Replies

Because 1) low estrogen is NOT the cause of most miscarriages, 2) in the cases where it is, the women in question would have a lower than normal risk for breast cancer to begin with, and 3) in the majority of miscarriages, which are NOT caused by low estrogen, the author's claim of a scientific explanation for a different effect on breast cancer risk depending on whether a first trimester pregnancy is terminated naturally or artificially, goes out the window -- because it was based on hte non-factual allegation that low estrogen is the cause for the difference.

BTW, last year abortion-breast-cancer-link promoter Saundra Duffy posted a transcript of an interview with the leading "researcher" who touts this link, Dr. Joel Brind, in which he said his research showed that miscarriage caused the same elevated breast cancer risk as induced abortions. I think he's changed his tune since then, as he realized it wasn't popular with the let's-fight-abortion-by-scaring-women-about-breast-cancer crowd, which is basically his only audience.

I thought he was saying that the spontaneous abortions were correlated with low estrogen not caused by it. E.g., a genetic defect may be sensed and the normal hormonal response may not occur, and a deliberate abortion correlated with the normal estrogen levels for that time of pregancy and the effect on the breast they have could lead to problems if tampered with in mid- stream. Or something along those lines.

I don't know if he is bs'ing or not but that was what I though the was saying.