Posted on 12/05/2001 5:40:09 AM PST by truthandlife
Women who have had an abortion are up to twice as likely to suffer from breast cancer, British scientists said today.
In the first study of its kind in Britain, researchers said the risk of breast cancer is significantly increased if a woman has undergone an abortion.
The study, which looked at breast cancer and abortion rates in Britain, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, draws a direct link between rising cases of breast cancer and an increase in abortion since it was legalized.
The research, by the Populations and Pensions Research Institution, an independent group of statisticians, suggests that up to 50 percent of breast cancer cases in England and Wales over the next 26 years will be "attributable to abortion".
Launching the study, which was funded by the pro-life organiation Life, Professor Joel Brind of New York's City University and director of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in New York, pointed out it was intellectually watertight.
He said: "Women are at risk and they do not really know about it. They certainly don't seem to be finding out about it from the NHS."
"This implicates a risk factor that is a matter of choice," Brind explained. "Simply undergoing [an abortion] once measurably increases the risk of breast cancer. We are talking about thousands of cases of breast cancer over the next twenty years. This is a very sobering statistic."
Researcher and author Patrick Carroll said the total number of breast cancer cases is expected to more than double in England from 35,110 in 1997 to 77,000 in 2023. The rise was largely because of abortions carried out on women who have not yet had a baby, Carroll said.
"Breast cancer incidence has risen ... in parallel with rising abortion rates. There is no doubt there is a causal relationship," he said.
"Perhaps as many as 50 percent of these cases will be attributable to abortion and unless there is a major improvement in treatment, the number of women who die from the disease will rise alarmingly."
Professor Brind said a surge in levels of the hormone estrogen in the first three months of pregnancy by around 2000 percent is the most likely mechanism for increasing risk in women who subsequently undergo an abortion.
Life pointed to the research findings to assert that abortion is psychologically and physically dangerous.
Professor Jack Scarisbrick, chairman of Life, said: "We accuse the government and the medical establishment of persistent refusal to take seriously the mounting evidence that abortion is a significantly independent risk factor for breast cancer."
So is the risk of Hell.
Age at first pregnancy is a factor in risk of breast cancer. Having your first birth at age 35 or older nearly doubles your risk; having your first birth younger than 20 cuts your risk down. With today's world where women get married later and delay childbirth for professional careers, this may be a factor in the rising risk of breast cancer we see.
It makes sense that a cohort of people who have abortions (usually young people) might have a higher risk than people who carried the pregnancy. Do people who don't get pregnant have the same risks as those who do, but terminate the pregnancy early? It may well not be the abortion causing the increased risk, but the lack of pregnancy at an early age.
Lifestyle choices we make clearly affect our risks of cancer, but we need to know more here before we can draw any easy conclusions.
[/sarcasm
by Dr. Brian J. Kopp
Lay Witness Magazine, January 2002 edition
"It may not have rocked the ground like the 1945 detonation of the first atomic bomb. . . , but Enovid did more than just provide a technological tour de force. It transformed the very fabric of modern society. . ."
So reported "The Pill At 40", an article in the July-August 2000 "FDA Consumer" magazine, singing the praises of the Pill and celebrating the 40th anniversary of its approval by the Food and Drug Administration. On June 23, 1960, Enovid became the first oral contraceptive approved for sale in the USA, following several years of development and trials on third world women.
The article failed to mention the bitter legacy of the Pill over that same 40 years. Minor side effects abound, such as nausea, irregular bleeding, depression, weight gain, breast tenderness, and diminished libido. Some, however, are life threatening. Blood clots, pulmonary embolism, heart attack, and stroke have claimed the lives of many women taking the Pill since its introduction in 1960. Decreasing the dosages of the hormones in the Pill have lessened but not eliminated these deadly risks.
"Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent" was the first medical journal article to explain the mechanism by which the Pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb, its lining (or endometrium) improperly formed under the influence of the Pill's hormones. Published in the February 2000 Archives of Family Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association, it proved for both the secular world and a divided pro-life movement that the Pill is not only a contraceptive but also a chemical abortifacient. The report concludes:
"The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Physicians should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization."
While litigation in the USA relative to the Pill has been limited to suits aimed at forcing insurance plans to cover the Pill, in Britain a class action lawsuit has begun addressing another aspect of informed consent. In January 2002, 122 women and/or their families will take three pharmaceutical companies before England's High Court, charging that the Pill has caused blood clots resulting in lifelong illnesses and even death, and that they were never informed of the severe risks. Ten percent of the 122 claims involve a fatality. Unfortunately, these side effects have been known for four decades, and the prospects of success for these victims are uncertain.
However, compelling data has emerged linking the Pill with the rapid increase of breast cancer in the US, with a potential of class action lawsuits that could eclipse those even of the tobacco industry. Evidence has been available for several decades linking oral contraceptives with breast cancer in certain lab animals. According to Chris Kahlenborn, MD, one of the nation's leading researchers on the breast cancer/ Pill connection, the evidence of a link in humans is incontrovertible. His book summarizing his research and findings, BREAST CANCER: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, was published recently by One More Soul (www.OMS.com.)
In the book he makes a compelling case for such a link. He began researching the issue after hearing a presentation in 1993 that described an increase in breast cancer risk due to abortion, apparently caused by hormonal changes in the woman's body, and began an exhaustive review of the research to ascertain whether contraceptive hormones in the Pill might have the same effect.
The bottom line, after 8 years of exhaustive research and study? Dr. Kahlenborn replied, "There is a 45% increased risk of developing breast cancer if a woman takes an oral contraceptive for four years before her first full term pregnancy. This number is statistically significant to the 99th percentile."
"Informed consent is MIA. Catholic OB/GYN's are doing a grave disservice in handing this out. Today's cigarette story [the tobacco class action lawsuits] could be tomorrow's Pill story. There is no informed consent. The breast cancer and the social effects cause such devastation to families!"
He compares the current state of denial among the American medical establishment to a similar episode that occurred several decades ago. "History is repeating itself. DES was taken in the 40's and 50's to prevent miscarriage. A 35% increased risk of breast cancer was found." At the time DES (diethylstilbestrol) was used, some were concerned of a potential risk of breast cancer, while the American medical establishment denied the possibility. Only after 25 years was it discovered that DES use carried a 35% increased breast cancer risk.
Currently, more than 175,000 U.S. women develop breast cancer and more than 43,000 die from it each year. One in eight women in the US will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Yet 50 years ago, breast cancer was relatively rare. When asked what other factors might account for such a rapid increase in the rates of breast cancer, Dr. Kahlenborn was blunt. "I don't know. Two other factors come into play: decreased family size and decreased breast feeding. Both come into play." Pregnancy and breast feeding have been known to protect against breast cancer for many years. Obviously, these factors cannot account for the fact that breast cancer is increasing more rapidly in western countries, countries with early Pill use before first full term pregnancy.
Medical research findings have been contradictory. In 1972 a series of animal research studies showed that an oral contraceptive appeared to cause metastatic breast cancer in rhesus monkeys, which rarely develop breast cancer. In 1989 Anderson et al published a paper that found that women who had never had children who took the Pill had a significantly higher rate of breast cell division than childless mothers who had never taken the Pill. In general, cells that divide more rapidly are more vulnerable to carcinogens and more likely to become cancerous. A study in 1981 found that women who took the Pill for 4 years prior to their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) had a 125% increased risk of breast cancer before age 32. In 1993, the CASH study showed a 40% increased risk in women taking the Pill before FFTP. Later in England another large study revealed a 44% increased risk. The last large study in 1995 showed a 42% increased risk. A meta-analysis (a statistical analysis of many other research studies) in 1990 found that, overall, the studies up to that time confirmed an increased risk of breast cancer of 72% for women under age 45 who took oral contraceptive pills for 4 or more years before having a full-term pregnancy. Use of these contraceptives for longer periods appears to carry an even higher risk.
However, the Oxford study, the largest meta-analysis to date, concluded that:
"Women who are currently using [the Pill] or have used them in the past 10 years are at a slightly increased risk of having breast cancer diagnosed, although the additional cancers tend to be localized to the breast. There is no evidence of an increase in the risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after cessation of use..."
Dr. Kahlenborn sees severe weaknesses in the Oxford study. He states in his book:
"The main weakness was the failure to report any evidence of what the pooled risk of oral contraceptive use before a FFTP was in women under 45 years old. . . A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic influence. . . before [FFTP] because the breast undergoes a maturing process throughout a woman's first pregnancy. By failing to measure the effect. . . before a. . . woman's [FFTP] the Oxford study failed to give data on the one group of women who are most likely to get breast cancer from oral contraceptives."
Currently Dr. Kahlenborn is working on another meta-analysis that he hopes will be published within one year. This analysis attempts to analyze the data of all the studies available from the 1980's and 1990's, in an effort to obtain a more accurate statistical analysis specifically of women taking the Pill for several years prior to their first full-term pregnancy.
The Food and Drug Administration's FDA consumer magazine maintained that Enovid may not have rocked the ground like the 1945 detonation of the first atomic bomb. Dr. Kahlenborn would be inclined to disagree. "Hormonal chemical contraceptives are the equivalent to a nuclear bomb in their devastation to the family." Sickness, cancer and death lies in the wake of this bitter Pill. Can massive product liability suits be far behind?
Most women who have abortions have never given birth. The women who have children and then decide to abort subsequent ones are a small minority (on the order of 10%).
 |
|
 |
|
Abortion link to rise in breast cancer
WOMEN who have had an abortion are nearly twice as likely to suffer from breast cancer, scientists claimed yesterday.
In the first study of its kind in Britain, researchers said the risk of breast cancer is significantly increased if a woman has undergone a termination. The study, which looked at breast cancer and abortion rates in Britain, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, draws a direct link between rising cases of breast cancer and an increase in abortion since it was legalised. The research, by the Populations and Pensions Research Institution, an independent group of statisticians, suggests that up to 50 per cent of breast cancer cases in England and Wales over the next 26 years will be "attributable to abortion". Patrick Carroll, researcher and author of the study, said the total number of breast cancer cases is expected to more than double from 35,110 in 1997 to 77,000 in 2023. The rise is "largely" because of abortions carried out on women who have not yet had a baby, he said. Launching the study - which was funded by the anti-abortion charity Life - Professor Joel Brind, of New York’s City University and director of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in New York, said: "Women are at risk and they do not really know about it." Meanwhile, two-thirds of the British public support abortion, a poll has revealed. New research by MORI’s Social Research Institute shows that 65 per cent of people agree that if a woman wants an abortion she should not have to continue with her pregnancy. Around one in six disagree and a similar proportion are neutral or express no opinion on the contentious issue. Michelle Nichols (Mnichols@scotsman.com) Wednesday, 5th December 2001 The Scotsman
|
I will be accompanying Dr. Kahlenborn to a conference in Lansing Mich this weekend where these types of issues will be discussed at a CME approved medical conference. I'll post my article from that conference in the next several weeks.
--Dr. Kopp
Why would a woman who has an induced abortion before her firstborn child suffer an increased risk of breast cancer?
A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (i.e., cancer producing) influence before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (i.e., the female sexual hormones), and B-hCG (Beta-human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells [145A]. If this process gets artificially interrupted, by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop dramatically thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman's breast cells. This is referred to as a "hormonal blow" by researchers. These cells are now "vulnerable" to carcinogens since they were left "in limbo": that is, they started the maturation process, but were never able to complete it. [Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation].
Do any animal models support the claim that early abortions increase breast cancer risk?
Yes. Russo and Russo, in their classic work published in 1980 [144], studied several groups of rats which were given a specific carcinogen (cancer producing agent) called DMBA. They noted that 77% of rats who underwent an abortion developed breast cancer, while 0% [zero] of the rats who were allowed to complete their pregnancy developed cancer.
Could you tell me about the history of the abortion/breast cancer debate?
As early as 1957, Segi et al noted that women who had induced abortions had at least a two-fold risk in their rate of breast cancer [148]. In 1981, Pike et al published their notable work showing that young women (under age 32) who had experienced an abortion before their first live birth had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer. A number of studies followed but finally in 1994, Daling et al [103] published a large study which noted that women who had an abortion before first birth suffered a 40% increased risk, and that this increased to 150% if the abortion was before age 18.
Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the most meticulously comprehensive meta-analysis (i.e. a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) of all the abortion/breast cancer research articles ever done, Brind et al [98] found that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.
If Dr. Brind et al's study was so conclusive, then why is the subject still being debated?
That is a good question. Because of the controversy regarding abortion, Dr. Brind's study came under intense scrutiny, however, the results seemed irrefutable. Janet Daling -- a prominent epidemiologist (a researcher who studies trends in the medical field) -- was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as stating that Brind et al's results were "very objective and statistically beyond reproach." [104A] Then in early 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEIM) published the results of a large prospective study by Melbye et al [128] which claimed to show that abortion did not increase the risk of breast cancer.
Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the most meticulously comprehensive meta-analysis (i.e. a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) of all the abortion/breast cancer research articles ever done, Brind et al [98] found that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.
*****
Incidentally, an article reviewing these findings, by Dr. Brind, will accompany my article posted above in the January 2002 edition of Lay Witness magazine.
Actually, with enough money on the line you can convince yourself that you love the women. People are pretty good at deceiving themselves.
Shalom.
Jesus heals and forgives.
Unless you have received Jesus you will go to Hell whether you have had an abortion or not. It increases nothing. If you have received Jesus your sins, including abortion, are forgiven you.
Just a thought.
Shalom.
From what I have read it is an abortion of the first pregnancy. The researchers believe this is because the female breast goes through its final stage of maturation when preparing to nurse the first child. This naturally involves rapid change. A normal conclusion to the first pregnancy causes the maturation process to complete properly and leaves the breasts in a normal state. An abnormal conclusion to the first pregnancy leaves the breasts in an abnormal state because the maturation process isn't completed. This makes the cells susceptible to cancer.
Note, this correlation is true whether the abortion was induced or spontaneous (miscarriage).
Shalom.
See my number 27.
Shalom.
Well, yes -- but there's also the Pill to consider here. It, too, came into play in a big way, at about the same time. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a link there, too.
In the breast tissue, (I am speaking in lay language), the trigger is the fact that hormones are going to the breast to stimulate the breast for milk production. Individual cells are being primed to do a job. When a woman has an abortion these cells are not given the neccessary rush of hormones to shut them down. So, they remain 'open', waiting to be able to produce milk. These cells stay in a certain state that makes them vulnerable for later cancer growth.
I see the point you are making and I understand. This is only one article/study/thesis in a list of dozens and dozens. There are other sources besides this one.
This is a link to one of my favorite bookmarked sites. It's another source in the list of many. It doesn't really prove anything, but my point is, these studies have been around for a long time. I would tend to think Howard University would be biased against a pro-life cause, but perhaps I was mistaken.
Abortion has also affected black women through its connection with breast cancer. A highly significant Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions to women who had not had any abortions. (Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience, Laing AE, Demenais FM, Williams R, Kissling G, Chen VW, Bonney GE, 1993, J Natl. Med. Assoc., 85: 931-939).
I always flinch when people discuss Hell because the non-Christians have such a misunderstanding of it. However, Christians don't have a much better understanding. The reality is that even Jesus spent a lot of time talking about hell - twice as much time as talking about heaven. I think it's OK to talk about hell - but we should always give Jesus' solution to the problem.
Shalom.
Miscarriages are fairly common. I don't know if they are more common with first pregnancies.
Shalom.
When my sister-in-law was doing her maternity rotation she told us, "It's a miracle a baby is ever born at all."
And she isn't even a studying Christian. I knew that from reading the Bible. She knew it from reading the medical textbooks.
Shalom.
I have a friend and activist who maintains that the root cause of abortion is violence against women. He's not talking about the abortionist (although he's not excluding them either). He's talking about the man who just wants a biological toy but can't be bothered to form a relationship with a woman before he uses her up and throws her out.
It's true that women aren't innocent, but most women who are abortion minded make that choice because a man who isn't her husband has given her a child and now won't take responsibity for it.
I'd still like to see someone introduce a "male abortion" law. It would make it legal for a man to file a paper renouncing any rights and responsibilities he may hold to his unborn child as long as medical abortion is legal. To him, it would be as if the child had been aborted.
Feminists just love that idea.
Shalom.
Quite natural. You're from Texas. Everyone knows that Texans are a superior breed.
I wasn't born in Texas, but in my 11 years as a Houstonian a lot rubbed off.
;)
Shalom.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
I so agree with your post once again ArGee. :)
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.