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……

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:

However, more recent studies have noted an increase in risk among OC users, especially among women who took them before a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP).

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.

Best,
Dennis