Posted on 04/02/2005 4:50:43 PM PST by Coleus
WHAT if there was growing evidence that an already-existing drug, taken daily, might dramatically reduce the risk of breast cancer?
Shouldn't that be more newsworthy than fund-raising walkathons done in the quixotic pursuit of a simple cure? More noteworthy than the latest lab test which classifies an environmental chemical as a rodent carcinogen?
U.S. scientists, led by Harvard's Dr. Peter Goss, this week began recruiting women at high risk of breast cancer to participate in a study of what may well be just such a drug.
That "chemical prevention" of cancer has come so far will be a shock to most Americans — but it is no surprise to those of us following this fast-paced research involving the use of drugs to both reduce the chances of breast cancer in healthy women and the risk of recurrence in in those previously-treated.
For example, for a decade it has been apparent that Lilly's drug Evista, now approved only to prevent osteoporosis, has the side benefit of reducing breast cancer risk. Because that would be an "off-label use," Lilly isn't allowed to publicize the data on Evista's preventive properties — but physicians are generally aware of this side benefit.
The more recent news — which triggered the new U.S./Canada study — revolves around a group of drugs known as aromatase inhibitors, which dramatically reduce the levels of estrogen in postmenopausal women.
This class of drugs — which includes Astra Zeneca's Arimidex and Pfizer's Aromasin — has already been shown, as Dr. Goss puts it, to "profoundly" reduce the risk of recurrence in women who have already been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer — and to do so with fewer side effects than an earlier drug, Tamoxifen. Arimidex decreases the chance of cancer developing in the other breast by almost 80 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The best I've ever heard include a combination of natural therapies and modern medicine. Suzanne Somers has an interesting book on this subject, having survived breast cancer herself (so far).
I've advised my female patients for twenty years about the BC risk related to nulaparity.
The medical literature is written mostly by card carrying members of the culture of death, so you need to look to your experience and your patients for links. Suffice it to say, I've known it since medical school.
I'll go one step further than our poster, the leading cause of adult female depression is directly linked to guilt and shame over having once been "pro-choice". In my busy twenty year practice, I see it about three times a month. Women in serious need of mental health counseling for sure!
Could you put that in people speak please!
Your 'speculating' is pretty darn close to what scientists believe is the connection! Kudos
I didn't say that women who have BC had an abortion although it's a scientific fact that many woman who have had abortions and miscarriages before 32 weeks often have higher rates of BC. There are many causes of BC, genetics is one of them. Women in their 20's are now getting BC as they never did before, one thing many have in common--abortion. And a scientific and salient fact is that a woman can help to prevent breast cancer by not having an abortion. BC was usually an older woman's disease until R v Wade. Now we have young women dying of BC before the age of 30 due to abortions. You can talk to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS at this site for further details. I hope you are now in good health.
http://www.bcpinstitute.org
Yes, what would you like to know?
Wow! I didn't know that.
I just remember the first time I heard about a possible connection between breast cancer and abortion, it just sounded very logical to me; and I never did really read anything about it. This is amazing that my speculation is so close. I'm really surprised.
But .. the left is not going to accept this connection as valid. I believe they will be willing to allow thousands of women to get breast cancer rather than give up their beloved abortion. They are truly evil.
FIRST U.S. ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LAWSUIT SETTLED
Missing the link? Despite abortionists' silence, some states require disclosure of ABC link
Politics prevents women from learning about abortion/breast cancer risks
How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent (Abortion-Breast Cancer Link)
Carcinogens and the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link (Hint: Abortion Does Cause Breast Cancer)
Abortion Causes Breast Cancer (ABC Link) - Recent NCI Workshop a Sham!!!
Breast cancer and abortion: the facts
Freeper Gets Bill From Planned Parenthood for $77,000!!!
REVEALING OF ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LINK IS AIM OF SUIT AGAINST PLANNED PARENTHOOD [Not News to FReepers:] First Case Linking Abortion-Breast Cancer Settled
WOMEN who have had an ABORTION TWICE as likely to BREAST CANCER
First ever Abortion-Breast Cancer Settlement [ABORTION causes BREAST CANCER]
British Scientists: Abortion Doubles Breast Cancer Risk
Abortion/breast cancer link can't be denied ^
Not true! I am a pro-lifer, but the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer was the product of one study which has not been supported by subsequent studies.
I recently took a course in preparation for working at a pro-life facility. The instructors mentioned several times that women suffer greatly from mental anguish often times for decades. They had even seen women come in for counseling in their eighties still grieving for the children they had aborted. Two of the women in the class had had multiple abortions. It was painful to see the pain that they still deal with daily even though their abortions were many years ago. My point is, whether abortions have a link to breast cancer or not, they caused unimaginable heartache to the women who have them. Abortion is NEVER THE RIGHT ANSWER.
Yes, from what I've read abortions and pre mature births before 32 weeks gestation can cause breast cancer because 3rd and 4th stage follicles in the breast do NOT develop.
There are a lot of links in posts 31 and 32 which state otherwise. You may want to e mail Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS, of the BCP institute for further facts.
Also, a fair percentage of breast cancers are NOT HORMONE RECEPTOR POSITIVE AND THEREFORE AROMATASE INHIBITORS WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE.
The notion that because many breast cancers are hormone receptor positive the elimination of hormones will reduce or eliminate breast cancer is overly simplistic and dangerous. Hormones are essential to life, and the long-term effects of eliminating them are not known.
NO ONE SHOULD BUY PHARMA STOCK Based on this thread. Look at what happened to Vioxx.
Correlation does not imply causality. For example, all people eat food. All people die. Therefore, eating food must cause people to die. False. Breast cancer is caused by mutations of cells that the immune response cannot stop. It is ridiculous to think that an abortion, which causes a temporary but dramatic drop in hormones, suppresses the immune response.
That's not the claim.
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.