8mm
Posted on 10/14/2007 11:02:22 AM PDT by wagglebee
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes that Christopher Wanjek of LiveScience.com labeled the abortion-breast cancer link as a "persistent myth."
We issue four challenges to Wanjek. First, act like a real scientific expert by participating in a public debate with our experts.
Second, disprove the biological basis for the link. No scientist has ever refuted it.
Third, write a letter to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons explaining why Professor Joel Brind's conclusions in 2005 were erroneous. [1] No expert has ever done so.
Brind demonstrated that the studies that abortion enthusiasts use to discredit the link are seriously flawed and cannot be used to discredit the larger body of research supporting the link.
Fourth, write a second letter to that journal explaining why Patrick Carroll's new study published last week is erroneous. Carroll showed that abortion is the 'best predictor' of breast cancer. [2]
If Wanjek had the slightest care for women, he would have watched the 3-day video of the workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link posted on the U.S. National Cancer Institute's website. It shows that the workshop was a political sham because scientists never examined the evidence supporting a link. They only presented the small body of evidence that discredits it.
No doubt, Wanjek's viewpoint is like that of epidemiologist Leslie Bernstein whom the NCI entrusted to lead its phony workshop. Bernstein told CancerPage.com that:
"The biggest bang for the buck is the first birth and the younger you are the better off you are. I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk. I don't want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be a part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability." [3]
Wanjek is either grossly uninformed or else he is a liar. Why does he hate women?
References:
1. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>.
2. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. Available at:
<http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.
3. NCI Scientific Panel Concludes Abortion Has No Impact on Breast Cancer Risk; March 3, 2003; Rachael Myers Lowe, <http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601>
(accessed 9/4/2007).
Of course not, the left wouldn't dare protect women from breast cancer at the risk of reducing abortions.
Pro-Life Ping
Ping.
“I don’t want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be a part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability.”
I hear you, but there are moral, social, AND physical consequences to abortion.
Those who break God’s laws, in the end, only break themselves—morally and physically.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Real Science, while in can bump in to it on occasion, can never be slaved to follow what’s “politically correct”
bump
My question is this:
Is it the fact of having an abortion that raises the risk, or is it that women who have abortions are more likely to engage in other activities that might also raise the risk, such as taking birth control, smoking and drinking, and various other higher-risk activities as well?
It’s the massive hormonal buildup associated with pregnancy.
In a miscarriage, the hormones will tapper off naturally. In a completed pregnancy, the hormones build for a reason, and are again, lessened when no longer needed.
Abortion leaves a woman’s body, and especially the breasts “stuck” with a natural tumor “soup”.
Type 1 lobules, the most primitive and undifferentiated, are present in small girls. After first menstruation, some breast tissue develops into Type 2 lobules. These are more complex and include more ductules per lobule.
Type 1 and 2 lobules are where ductal cancers develop. The most cancer-resistant tissue, types 3 and 4 breast lobules, only develops during the third trimester of pregnancy.
Due to early pregnancy growth spurt during the first two trimesters, the woman who has an induced abortion is left with way more Types 1 and 2 lobules than she had before her pregnancy began. This leaves her with more places for cancer to start. By contrast, the woman who has a full term pregnancy is left with more mature, cancer-resistant Types 3 and 4 lobules than she had before her pregnancy began. This results in the protective effect of a full term pregnancy.
If her first pregnancy is full term, this will have a strong protective effect. Subsequent full-term pregnancies will have weaker, but still measurable protective effects.
Thanks for answering my question.
The hormone induced physiological effect on the development of mammary gland tissue, that is triggered at the outset of impregnation, causes breast tissues to become more susceptible to cancerous growth if interrupted mid-course by an untimely and physiologically traumatic termination of the pregnancy. Abortion does not “cause” breast cancer. Rather, it renders breast tissue significantly more susceptible to developing cancer at some point, even years later.
I suspect that spontaneous abortion may produce a like effect, although perhaps, just perhaps, whatever triggers spontaneous abortion might also shut down the hormone moderated breast tissue modification process. (I am not a trained medical person; am only repeating, possibly imperfectly, what I have read from Dr. Brind and other experts).
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, those running and backing the abortion industry do not care about women. They care about money and dead babies. The sooner women wake up to this, the sooner we can end abortion.
False. I recently had a D&C due to an incomplete m/c -- which is pretty much the same procedure as an abortion. Hormone levels generally return to normal for both procedures after about ten days. Almost all of my friends have had at least one miscarriage and many of them have had to have D&Cs. Are we at risk? I hope not.
A D&C is an abortion. With each procedure you will have hormonal buildup. The earlier the procedure takes place, the quicker the hormones are evacuated from the body. The breasts are especially sensitive to these changes (and the reason many women experience pain before ovulation or during menstruation.)
Yes, you and your friends have increased risk of developing breast health issues.
Yes, you and your friends have increased risk of developing breast health issues.
Are you a physician? Something like one-third of all women experience a miscarriage. Don't you think if this was related to breast cancer we would have heard something by now? Don't you think doctors would be saying that if you have suffered a miscarriage, you should have mamograms more often or at an earlier age or something like that?
Not spontaneous abortion (miscarriages.)
I had several miscarriages, as did my mother. The statistics on miscarriage are more or less neutral. With our family history, it is something I have researched.
Induced abortion statistics are another matter. Unfortunately the literature is not something that gets widely distributed in the US, (too political.)
Abortion is less political in the EU. My cousin in the UK tells me it is much more openly discussed there.
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.