So, Stezza, still not interested in actually looking at any of the data? Yes, I said some provocative things in this post, and I stand by every word. So if the willful ignorance of all this data from Asia is not racist, let's hear a critique of the actual studies, shall we? Not from you, I'm afraid. At least the Agronomist is willing to check out pubmed. Sorry, but a lot of these studies are from regional medical journals and medical school journals, and they tend to appear on Asian search engines, and only on pubmed later if at all.
As far as studies that do not agree with my findings, I have published extensively on these. For example, Mr. or Ms. Agronomist, that 2013 danish study you cited (by Christina Brauner et al.) was also answered by published letters, one by me (and you can find that in the same journal in pubmed). The problem with the Brauner study was that it followed women for 12 years all right, but starting an average of 28 years after abortion. Hence, it is of limited use, merely showing no risk increase after abortion if you survive for a few decades after the abortion without getting breast cancer by then. But as to the overall risk increase--which seems maximal between 10 and 20 years out--that paper contributes nothing. So why don't you try googling me and actually reading all the stuff I have published in peer reviewed journals--especially about papers that do not show the link. See especially my letter in the British Journal of Cancer in 2004, which explains why the Shanghai studies do not show the link, or my 2005 review in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, where I analyze all those prospective studies that don't show the link.

Joel Brind, it is all a bit unhelpful if the research you are using cannot be examined. My own search through pubmed for case-control studies has identified a mix of studies that find a significant effect and those that do not. This in of itself suggests that the likelihood of there being a real link is small. It is particularly so when many of the studies have 10 or less participants within each arm that have had induced abortions. Coupled with the notorious unreliability of case-control studies among cultures where abortion is frowned on, means these studies just can’t be relied on.

All the prospective studies ever conducted have found no differences. These studies are more reliable because they have larger numbers and there is no recall bias.

It is simply untenable to argue that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer. There is no good data to back such an idea (there is bad data that supports it and you unswervingly go for the bad data) and all the good data does not.

I find myself bemused reading your criticisms of the prospective studies. In the case of Brauner et al., your criticism is that a significant period elapsed between the average age of abortions and enrolment in the study. Why should this matter? Are you proposing that abortions only increase the risk of breast cancer in young women, but magically fail to have any impact as women age? If so, why have you elsewhere levelled criticism for studies not following women up for long enough? You cannot have it both ways.

Prof Brind is lying about his reason miscarriage is different to medically induced abortion, namely, because the hormones that cause breast tenderness are abruptly ceased with a medically induced abortion, this not being the case in miscarriage.

The earliest symptoms of a pregnancy are a missed period and TENDER BREASTS caused by Oestrogen. The women who are not first alerted to the fact that she may be pregnant by her sore breasts would be few and far between. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Pregnancy_signs_and_symptoms?open

On another note: even in the Western world childbirth is still one of the major killers of young women. No 6 I recollect. No, there's no link. I had one, but inadvertently discarded it. It's not really hard to research this yourself. In the developing world it is much higher. It is important to remember that pregnancy is not without risk.

Cancers of the breast are not all the same. Some are virulent and deadly. Some rarely cause death. If Brind wants to link medically induced abortion to breast cancer and mentions hormones that make breasts tender, which would be Oestrogen, then these cancers have a very low mortality rate.

On the other hand, what about the link that has been made by credible sources to not breastfeeding? Breastfeeding for 1 1/2 to 2 years seem to be protective against developing breast cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808811

Why not focus a bit more on making it comfortable for women to breastfeed and to encourage women to do so if you people are indeed so worried and care so much about women? Think of how many more women will be saved from ever developing breast cancer than with this silly little theory being debunked left, right and center. There are many links in this thread.

yvonne - one for the USA 2010 http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2010/WomenAll_2010.pdf

The two brackets covered by ages 20 - 34 the rates were the 6th highest at 2.6% and 2.8%. Note if you happen to be a black woman in the USA that's 4.1% across those age brackets. A number of references at http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/

Some material from WHO at http://www.who.int/gho/maternal_health/mortality/maternal/en/ and http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112697/1/WHO_RHR_14.13_eng.pdf

Developed regions, a lifetime risk of 1 in 3700 of maternal mortality,
developing regions 1 in 160.

R0bert

Thank you Robert for that link. I get so upset with this new push to make women who have had abortion evil and wrapping it up with 'caring about women'.

We cannot go back to making abortion illegal. The horrendous results when it was, we just cannot go back to that. In the past Pregnancy and childbirth was really 'women's business'. Abortificients have always been around. It is only when men in the medical profession started taking over obstetrics this has changed.

Childbirth has become much safer for women and the child, but now there is also a big push to take it all out of the hands of women.

Our focus should not be on women having safe legal abortions, but on why an unwanted pregnancy happened and how to limit this from happening.

Women do not become pregnant on their own. The belief in the Virgin birth notwithstanding.

I would bet that the pro fantasy 'God-will-provide' life advocates do not care for children other than their own. Do not practically help and assist in the raising of a child not their own. Do not care about all the children who are born. Not their education, not their health, not their future. I bet they've never had to deal with an abused child. Children are being abused by church leaders, by step fathers, by group leaders, and also by their mothers. Not a peep about the children already born. And the horrible part is that more often than not they profess to be Christian. Jesus Christ would be enraged by the self-righteous condemnation of others by those who should leave condemnation to the all Powerfull, all Knowing God they say they revere.

yvonne, my main issue is the continued cries of wolf, wolf. I don't like abortion but support the right to choose. I do get bothered at times that the opposition to research such as the Asian material referenced here is to much driven by defence of abortion rather than truth seeking but thankfully some have had the skills to dig a little deeper on that front than I was able and challenge the claims based on evidence.

There are some Christians who both do and give a lot to help the less fortunate, many who have been genuinely horrified at the actions of abusers operating in the name of their god. As with any group the doers and people of integrity tend to be drowned out by those who yell the loudest or who have built too much on an image to act with authenticity.

In the case of this article I think Prof Brind could do a lot better by acting presenting more as an objective researcher and less as an advocate, if there is something to these findings I'd place more trust in them in the context of an objective evaluation than in an advocacy piece.

R0bert