Abortion 'triples breast cancer risk': Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease
I wonder what study the Daily Mail article is referring to? It doesn't mention the name of the article, or even the names of any of the researchers, and this makes it hard to track the study down.
In the current issue of Cancer Epidemiology, the only article I could find about breast cancer in Sri Lanka concerned its link to breast feeding. The abstract for the article does show a tripled incidence of breast cancer if there is a history of prior abortions, but are there enough cases of abortion linked breast cancers to make the results statistically significant?
I ask this because, earlier this year, many pro-life sources proclaimed a study which claimed that abortion increased breast cancer risk by 40%. But, as in the study mentioned above, the research was not primarily about a link between abortion and breast cancer. Because the number of cases involving abortion and breast cancer in that study were so low, even though a 40% elevated risk was one of the results, that result was statistically insignificant. And thus, it was misleading to say that the study actually demonstrated an elevated risk. Yet the pro-life sources ignored that fact.
I wonder if the Daily Mail isn't jumping the gun on this, before investigating it more thoroughly.
I’m wondering if you read the article. The Sri Lanka study is the one pointed to.
If you read further in the article, it says this:
"Those who believe there is a link say breast cancer is caused by high levels of oestradiol, a hormone that stimulates breast growth during pregnancy.
Its effects are minimised in women who take pregnancy to full term but it remains at dangerous levels in those who have abortions.
There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.
Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent."
There is also this:
"In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, “Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer.”
“As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman’s risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a “highly plausible” relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease.”
The abortion industry will do everything they can to fight this, but how can there be any doubt in anyone’s mind that this is true? Why has the incidence of breast cancer risen so dramatically at the same time abortions became legal?
I did. It was a very sketchy piece, offering almost no information about the Sri Lanka study which supposedly was the topic.
I understand that pro-life groups would like to find reasons to condemn abortion, aside from the killing of the unborn. But the evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer is theoretical, with minimal evidence in support of it. In the US, a few years ago, the National Cancer Institute reviewed theliterature, and concluded that there was no demonstrable link between the two.
This is a topic we have discussed repeated in Secular News.
Perhaps, but that correlation does not show that abortion, as opposed to other factors, is the cause of breast cancer.
I wonder what her reasoning is. I will try to track down her statement.
That is about as vague of a statement as is possible to make. First, its not referring to research, but a letter. Second, what scientists? Third, that was 25 years ago. Their claim is outside the mainstream of current medical thinking.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a relatively tiny organization (5000 members.) More doctors in the US are going through rehab than belong to it. Moreover, it is more of a political organization than a medical one. Its members are primarily linked by their commitment to conservative causes. Just because x number of medical organizations say something doesn’t mean a thing, in itself. What matters is the size of the group, and the reasons behind the pronouncement.
There are all kinds of reasons which might be associated with it. Longer life span means there is a greater chance of cancer developing. The increase of exposure to chemicals in our food and water may be another. Perhaps the increasing use of cellular technology. Who knows? In the absence of studies specifically addressing the issue, we can’t say.
[quote="Dale_M, post:4, topic:203552"]
I wonder what her reasoning is. I will try to track down her statement.
From what I am finding on the internet, she never made that statement. Pro-life sources are saying she did because she was one of the authors of the study which indicated a 40% increase in breast cancer due to abortion. But as I pointed out, that number was statistically insignificant.
I think the pro-life sources are putting words in Dr. Brinton's mouth which she didn't say (or write.)
I do think it is important to have solid research based on scientific method before proclaiming bold conclusions.
In the articles I have read, there have been observations of correlation, but not so strong or detailed to have a reasonable certainty of causation. For example, a rigorous study ought to have a control group (say nuns that never had children OR abortions) in order to rule out the possibility that women who have abortions are more statistically likely to NEVER have children (born live ones anyways) than women who don't. You have to make sure that it isn't childlessness that is the increase in risk for breast cancer, not the abortion itself.
All that said, there have been enough intriguing observations of correlation over the years that there is no excuse NOT to fund a real study on the matter. The government spends millions per year studying the effects of COW FLATULENCE, don't TELL me there isn't sufficient merit here to warrant funding a study specifically focused on the issue.
I don't have much time to spend on this - but you may find the following links worth looking through. I have to wonder, if this many studies strongly suggested an increased risk of breast cancer due to another factor unrelated to abortion/sex, would so many be striving to discount the research?
Quote from the study: "The significant factors associated with increased risk of breast cancer were: post-menopausal women (OR=1.74; 95%CI=1.01, 3.01); having an abortion in the past (OR=3.42; 95%CI=1.75, 6.66) and exposure to passive smoking (OR=2.96, 95%CI=1.53, 5.75).
( ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20338838 )
I would turn that around. Considering how weak the evidence in support of an abortion-breast cancer link, I don’t think anyone would be pushing the idea if the alleged cause was anything other than abortion.
[quote="Dale_M, post:8, topic:203552"]
I would turn that around. Considering how weak the evidence in support of an abortion-breast cancer link, I don't think anyone would be pushing the idea if the alleged cause was anything other than abortion.
I can see why you would try to turn that around - but I don't find the turn-around convincing. Especially in the main stream media, it seems to me that we are very quick to report possible dangers so that people are at least aware of them - particularly when it comes to cancer. But that has not been the case when it comes to abortion and any possible dangers related to contraception, imo.
Whenever negative information comes out about contraception or abortion, it seems to me that it is by and large buried or issued along with a defense of abortion/contraception to allay concerns about either. I don't often see that kind of defensive reaction when it comes to other, non-sexual things.
IMO, it seems pretty logical. As a society, we want sex where and whenever we like - without "consequences" and anything that helps to make that possible (like contraception or abortion) is crucial to attaining that goal. Sex seems reasonably described as our "drug of choice" in our addiction-riddled society. I don't think many who are in control of the flow of information really want to seriously consider whether abortion and/or contraception are good for the human person or society in general.
I think back to an experiment done in Kruger National Park (S. Africa) to help control the elephant population there. They used the equivalent of "the pill" (hormonal contraception) on the female elephants. The end result was that elephant "society" essentially fell apart. Males remained in sexual hyperdrive and became more destructive. Females stopped taking care of their young and were more interested in mating. Those orphaned young then ended up being destructive adults. They ultimately stopped the experiment with hormonal contraception because of the negative effects.
Sounds remarkably like the effects of "the pill" and "sexual liberation" upon human society to me. Only, one primary difference with the "human experiment" is that we are both the test subjects and the ones in control of the "experiment." It seems reasonable to conclude that society is being destroyed, at least in part, by sexual license that masquerades as "freedom." But, perhaps we love this particular "drug" too much to look at objectively.
If one could "talk with the animals" like Dr. Doolittle, I suspect that a great many elephants would have objected strenuously to having "the pill" taken away from them as well. Thankfully, the elephants didn't have advocacy groups lobbying for their "reproductive freedom".
"The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it."
Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud