Guess ole' Pope Paul VI was right when just about everyone else in the Christian world was wrong....excellent read if you've never perused the document.  U.S. Army Retired |
Posted on 12/27/2007 10:11:34 PM PST by neverdem
Not wanting to become known as the town quack, I am reluctant to write another politically incorrect column about breast cancer.
Four weeks ago, when I reported a study that found a statistical link between abortion and breast cancer, the hate e-mail poured in, denouncing me for being an ignorant, stupid, anti-science, anti-choice and anti-woman lunatic. But it also brought a message alerting me to yet another study, suggesting that premenopausal women (younger than 50) who used oral contraceptives prior to having their first child faced a higher risk of breast cancer. Yes, I know, this debate has been going on for years, if not decades, and judging by the last studies given wide exposure a few years ago by the media, the issue seems settled: Oral contraception does not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer.
There's just one problem. According to an analysis in one of the most credible peer-reviewed journals in the country, the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the risk is real. The study employed an often-used medical research technique called "meta-analysis" that allows researchers to combine data from other studies on the risk to get a larger picture. The result: Premenopausal women who used oral contraceptives prior to having their first child have a 44 percent higher chance of getting cancer than women who didn't use the pill. If they used the pill for more than four years prior to their first full-term pregnancy, the risk increased 52 percent. Chris Kahlenborn, an internist at the Altoona (Pa.) Hospital and the study's lead author, suggests one additional woman in 200 could get breast cancer. Extrapolated throughout the population, that could mean thousands more cases every year. I'd say that's an important story.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Check the Related Links in the upper right at the site.
I made the mistake of mentioning that study to the pink ribbon gang collecting money for breast cancer and asked them why they donate a percentage of their contributions to the Planned Parenthood abortion mill.
...hostility ensued!
Doesn’t fit the plan.
Breast Cancer and Oral Contraception
October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, which is an annual campaign to build public awareness about the disease as well as to raise funds for research.
What does this educational campaign have to do with contraception? It has to do with the fact that many types of oral contraceptives contain synthetic estrogen, a steroid believed to have a role in the development of breast cancer.[1]
Over the past two decades, multiple analyses and studies have provided convincing evidence that using oral contraceptives increases the risk of breast cancer. (See “For Further Reading” below.) The evidence keeps mounting — separate studies published in the January 2006 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine,[2] the October 2006 edition of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention,[3] and the October 2006 edition of Mayo Clinic Proceedings [4] confirm the increased risk.
read the rest at:
http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/Articles/Contraception-Breast-Cancer.htm
Thanks for the link.
ping
The pill also has been shown to cause women to be attracted to men who are less likely to be good fathers and make good husbands. This isn’t just because of the mentality of those who wish to have sex without responsibility but an alteration of perception due to changes in levels of hormones. Also some studies show that women who take the pill are seen as less attractive to men which could explain some of the problems with marriages especially with young couples who are trying not to have children through the use of birth control.
As a society we rushed into the whole birth control thing quickly as the promise of controlled birth rates and conscience free sex looked attainable and desirable but today while people wring their hands over hormones in the milk they drink and male hormones used by athletes but we turn a purposely blind eye to the convenient hormonal manipulation of women’s endocrine systems to prevent childbirth. I don’t think that it is a coincidence that so many social problems and difficulties between men and women manifested at the same time that birth control use became commonplace.
I also do not think that when the cost is weighed judiciously that we can say with certainty that the result of screwing with nature for the sake of screwing has been a positive one.
My wife came down with breast cancer after using hormone replacement therapy. Doctors pooh-pooh’d the risk, by saying the risks were outweighed by the gains. But you will never meet an oncologist who is ambivalent about excessive use of estrogen (which both the pill and HRT make use of). They are almost always against it, and the first thing they do is forbid the patient from taking any more estrogen.
There is no more ferocious anti-women bigotry than at NOW and Planned Parenthood.
The absence of any reporting on these matters is a classic example of the near total dishonesty in the mainstream media.
Who are the real “deniers”?
Endogenous ovarian hormones also cause breast cancer.
“My wife came down with breast cancer after using hormone replacement therapy. Doctors pooh-pooh’d the risk, by saying the risks were outweighed by the gains.”
A few years ago, my then OB-GYN tried his best to get me on HRT telling me all of the wonderful things it would do and protect. He even gave me the “I would put MY wife on it” spiel. This was before the major studies that basically showed it to have many down sides. I was having no menopausal complaints at all so I didn’t think I needed it and I also mentioned to him my concern about the, at that time only vaguely suggested, link between HRT and breast cancer. He blithely told me that even if I got breast cancer, it’s at it’s most deadly in younger women and that I would most probably die of something else first. Can you believe that? That’s what he actually said. I politely declined, smiled and left. Needless to say I got a new doctor.
I hope your wife has come through and is now or soon will be well.Many prayers for you both.
>>wring their hands over hormones in the milk they drink and male hormones used by athletes <<
Wow! Is that the truth!
Your post completely summed it up. Good thinking. I feel sorry for today's neutered and propagandized young people. They must look at those WWII romance movies and go, "what the $$%^& ?"
Mental screening for young to begin (questionnaires for children on Medicaid)
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Shhhhhhhhh...that doesn’t fit the HTT agenda...
What about women who have had hysterectomy with both ovaries removed? The other option is to endure hot flashes, lack of libido, and a host of other issues.
Like anything, there are pros and cons. I don’t dispute the findings, but it’s necessary to point out that there are various levels of risk in everything you do.
| Guess ole' Pope Paul VI was right when just about everyone else in the Christian world was wrong....excellent read if you've never perused the document. U.S. Army Retired |
“I feel sorry for today’s neutered and propagandized young people”
you’re right. No sense of romance.
Go to a party and “hook up” with your “friend with benefits”.
Different women have different effects during menopause. (This is all anecdotal as I am a 30 year old male.)
Some have absolute misery that will drive them to take HRT, fully aware of risks, others aren’t that affected and decline to.
Your doctor, however was either ignorant or dishonest, or, perhaps other studies show the risk is less than this article suggests.
There are so many questions with regards to medicine in this day and age.
Prayers for your wife.
Do you have some citations on those studies referred to in your first paragraph?
It was in '96 that she went through a mastectomy and chemo. A year later she had reconstructive surgery and is doing well so far. As I understand it, HRT does not necessarily cause cancer, but it feeds it. It's apparently like pouring gasoline on a fire. I wonder if the cancer cells might not have gotten out of hand without all that estogen to feed them. I am glad you declined the treatment. Menopause is normal. It's not nice to try to trick nature.
Four weeks ago, when I reported a study that found a statistical link between abortion and breast cancer, the hate e-mail poured in, denouncing me for being an ignorant, stupid, anti-science, anti-choice and anti-woman lunatic. But it also brought a message alerting me to yet another study, suggesting that premenopausal women (younger than 50) who used oral contraceptives prior to having their first child faced a higher risk of breast cancer."It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."
Thanks for the link.
Interesting that we have banned pesticides that cause hormonal changes in nature, but promote pills that do the same thing in concentrations excessively higher in humans.
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.