Posted on 12/06/2001 4:18:56 PM PST by Notwithstanding
WOMEN who have had an abortion are nearly twice as likely to suffer from breast cancer, scientists claimed yesterday.
In the first study of its kind in Britain, researchers said the risk of breast cancer is significantly increased if a woman has undergone a termination.
The study, which looked at breast cancer and abortion rates in Britain, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, draws a direct link between rising cases of breast cancer and an increase in abortion since it was legalised.
The research, by the Populations and Pensions Research Institution, an independent group of statisticians, suggests that up to 50 per cent of breast cancer cases in England and Wales over the next 26 years will be "attributable to abortion".
Patrick Carroll, researcher and author of the study, said the total number of breast cancer cases is expected to more than double from 35,110 in 1997 to 77,000 in 2023. The rise is "largely" because of abortions carried out on women who have not yet had a baby, he said.
Launching the study - which was funded by the anti-abortion charity Life - Professor Joel Brind, of New York’s City University and director of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in New York, said: "Women are at risk and they do not really know about it."
The layman's view I hold is tha when the body causes a natural miscarriages it compensates hormonally to the event - naturally. The entire thing is natural and the body can recover much more easily. When an abortion is induced artificially the body is caught in a situation that is not natural and to which it is not as able to adapt as well.
It only makes sense that artificial body trauma (an induced abortion) is harder for the body to address than a naturally occuring miscarriage.
Do miscarriages carry the same risk as induced abortion?
Women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage usually do not experience the same increase in estradiol and progesterone (the female sexual hormones) levels that a healthy pregnancy would result in. Therefore, when a woman experiences a miscarriage, there is a less dramatic shift in hormone levels and less of a "hormonal blow" to the breast. Studies have shown that miscarriages, in general, have less of a risk than induced abortions, however, several studies show that miscarriages before a full term birth may still carry a significant risk, e.g. Pike [138]: 140% increased risk; Brinton [101]: 90% increase; Hadjimichael [107]: 250% increase; Ewertz [106]: 163% increase; and Rookus [141]: 40% increase. Why would a woman who has an induced abortion before her firstborn child suffer an increased risk of breast cancer? A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (i.e., cancer producing) influence before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (i.e., the female sexual hormones), and B-hCG (Beta-human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells [145A]. If this process gets artificially interrupted, by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop dramatically thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman's breast cells. This is referred to as a "hormonal blow" by researchers. These cells are now "vulnerable" to carcinogens since they were left "in limbo": that is, they started the maturation process, but were never able to complete it. [Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation].
Do any animal models support the claim that early abortions increase breast cancer risk?
Yes. Russo and Russo, in their classic work published in 1980 [144], studied several groups of rats which were given a specific carcinogen (cancer producing agent) called DMBA. They noted that 77% of rats who underwent an abortion developed breast cancer, while 0% [zero] of the rats who were allowed to complete their pregnancy developed cancer.
Could you tell me about the history of the abortion/breast cancer debate?
As early as 1957, Segi et al noted that women who had induced abortions had at least a two-fold risk in their rate of breast cancer [148]. In 1981, Pike et al published their notable work showing that young women (under age 32) who had experienced an abortion before their first live birth had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer. A number of studies followed but finally in 1994, Daling et al [103] published a large study which noted that women who had an abortion before first birth suffered a 40% increased risk, and that this increased to 150% if the abortion was before age 18.
Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the most meticulously comprehensive meta-analysis (i.e. a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) of all the abortion/breast cancer research articles ever done, Brind et al [98] found that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.
If Dr. Brind et al's study was so conclusive, then why is the subject still being debated?
That is a good question. Because of the controversy regarding abortion, Dr. Brind's study came under intense scrutiny, however, the results seemed irrefutable. Janet Daling -- a prominent epidemiologist (a researcher who studies trends in the medical field) -- was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as stating that Brind et al's results were "very objective and statistically beyond reproach." [104A] Then in early 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEIM) published the results of a large prospective study by Melbye et al [128] which claimed to show that abortion did not increase the risk of breast cancer.
Was there any problem with the study by Melbye?
Yes. It is astonishing that the NEJM allowed it to be published in its submitted form. It had several glaring problems that have been pointed out in a follow up letter to the NEJM [128A]. The main ones include the following:
Melbye's data actually pointed to a 44% increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion, but they never printed this result;
The follow-up period for the "controls" was less than 10 years, while it was over 20 years for the "cases" (i.e. women who had an induced abortion). A follow-up period of less than ten years is not long enough to show the effect of an abortion;
Over 30,000 women in the study who had abortions were "misclassified" as not having them -- thus 30,000 women were counted as not having abortions, when in fact they really had abortions;
The study did note that women who had an abortion after the 12th week sustained a 38% increased risk of breast cancer, while women who had late term abortions (i.e. after 18 weeks) had a statistically significant increase of 89% -- both of these results received little media attention.
Hmmmm, more cancer from abortions. More healthcare costs paid for by governments. Sic the trial lawyers on Planned Parenthood. Tell them that PP's doctors smoked during the abortions too!.
I believe additional studies have shown that women who miscarry NATURALLY for whatever reason DO NOT have the same risk, because the body has made the change all by itself. There were hormonal changes, most likely, which caused the miscarriage to happen in the first place.
Why would a woman who has an induced abortion before her firstborn child suffer an increased risk of breast cancer?
A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (i.e., cancer producing) influence before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (i.e., the female sexual hormones), and B-hCG (Beta-human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells [145A]. If this process gets artificially interrupted, by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop dramatically thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman's breast cells. This is referred to as a "hormonal blow" by researchers. These cells are now "vulnerable" to carcinogens since they were left "in limbo": that is, they started the maturation process, but were never able to complete it. [Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation].
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.