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.
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.
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.
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.