Dennis Byrne and the Pill
Monday is Ideological Conservative Commentary Day over at the Chicago Tribune. The columns by Chicago-based Dennis Byrne and nationally syndicated Charles Krauthammer usually leave me wringing my hands.
One of the nice things about reading the Trib online is that they’re pretty buried on the site, so I can miss them with zero effort. Sadly, when presented with the print edition, I am not so lucky. Headlines like, ‘Why Isn’t This Study on the Pill Heeded?‘ draw both my eye and ire.
Byrne’s argument is that a study published ‘more than a year ago’ by Dr Chris Kahlenborn linking contraceptive pills and breast cancer is getting short shrift in the media:
… I couldn’t find a single reference to it in the archives of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times or this paper. The Associated Press appears not to have covered it. I couldn’t find a single mainstream media article about it in a Google search.
Byrne notes that Kahlenborn is ‘frustrated’ that he’s not getting ‘important information out to women’ that, according to his study, they’re much more likely to get breast cancer if they use the pill before pregnancy.
What Byrne doesn’t mention until the second to last paragraph is that Kahlenborn is - wait for it - anti-choice. Byrne questions, however, those who feel that ideology might have clouded Kahlenborn’s judgment:
…but what has that to do with his research? As for me, I am not opposed to contraception, oral or otherwise. I am not plotting to get the pill banned. I am not writing this column for hidden religious reasons. I am not saying that the Kahlenborn study is the last word; I’m not a scientist, so I can’t vouch for its methodology or conclusions. Just like the abortion/breast cancer study, I’m writing about it because people have a right to know about the existence of health information, even if it is contradictory to the given wisdom.
Byrne isn’t a scientist, so what could he know about methods? Yet he’s quick to argue at the beginning of his column that Kahlenborn’s study ‘employed an often-used medical research technique called “meta-analysis”‘. He seems to know enough about scientific methods to grant legitimacy to Kahlenborn’s techniques.
So let’s say you don’t read to the end of the article or, say, conduct a brief Google/Google Scholar search. You might never know that Kahlenborn’s work is cited extensively in the anti-contraceptive/anti-abortion literature promulgated by One More Soul, ‘a non-profit organization dedicated to spreading the truth about the blessings of children and the harms of contraception‘. (I’m going to go ahead and leave their copied links in there because they’re great.) Briefly, they’re against contraception for a number of reasons:
The first reason is that the use of contraception leads to abortion.
Also - and I know some of you think I make this stuff up, it’s in the Barrier Methods section - condoms have tiny holes that let the AIDS through.
Without that brief Google search, a Bryne reader might also not know that Kahlenborn’s ‘books’ (the first ‘book’ is a pamphlet), How the Pill and Other Contraceptives Work (1999) and Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill (2000) were both published by One More Soul.*
Kahlenborn might have moved up in the ranks - at least to getting a study published by Mayo - but clearly, clearly there is an ideology at work here. Perhaps those bad reporters at the NYT, et al did what I did - a five minute Google search - and decided that, Mayo or no, this wasn’t news.
Now, I’m no scientist, but I think that a legitimate scientist probably wouldn’t have his work published by an organization that cites a 1992 letter to the editor as proof that condoms have holes. As a scientist, looking to publish my work some seven years later, I would take this as empirical evidence that I should publish elsewhere. Unless, of course, I agreed with their ideas or couldn’t find anyone else to take my work.
Neither of these options makes me grant much legitimacy to Kahlenborn’s work then or now, especially in the face of numerous studies that demonstrate the opposite.
Mr Byrne, I know from your article that you did a Google search on Kahlenborn. Thanks for giving us all the facts - your commitment to the people’s ‘right to know’ is what makes you such a great columnist.
Update: As a legitimate scientist, I probably wouldn’t still be working with the crackpot ‘condoms have holes’ people after my study was released by Mayo. Here’s Kahlenborn’s pamphlet ‘ Newly revised and updated in September 2007′. It’s $0.35, but that drops to $0.21 if you buy 1000 or more.
*- should you wish to purchase Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill (and why wouldn’t you), I suggest buying it from One More Soul’s site for $5.95. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer - its other distributor - is selling it for $11.95! Oh, the savings!
Sphere: Related Content
December 4th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Thank you for reading all the way from Australia. You are invited to post your comments on my blog: http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com. While you’re at it, you may want to address the substance of the study, instead of saying it can’t be right because look who did it. Meanwhile, I will post a link to your comments on my blog.
Best,
Dennis
December 4th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Oh, I’m back in Chicago for holidays, hence reading your column.
With scientific research - as with most research - the researcher plays a large part in determining the results. It informs what questions he/she asks and how the results are interpreted. So I don’t think it’s out of line to explore the credentials of a researcher who makes claims that fly in the face of most scientific research.
As for addressing the substance of the study - I’m not a contraceptive or breast cancer researcher, so some of the science lingo is a bit over my head. Nor can I perform my own study; I can’t exactly say, ‘No! It’s not 44%, Dr Khalenborn’s study is false!’ I do know, however, as you point out, that the vast body of research disagrees with his analysis.
I know how to read a reference list, though, and Dr Khalenborn’s is certainly interesting.
For research that purports to study the literature from 1980 on, there is a dearth of citations after 2000. 17 out of 134 by my count. And a total of one study (there are also two citations for statistics) after 2004, though I’m willing to be generous and say that his team probably conducted their analysis around this time. Several of these citations are not directly applicable (meaning references to a different point) - ie, they’re about post-menopausal women or about abortion and breast cancer. Only nine of the post-2000 citations are studies about breast cancer and contraception, at least one of which directly opposes his conclusions (Marchbanks, et al, 2002).
This phase is interesting:
Those ‘recent’ studies are cited as five studies between 1990 and 1996. Even if the analysis was conducted in 2004, I hardly think 1996 was the most recent study available. Sounds like cherry picking to me, which - given his background with One More Soul, and their absurd use of factoids to support their arguments - makes me dubious about the questions he was willing to ask and the conclusions he subsequently drew.
My beef was with your dismissal of his associations with an ardently anti-contraception group. Whether or not he’s correct, his past affiliation (and current affiliation, might I add) with this group has to throw doubt on his study.
To use a somewhat awkward metaphor, you can’t ask the fox to investigate the chicken house. He’s just going to find that, like he previously thought, chickens are delicious - though I don’t mean to suggest that Dr Khalenborn enjoys devouring women. Like I said, awkward.
I do appreciate the link and your willingness to discuss the issue. I think, however, that the issue is far different from the one you raise in your column.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
The other Chicago Tribune “village quack” spews on birth control and breast cancer…
The other village quack of the Chicago Tribune has decided to enter the breast cancer fray again. No, I’m not talking about the main village quack of the Chicago Tribune. That would be Julie Deardorff. Rather, I’m talking about the……