Abortion Boosts Breast Cancer Risk 193% Study Finds, Giving Birth Lowers It

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
Abortion Boosts Breast Cancer Risk 193% Study Finds, Giving Birth Lowers It

Babol, Iran – Researchers in Iran have published the results of a new study showing women who have an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. On the other hand, women who carry a pregnancy to term find a lowered breast cancer risk compared with women who have never been pregnant.

LifeNews.com/int1665.html
 
Can you provide a link to the study itself? LifeNews is pretty much the only source for this story I can find, and it has not provided the actual study.
 
I’m strongly against abortion , but I always thought this correlation was a but shaky.
 
I followed the link in that article over to this article:

lifenews.com/nat5850.html

National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion-Breast Cancer Link True

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
January 6, 2010

"The study, conducted by Jessica Dolle, appears in the April, 2009 issue of the prestigious cancer epidemiology journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

The Dolle study, conducted with the prestigious Janet Daling group of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle – one of the first to receive recognition for highlighting the abortion-breast cancer link – concerns the link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer.

The study examined women for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), a subset of breast cancer cases with a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant cancer type.

The data yielded a strong association between TNBC and oral contraceptives and found a 320% risk increase for breast cancer over those who never used contraception.

When it comes to the abortion link, the study did not produce any new results but it cited the Daling studies from 1994 and 1996 that showed between a 20 and 50 percent increased breast cancer risk for women having abortions compare to those who carried their pregnancies to term."
 
Rascalking said:
I’m strongly against abortion , but I always thought this correlation was a but shaky.
Click to expand...
Well, there are lots of studies about this See HERE for some of these

What I have found is that in reading these, they are typically circumstantial in the sense that there is really no way to perform a study on this other than a statistical analysis of women who have breast cancer compared with women who have had an abortion. It is kind of like AIDS and homosexual activity. The one does not necessarily equate to the other, but it indicates a drastically higher probability that if you have one (abortion/homosexual activity) you will have the other (breast cancer/ AIDS).

I would not state that abortion causes breast cancer in the same way that tobacco use causes various types of cancer, but it is absolutely a risk factor and increases the likelihood of developing breast cancer at some point.

.
FSC
 
Also HERE
The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy. Although the increase in risk was relatively low, the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age.
Click to expand...
And HERE
A recent publication from California in this journal has suggested that both prolonged oral contraceptive use and abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer in young women.
Click to expand...
And HERE

Get the full text PDF and flip through this one. It does not discuss abortion but it does discuss the protective effect of childbirth.

In case you wanted sources 😉 these are three to start with.
 
Found this on a site:

abortionfacts.com/reardon/effect_of_abortion.asp

Cervical, Ovarian and Liver Cancer:

Women with one abortion face a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, and women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk.

Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions.

These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women are apparently linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage.(4)
  1. M-G, Le, et al., "Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast or Cervical Cancer: Preliminary Results of a French Case- Control Study, Hormones and Sexual Factors in Human Cancer Etiology, ed. JP Wolff, et al., Excerpta Medica: New York (1984) pp.139-147; F. Parazzini, et al.,
“Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Invasive and Intraepithelial Cervical Neoplasia,” British Journal of Cancer, 59:805-809 (1989); H.L. Stewart, et al.,

“Epidemiology of Cancers of the Uterine Cervix and Corpus, Breast and Ovary in Israel and New York City,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 37(1):1-96; I. Fujimoto, et al.,

“Epidemiologic Study of Carcinoma in Situ of the Cervix,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 30(7):535 (July 1985); N. Weiss,

“Events of Reproductive Life and the Incidence of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer,” Am. J. of Epidemiology, 117(2):128-139 (1983); V. Beral, et al.,

“Does Pregnancy Protect Against Ovarian Cancer,” The Lancet, May 20, 1978, pp. 1083-1087; C. LaVecchia, et al., “Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Women,” International Journal of Cancer, 52:351, 1992.
 
I find the quoted studies proving that there is a link very doubtful, misleading, and biased. Below are a couple of unbiased, scientific studies which were carried out by professional scientists and subjects who were not under the influence of response bias. The following quotes name drop a lot, and aren’t as obscure as the pro-life new’s sources.
Cancer Research UK:
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at cancer.gov/cancertopics/ere-workshop-report.
Click to expand...
cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage
Wikipedia:
Pro-choice activists have continued to advance the non-existence of a causal abortion-breast cancer link,[8] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[9] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[10] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[11][12] the strongest scientific evidence[13] from large prospective cohort studies[14][15] demonstrates that abortion is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.[16] The positive findings were felt to be due to response bias, and studies which better controlled for this confounding element found no evidence of a link.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia:
A number of major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, World Health Organization and the United States National Cancer Institute have analyzed larger studies regarding induced abortion and breast cancer. Their uniform conclusion is that there is no causative link between induced abortion and breast cancer.[5][6][16][22]

The Catholic Medical Association among several other pro-life medical organizations believe an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link exists based on their view that “epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30 percent.”[23][24] The scientific consensus is that many of those studies are subject to response bias and are not sufficiently reliable to draw conclusions from. The American Cancer Society noted with concern that: "The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer in women (lung cancer is the first). Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer."[25]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

I also find it very odd when religious pro-life groups turn to science to prove that they’re “right”. They should stick to what they know. Pro-life websites are notorious for distorting statistics. The moral argument should be the one pro-life campaigners should focus on - not scientific.
 
LemonAndLime said:
I find the quoted studies proving that there is a link very doubtful, misleading, and biased. Below are a couple of unbiased, scientific studies which were carried out by professional scientists and subjects who were not under the influence of response bias. The following quotes name drop a lot, and aren’t as obscure as the pro-life new’s sources.
Click to expand...
The British Medical Journal, the Cancer Journal for Clinicians, and the British Journal of Cancer are doubtful and Biased?
cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis
Click to expand...
I also find it very odd when religious pro-life groups turn to science to prove that they’re “right”. They should stick to what they know. Pro-life websites are notorious for distorting statistics. The moral argument should be the one pro-life campaigners should focus on - not scientific.
Click to expand...
I realize the assumed pro-life bias, which is why I did not cite anything from those organizations…
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
The British Medical Journal, the Cancer Journal for Clinicians, and the British Journal of Cancer are doubtful and Biased?

I realize the assumed pro-life bias, which is why I did not cite anything from those organizations…
Click to expand...
If you read my posts, Cancer Research UK and Wikipedia recognise that yes, some studies have found a link. BUT if you actually look into your studies, their methods are in doubt. Journals only publish studies. It’s the actual professional medical bodies who are the experts and the ones who decide whether to pay attention to certain studies or not. All journal articles are peer-reviewed, and if the medical professionals reviewing the studies decide that their findings are in doubt, the study’s reputation decreases and the study is in danger of being removed. Those professional bodies I mentioned have looked into those studies, and have decided that they are in doubt.
 
LemonAndLime said:
If you read my posts, Cancer Research UK and Wikipedia recognise that yes, some studies have found a link. BUT if you actually look into your studies, their methods are in doubt. Journals only publish studies. It’s the actual professional medical bodies who are the experts and the ones who decide whether to pay attention to certain studies or not. All journal articles are peer-reviewed, and if the medical professionals reviewing the studies decide that their findings are in doubt, the study’s reputation decreases and the study is in danger of being removed. Those professional bodies I mentioned have looked into those studies, and have decided that they are in doubt.
Click to expand...
Sources?
 
From HERE
One invited participant to the Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, held February 24-26, 2003, submitted to the National Cancer Institute a public comment regarding the outcomes of the workshop. Submitted as a “minority report,” the participant conveyed partial disagreement with the findings of the workshop report presented to the joint meeting of the NCI Board of Scientific Counselors and the NCI Board of Scientific Advisors. The participant remains “convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real, independent, positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk.” In a general statement, the participant noted that the workshop summary report contained no comment of dissent.
Click to expand...
Only one participant felt strongly enough to write a dissenting remark. How were the ratings (1-5) established? By vote, etc. or through journal evidence?

Can you cite any papers that show there is little to no impact on breast cancer by induced abortion?
 
And, FTR, I have a very difficult time accepting anything from wikipedia.
 
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute
held a consensus workshop on the possible link between induced
abortion and increased risk of breast cancer. They produced a
Summary Report, which concluded that induced abortion is not
associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. This is now
posted as fact on the NCI website
Although the issue was subject to a vote of over 100 of the
world’s leading experts, the NCI website does not state the result of
the vote itself. And although the Summary Report did not mention
that there was dissent, the NCIs website did post a minority
dissenting comment indicating that one of the participants remains
convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real,
independent, positive association between induced abortion and
breast cancer risk.
Sorting out the science and truth of the matter is of the utmost
importance so that relevant informed consent information can be
provided to women considering an abortion. Consensus and
political correctness must not inhibit the open discussion and
evaluation of the scientific data.
. (See cancer.gov/
cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report.)
Lawrence R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D.
Click to expand...
From THIS article

Dr. Huntoon remarks on what I found interesting in the cancer.gov article. No vote tally listed.

There is going to be bias on either side. Pro-choice groups will always find no link (just like funding from tobacco companies gave results that tobacco was not addicting or carcinogenic) while pro-choice advocacy will find a link. Either side may be correct but both will have a perceived agenda and cause the other side to feel their bias altered their science. And I perceive that bias in many of the research institutes that cite no risk. Abortion is a big money business which has deep pockets and a VERY good reason to show no risk. Heck, why would they want to say “Yes, our service increases your risk of cancer”? Even tobacco companies only say that they MAY cause cancer, despite the clear evidence that the carcinogens DO cause cancer except in those exceptions that prove the rule.

All the research I have done shows that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, with many papers claiming otherwise. With these types of studies it is VERY difficult to come to a firm conclusion as there is no way to perform a well thought out study with resorting to Mengellian tactics.

FSC
 
From the wiki (shudder) article RE: the NCI review
Pro-life activist Jill Stanek put it this way:[99]
Click to expand...
Code: 
Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not. At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
Click to expand...
And I especially liked this articled linked in the wiki (shudder)

theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/16/1045330466585.html
 
Is it so hard to believe that ripping a growing baby from its mother’s womb would have serious health consequences for the mother? Having experienced 2 full-term pregnancies, I can tell you that the changes that happen to a woman’s body are extensive, and many of them are obviously unseen. It is a TRAUMA on a scale people are in denial about, like an amputation only it’s another human being not a limb. A mother’s body is becoming miraculous from the minute the sperm reaches the egg. Stopping that process in a way that is wholly and totally artificial - abortion - is bound to have consequences. That woman’s body has already started changing, suddenly, there is a traumatic event, not like a miscarriage, that is a natural process, although traumatic emotionally, the body has a process that it is going through all on its own.

Abortion is fatal to the baby and horribly traumatic to the woman’s body. It solves NOTHING and hurts women as well as murders children.
 
Does anyone have a link to the study the original news report was based on? I’m beginning to think they may be mischaracterizing the study to the extent that I can’t effectively search for it.
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
From HERE

Only one participant felt strongly enough to write a dissenting remark. How were the ratings (1-5) established? By vote, etc. or through journal evidence?

Can you cite any papers that show there is little to no impact on breast cancer by induced abortion?
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Yes I can and I have. Scroll up a bit to my first post on this thread. I cite several studies and papers. Thank you very much.
 
LemonAndLime said:
Excuse me? Yes I can and I have. Scroll up a bit to my first post on this thread. I cite several studies and papers. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
The citations were from WIKI and the NCI. the cancer.org link provides no easily noticeable (they may be there somewhere but I couldnt find them yesterday) citations other than opinion pieces “[we feel that] There is no link between abortion and breast cancer” despite 28 out of 34 studies showing an increased risk (although very small, 5% more post abortive women will develop breast cancer according to one that I read).

The wiki article cites around 70-80 articles with about 5-10 actual journal articles, the rest being opinion pieces.

I just want to read the dissenting articles from the normal, slightly increased risk, articles.

And they seem difficult, relatively, hard to find.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top