I was making the point that this kind of emotion-based, scientifically ignorant misinformation is harmful, prejudicial and just flat wrong. When we look at the results of studies, we need to be very careful. You can say "current studies show that there may be a link between...and...", or "studies indicate a trend", but you can't say that something is the "number one preventable cause of breast cancer".

And, I am healthy now thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, thank you.

certainly not ridiculous assertions such as the abortion-guilt link.

Well, gee, so much for possibly getting to the root of the problem of post-abortive womens' depression. *spit*

The last Big Lie.

I join in prayer for your friend, Jonathan - a successful operation and full recovery.

Your post took me by surprise as I had not heard about male breast cancer. For anyone interested: National Cancer Institute: Male Breast Cancer Treatment

That's nulliparity-- null meaning none.

Thank you.

Yes, males do have breast tissue, one sign a doctor looks at is that when a male leaks fluid from his nipple, that's a warning sign of a possible neoplasm in the breast.

My 95 year old aunt has been on Tamoxifen for 20+ years, >>>

I'm glad she is doing well, I thought Tamoxifen could only be used for 5 yrs. since it has a history of giving women uterine cancer?

Ahhhh, thanks for the insight!

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 ^

	Breast Cancer: Risks and Prevention (Booklet)

	Single Most Avoidable Risk (Brochure)

FACT SHEETS

FACT SHEET...Abortion and Breast Cancer:
re: "collaborative reanalysis of data" published inLancet
3/25/2004

FACT SHEET… Re: Review of Abortion-Breast Cancer link (ABC link) at National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop on "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Risk", held Feb 24-26, 2003
May, 2003

FACT SHEET…The Biologic Cause of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link: The Physiology of the Breast
May 2003

FACT SHEET…Recall Bias: An Argument Used Against the Abortion Breast Cancer Link
May 2003

Don't forget the other twin tower in the increase in abortion risk:

Always a Bitter Pill, Now the Risk of Breast Cancer Makes Oral Contraceptives Even Harder to Swallow

"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 even those 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.) Dr. Kahlenborn has testified before the FDA regarding the issues in his book, and the book's findings are now part of the federal record.

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. He began an exhaustive review of the research to ascertain whether contraceptive hormones in the Pill might have the same effect.

When asked, "What is 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 prior to 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 192,000 U.S. women develop breast cancer and more than 40,000 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 less common. When asked what other factors might account for such a rapid increase in the rates of breast cancer, Dr. Kahlenborn was blunt. "I am not sure of all the factors but two other factors come into play: decreased family size and decreased breast-feeding. Pregnancy and breast-feeding have been known to protect against breast cancer for many years. But the Pill and abortion also are likely responsible for the rising rates of breast cancer in Western countries." Breast cancer is increasing more rapidly in western countries, countries with early Pill use, often in the teen years, usually 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." Dr. Kahlenborn commented further, "In addition the Oxford meta-analysis used studies whose data came from as early as the 1960s. This is not precise enough since these studies would not have picked up the Pill's effects on the breast (ie, too short of a latent period).

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?

10 posted on 01/04/2002 10:16:00 PM EST by Dr. Brian Kopp

"Neglecting to inform women of the link between abortion and breast cancer could mean thousands of them pay the price with their lives." Concerned Women for America

http://www.etters.net/cancerTP.htm

Coalition on Abortion and Breast Cancer
Real Statistics on Abortion and Breast Cancer
The Breast Cancer Connection
CWA Summary on Abortion-Breast Cancer
1998 Wisconsin Law Review on Disclosure Duty
Abortion Increases the Risk of Breast Cancer
Abortion-Breast Cancer Studies, 1981-1996
Politics of Breast Cancer Research
Why the Silence About Abortion and Breast Cancer: Chicago Tribune; May 21, 2001
Abortion & Breast Cancer FAQ-Chris Kahlenborn, MD
Link between Abortion and Breast Cancer
Dr. Janet Daling on Abortion-Breast Cancer
Additional Evidence of Abortion-Cancer: J. Brind, Ph.d.
World Conference on Cancer: July 1997
Testimony before Food & Drug Administration: July 1996
Additional Breast Cancer Studies: S. Summerville
Return to Teen Pregnancy Home Page

Abortion and Breast Cancer Statistics

Dr. Janet Daling is a cancer researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington. Dr. Daling is self-described as 'pro-choice'. On 2 November 1994 Dr. Daling and fellow researchers published an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (pp. 1584-1592) concerning induced abortion and breast cancer risk for premenopausal women. Some key findings:

Women under age 18 who had an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 150%.
Women of age 30 and above who aborted a first pregnancy increase their breast cancer risk by 110%.
Overall, women who have an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 50%.

The Journal of the National Medical Association is a publication by black medical professionals concerned with black health problems. In the December 1993 issue JNMA published the results of a Howard University study. Key finding:

Black women of age 50 and above who had at least 1 induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 370%.

Mike Richmond
Cancer Awareness Canada
810 W. Broadway (651)
Vancouver, Canada V5Z 4C9

The single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer is...
...elective abortion.

13 ^1-13out of 14 studies ¹⁴ since 1957-show more breast cancer among American women who chose abortion (27 of 33 studies worldwide ^15-33).
The only study of American women which relied entirely of medical records of abortion (not interviews after the fact) reported a 90% increased risk of breast cancer among women who had chosen abortion ⁴.
Even Planned Parenthood's own expert admits that a young woman who aborts her first pregnancy is more likely to get breast cancer later on, than a young woman who carries her first pregnancy to term ³⁴.
A woman who is pregnant when diagnosed with breast cancer or who gets pregnant after breast cancer is much more likely to be cured if she has the baby, instead of an abortion ³⁵.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has acknowledged the finding of the 1996 "Comprehensive review and meta-analysis" by Dr. Joel Brind et al. ³⁶: a significant, 30% average increased risk with abortion. The Guideline reads: "the Brind paper had no major methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded." ³⁷

The ESTROGEN Connection:

Why induced abortions raise breast cancer risk-and most miscarriages don't:

The type of female sex hormone called estrogen, is the most potent stimulator of breast cell growth. In fact, the actions of most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.

In a normal pregnancy, the mother's ovaries begin producing extra estrogen within a few days after conception ³⁸. The level of estrogen in her blood rises by 2,000% by the end of the first trimester-to a level more than six times higher than it ever gets in the non-pregnant state ^39,40.

It is the undifferentiated cells in the breasts which estrogen stimulates to proliferate, so that there will be enough milk-producing tissue to feed the baby after birth. Only the undifferentiated cells are vulnerable to carcinogens, and can ultimately grow into cancer cells.

Importantly, during the last 8 weeks of pregnancy, other hormones differentiate these cells into milk-producing cells. In the process the growth potential-and cancer-forming potential-of these cells is turned off. That is why a full-term pregnancy lowers the risk of breast cancer later in life ⁴¹.

Therefore, if a woman who has gone through some weeks or months of a normal pregnancy chooses abortion, she is left with more of these cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than were there before she got pregnant, which raises her risk of breast cancer later in life.

In contrast, most pregnancies which abort spontaneously do not generate normal quantities of estrogen ^39,40. Thus most miscarriages (at least 1st trimester miscarriages) do not raise breast cancer risk ³⁶.

tissue.gif (6125 bytes)

Schematic representation of tissue structure of:

a. Mature breast of a never-pregnant woman

b. Breast at end of full-term pregnancy

Summary and meta-analysis of epidemiological evidence of the abortion-breast cancer link:

Explanatory notes:

    Each study above is listed by first author's name, year of publication, and nationality of women studied. On the right-hand side of the figure, the horizontal line with a central circle, given for each study, represents (on a log scale) the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the effect of induced abortion on the entire population studied, with the central circle representing the "point estimate" of "relative risk" (RR). This RR value represents how many times more likely to develop breast cancer, in that particular study, is a woman who had at least one induced abortion, relative to a woman who has not had an induced abortion. For example, in the 1984 French study of Le et al shown above, the point estimate of RR is 1.5, with a 95% CI that spans from 1.0 to 2.2. In other words, the study found that women who had at least one abortion were, on average, 50% more likely to develop breast cancer, and that one can be 95% certain that the increased risk is between 0% and 120%.

    Point estimates to the right of the vertical line of unity (RR=1) indicate increased risk; while those to the left indicate decreased risk. If the 95% CI does not cross the line of unity, the results are said to be statistically significant. Narrower 95% CI's denote greater certainty about the RR value, reflecting larger studies with greater statistical power. Thus, the figure illustrates the fact that of the 33 published worldwide studies, 27 show increased risk, 17 of which are statistically significant. The pooled average from all the studies combined, calculated by two different methods, is shown at the bottom. It clearly indicates a significant risk increase averaging 30 to 40%.

    The 1981 study of Pike et al. is limited to women with any abortions before first full-term pregnancy, the 1988 study of Ewertz and Duffy and the 1996 study of Wu et al. are limited to women with no children, and the 1957 study of Segi et al. is limited to women with children.

References

1. Pike et al. (1981) Br J Cancer 43:72-6
2. Brinton et al. (1983) Br J Cancer 47: 757-62
3. Rosenberg et al. (1988) Am J Epidemiol 127-981-9
4. Howe et al. (1988) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4
5. Laing et al. (1993) J Natl Med Assoc 85:931-9
6. Laing et al. (1994) Genet Epidemiol 11:A300
7. White et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:505-14; Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1584-92
8. Newcomb et al. (1996) JAMA 275: 283-7
9. Daling et al. (1996) Am J Epidemiol 144:373-80
10.Wu et al. (1996) Br J Cancer 73:680-6
11.Palmer et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9
12.Marcus et al. (1999) Am J Pub Health 89:1244-7
13.Lazovich et al. (2000) Epidemiol 11:76-80
14.Moseson et al. (1993) Int J Epidemiol 22:1000-9
15.Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63
16.Watanabe & Hirayama (1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9 (in Japanese)
17.Dvoirin & Medvedev (1978) Meth Breast Cancer Epidemiol Res, Tallin 1978. USSR Acad Sci pp.53-63 (in Russian)
18.Nishiyama (1982) Shikoku Ichi 38:333-43 (in Japanese)
19-22. Le et al. (1984); Luporsi (1988); Rohan (1988); Andrieu et al. (1994); in Andrieu et al. (1995) Br J Cancer 72:744-51
23.Hirohata et al. (1985) Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 69:187-90
24.Ewertz & Duffy (1988) Br J Cancer 68:99-104
25.Lipworth et al. (1995) Int J Cancer 61:181-4
26.Rookus & van Leeuwen J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64
27.Bu et al. (1995) Am J Epidemiol 141:S85
28.Talamini et al. (1996) Eur J Cancer 32A:303-10
29.Burany (1979) Jugosl Ginekol Opstet 19:237-47 (Serbo-Croat)
30.Adami et al. (1990) Br J Cancer 62:122-6
31.La Vecchia et al. (1993) Int J Cancer 53:215-9
32.Zaridze et al. (1988) "unpublished" in Ref. #19 above
33.Melbye et al. (1997) N Engl J Med 336:81-5
34.Rosenberg (1999) NE FL Women's Health v. State of FL, FL Circuit Ct, 2nd circ., videotape deposition of 11/18/99, pp.77-8.
35.Clark & Chua (1989) Clin Oncol 1:11-18
36.Brind et al. (1996) J Epidemiol Community Health 50: 481-96
37.Evidence-based Guideline #7 (2000) RCOG Press, pp.29-30
38.Stewart et al. (1993) J Clin Endocrinol Metab 76:1470-6
39.Witt et al. (1990) Fertil Steril 53:1029-36
40.Kunz & Keller (1976) Br J Ob Gyn 83: 640-4
41.MacMahon et al. (1970) Bull Wld Health Org 43:209-21

TOP

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute is a research and educational 501(c)(3) public charity
Literature and speakers available for lay and professional audiences.

Contributions are tax-deductible.
Single copies of this brochure are distributed free of charge.
For 2-99, send $.25 each, for 100+, send $.20 each. Add $5, S&H

BREAST CANCER PREVENTION INSTITUTE
9 Vassar Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Call toll-free: 1-86-NO CANCER (1-866-622-6237)
E-Mail: info@bcpinstitute.org

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.

You obviously know very little about the studies:

Prayers for Jonathan. God be with him, the Lord heal him.

Study Examines Relationship of Vitamin A Pathway to Breast Cancer Tumor Progression

Supplements

Two! Two! Two pings in one! ;') Thanks!

Wow, an online publication from an organization whose sole purpose is to publicize the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer. How convincing---NOT!

This tripe is of the same order of credibility as the online publications of the "Creation Science" types.

Look at the error bars on the chart. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY VIABLE EVIDENCE HERE.

Wake up, there are many studies correlating the ABC link.