You must not be very familiar with the science.
As of 2003, 29 out of 39 studies show that women who had an induced abortion have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, as noted in the bar graph below.
Posted on 01/13/2010 4:17:30 PM PST by wagglebee
In February 2003, Dr. Louise Brinton, the National Cancer Institute's chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, served as chairperson at an NCI workshop in Bethesda, Md., to assess whether abortion was implicated as a breast cancer risk.
In the opinion of "over 100 of the world's leading experts," said the subsequent NCI report, including Dr. Brinton, the answer was no.
One expert disallowed from participating was Dr. Joel Brind, a biology and endocrinology professor who had co-authored a meta-analysis demonstrating an abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link.
Brind protested that the outcome was predetermined by "experts" handpicked by Dr. Brinton who either were not really experts, were dependent on the NCI or other government agencies for grants, or were pro-abortion extremists, such as two who had previously provided paid "expert" court testimony on behalf of abortionists.
Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not.
At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
Brind went on to write a minority report NCI alludes to on its website without publishing or listing its author and did not even mention in its workshop summary report.
Life went on, except for post-abortive women inflicted with breast cancer anyway.
But six years later something happened. Dr. Brinton either flipped her lid, flipped ideologies, restudied the evidence and decided to recant, or couldn't sleep at night – and she began righting her wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Exactly, the abortionists are more afraid of this getting out than anything.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Great article. Thanks for posting.
I have said this for 10 years. A baby is created, the body moves into action creating cells and getting ready to support the new life - it is un-naturally taken pow - what is the bady suppose to do, those cells just don’t disappear - sadly they simply turn bad and die and in dying, create what today we call cancer.
Most of live, is not rocket science - fact is, only rocket science is the rest is pretty much common sense.
Most of life is not rocket science - fact is, only rocket science is — the rest is pretty much common sense.
bttt
Stanek is simply lying. The abstract of the paper doesn’t say a word about abortion. It’s only about the relative associations between oral contraceptive use and triple negative vs. non-triple negative breast cancer. The researchers didn’t conclude anything at all about abortion and breast cancer.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Apr;18(4):1157-66. Epub 2009 Mar 31.
Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years.
Dolle JM, Daling JR, White E, Brinton LA, Doody DR, Porter PL, Malone KE.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, M4-C308 Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA.
Little is known about the etiologic profile of triple-negative breast cancer (negative for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor/human epidermal growth factor), a breast cancer subtype associated with high mortality and inadequate therapeutic options. We undertook this study to assess the risk for triple-negative breast cancer among women 45 years of age and younger in relation to demographic/lifestyle factors, reproductive history, and oral contraceptive use. Study participants were ascertained in two previous population-based, case-control studies. Eligible cases included all primary invasive breast cancers among women ages 20 to 45 years in the Seattle-Puget Sound area, diagnosed between January 1983 and December 1992, for whom complete data was obtained for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor status (n = 897; including n = 187 triple-negative breast cancer cases). Controls were age matched and ascertained via random digit dialing. Oral contraceptive use > or =1 year was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer (95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.3) and no significantly increased risk for non-triple-negative breast cancer (P(heterogeneity) = 0.008). Furthermore, the risk among oral contraceptive users conferred by longer oral contraceptive duration and by more recent use was significantly greater for triple-negative breast cancer than non-triple-negative breast cancer (P(heterogeneity) = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). Among women < or =40 years, the relative risk for triple-negative breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive use > or =1 year was 4.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-9.3), whereas there was no significantly increased risk with oral contraceptive use for non-triple-negative breast cancer among women < or =40 years, nor for triple-negative breast cancer or non-triple-negative breast cancer among women 41 to 45 years of age. In conclusion, significant heterogeneity exists for the association of oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk between triple-negative breast cancer and non-triple-negative breast cancer among young women, lending support to a distinct etiology.
“well established” and “as is well known” are old Communist prefaces to their more transparent lies. These phrases are synonyms for “the facts contradict us but the Truth is...”
I’ve read a bit that breast feeding confers protection against breast cancer as well.
The body has function and purpose.
Exactly, they use these phrases to avoid showing the data.
ping
As noted above, in terms of the ABC link, there are really no new findings as such; rather, a repeat of the modest but significant prior findings of the studies from the 1990’s, i.e. those two studies - Daling et al. 1994 and Daling et al. 1996 - had reported ORs for induced abortion and breast cancer of between 1.2 and 1.5. Hence, the reported OR in the present study of 1.4 was not really new. But what was striking was the way in which the finding of a significant ABC link was characterized. Specifically, abortion appears in the data table which lists the associations found for “known and suspected risk factors”. In the text, the effect of the significant risk factors, including induced abortion, were described as “consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women.” Hence, this paper provides clear support for the existence of the ABC link.But what is really new here is that one of the coauthors of this study is one Louise A. Brinton of the NCI. Importantly, Brinton was the chief organizer for the 2003 NCI (U.S. National Cancer Institute) “workshop” on “early reproductive events and breast cancer”, a panel which reported that the lack of an ABC link had been “established”. In other words, since 2003, the NCI has firmly maintained the position that there is no ABC link; that the studies which had reported such a link were deemed unreliable. However, two of these prior studies were the very studies by the Daling group (of which one Brinton also was a co-author). [2,3] Now, in 2009, Brinton is on record reiterating findings of the ABC link and reporting them as “consistent” with earlier studies that found induced abortion to be a risk factor.
Can it not therefore be argued that the NCI is backing off its denial of the ABC link? This is big news, to be sure, but no one has challenged the NCI with it, yet.
My understanding from the Mayo Clinic study a few years back is that the stronger breast cancer association with oral contraceptives is found in women who use OCPs without having previously carried a pregnancy to term. This would fit with elective abortion as a risk factor, especially if the abortion were also prior to first term pregnancy, which is quite frequently the case. The original safety studies done on OCPs inadvertently used a skewed population, not representative of today’s users. The “pill” was primarily tested on married women who didn’t want MORE children, not those delaying childbearing or preventing pregnancy altogether - hence studies did not pick up on breast cancer risk to women without a prior term pregnancy.
There is nothing in what you posted that backs up the claim in the story. If you’re familiar with scientific research publication, you should know that published abstracts note any conclusions reached by the researchers. What they often don’t include are random bits of statistical artifacts that did not have statistical significance and/or that the study was not designed to evaluate. The claim that this study “found” a 40% increase in a fairly common type of breast cancer *causatively* related to abortion is absurd (nor did it even find any significant association). Even the leading proponents of this junk science theory have never claimed finding any effect remotely in that ballpark.
There are lot of known risk factors for breast cancer, and many of them are statistically more common in women in women who also have abortions. Delayed and/or absent childbirth, alcohol consumption, and early onset of menstruation come to mind. Mild associations between abortion and breast cancer are thus easy to find, but no unbiased, empirically valid study has ever found a causative relationship, or even more than a very mild associative relationship.
You must not be very familiar with the science.
"Table 1. Multivariate adjusted case-control odds ratios and 95% CIs for all breast cancer cases, triple-negative and non-triple-negative cases, in relation to known and suspected risk factors among women 45 y of age and younger, 1983-1992"
It is listed under "Reproductive factors" which included only the subheadings,
Age at menarche
Number of live births
Age at first birth
Lactation
Abortion
You can view the page with Table 1 here.
The point is that this study lists abortion as one of the known risks for breast cancer, as if the scientific community already accepts this as established fact.
Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years
More peer reviewed bs from the genius class. Science is a wonderful thing, but a significant portion of todays scientists are utterly devoid of an honest bone in their body.
Chinese Breast Cancer Deaths Jump 40% since One Child Abortion Policy
LSNTODAY’S HEADLINES | SEND NEWS TIPS | DONATE
SHARE: E-mail E-MAIL Print PRINT
BEIJING, October 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Chinese state media has reported a sharp increase in the number of cases of breast cancer in China in the last ten years. According to official statistics from the Ministry of Health, about 40% more women are dying from breast cancer and the disease is striking women at younger ages than ever before.
According to the officially released statistics reported in China Daily, the fatality rate of breast cancer rose 38.7 percent for women living in urban areas and 39.1 percent for rural women between 1991 and 2000.
Xu Guangwei of the China Anti-Cancer Association put the increase down to stress and greater consumption of fatty food, which have been linked to cancer in many studies. A much easier explanation, however, is the communist country’s obsession with limiting its population with abortion. The link between abortion and instances of breast cancer is much better documented than that between stress and cancer.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer points out that an identical increase in breast cancer in US women was found between the mid-1980’s and 1998, “the increase took place entirely within the Roe v. Wade generation - the group of women who were under age 40 in 1973 when abortion was legalized.”
Karen Malec, the group’s spokesman said, “The Chinese government, like the American government, isn’t telling women why they’re getting more breast cancers. Here’s a little clue for the Chinese and U.S. governments. Nations that prohibit abortion (like Ireland and Poland) have significantly lower breast cancer rates.”
The connection between abortion and breast cancer, though verifiable in many studies, has been assiduously blocked, says the Coalition, for years because of politics. Most national medical associations and physicians’ organizations have accepted abortion as a great boon to women’s health and routinely accuse any report finding otherwise of “political” bias.
For more information on the medical connection between abortion and breast cancer:
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.
