Replies

Look. I'm a Registered Nurse. I have worked in medical research. I have read the studies. How can you deny this link when you haven't even read the studies? I just had my first mammogram and went through the scenario I described. I also give you the impression of my female gynecologist who is PRO CHOICE. This is sound science. Many of these researchers are PRO CHOICE like Dr. Janet Dahling of Seattle. Why do you dismiss this outright without even investigating? Have you had an abortion yourself? Has someone close to you had one? Is it too frightening to consider? Denial doesn't keep anyone safe.

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.

"How can you deny this link when you haven't even read the studies? Why do you dismiss this outright without even investigating? Have you had an abortion yourself? Has someone close to you had one? "

Hmmm… I've said that I don't deny the "link", but the question should be why after I present a reasonable alternative explanation you ignore it, present limited credentials and accuse me of being an aborter. That appears more than a little evasive. Couple that with your "lives are at stake" and "women are dyeing" closings, and it looks more than a little Clintoneque.

I'm not the one denying links backed by studies. I'm simply giving a reasonable alternative for the cause of the link. Some people here are promoting only the abortion one with great certainty while denying the others. I presume there's a positive correlation between the abortion link and their agenda. Judging by your debating tactics here, I now suspect that includes your agenda.

I took a look at www.abortioncancer.com. I don't think I'll get an objective analysis there.