Skip to comments.New study from China helps to prove the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
Posted on 12/02/2013 7:37:45 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
In the US we are used to abortion advocates claiming that the risk of elective abortion is relatively trivial, and major medical organizations denying any link between abortion and breast cancer. Now a powerful new study from China published last week by Yubei Huang and colleagues suggests otherwise. The article, a meta-analysis pooling 36 studies from 14 provinces in China, showed that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 44% with one abortion, and 76% and 89% with two and three abortions.
This new article is another example of the recent excellent scholarship on abortion in peer-reviewed journals coming out of the People's Republic. There is no bigger data base than China, where there is an average of 8.2 million pregnancy terminations every year, and 40 abortions for every 100 live births. Chinese researchers and physicians are unencumbered by abortion politics, and do not cover up data showing long term effects of induced abortion, as do their US counterparts in governmental, professional and consumer organizations.
Huang's study shows an even stronger increase than the 30% higher risk found in the 1996 meta-analysis by Joel Brind and colleagues on abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The Brind meta-analysis, combining the results of 23 studies, gave a more complete view than any single study. But even though it was the most comprehensive study on the topic at the time, it was disregarded by establishment medical groups.
Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, is not unique in having experienced censorship .....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, is not unique in having experienced censorship .....of his findings for the past two decades, including at the notorious National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop on "Early reproductive events and breast cancer" in 2003 This important workshop was manipulated by its chairperson NCI epidemiologist Louise Brinton to suppress critical information on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. The main speaker on abortion and breast cancer, Leslie Bernstein, who had never published on this topic, openly said "I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them (women) that having babies is the way to reduce your risk," even though it has been an established fact, conceded by abortion proponents that this is true.
There needs to be a lot of fearless, unbiased research all along these linked female health topics.
The current research is raising huge questions about the massive hormonal jiggery-pokery foisted upon millions of women, whether via the hormonal contraceptives --- pill, patch, injection or implant --- or via HRT, or environmental contamination with endocrine disruptors in the water (a lot of which got there through the effluent of millions of contraceptive users.)
As for the abortion connection, it seems that the most significant effect is when aborting early in the first pregnancy after the point where the breast tissue starts its pre-lactation differentiation. If the lactation developmental process is started under the influence of the normal pregnancy hormones, and then abnormally disrupted by a termination of pregnancy, the breast tissue is very vulnerable to cancerous cellular changes.
Women´s bodies (and minds and hearts) are fine-tuned and intricately balanced around the normal cycles of fertility. It has been thus since Mitochondrial Lucy or Mother Eve, whichever you prefer. Throw a chemical "wrench" into the gearbox, and expect -- well, derangement. I´ll leave it at that.
The other link that's been hypothesized but never verified is one between underwire bras and breast cancer.
Meta-analysis is even trickier when different studies use different definitions, different data sources or different verification criteria.
However, the article implies that the statistical methodology here was quite sound. I expect the Abortion Industry to come down on it with a blizzard of obfuscation, shuffling and denial in 3 - 2- 1 . . . . .
I’d think the Chinese study would be MORE accurate than the others. They’d have more complete records about abortions a woman has had.
And I wonder if they are less afraid of being "stigmatized" by reporting on findings linking breast cancer and abortion.
Big abortion needs to be sued like big tobacco was - because Brind’s meta-analysis has been out there since 1996 and yet abortionists have NOT been warning prospective patients about the risks. Some lawyer could get rich off of women with breast cancer - especially if they’re now having their health insurance taken out from underneath them - suing those who refused to tell them that they were 50+% more likely to get breast cancer if they had an abortion...
In Australia the ABC link legally HAS to be disclosed by doctors and abortionists, as a result of a study whose results were initially expunged by the academic community: there is a higher correlation between a first-trimester abortion and breast cancer than there is for a FAMILY HISTORY of breast cancer, which to this day is touted by American doctors as being the reason to have or not have an early mammogram.
We’re talking SERIOUS LIABILITY issues for everybody who has lied to women about the dangers of abortion - ESPECIALLY the most-common ones: first trimester abortion of a first pregnancy.
The money quote:
Carroll’s work is important because he finds that not only is induced abortion an independent risk factor for breast cancer (separate from such factors as late child-bearing) but that it is the best predictive factor for forecasting a nation’s future breast cancer rates. Nations such as China, with traditionally low breast cancer rates, are now seeing an increase, many years following their legalization of abortion.
The states which legalized abortion before Roe v Wade had a surge in breast cancer before other areas of the country, until the other states caught up after Roe v Wade. Similarly, affluent women who were able to afford abortions had a higher rate of breast cancer until the push to publicly fund abortions for low-income women, at which time low-income women were given the “equal opportunity” to get breast cancer at higher rates.
They’ve uncovered the mechanism whereby abortion causes breast cancer and the studies have been showing this link for a long, long time. I can’t remember the name of the researcher, but she was a pro-choice researcher whose sister had breast cancer so she very much wanted to be honest about the data. Her data did find an ABC link, and she was astounded that people in the media and scientific community who had previously given her much acclaim all of a sudden treated her badly and wouldn’t publish her results.
Junk science. We’ve seen it on global warming, but long before that it was being used on the ABC link. Who cares how many people die because of the lies, as long as the lies give the media/Hollywood and liberal politicians POWER? That’s what the abortion industry is about. It’s people killing women and children for the sake of their own POWER.
Agreed. However, I would go further and call it evil
Someone above made a good point - hit the abortion lobby in the pocket-book. If ABC victims could organize and file a class-action lawsuit against PPA that might make a difference. I don't recall any reports, but if a former PPA employee could present proof that the PPA hierarchy suppressed news regarding the ABC link, that might be enough to win the class-action.
Talk about buyers remorse; not only are women not fully informed about the dangers of abortion (a dramatic increase in: depression, suicide, substance abuse, etc,). Then, if having endured half a lifetime of remorse, a woman then has to face cancer, imagine the hue and cry that will arise if the dots are connected and the lies exposed...
Oh - that was you!
I understand from prior readings that there may also be a lesser increase in those with miscarriages. Seems to be the hormones activated by the pregnancy go a bit haywire when it is not completed, but natural terminations are not as significant as unnatural.
The cynical side of me has to wonder if Obamacare is reducing the coverage for mammograms because they fear that women will find out they have breast cancer in time to be able to manage more than just fighting for dear life - and will capitalize on that by filing lawsuits. Planned Parenthood and everybody at the FDA who fast-tracked RU-486 would be well-chosen defendants in such class-action suits...
When the tobacco decision came out my first thought was that the abortion industry was going to regret that whole thing...
A couple weeks ago in my 7-8th-grade Sunday school class I was teaching about the 2nd commandment - that God has given us the gift of His name and wants us to wear it with joy and not use it wrongly. Specifically I was focusing on how hurtful it is if we wear God’s uniform and yet live a life that’s more like being on the other side. Beyond how we live, though, I also said that it is confusing to seekers if we claim to speak for God and yet lead people to believe something that is against what God says in the Bible. I mentioned homosexual behavior and abortion as examples where some pastors have said it’s fine, when in reality it hurts people AND keeps them from real healing of the deeper wounds beneath their situation.
We talked about the fact that we are all sinners and that the Church is FOR sinners; it’s where we hear that the penalty for our sin has been paid and we are redeemed and dearly loved by God. When we let people think they don’t need forgiveness we keep them from knowing they’ve RECEIVED forgiveness.
One of the kids had said that abortion is like killing a baby, and I had said that it happens while the baby is still inside the mother. One of the boys asked how they can do an abortion. He wanted to know how it’s actually done. So I described the methods and his jaw dropped. He asked how that could be legal. I said the defenders of it basically say that the child isn’t really a person yet but is the property of the mother, to do as she pleases. But an abortion is one dead and one wounded. I talked about coping mechanisms and how women are wounded by something that they were led to believe was perfectly fine to do. It is so hurtful to them.
This boy’s mom is a single mom currently in stage four breast cancer which returned after a mastectomy and chemo had put her in remission for a year or two. I didn’t tell him that the world’s (and some in the church’s) lie about abortion will cause lots of women to go through what his mom is going through now. To really love those women and their families means we tell them the truth, and if they’ve been deceived and done things that were wrong, we love them through it and remind them that they are forgiven through Christ, just like ALL of us need to be forgiven through Christ.
The sad part is that there are 3 kids in the class who haven’t been coming since then, and it’s probably because their parents think I’m being too “controversial”. We’ve talked from the beginning of the year about how Satan wants us to give up on our salvation, as if we didn’t need it. I told them we’d be looking at the sneaky ways he does that. All the kids were able to see that abortion is wrong when they heard the cold hard facts about how it is done. Satan uses lots of legalese and supposedly-caring buzzwords to hide the truth and ensnare people that God loves dearly. But when the truth is clearly spoken many who bear the name of Christ consider it to be “too controversial”, or inappropriate for the kids.
The kids are going to hear about all this stuff earlier than they should ever have to hear about it. These kids are 12-14 years old - an age at which too many of their peers will have already HAD an abortion (the most dangerous kind of abortion for causing breast cancer!). But the question is who will shape their understanding. This thug Obama regime will be teaching kindergarteners about “my two daddies”, and it will be considered age-appropriate because they won’t be talking about sex; they’ll be talking about love and rainbows and unicorns. The kids will know that “gay” is perfectly fine long before they ever hear what “gay” really even means. And the same will happen with abortion; they will learn that it is a “woman’s right” or a “health issue between a woman and her doctor”, and the world (and the church) will be very careful not to let them know the “one dead, one wounded” part until after their opinion is hardened in the lies. We’ve seen it time and time again. If you don’t spell things out factually the kids don’t “get it”.
I am so tired of the lies. And I’m so tired of people defending the lies and torching those who speak the truth. Satan is so cunning, and people are so willing to be deceived. Until the poison they’ve swallowed causes pain they can really feel themselves.
I hope there is a class-action suit, and these women who have learned the truth through pain are finally heard.
My first child was stillborn at 42 weeks and another child was miscarried at 12 weeks. I had to have a D&C for the miscarriage because the bleeding was so intense, and I asked my doctor if that would jeopardize my health - either with incompetent cervix or breast cancer. He said that it’s a whole different story when the body is going through the natural steps, versus when a doctor DEFIES nature to cause a different outcome.
When a person miscarries, the body knows the child has died and it goes through a tapering-off process with the hormones to end the process naturally. It’s not an abrupt stop to the breast growth/development, so the reproducing breast cells have time to get the “turn off” message from the body. Sort of like an arm swinging around that gradually slows down. Totally different outcome than if an arm is swinging around with a ball in it and stops abruptly. The ball keeps going; it doesn’t have a shut-off mechanism when the hand stops abruptly. So those breast cells continue to reproduce; they don’t have a shut-off mechanism. (Incidentally, this is the same reason that embryotic stem cells that have been used in experiments have caused cancer; the birth process instills the shut-off mechanism for embryotic stem cells. Without that shut-off mechanism those embryotic cells are basically like a cancer - cells that keep reproducing and don’t know when to stop.)
Same thing with the cervix. The cervix wants to stay shut when there’s a live baby inside to protect, but when the child has already died, the body starts the process of letting go. The rods for a D&C don’t have to fight the body after a miscarriage, because the body isn’t fighting to protect the child any more.
That’s what my doctor told me, and what I’ve read seems to support that.
This is a ping list for cancer survivors and caregivers to share information. If you would like your name added to or removed from this ping list, please tell us in the comments section at this link (click here).
(For the most updated list of names, click on the same link and scroll to the end of the comments.)
During the Sandra Fluke dog-and-pony show, I vaguely recalled reading about possible environmental damage from birth control pills. So I googled it -- there's not a lot of studies (at least not that my rather casual search found, but I would think gov't money is hard to come by for such a subject), but there's at least one attributing hermaphroditic fish to synthetic hormones from birth control pills. I couldn't help wondering if synthetic hormones (which break down more slowly than natural hormones) in the water supply might account for or at least contribute to the current explosion in "gender identity" (or whatever they call it) problems. And maybe the "metrosexual" phenomenon too -- though maybe they were always here and just came into style.
I also found that municipal water supplies only test for things like industrial pollutants and bacteria, though some are thinking of testing also for the common blood pressure and cholesterol drugs.
Any by the way, I've read that ALL the watersheds are affected. Don't have time now, but search with keywords like feminized amphibians contraceptive hormone --- well, here ya go, LINK!!
Ask any man you know, if he wants his sons wasting their lives in chronic gender confusion. Or if he wants eggs developing in his testicles.
Wow! Thanks for the link!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.