But why the increase?
1)Decreased breastfeeding 2)Decreased family size and 3) Delay in childbearing have always been known to increase Br. Ca. incidence. Because they are independant risk factors, their relative increased risk is know. The increase in breast cancer is far beyond what can be explained solely due to 1)Decreased breastfeeding 2)Decreased family size and 3) Delay in childbearing.
Therefore, other factors must have come into play over the last 50 years.
Hundreds of studies have looked for a link to environmental toxins, pollution, chemicals, diet and fat intake, and NOT ONE OF THESE STUDIES has found a positive link.
However, 28 of 37 studies to dat, or 76%, have found a positive link between abortion and breast cancer. 80% of all studies to date have found a positive link between the pill and breast cancer.
Think about it...
Increase from 1 in 13 to 1 in 7.9 over 50 years!
No studies of pollution or diet or chemicals or even smoking reveal ANY LINK WHATSOEVER!
75% of abortion studies and 80% od pill studies show a positive link!
Where is the "junk science???"
It is in a government health bureacracy that Bush has failed to purge of militant Clintonian pro-aborts who do not want abortion rights to be jeopardized by this info going public.
The National Cancer Institutes' position is corrupt because it is biased by a militantly pro-abort agenda. That is where the true charge of junk science should be laid.
Those denying this link are blinded by their agenda. Period. Those trying to expose the link have the facts as well as the moral high ground on their side.