The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Another ABC controversy > Comments

Another ABC controversy : Comments

By Babette Francis, published 9/12/2013

ABC stands for the Abortion Breast Cancer link, proven by a meta-analysis of data from 14 Chinese provinces.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Can you please link to the original studies (i.e. the scientific manuscripts?).

I currently have no position on this subject, and would like to make my judgement based on the first-hand scientific evidence.

From my initial research it seems you have cherry picked the data that supports your hypothesis. Additionally you seem to exaggerate the importance of studies/people who agree with you ("prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, "Cancer Causes and Control," - Impact factor 3.2, hardly prestigious) and attack those who disagree (NCI, "Leslie Bernstein, who had never published on this topic" - world expert in breast cancer epidemiology, with almost 200 peer reviewed papers on the topic).
Posted by Stezza, Monday, 9 December 2013 7:12:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another anti-choice article dressed up as science. I notice that no other potential factors are listed in the increase in risk (also love that no article ever seems to tell us what the actual 'base' risk of breast cancer is in women. One in 100? Higher? Lower?).

Leaving aside the whys of women having abortion, I wonder if any in the anti-choice and self-proclaimed 'pro-family' (not that you ever see them actually supporting families) have ever considered the children who are born because of abortion; the teenaged girl or adult woman who terminates a pregnancy and goes on to be happily married and have three children, events unlikely if she had been forced to bear and raise a child she didn't want.
Posted by Carz, Monday, 9 December 2013 7:14:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Childless women (such as nuns) have always had a higher risk of breast cancer. This has nothing to do with abortion. Every time a women has a full term pregnancy she reduces her lifetime frequency of exposure to high levels of estrogen. The fact is that every time a woman has a full term pregnancy , she has at least 9 mouths without experiencing a menstrual cycle.
Every time she has a menstrual cycle she experiences a peek surge in levels of the hormone estrogen . Estrogen is a powerful growth promoter i.e it raises the chance of cancer:uncontrolled cell division, growth, starting in the first place.
Posted by pedestrian, Monday, 9 December 2013 7:48:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a shame that debates on scientific matters like this are dominated by people influenced by their own strong pro-life or feminist views about abortion. The author has made her point based on evidence she is aware of. Lets have an evidence-based response please from both camps. I don't claim expertise on this matter so I have no opinion on the science.

We know that women having a litter of kids starting at a young age seem to benefit from a reduced risk of breast cancer, yet we don't recommend large families as part of our public health policies. If the claimed link between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer is proven, I doubt that it will have any impact on the availability of abortion, though arguably it may have an impact at the margin on the numbers of abortions carried out.
Posted by Bren, Monday, 9 December 2013 8:48:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to those who accuse Babette of pro-life bias in writing about the abortion-breast cancer link, why is it left to pro-lifers to highlight the protective factors on which there is no scientific dispute? For example:

* The earlier a woman has a full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer. This is a very good reason why no female under 30 years of age should have an induced abortion.

* The more full-term pregnancies a woman has, the lower her risk of breast cancer. Another reason not to have induced abortions.

* The longer a woman breastfeeds her babies, the lower her risk of breast cancer. It is not possible to breastfeed an aborted fetus, and some women who have an abortion will never have another child.

There are more than 57 studies supporting the abortion-breast cancer
link. These can be viewed at www.bcpinstitute.org and
www.abortion.breastcancer.com
Posted by Gadfly42, Monday, 9 December 2013 10:59:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gadfly, how about studies printed in reputable, peer-reviewed publications? The links you have provided (only one of which works) are to anti-choice organisations. Critical thinking requires that information supporting their claims that has not been put through a rigorous scientific peer-review system be treated as unsubstantiated and lacking in validity.
Posted by Carz, Monday, 9 December 2013 12:51:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many things increase the risk of breast cancer, for example taking oral contraceptives, drinking alchohol, and having a bad diet. Forcing women to have children seems like an extreme way to minimize risks. There are legitimate reasons to appose abortion and I respect those who can discuss these issues honestly but don't pretend that it has anything to do with the health of the women.

PS discussing risk without numbers (never mind statistics) are almost completely meaningless.
Posted by Stezza, Monday, 9 December 2013 12:57:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza
Nobody is forcing women to have babies. What we are saying is that having babies will minimize the risks of adverse outcomes such as breast cancer. We can present figures to prove what we are saying. There are what is known as meta analyses which take large samples of women who have had abortions compared with other samples of women who have not had abortions and compare the breast cancer rates (which doesn't prove very much on its own but we also have biological evidence of why abortion predisposes women who have had abortions to greater risk of having breast cancer). Even this does not prove the case but rather it shows that the link is sufficiently strong for women to be advised of it as a potential risk factor before having an abortion.
Posted by Gadfly42, Monday, 9 December 2013 2:12:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thanks Babette but you need to realise you are trying to reason with people who deny that diseases happen very commonly from sodomy. ABC/SBS like most western national broadcasters are all about ideology not truth or even balance. Just look at the smirking faces of the Q& A audiences when anything of decency is mentioned.
Posted by runner, Monday, 9 December 2013 2:38:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, as a medical researcher I'm aware of the methods and limitations of meta analysis. From my reading of the primary literature I found the only studies that support your hypothesis are the 3 referenced in the article. I am still reading the many studies that do not support your hypothesis (many more than 3). While this does not nessesarily mean you are incorrect, it either means there is a risk for methodological errors, or that the risk is so minor that it is difficult to distinguish from the background, As I previously wrote, I am not pushing any viewpoint on this subject and am happy to be guided by the science. However when I see cherry picked data and personal attacks on reputable people and groups it suggests to me that there is a secondary agenda behind articles such as this one.
Posted by Stezza, Monday, 9 December 2013 2:39:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza

I have not said that abortion causes breast cancer or even raises the risk of breast cancer. What I have said is that there is sufficient evidence of a link for women to be advised of the possibility of a link before having an abortion. That is not going very far although I think that at this stage we could go further. After 16 years the link would have been debunked if it were not a real possibility.

At the moment that is all that we can say.

Honestly now, on the basis of all that Mrs Francis has said, do you still think that this is an unreasonable position to take?
Posted by Gadfly42, Monday, 9 December 2013 3:23:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, "thanks Babette but you need to realise you are trying to reason with people who deny that diseases happen very commonly from sodomy"

Yesterday I drove past one of the best examples of Progressives' political correctness. It was lit billboard proclaiming that food doesn't cause HIV. Nothing else but that message. Nothing about gay sex or condoms. AIDS is on the increase and the fear is that bisexual sex will introduce it to young women, with catastrophic flow-on effects to young couples and their children.

However it is apparently never politically correct to say the obvious, that 'bare-backing' gays are spreading AIDs and a raft of other serious diseases, and some of those gays are obviously having unprotected sex with women without informing the women of the risks they bring, otherwise consent would likely be withdrawn.

There should be a law requiring any man who practices anal sex to advise women first when seeking consent to sex. Obviously the 'Progressives' are not progressive enough to care, as long as the sensitivities of risk-taking gays are protected.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 9 December 2013 3:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I have not said that abortion causes breast cancer or even raises the risk of breast cancer."

This seems to be in agreement with many agencies and bodies that are aware of all the studies and literature. For example:

"More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk." The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

"Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." National Cancer Institute.

"Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. "
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Published in The Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext

So if 2-3 studies suggest there may be a link between breast cancer and abortion, and over 50 that suggest that there is no link, then yes I do think it is unreasonable to tell women that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. How about we focus on risk factors that we know increase this risk? Perhaps non-abortion issues are not important to you.
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 1:14:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza is correct, and has proper scientific data to prove the point , unlike the ridiculous article that offers us speculation from religious anti-abortion 'scientists'.

Abortion and spontaneous miscarriages end up the same way, with the loss of the fetus before 20 weeks gestation. Many women suffer from miscarriages, so if this article was true then every second woman would be bound to get breast cancer!

Babette, are you a member of the 'flat earth society' too?
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 1:34:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The first published study on the ABC link was done by Segi et al in Japan in 1957 – and it showed a very significantly increased risk (over 85%) of breast cancer following an abortion. I don't know where Stezza's figures come from, but an overwhelming 78% of worldwide studies so far also show a positive correlation - as those who have checked the long list cited by Dr Joel Brind (http://www.bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm) will have noted.

The reason abortion is a breast cancer risk is the same reason that obesity, alcohol and the pill are risks – over-exposure to oestrogen (and progesterone, which is related). Oestrogen makes the breast lobules grow. When the lobules are immature (types 1 or 2) they are more susceptible to cancer, and greater exposure to oestrogen increases the cancer risk.

Oestrogen levels soar during pregnancy, and it is not until the last trimester that other hormones convert the breast lobules to types 3 and 4, which are cancer-resistant milk producers.
Posted by Edmund Burke, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 10:01:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women who begin to menstruate early or reach menopause late are at a higher risk of breast cancer – the oestrogen peak during each menstrual cycle adds to their exposure.

Obesity is a breast cancer risk because fat cells secrete oestrogen. Alcohol is a risk because it interferes with the liver’s ability to break down oestrogen, so there is more oestrogen in the bloodstream.

The biggest protective factor against breast cancer is having a fairly early full-term pregnancy. Breast feeding provides even greater protection, by increasing the number of mature, cancer-resistant, milk producing breast lobules.

Nuns are at greater risk of breast cancer because they miss out on this protection, as do other women who never have children or who delay child bearing until age 30 or beyond.

An abortion following a full-term pregnancy increases the subsequent breast cancer risk to some degree, but not nearly as much as an abortion performed years before a live birth. Teens who have an abortion, then take hormonal contraception for years before they eventually have a live birth, compound their risk.

In China and many other Asian nations, the sex of the unborn child is important. If an ultrasound shows that the baby in the womb is a girl, that baby will often be aborted. But the ultrasound does not show the sex clearly until about 19-20 weeks – and a late abortion carries a much higher risk of breast cancer than an early one, because the exposure to high levels of oestrogen is much longer.

This may explain why breast cancer rates are soaring in Asia, despite their very low rates in the past. Ultrasound machines are widely available, and are mainly used to determine the sex of unborn babies.

The overwhelming majority of international researchers who have found an ABC link don’t have a pro-life agenda. One day, the truth will out – but given the entrenched totalitarian, censoring mindset of the Western sisterhood, I may not live to see that day.
Posted by Edmund Burke, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 10:10:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edmund, that's interesting alright, but how come so few mainstream modern day scientists don't agree?

Anti-abortion advocates are clutching at straws again.
For goodness sake, why not advocate for more freely available and effective contraception which would stop so many more unwanted pregnancies in the first place?
Or would that be against ancient religious 'laws' too?

I wouldn't mind if Babette and her ilk just came right out and said they were against abortion because some old religious book says women must do as they are told and just have baby after baby, no matter what the woman feels about that, instead of making up all this rubbish...
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 10:12:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Stezza, More precisely, Leslie Bernstein had no publications in the specific area of abortion and breast cancer, though many others on other aspects of breast cancer. Importantly, however, she was positioned as THE expert on the issue in the 2003 NCI workshop. Most importantly, her bias was made as clear as a bell in an interview she gave to reporters right after that NCI workshop in 2003:
She said even though the findings clearly show that “the biggest bang for the buck is the first birth and the younger you are the better off you are, ” women should not necessarily make life-altering decisions based on these findings.
“There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.” Had I been there, I would have followed up with "...even if they are already pregnant?" After all, abortion only has meaning to a woman who is already pregnant. But Bernstein continued: “I don’t want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument,” Bernstein said. Does that sound like an objective, scientific position to you?
Posted by Gadfly42, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 11:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Carz: You raise two questions. The first, re: baseline risk, is a good question, and it is true that epidemiological studies don't typically give this, as it varies greatly from population to population and from time to time. So for example, a 30% risk increase where the baseline lifetime risk is 10% (average for the US) is an absolute lifetime risk increase of 3%. Fast forward to the recent 2013 study in Bangla Desh, which reported a 2000% risk increase (relative risk >20), because in Bengla Desh, breast cancer has been almost unheard of until recently, as almost all women get married and have lots of children, starting in their teens, breast feed all of them, never drink alcohol or take birth control steroids. So that's a very good question, and the answer is that it depends. The interesting thing is that in studies from all over the world, black, white, brown; rich or poor: all populations of women studied have shown increased risk over whatever the baseline is, among those women who've had any abortions.

The second point you make is also interesting. "the teenaged girl or adult woman who terminates a pregnancy and goes on to be happily married and have three children" While that may be true in some cases, such women are at about triple or quadruple the risk as those who carried that teenage pregnancy to term (and maybe just gave up the child for adoption and went on with her life). That's really the silver lining for the teen with an unintended and unwelcome pregnancy: That baby will buy her a fair measure of insurance against breast cancer. Too many times, that "happily married" mother of 3 receives the unhappy diagnosis of breast cancer, which would have been most likely avoided had she not aborted her first, inconvenient pregnancy.
Posted by Gadfly42, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 11:38:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear pedestrian: "What exactly do you mean by " This has nothing to do with abortion." Having fewer or no children has everything to do with abortion, being the very purpose of abortion. So your comment is nonsensical on its face. Nevertheless, there are those experts who agree with you. They say that the risk increase is not due to the abortion per se, but the loss of the protective effect a full-term pregnancy would have provided. Oh, I get it! It's not the abortion that raises the breast cancer risk, it's the termination of the pregnancy! Double-talk if I ever heard it.
Posted by avita, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 2:54:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is indeed sad that the author and her many supporters cannot (or wilfully will not) understand the nature of the statistics being presented, rather regurgitating misinformation as it’s read because it suits their bias. Not even the great Prof. Joel Brind, whom Ms Francis relies on for most of her interpretaions seems to understand the difference between Relative Risk (RR), increased in RR and the Odds Ratio (OR). The OR is NOT the same as RR, or increase in RR. Look it up, Wikipedia has a good article on it. The interpreting an OR= 1.89 (as Joel Brind does), as an increase in RR of 89% is erroneous, it will be less than that. Interpreting the Indian and Bangladesh studies the same way to get increases in RR of 600% and 2000%, as Joel Brind does in his original opinion piece that Ms Francis' piece is bentirely based on, is completely wrong! How many people here (including teh author of this piece) go the primary literature to investigate what is being discussed as fact?
Such as the “Bangladesh study”:
http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/JDMC/article/viewFile/15628/11078
You see the statistics they based the OR on had 262 ‘cases (i.e. cancer cases) versus 262 ‘controls’, with 231 (88%) of the ‘cases’ having had a history of abortion, and only 70 (26%) of the control group having had a history of abortion. Now, I’m no statistician, but that seems to me that is going to skew the results somewhat, especially when using that control group to calculate an Odds Ratio (OR).
One disturbing thing in the ‘Indian study’:
http://www.ijcm.org.in/article.asp?issn=0970-0218;year=2013;volume=38;issue=2;spage=95;epage=99;aulast=Kamath

is that it seems that using Joel Brinds interpretation of RR increase (i.e. RR increase=OR, which it ISN’T, but whatever), is that the Indian authors appear to have found that a high school education appears to increase womens risk by >480% versus illiterate women, and in fact any amount of education increases the risks.
WOW! Why isn’t THAT ever discussed?
Maybe because that would show how selective a certain lobby group are in discussing the results of such studies, and how the statistics are being abused and misinterpreted.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 2:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gadfly, what about the far more prevalent miscarriages suffered by far more women than abortions?

By your reckoning, they are all doomed for breast cancer too?
Thats amazing that all you pro-life people have found the cause of breast cancer when I, as a nurse of 30 years, have NEVER heard any cancer specialist mention abortion as a cause of breast cancer.

In fact, the whole fanciful notion makes me feel sick, because some poor women who had to go through a traumatic abortion for whatever reason earlier in their life, now have to contend with some unfeeling people suggesting they will get breast cancer as a 'punishment' for their sins...
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 5:25:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Early miscarriages are associated with low levels of oestrogen - too low to support the pregnancy. There is no link between early miscarriage and breast cancer.

However late miscarriages do involve a significant breast cancer risk. Oestrogen levels have been very high for several months, but the maturing of breast lobules to make them cancer-resistant has not begun.

There is also an increased breast cancer risk with extremely premature births.

But Susie will think of some other excuse to deny the abortion-oestrogen-breast cancer link. As I said before, the truth will out one day - but the sisters will do their best to ensure it will not be soon.
Posted by Edmund Burke, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 9:44:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edmund Burke, it is not so much a gender war about abortion rights though is it?

It is a religious war that is populated by mainly religious men who liked the 'good 'ol days' when men were supposedly tough and holy, and women did as they were told.

Sorry Edmund, but those days are gone and women have a right to say what happens to their bodies, and it is no longer dictated by holy men or gods.

Abortion rights are here to stay, and so is that other sin...contraception.
Why not put all your efforts into stopping unwanted pregnancies happening in the first place, rather than trying to force women to go on with pregnancies they don't want?
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 10:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a nice narrative you have going there Edmund Burke, with the ultimate causative agent -oestrogen- being responsible for the risk factors involved in abortion, pregnancies etc.

Nice and neat.

But I am struggling to find a good review or paper that continues that story in the scientific literature. Would you please care to furnish us with some scientific papers on the subject of oestrogen levels and breast cancer that describe the scientific basis of the version of events you are relating to us?

Reviews that support your position are fine, at least they should cite some of the primary literature.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 10:45:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bugsy for pointing out some statistical understandings that many people do not quite understand. In my field of medical research I like to point out that if you require statistics to show any differences between groups then the effect must be very small. Of course this does not really apply well to epidemiology, however if you treat people with a drug and they have a statistically significant improvement of 2%, then it is still not a good drug.

Gladfly/Edmund et al. Let me put it this way. You have previously agreed that alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer. This is supported by the primary literature, as well as by the American Institute for Cancer Research, the NCI, American Cancer Society etc. However I can cite many studies such as:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279708000288
that disagree with the current guidelines regarding alcohol consumption. Does this mean that all of the other researchers are conspiring to censor this information? Is there a conservative/progressive/greens/feminist plot in the works to deny us our right to have a drink? Should we be recommending that women now consume alcohol? Of course not. What we do is to gather a large number of experts in the relevant fields and reach a consensus agreement on what recommendations should be given to women based on all the information available. This is then revised at multiple points in the future as new information is available
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 11:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To directly answer Gladflys question:
"“There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.” Does that sound like an objective, scientific position to you?"

Yes that does sound like an objective scientific position to me, and based on my reading of the literature over the last few days I agree with the statement. Complete mastectomy also significantly reduces the risk of breast cancer, but it seems a bit extreme to recommend this to women does it not?

However like with many other abortion-related issues, breast-cancer is not the primary concern for you is it. Obesity, diet, alcohol, genetics, etc. all have a much more important impact on breast cancer risk. Take abortion out of the picture, and you don't really seem to care about breast cancer anymore.
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 10 December 2013 11:54:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy asked for proof that oestrogen is linked with breast cancer risk. Try googling - you'll get nearly 270,000 hits! Those I checked strongly confirmed the link, including a study by Travis and Key (Breast Cancer Res, 2003) titled "Oestrogen exposure and breast cancer risk". The authors set out to explore this hypothesis, and concluded: "Oestrogens have a key role in the aetiology of breast cancer, probably because of their proliferative effects."

You can also google "oestrogen increase during pregnancy" - you'll get over 3 million hits on that one!

It amazes me that some people accept that being fat is a breast cancer risk because fat cells secrete oestrogen, but refuse to consider that high levels of oestrogen during pregnancy, before protective breast changes take place in the last trimester, might be a similar or greater risk.

There is, sadly, a simple reason - politics. Bangladesh is one example. It is a very poor country, but is now richly endowed with reproductive health clinics in city and rural areas, courtesy the UN and generous donations by Bill and Melinda Gates, who are determined to stamp out poverty by preventing over-population. Hormonal contraception and abortions are provided free of charge, and late abortions for sex-selection are common. The only Bangladeshi ABC study so far has found a huge ABC risk.

It is not hard to imagine why official recognition of the ABC risk might be considered contrary to the best interests of population controllers.
Posted by Edmund Burke, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 12:05:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edmund Burke, I did not ask for proof of the 'link' between oestrogen and breast cancer risk, rather some sort of literature that you have read that shows where you got your information from that it was a 'cause' of cancer. I can use google to find literature that states that there is a link also. What I cannot find is the 'smoking gun', as it were. The papers that show that actually causes breast cancer.

You state it so positively as if it were 'just so', and yet when I do search the literature I get conflicting conclusions.

One good review I dug up was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22646135 (abstract only unfortunately)

Chains of evidence, mosaics of data: does estrogen 'cause' breast cancer? How would we know? (2012) Bluming AZ, Tavris C. Climacteric. 2012 Dec;15(6):531-7. doi: 10.3109/13697137.2012.678915

It discusses the lack of coherence of the estrogen-breast cancer story quite clearly.

I just cannot understand your tone of certainty.

(BTW, I wouldn't be pinning my colours to that 'Bangladesh study just yet, it has some major problems, including showing that higher education levels and personal income were also considered 'risk factors').
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 4:07:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza

At the end of the day it comes down to whether or not abortion raises the breast cancer risk. I don't know and nobody knows at this stage but what can be said is that the risk is sufficiently well documented for women to be warned of it prior to the abortion. They can choose to take the risk or avoid it. That is up to them. This discussion is not about the morality or legality of abortion. It is about the potential risk of breast cancer from abortion.
Posted by Gadfly42, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 5:09:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gadfly, will the women also be warned about their increased risks of breast cancer after having both early and late term miscarriages?
If not, why not?
What do you say about those with breast cancer who never suffered either loss?
What about males with breast cancer?

Why are you and Edmunde so interested in this abortion/breast cancer link rubbish anyway?
Why not concentrate on males with prostate cancer and it's links with overuse of masturbation in their lifetime?
Well why not? We could manufacture 'evidence' on that if we tried also...
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 11 December 2013 9:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gladfly, This is specifically the question multiple groups have attempted to answer based on expert opinion in this specific area. As you stated above, the result of expert opinion is:

"women should not necessarily make life-altering decisions based on these findings."

As you said regarding whether or not abortion raises the breast cancer risk."I don't know and nobody knows at this stage".

The reason we are seeing articles like this, and opinions like yours is that even though a majority of experts agree with the statement above, the minority (Joel Brind) disagrees with this. That is completely fine, and it is good that people challenge the current scientific evidence. However until the time that this evidence is convincing enough for the majority of doctors, researchers and epidemiologists, it will remain as an unproven hypothesis. I am not saying the Brind is either incorrect or correct, and it seems like either are you. Therefore telling anyone that their actions are potentially harmful in the absence of sufficient evidence is not morally justified.

I will keep giving you non-abortion examples, to try and highlight your bias in this regards. The act of childbirth directly causes the death of over 250,000 women per year. This link has obviously been proven, however would you propose that women seeking to have children (or even an abortion) should be warned of these risks? Interestingly, have you considered that the potential risk of dying from breast cancer following an abortion is less than the risk of dying during childbirth. If that is the case then your entire argument is a moot point.
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 12 December 2013 12:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me put it very simply to you. Jennifer Brown wants to have an abortion OK? The question is should she be told that there is evidence of a possible link between abortion and breast cancer that is not proven definitely but for which there is sufficient evidence that she should be made aware of it. I think that she should be made aware of it. This in no way interferes with her decision to have an abortion.

Now is that asking too much if in fact there is sufficient evidence that she should be made aware of it. The link is not proven at this stage. Nobody is saying that it is. To fail to advise her is to deny her knowledge of possibly life threatening consequences later on in life.
Posted by Gadfly42, Thursday, 12 December 2013 8:01:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But where do you draw the line when warning of "possible links" that are "not proven"?

There are many thousands "possible but unproven" risks in life, as well as pregnancy. Should we warn pregnant women about flying during first or last trimester, petting cats or dogs, eating fish, touching polished furniture, dying their hair, having sex, taking hot baths, drinking coffee, sleeping on their right side, etc etc? All of these things at some time have been suggested to be harmful to pregnant women. You understand, even though some evidence exists, it is not enough to warn every person about every possible risk. Doing so minimises the effect of warning about real risks, you know what we call "actual, proven risks".

The difference in our views is that you clearly believe that the evidence to date supports the hypothesis that abortion significantly increases the risk of breast cancer. I on the other hand believe that it may be possible that abortion significantly increases the risk of breast cancer, but there is insufficient evidence to determine if the hypothesis is true or false. When providing medical advice to patients, doctors need to deal with facts, not "possible, unproven links". As determined by multiple scientific and medical expert groups, it is not a fact that abortion significantly increases the risk of breast cancer.

Like the researchers and epidemiologists, we can continue to argue about both the evidence, and the medical advice. While I am open to changing my mind with additional evidence and expert opinion, I don't believe you are open to the possibility that the hypothesis is false, and that providing patients with incorrect medical advice due to a lack of evidence is unethical.

Do you have an anti-abortion stance, independent of the subject we are discussing? Perhaps this may be influencing your ability to objectively analyse the available data.
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 12 December 2013 8:47:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People will judge this discussion on logical grounds. You can put forth as much sophisticated argumentation as you like. The basics are very plain. It is obvious from what we have submitted that there are grounds for warning women of a possible link--a link that is not proven beyond reasonable doubt but rather one for which there is sufficient evidence that a person should be made aware of it. This link may be proven valid in the next 10 years or it may not be. The would be-abortion customer should make an informed choice.
Posted by Gadfly42, Thursday, 12 December 2013 10:35:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok well I think we have taken this as far as it can go. I will finish by re-quoting what I think is the main point of the current scientific consensus "women should not necessarily make life-altering decisions based on these findings."

I enjoyed having a debate without degenerating into name calling etc.
Thanks
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 12 December 2013 11:13:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How do they do that if they are not aware of them? We are unable to get any medical authorities to even admit that a problem exists. If you believe that women should make informed choices about the ABC link then you should try demanding that a women are advised of the POSSIBILITY of a link before they have an abortion.
Posted by Gadfly42, Thursday, 12 December 2013 4:35:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This issue continues to push buttons, and today's news of a sharp rise in breast cancers worldwide will push some more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-13/an-global-cancer-cases-rise/5153890.

Should we ban Maccas outlets because of their link with increasing obesity? Or should we also look more closely at the recent China meta-analysis cited by Babette? Its methodology is beyond reproach. It not only found a link with abortion, but found the risk was dose-related (the more abortions a woman has, the higher her breast cancer risk).

Suseonline and others have dismissed any concerns about the ABC link (which some now concede is possible) because even if it is true, women should not forgo an abortion on this ground. Suse, Stezza and Bugsy should talk to US pro-choice researcher Dr Janet Daling, who found that women with a family history of breast cancer have an especially high risk after abortion. Indeed, Daling's 1994 study found that every woman with such a history who had an abortion aged under 18 later contracted breast cancer.

Women have a right to know.
Posted by Edmund Burke, Friday, 13 December 2013 3:18:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Edmund Burke, I think that talking to Janet Daling would be a very good start. The follow ups to her 1994 study is a very good example of the incoherence of the abortion-breast cancer link and especially of your neat narrative of oestrogen being the causal agent. Dalings 1996 study showed almost contradictory results to some the 1994 study especially on when the abortions took place (> or <9-12wks). One other thing is that her results are totally at odds with other studies in that it didn't matter how many abortions there were, i.e. there was definitely no dose-dependent effect, which is at odds with that reported by the Chinese. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that Chinese abortion is almost exclusively to control family size after the first full-term pregnancy, which is completely different to Western use of abortion, which is used to delay the first full term pregnancy? Also, the effect was much lower that Joel Brind interpreted for China(RR risk increase overall about 50% in the first study, which was reduced to about 20% in the follow up study). Anyway, that was nearly 20 years ago, since then what has changed? Not much apparently, that's the problem, the results of more focused studies aren't coherent.

When a causal agent has putatively been identified, then more targeted follow-up studies should be able to add more to the picture and make it more coherent. That hasn't happened, the literature is full of one-off studies that discover some huge effect that doesn't stack up with follow up studies.

Yes, I do think women ought to know that.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 13 December 2013 9:59:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This to-ing and fro-ing seems not to be getting anyone anywhere.
It's clear that the issue here is not about abortion's link to cancer; it's about the morality of abortion.
In that regard, may I make just a couple of reasonably succinct comments ? No vetoes ? Then I will.
There is no difficulty or problem for which an acceptable solution is the deliberate killing of an innocent person.
No-one will publicly disagree with that, but many will claim that the in utero child is not a person. Of course, anyone with half a wit knows that it is; everyone knows that it is. But those who place the right to abortion above the right to life will be steadfast, as was Hitler when he had the Jews declared non-persons because he wanted to get rid of them.
Then there are others who understand that the right to life trumps the right to kill, and they advocate contraception, desperate to pre-empt the killing while appeasing the sex addicts.
However, contraception is, again self-evidently, like sodomy, a perversion of the natural order. We do not progress civilisation by promoting perversion.
In the end, it's simple stuff - don't kill innocent persons and don't practise perversion. I can personally testify to the uncomplicated lifestyle you'll enjoy.
I won't be back to argue with anyone.
Posted by Uncle Remus, Saturday, 14 December 2013 7:26:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy