BREAST CANCER: NEWS TOO GOOD

NY Post ^ | 04.01.05 | Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan

[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.

[The Doctor]

An abortion does not cause depression. Again, an overly simplistic notion. An abortion is a tragedy, but the response of a person to it is a function of many variables. A rapid drop in hormones following abortion may contribute to depression, but the drop is not a permanent state.

People who feel guilt for long periods need help that likely includes spiritual healing, not condemnation and certainly not ridiculous assertions such as the abortion-guilt link.

[The Doctor]

The existence of a number of links does not prove anything. Lies and errors are repeated frequently-- ever heard of propaganda? Well-meaning people, including researchers, aren't always aware of their existing biases.

[socal_parrot]

A male friend is having a mastectomy for breast cancer on Monday. I don't believe he's had an abortion.


Any prayers for him would be appreciated. His name is Jonathan.

[Coleus]

Prayer for your friend. And as I said there are many ways to get breast cancer: genetics, pesticides & chemicals, cellular oxidation, lifestyle, diet, etc. Abortion is a cause and IS the single most preventable action one can do to prevent breast. You can't stop genetics but you can surely stop an abortion. Many often forget that males can get this disease too. I hope everything works out well.

[socal_parrot]

Thanks. I hope so too. He's having both removed and has to pay for the second himself because it's considered cosmetic.

Prayers for the lives of the unborn.

[CyberAnt]

That's interesting information. Thank you.

I wonder if there is any info on whether or not the next baby - if full term - causes difficulties with breast feeding ..??

[The Doctor]

Even if the claim is that breast cancer is caused by presumed problems in the milk ducts, it doesn't hold. First, women have had miscarriages for thousands of years, but did not have breast cancer. It ignores the link between environment or diet and breast cancer rate. Japan has the lowest rate of breast cancer but not the lowest abortion rate.

Researchers are trying to find an underlying cause related to abortion. It doesn't prove anything.

[The Doctor]

Coleus is uninformed.

[CyberAnt]

So .. inform!

[trussell]

Prayer ping. See post 43

Please post your replies to socal_parrot

socal_parrot, My prayers going up for Jonathan and his family.

Coleus - thank you for the ping.

Blessings,
trussell

If you want on/off my prayer ping list, please let me know. All requests happily honored.

[TXBSAFH]

Prayers sent.

[Marauder]

Just curious as to what's out there. I'm tired of seeing loved ones die with this, and if there are natural treatments, I'd like to know about them.

I lost a cousin who had no less than four tumors that popped up all at once - brain, liver, lung, and spine - and it didn't take long for him to pass away.

[rabidralph]

Here's a 3-day conference, on video, you may be interested in seeing. It discusses the "link" between abortion and breast cancer. It's called Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer.

[e_castillo]

Slept at a Holiday Inn?

[RGSpincich]

...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.

Sounds real similar to the healthy diet approach that has been around for years. Take two of these, eat healthy and exercise daily.

[Wurlitzer]

"There may in fact be a link, but it is by no means "the single most preventable cause of breast cancer". I've known a number of women who have had breast cancer---none of whom had abortions. "

"PREVENTABLE" meaning something they did something which, had they not done, could decrease their risk. Your observation about the number of women you know with breast cancer is irrelavant to the word PREVENTABLE.

There are many more cases of breast cancer which do NOT have any external known causes and these more than likely fall into your observation and would not be PREVENTABLE.

[Saundra Duffy]

It's hopeless.

[Wurlitzer]

"That's an outrageous claim. I was diagnosed at 45, and had never even considered an abortion, much less had one. Didn't take BC pills either. When you make these kind of unsupported claims you cause distress to people who don't deserve it. "

Words have meaning. PREVENTABLE!!! I gather you did nothing to cause your cancer so the list of PREVENTABLE causes is irrelevant in your case. HOWEVER, In the list of PREVENTABLE causes, abortion seems to at or near the top. Therefore the "Claim" is not outrageous.

[Wonder Warthog]

""PREVENTABLE" meaning something they did something which, had they not done, could decrease their risk. Your observation about the number of women you know with breast cancer is irrelavant to the word PREVENTABLE."

Prove it. Since first posting, I've done a reasonable amount of scanning of breast cancer sites, and there is little or nothing about this supposed link between breast cancer and abortion. Frankly, I put this in the same "wishful thinking" category as "embryonic stem cell research" is to the pro-abortionists. It plays to the prejudices of the group involved, but is not well-supported by science.

[Gabz]

The major problem, as I see it, with the "wishful thinking" category is that it seems to have overtaken much of the debate on a wide variety of "causes" of a wide variety of diseases.

Links between one thing and another exist for everything. In this particular case the claim is that abortion is the number one preventable cause of breast cancer...........yet others claim that smoking is the number one preventable cause of breast cancer..still others claim the number one is something else.

I'm not claiming to know if one is right, or if any of them are wrong - I'm just commenting that depending upon which study, which disease, which funding, etc., there are going to be different spins taken on the outcome of the studies.