New Study Shows Abortion is 'Best Predictor of Breast Cancer'

LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/3/07 | LifeSiteNews

[wagglebee]

WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer," and fertility is also a useful predictor. 

The study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected. Where a decline in abortion has taken place, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales based on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004.

In four countries - England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark - a social gradient has been discovered (unlike that for other cancers) whereby upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer than lower class women. This was studied in Finland and Denmark and the influence of known risk factors other than abortion was examined, but the gradient was not explained.

Carroll suggests that the known preference for abortion in this class might explain the phenomenon. Women pursuing higher educations and professional careers often delay marriage and childbearing. Abortions before the birth of a first child are highly carcinogenic.

Carroll used national data from nations believed to have "nearly complete abortion counts." Therefore, his study is not affected by recall bias.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer commented on the latest findings stating: "It's time for scientists to admit publicly what they already acknowledge privately among themselves - that abortion raises breast cancer risk - and to stop conducting flawed research to protect the medical establishment from massive medical practice lawsuits."

See the new study online here:
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf

[Gondring]

Ron Paul is already a member of the AAPS.

[jonrick46]

I have read studies a few years ago that write about the effect of breasts going into the process of milk production in the early stages of pregnancy. If the milk production cells do not get the protection of other hormones during the later pregnancy process, they are set up in a vulnerable state for chromosomal damage. It is this damage that leads to cancer.

[jeffers]

Sooo...abortions are running up my insurance premiums, eh?

Well, I don’t have to stand for that. If my smoking is your business, then your excessive sexual immaturity and the related costs it passes on to my is ...my business, isn’t it?

[Amelia]

I think there are a lot of good reasons to oppose abortion as I do, but junk science and faulty studies are not at the top of my list of reasons. I don’t like junk science and faulty studies and skewed statistics to support global warm claims either.

Thank you! Great analysis!

[Amelia]

The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

You are quoting an article you said back in post #23 that you yourself wrote, in an effort to prove you're correct?

Show me the studies, not your analysis of them. I have no reason to have any great faith in your medical, statistical, research, or analytical abilities and/or knowledge, and if the other studies are as flawed as this one, they prove nothing (just as this one proves nothing).

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[George W. Bush]

Great post!

If we continue to press forward, the evidence gets stronger and more undeniable.

No doubt, the abortion industry will try to discredit this one too. It will be interesting to see the peer reviews of the study.

[Saundra Duffy]

Well, this is going to be attacked furiously with everything the death squad can muster. Every time, it’s the same.

All we can do is go one-on-one with our family and friends to warn them and to alert them to the conspiracy. That’s all we can do.

Abortion kills babies and their mothers.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Great post!

[ga medic]

We have an 8 year old at our school that just died of AML Leukemia. I guess this was because he was living a lifestyle contrary to God’s plan. He started early too because he had cancer by the time he was 3.

[AliVeritas]

Just wondering off topic:

Have any of you followed ‘The Match’, a series of stories all week regarding a couple who engineered a new baby for bone marrow to save an older child? I would like your thoughts on it.

http://www.newsdayinteractive.com/diamond-blackfan-anemia/main.html

Five parts at bottom as well.

[Saundra Duffy]

Heavenly Father loves us all. I think the FReeper was just trying to point out that if a woman has an abortion, since it’s unnatural and a violent assault on her body, there may be consequences. Women need to get a clue.

[gracesdad]

To add to your comments, The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons really is not a medical journal at all. It’s more political than anything else. IF someone happened to come up with THE definitive study showing abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer, you can be assured you’d never see it in this “journal.”

I personally have no idea whether there’s any link between abortion and breast cancer, but I can’t see that this “study” advances our knowledge at all.

[gracesdad]

This “study” proves nothing at all. It’s extremely flawed. If the MSM trumpeted a study of this caliber saying there’s no link, we’d be all over it.

[Theo]

bump

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Back when the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeon was the Medical Sentinel (don't know the exact date, but this was in the late 1990s, when the relationship between HIV and AIDS had been convincingly demonstrated) they were publishing articles by Peter H. Duesberg on AIDS, which pretty much convinced me to view anything published there with skepticism.

When my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer five years ago I took a pretty close look at the research on predisposing factors. At that time there was no convincing evidence of a strong (or even a weak) link between abortion and cancer (my wife has not had an abortion, but doing such research you will quickly run across discussion of the possibility), and a quick GOOGLE turns up nothing that suggests that there has been any convincing challenge to the 2003 NCI analysis which failed to discover such a link:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report

So at this point it appears to me that if such a link exists it either has to be very weak, or it has to be present in only a small - and currently unidentified - subset of women.

[NoBullZone]

> This “study” proves nothing at all. It’s extremely flawed.

It does not “prove” anything at all - it does however indicate there is a correlation. But the jump from a correlation to proof is a long one indeed (in college logic class, I believe it was referreded to as the “false cause” fallacy.)

Is the fact there is a correlation between abortion and cancer in some countries “proof”. Of course not - there are literally thousands of other possible causes that need to be controlled for. For instance, is the unset of sexual relations the same in both the cancer and non cancer group? Could it be that the early onset of sexual behavior in certain groups leads to a higher incidence of STDs which are the real cause, as well as a greater number of abortions, which are not the “cause”. And there are a million other possible causes one would need to control for - socio-economic status, practice of “safe-sex”, nutrional habits, exposure to environmental toxins, etc.

The study is interesting and abortion is possibly a piece of the puzzle in determining the cause of breast cancer, but at this point it is simply a data point to be further investigated.

For the record I am anti-abortion - but pro-logic.

[EternalVigilance]

I’ve seen the attitude you project about this subject before. It comes from liberal Democrat women primarily, but also from Christie Todd Whitman types in the GOP. I’m constantly amazed at the level of the fury of their rejection of the overwhelming evidence of the abortion/breast cancer link, even though the bulk of that evidence comes from studies commissioned by, and then buried as much as possible by, the pro-abort side. One of those things that makes you go “hmmmm...”

I could provide you with studies from here to eternity, and you’d reject them anyway.

And frankly, I don’t have time to beat my head against that wall.

Have a nice day.

[Caramelgal]

To add to your comments, The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons really is not a medical journal at all. It’s more political than anything else. IF someone happened to come up with THE definitive study showing abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer, you can be assured you’d never see it in this “journal.”

And you would also never see that on LifeSiteNews.com. While their hearts may be in the right place they have a tendency to play fast and loose with the facts.

LifeSiteNews recently went after the Gardasil vaccine and loudly proclaimed: Deaths Associated with HPV Vaccine Start Rolling In, Over 3500 Adverse Affects Reported

Posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899816/posts

But when I read the actual FDA reports cited on the link, there were 3 deaths reported in young women who received the Gardasil vaccine and final autopsies had not yet been performed at the time the deaths were first reported to the FDA but in at least 2 of the 3 deaths, it was apparent to me that the cause of death could be attributed to other causes completely unrelated to the vaccine but had to be reported to the FDA anyway under the current FDA rules. And 3 to 7 deaths, even if Gardasil was a contributing factor, given the number vaccines given, it is a rather low risk factor. Statistically speaking, aspirin causes more deaths annually than Gardasil.

As for the averse affects, most were what you would expect with any type of vaccination: soreness, swelling, slight fever and the cases of fainting is most likely attributable to emotional fears and needle phobias but again the FDA mandates that every adverse effect has to be reported.

I donate blood on a regular basis and I’ve seen a few burly men nearly pass out because of their fear of needles. That could be called an adverse reaction but that doesn’t mean that donating blood is harmful or dangerous.

Given the high risk of a woman contracting HPV from a male partner given the number of males infected, even if she is celibate until marriage, unless her husband can absolutely guarantee that he was equally celibate, she is at a greater risk of HPV and developing cervical cancer than she is of an adverse affect from the vaccine. For that reason alone, if I had a daughter, I would seriously consider having her get the vaccine. I do think however that the vaccine should not be mandated by the state and should be left up to informed parents to decide. And a good parent would not allow her daughter to falsely think that the vaccine to protect her from HPV, gives her free license to be promiscuous – another false claim made by LifeSiteNews.

LifeSiteNews also recently proclaimed that a study proved that the Pill causes an increased risk of breast cancer based on only one of the findings of that study. They completely ignored the other parts of the study that the Pill could actually protect women from other types of cancer.

LifeSiteNews has an agenda, one that I don’t necessarily disagree with on all points but they loose all credibility with me when they cherry pick some parts of medical studies to support their claims and ignore other parts of the same studies that disprove their point of view. To me, LifeSiteNews is to women’s health studies as Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is to serious environmental studies.

The skewing of real scientific research data and reactionary and hysterical headlines does the Pro-Life cause more harm that good.

[Aquinasfan]

If the number one cause of breast cancer was ANYTHING ELSE, this would be on the front page of every paper in the world, but as it stands it will be buried.

Put on your pink ribbon and keep your mouth shut. We have an agenda to push.