appearance of a body of scholarship that can be used to support a political goal of presenting apparently legitimate scientific evidence to influence the abortion debate. Then B.A.D. scientists create their own advocacy groups which in turn inspire new grassroots organizations with an agenda based on the scientists' claims. Newcomers join online or at the local level, and a movement with serious policy influence is born.

Here at DJ!, we cover the BAD science beat as well as we can.

Now, since the Abortion Debate Nobody But Fetus Fetishists Want, aka Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312, is already raging on Twitter and Facebook, and since the Fetus Lobby threatens to unleash 'up-to-date' science on it, herewith as a public service, a list of organizations to watch for. (I may do individuals later.)

Every single one of these is a propounder of biased, agenda-driven 'science' advancing the usual bogus claims: abortion causes breast cancer, mental illness, and infertility; fetal pain; Post-Abortion Syndrome; pregnancy by rape is rare and therefore an allowable exemption, etc.

In no particular order:

A newish one: World Expert Consortium for Abortion Research and Education or WECARE (awwww) for short. It's fronted by our old pal, Priscilla Coleman, Perfessor of Home Ec and Slut-Shaming. Also among its members is Elard Koch who authored a fraudulent study of abortion in Chile claiming there is no illegal abortion there and nobody dies from it.

Another newish one: Modelled on the esteemed Guttmacher Institute, which was once the research arm of Planned Parenthood, Charlotte Lozier Institute calls itself the 'education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List'.

A Canadian one: The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research.

An old and venerable one: Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, featuring war-horses Joel Brind, Angela Lanfranchi, John T. Bruchalski and William L. Toffler.

One that has the honesty to call itself 'pro-life': Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change.

Another one with a cute acronym: MARRI Research Marriage and Religion Research Institute, which, as its title suggests is mostly into 'traditional' marriage and the horror of divorce, but also dips into the evils of contraception.

One of the grand-daddies and coiner of 'Post-Abortion Syndrome', Vincent Rue of the Institute for Pregnancy Loss, which still has no web presence.

And finally, another grand-daddy, The Elliot Institute, starring the 'Moses of the post-abortion movement'David Reardon.

There are probably more that I haven't run across yet. If you know of one, please add it to the comments and I'll update.

When fetus fetishists cite 'science' and 'studies', check to see if the paper or authors are affiliated with or funded by any of these.

If so, the work is BOGUS.

ADDED: From choice joyce in the comments: Pro-Life OB/GYNs. It doesn't seem to be a funding organization, but links to many of the usual suspects.

ADDED: Another totally bogus journal. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Martinuk: A Liar and a Cheat

Shame on the Calgary Herald for giving a platform to BIG LIES promulgated by the Fetus Lobby, namely *sigh* the 'abortion causes breast cancer' one again.

A writer named Susan Martinuk says:

This means Komen is raising money to fight breast cancer at the same time as it is handing that money to causes that appear to be a contributing cause to that very disease.

Hm. Martinuk, Martinuk, why does that sound familiar?

Oh yeah. A few weeks ago, I was spanking the scientists for hire that fetus fetishists like Maurice Vellacott rely on to spread their bullshit.

Dr Dawg left a link in the comments to some similar spanking he'd done back in July of 2008. Dr Morgentaler had just received the Order of Canada and the forced birthers were going bonkers.

Dr D. was taking this apart for its bogus science. And oh look, it's by Susan Martinuk.

On the breast cancer lie, Dr D said:

I'm amazed that this old canard still has legs, but once again our reliable JPANDS [Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons] is cited--twice! The US National Cancer Institute isn't buying it; neither is the American Cancer Society. As the ACS puts it, " the public is not well-served by false alarms and at the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer."

I went to the old link to see what Martinuk had to say.

In 1996, a paper in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health provided the first real evidence of a connection between abortion and breast cancer. Pooled data from 28 different studies demonstrated that women who had abortions had increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 30 per cent.

Subsequent studies supposedly disproved this association, but a 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons paper showed these studies had methodologies that were sufficiently flawed "to invalidate their findings." And, in 2007, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reported that induced abortion was the risk factor that best predicted the incidence of breast cancer in European women.

I blinked at that a couple of times, then went to the new link again.

But there is an even bigger problem in Komen’s funding of Planned Parenthood. For the past 15 years, there’s been a growing controversy over the link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. In 1996, a paper in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health provided the first evidence of a connection between abortion and breast cancer. Pooled data from 28 studies demonstrated that women who had abortions had increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 30 per cent. Subsequent studies supposedly disproved this association, but a 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons paper showed these studies had methodologies that were sufficiently flawed “to invalidate their findings.” And, in 2007, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reported that induced abortion was the risk factor that best predicted the incidence of breast cancer in European women.

Throw in a couple of new sentences, and presto! A timely article with all the same old discredited crap in it.

So, double shame on the Calgary Herald. Once for printing the crap. Twice for printing -- and presumably paying for -- the same crap three and a half years later.

But really, how surprised should we be that a lying liar like Martinuk is also a cheat?

Anti-Choice: Suckers for Scientists for Hire

(Whoa. This got long. Sorry.)

As promised, we take up the matter of the 'ignored' information in the CTV investigation into a fake clinic, as alleged in the eight-page press release issued by Maurice Vellacott.

By the way, Kady O'Malley had this to say about it.

I believe Maurice Vellacott may have just sent out the longest press release in the history of Canadian parliamentary democracy.

Among many, here's the complaint about bias. (I don't like Scribd. One can't copy and paste. Grrr.)

'The report ignored the scientific literature referenced in the centres' brochures which substantiates the centres' claims that abortion is associated with increased physical and psychological health risks.'

So, one of the eight pages is devoted to providing that missing information. There are eleven references. I looked them all up. Three seem legit, if not quite saying what Vellacott implies.

For example, the one by Ostbye. T., et al. is a simple comparison on abortion outcomes by location, i.e. looking into whether women have fewer complications from abortions performed in hospitals as opposed to clinics. It has nothing to do with abortion risks as such*.

Two, Moreau, C., et al. and Shah and Zao, focus on the relationship between previous abortion and risks of subsequent pre-term or low-weight delivery.

Again, both seem legit and do find a correlation. However, the first is based on French data from 1997, specifically because French women have a higher rate of abortion than many. The second is based on only 37 cases. Both caution that more study is necessary on the topic especially into what manner of abortion and what sorts of complications are also associated with low-weight or pre-term delivery. Not terribly damning, in other words, but at least legit.

Which is way more than can be said for the other eight.

Joel Brind is 'a leading advocate of the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis', which has been debunked countless times. 'Nuff said. Moving on. . .

A PDF of the Fergusson, D.M., et al. paper is available at the Toronto-based de Veber Institute. 'What's that? you ask?

The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research conducts and disseminates research on topics connected to human life in its biological, social and ethical dimensions. These topics are selected for study depending on emerging medical, technological and social developments. In undertaking this work the Institute believes that a sense of the inherent value and dignity of human life and of the human person as an end and not a means is a foundational perspective to bring to bear on its work.

A glance at its current projects (abortion and breast cancer, abortion and mental health, abortion and infertility) confirms: yes, another bogus anti-choice science for hire gang.

(BTW, like other such echo-chambers for lies, the site also cites the Ostbye study, but lies about its purpose and conclusions: 'A study conducted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario shows that after induced abortion there is a 4 times increase in medical admissions and a 5 times increase in surgical admissions to the hospital.')

The Ring-Cassidy and Gentles paper is also associated with the de Veber Institute, its authors being principals there. Ring-Cassidy is a psychologist with a 'continued interest in Catholic Psychology and has taken American Psychological Association Continuing Credits in this area', while 'Ian Gentles is a Professor of History at York University's Glendon College and at Tyndale University College, and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.' Yup, fully qualified to research 'women's health after abortion'.

Now we come to Angela Lanfranchi whose abortion=breast cancer paper was published in The Linacre Quarterly. Never heard of this prestigious medical journal? Me neither.

Linacre Quarterly, established in 1932, is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Catholic Medical Association. The journal primarily focuses on the relationship between medicine and spirituality and in particular on medical ethics.

An example of how the journal approaches both religious and medical issues is provided by an article in the August 2006 issue that discusses the medical aspects of crucifixion, given that the Crucifixion of Jesus is a central element of the Roman Catholic faith.

Ho-kay then.

But we're not done with Angela yet.

Her work can also be found at Breast Cancer Prevention Foundation, of which with Joel Brind (see above) she's a co-founder and at the Association for Interdisciplinary Research inValues and Social Change, which at least has the grace to admit that it is a 'pro-life' organization.

The Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change is a professional organization for pro-life researchers and educators which offers a forum to exchange ideas of scientific and social science disciplines. The Association is a network of pro-life professionals who encourage research and academic publication and the development of textbooks and curricula for high schools and colleges. Since its 1986 inception, the Association has published a quarterly news bulletin which has done extensive academic work, especially on Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS), a pattern of psychological problems suffered by some women and men after abortion. Professional research and writing on PAS is vitally important because it is an emerging new field.

(PAS is complete bullshit, BTW, again debunked countless times.)

Vellacott likes Angela. He brought her to Parliament Hill in 2007 to lecture on the inevitable cancer/abortion link.

We've saved the best for last. Four of the eleven references are to our old pal and professional liar-for-hire Priscilla Coleman, who is Perfesser of Home Ec and Abortion Trauma for Sluts.

Priscilla is aaaall over the newly announced World Expert Consortium for Abortion Research and Education, or 'wecare' for short. (Awww.)

She is ubiquitous in the articles and publications sections and is the ONLY person in the presentations section.

She is obviously making hay with her recent notoriety occasioned by the publication of a piece of typical bullshit in the 'prestigious' British Journal of Psychiatry, which is celebrating its bicentennial with a bit of hubbub about that very paper.

The editor says:

We have seldom been a campaigning journal, because campaigning, even in pursuit of a noble cause, indicates partiality, and we also like to think that we are independent of the many lobbying groups that surround our subject, even though we sometimes venture into territory occupied by factional fighting, as illustrated for example in the correspondence in this issue (Howard et al, p. 74, etc.) over a paper we published in September.

Annoyingly, that from the editor is the only bit not behind the sub wall. I've put out a twitter call for someone with a sub (and repeat it here) to clue us on on what transpires in eight letters, an editors' response, and and an author's reply.

There have been many calls for BJP to retract the paper, as the Lancet had to over the fraudulent work of Andrew Wakefield on the vaccine-autism non-link.

Somehow I doubt BJP will have the balls of the The Lancet.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, bravo to CTV for 'ignoring' a bunch of science-for-hire bullshit. These people need to be exposed every time they weasel their way into serious, grown-up discussions.

Again, we say: THIS is precisely why we won't debate them. Because they lie.

UPDATE: Ain't the twittersphere grand? Thanks to goddammitkitty for PDFs of BJP letters, editor's reply, and author's response. New blogpost coming.

UPDATE UPDATED: British Journal of Psychiatry ^NOT 'Prestigious'.

*Correction: From Dr. Dawg, we learn that the Ostbye study is not completely irrelevant. There was a control group of women who did not have abortions. But the conclusion is the same. The complication rate for abortion is low.

From Dr. Dawg's link we also learn that they've been pumping the same old crap for ages.