But the studies show that Asians lose their relative immunity from breast cancer once they move to America. There are links to discussions of this in #90 above. Diet is suspected.
Diet might also be another big difference between black and white women in the 60s, but not today. The 60s was the period of the greatest rise in the black middle class and a greater integration of the races. Traditional diets were probably replaced by fast food, chicken with more red meats. There may have also be greater urbanization and integration of blacks women into the workforce at that time, bringing with it greater exposure. I really don't study this stuff, but there are more potential explanations than just abortions.
I suspect that most of the people arguing that abortion is causing breast cancer have far more invested in the anti-abortion movement than in healthcare. I can't personally vouch for the consensus of how much weight medical experts give the pill or abortion in assessing cancer risk, but I think there's plenty of evidence that it's the abortion opponents are "hijacking it" for their agendas.
To discredit the data as if it is the tool of a particular religion or religious sect or an organization or population group is absurd ... the correlations are real, whether bill clinton cites them or the Pope (I'd personally be more inclined to accept them from the Pope, but whom presents them is actually irrelevant to the actual correlations that exist).
Diet was thoroughly investigated as a risk factor. The last study that I read in the past year or two thoroughly debunked this. Previous studies raised questions but the last study put this theory to rest completely. You won't see many, if any more studies investigating this as a possible link. It's gone nowhere. Now, overweight people with a high fat diet are definitely prone to more cancer in general, heart disease, diabetes, etc, but not specifically breast cancer. Thin women who are vegetarians get breast cancer.
Please read Dr. Brind's estrogen page on his website www.abortioncancer.com This is not a theory or a hypothesis. This is pure biology. These people study cadavers, analyze hormonal activity and levels, and tissue samples under slides. Reputable scientists are true to science first and their personal ideology second. They value their careers and their futures would be over if they practiced junk science. Please educate yourself on this topic. Lives are at stake.
Yeah, riiight...I'm a physician and surgeon. I have an equal investment in both. If there is no fundamental right to life, as in "LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," then there are no other real rights or freedoms.
I know personally some of the folks involved in this research, and I'm on the board and an officer of one of the research foundations exploring this link.
Frankly, the truth is that those denying the link have far more invested in pop con and abortion rights bias than the healthcare of women, and the fundamental right to fully informed consent.
A Blessed Easter to you,
Dr. Kopp
And do you suspect the same to be true of the abortion advocates in this case? Are abortion advocates somehow less suspect in your view and are more inclined to honesty? On which side of the issue does your skepticism originate? And don't say you have no bias.