Posted on 01/02/2003 9:56:00 PM PST by Coleus
While this sounds nice, it is completely false to state this.
Fact - a link has been shown in a study of mice. Problem - mice are not that closely related to humans for this to be definitive.
Fact - a link has been shown in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (the Melbye study) that shows a risk of 1.9 (eg. almost double the risk) for women who have abortions after 18 weeks (late term abortions). However, for women who abort in the 1st trimester, the relative risk is 1.0 (eg., identical to women who have not had abortions.) This study is considered definitive because it covered 1.5 million women in Denmark born between 1935 and 1978 (definitive because it has such a large population sample size, and there is no "response bias" because Denmark, unlike the US, records all abortions.)
What is "response bias"? In the US, it has been found that in some areas of the country (more conservative and religious) that women who have actually had an abortion may not admit it to a stranger who come knocking at the door to do a survey. Thus, since the women who say they have not had an abortion are the "control group", but if in fact within that group there are women who lied and really did have an abortion, then the group is contaminated and the study is deemed flawed.
Note that there are those who consider the Melbye study flawed, in that there were "age adjustments" done, where Melbye compared "women of like ages with women of like ages". Other epidemiologists state that this is the correct procedure and is normally done in other cancer studies.
Understand that I am not posting this as a "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) position defense. I am pointing out that the majority of epidemiologists do not concur that "The link between abortion and breast cancer is now undeniable, proven by the vast majority of medical studies."
After so many years of killing babies, they have depleted their available supply of pregnant women. One out of three pregancies have been ending in abortion. That means that one out of every six women that should be alive today are not alive because of abortion.
They have been cutting into their own supply. That's 21.5 million women they can not entice to abort.
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Regards,
Boot Hill
Mice lack breasts though they have milk producing glands. The cancer found in mice would have relevance regarding the hormonal changes that support tissue changes associated with pregnancy and birth. In that regard, the studies on mice are revealing because of the similarity in tissue changes with other pregnant mammals. As you noted, mice and humans are not too close in species similarities and thus transferences made from that species to humans must be scrutinized carefully for relevance.
The Danish study you cited showed an elevated risk for women aborting their child after the first trimester. But in the Discover article the bias of the author shines glaringly in the following quoted sentence:
(Melbye did find a risk of almost 1.9 --statistically significant risk-- for women who had abortions in the 18th week or later, but such procedures are rare and done only in emergency)p.58, Discover, Feb. 2003. That underlined assertion, freeper readers, is a bold faced lie.
Abortions after the 18th week are neither rare nor mostly for emergency purposes ... more than 15,000 partial birth infanticides (as only one type of post 16th week killing method) per year are performed in this nation; while statistically a small percentage of 1.4 million annual abortions, that is 15,000 sensing individual human beings slaughtered willfully and never in an emergency to save a woman's life. And that is just with that particular procedure! There are other methods used that add to the totals of 16th week or beyond aborticides.
If fifteen thousand women were dying from electric shock with hair dryers, or murdered by serial killers each year, you can bet the farm outrage would be soaring and demands for something to protect women would have national attention 24/7.
The lies repeated by this author (perhaps inadvertently) are forwarded by the NARAL, NOW, DNC cabal wishing to desensitize the American public to the horrific truth of abortion holocaust in America. No doubt the author makes the statement quoted above due to the bias the author brought to the writing ... and this author tries very hard to denegrate Joel Brind's finding, re abortion and cancer risk, as 'the bias of a pro-lifer'. [The last paragraph, p. 59, makes a blatant statement designed to denegrate anti-abortion activity as 'religious', and not fit for science. That is blatant propaganda, also.]
The bias of a pro-choicer (supports abortion killing as an enlightened choice) is fundamental to the weighted article in Discover Magazine. Even the Malbye statistical compilation shows a real connection to abortion after the 18th week and cancer later in a woman's life. And that abortion phenomenon in our population is something the DNC has been defending for lo these many years ... and it is causing an increased risk of cancer for those women who have 'chosen' that method to kill an individual human to whom they were giving life support.
To say the connection is false is itself a false assertion since even the Malbye compilation of stats shows a significant connection for certain classes of abortions.
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.