Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Breast Cancer Cover-up?

As Breast Cancer Awareness month draws to a close, I would like to point out a few interesting links.

On one hand, we have Stop the Cover-up (AbortionBreastCancer.ca) stating that breast cancer has been shown to be linked to abortion.

However, there is a lot of opposition to that claim, notably from The Canadian Cancer Society among others. If you google these words you get a whole host of conflicting information.

Is this just more scaremongering or is there a deliberate agenda to squelch this information?

Well, I'll just throw it out there and get back to nursing my miserable cold.

29 comments:

Cherniak_WTF said...

Is this just more scaremongering or is there a deliberate agenda to squelch this information?
No, there is a cammpaing by wingnutters to try and spread this garbage because it suits your agenda.
This is disgusting misinformation you are giving Johanne. SICKENING.

A pro-life group spewing propaganda... talk about your special interest groups... "uniquely created by God"...

You know, maybe if your religion was not hijacked by the crazy christians, maybe your message would be easier to swallow...

But here is the truth for you. Having children can increase the risk of breast cancer - maybe we should ban that instead...

What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a term pregnancy (resulting in the birth of a living child).

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.
The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Take it easy on the caffeine, CWTF.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Okay Joanne -
Now the caffeine has left the sockets...

... I know you put up a question, but I think it's only there because you do believe that abortion causes breast cancer - if not, why even link to it?

Knowing that having children increases breast cancer, should be not campaign against having children?


ps - get better soon

Surecure said...

CWTF: The fact that there are two opposing views -- where one is correct and one is incorrect -- is as good enough reason for discussion as any. Hence the reason for the links, wouldn't you say?

I mean, if you are going to discuss something, wouldn't you link to it?

I happen not to buy into the abortion-breast cancer link myself since there has been no proof to the matter. It doesn't mean I'm afraid to talk about it. Talk quantifies and clarifies. There is no danger in that.

What are you scared of to be in such a huff?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks for the get-well wishes.

I thought I had done a fairly good job of presently both sides. This story was actually a tip from a reader, sent several days ago. Since I'm not an expert on the issue, I really have no idea what is the truth here. I'm not even sure that the medical profession knows.

If you read the "Biology" section of the cover-up link though it says,"It is well known that exposure to estrogen increases breast cancer risk."

That is something I've heard before, but too sick to go searching for links.

Back to the Earl Grey and Advil.

Cherniak_WTF said...

When one side is presenting grossly inacurate information because of their ideology, I don't call it fair and balanced...

There is no "two sides" to the debate. Would you invite MacDonalds to present the benefits of a high fat diet to kids?

This kind of quackery should be denounced for what it is: BS

Cherniak_WTF said...

Joanne, taking one bit of sound science and drawing your own conclusion for it (far from the intented goal of the original science) is self-serving and false

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CWTF - You seem rather hostile to the concept of free speech and debate.

You have every right to shoot down this story, and you can even try to tell me what to post.

I have the right to ignore you, which is what I'll do here.

Cherniak_WTF said...

fnmxgqdJoanne, it's not a question of "free speach" and "debate" -
When it comes to science, the onus is for that anti-abortion side to prove that abortions cause breast cancer.
Extraordinary claims need proof -
If I were to tell you that Santa came down the fireplace hole, we would not be debating how, you'd take me to task on the existance of the jolly old fellow....

Having an anti-abortion group maskerade junk as science is absurd...

Cherniak_WTF said...

fnmxgqdJoanne, it's not a question of "free speach" and "debate" -
When it comes to science, the onus is for that anti-abortion side to prove that abortions cause breast cancer.
Extraordinary claims need proof -
If I were to tell you that Santa came down the fireplace hole, we would not be debating how, you'd take me to task on the existance of the jolly old fellow....

Having an anti-abortion group maskerade junk as science is absurd...

Adam said...

I can assure you that there is a debate going on in scientific literature over whether or not there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. I just finished perusing the literature, as well as a couple of medical textbooks, and the consensus seems to be something along the lines of 'there is no definitive proof as of yet, more research needs to be done.'
Here is some of the "junk science" and "pro-life propaganda" that I found:

From the Cochrane Library Review:

"Definitive conclusions about an association between breast cancer risk and spontaneous or induced abortion are not possible at present because of inconsistent findings across studies."
---------------------------

Is there a link between breast cancer and abortion: a review of the literature. From International Journal of Fertility & Womens Medicine. 50(6):267-71, 2005 Nov-Dec. (emphasis added)

"The hormonal changes that take place in pregnancy cause breast tissue to proliferate and differentiate. Abortion interrupts this process and may leave the proliferated, undifferentiated breast tissue at higher risk of carcinogenesis. This review explains the supposed difference in effects of induced and spontaneous abortion upon the breast tissue and examines the literature for a link with breast cancer. Additional subcategories examined include parity, number of abortions, gestation, and maternal age at abortion. A comparison of retrospective and prospective studies is made and possible sources of bias are identified. There is no evidence to support a link between spontaneous abortion and breast cancer. Absence of a link with induced abortion is less clear, and further research should concentrate on investigating any relationship. We suggest that prospective research is used, with point of entry at first termination."
---------------

Also cwtf, from the article that you had quoted from, the very next paragraph actually:

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Adam. That's awesome. Are you in the medical profession by any chance?

Adam said...

You got me Joanne! I am a medical student who is currently putting off studying. Keep up the good work with the blog; I enjoy reading it!

counter-coulter said...

Quick summary of the thread thus far:

Joanne's Post: Is someone squelching the "truth" about a link between abortion and breast cancer?

CWTF: There's no proof of any link between abortion and breast cancer.

Joanne: Why do you hate free speech?

Adam: Look, these studys say that while there's no link, it needs to be studied more.

Joanne: Good point Adam! Are you pre-med?

Anonymous said...

CC, lol - good summary.

Maybe we should get Dr. Roy to chime in also...

Daristotle said...

I would suggest that cherniak take philosophy 201 Reason and arguementation at Laurier,available
through distance education. He will find that most of his first poist is totally invalid as a valid aarguement. If he is more ambitious he should take a course on experimental methedology (prerequesites probably required, although he might be able to audit a course without them.) If he does he will find the criticisms of the studies showing no increase in the rate of breast cancer after a first pregnancy abortion are valid.

Non labratory sciences are particularilly vulnerable to wrong results. Certain procedures have to be followed to have any hope of drawing a correct conclusion. Even if these rules are followed there is no guarantee that the conclusion will be right as some unconsidered variable can distort the result.

The case for the connection between abortion is not airtight either, but certainly is suggestive.

In your second post you claim having children increases breast cancer risk, however unless I am completely mistaken both sides of the arguement say that childbearing before age 30 decreases the risk, and the younger the pregnancy the larger the decrease.

vicki said...

Good comparison LS! and since: 1.adam quoted medical reseach, and c_wtf just spouted opinion I can see why Jo anne appreciated adam's input in the discusssion.
2. this is joanne's blog she can show bias if she wants.
Your comparitive skills would be put to good use comparing MSM and their so called 'reporting' of what is going on in Ottawa these days...you know ...how they 'report' what the Conservative government is accomplishing 'compared' to the 'covergage' they give the Liberal race and other purple piffle political puff and propaganda.
Back on topic:
Over 50 studies show the link between breast cancer and abortion . Dr. Joel Brind, and Dr.Angela Lafranchi and other acedemics are bold enough to put their names on their studies showing the link. Melbye,Goldacre,Elandson,and Beral studies( trying to discredit the link) have been proven flawed...to name a few. The physiological evidence indicates that abortion is a shock to the endocrine and hormonal systems of the body.The information is there.The truth hurts.
Denial of the link is explained by Dr.Edward Fulton, Editor of Ethics and Medics who (too long to quote) implies the censure of medical research is a direct result of interference on the part of politicians and idealogues, and warns the scientific community of the danger of allowing that to happen.
Has anyone checked to see how all the money that is raised for cancer research is spent...just curious.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Adam, thanks so much for your profession opinion. Please feel free to drop by and contribute anytime you need a study break! ;)

Vicki, you seem well-versed in this topic as well. Yes, this would be very bad news for the feminist movement if abortion were proven to have this kind of risk.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Daristotle - wingnuttery at it's best....

vicki - Quotes from the American Cancer Society - I find them alot more credible than Bible thumping Right wingers with a anti-choice agenda....

Joanne, you remind me of Mulder - I want to believe....


vicki - it should be up to you to prove your point:
At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer.

Even your estimed quack Dr. Joel Brind (a pro-life Christian) often misquote/hijacked concluded:
However, many believe Brind overlooks methological weaknesses of some studies he uses as evidence for an abortion-breast cancer link. Furthermore, medical researchers note Brind overstates his findings since his own research shows a "barely statistically significant" increase in breast cancer rates.
Source Wiki

The only ideologues at work here are the anti-choice lot.
As stated, it's sickening that you try and hijack science in the name of your bigotry.

Crazy Christians indeed....

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CWTF - I think the issue here is that you are jettsoning the whole concept as utterly absurd, while there is in fact no proof one way or the other yet.

You are trying to paint us as bigots for even considering this notion. I just love your kind of tolerance.

Cherniak_WTF said...

I think the issue here is that you are jettsoning the whole concept as utterly absurd, while there is in fact no proof one way or the other yet.

I'm jettsoning the whole concept as very, very, very, very, very unlikely.
AS THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROOF shows zero, nada, nil link of what you are trying to beleive.

It seems that you are trying to grasp onto the flimsiest wishful thinking instead of the facts.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It seems that you are trying to grasp onto the flimsiest wishful thinking instead of the facts.

I am not wishing breast cancer on anyone.

vicki said...

It is my privilege to study the information. It is not my job to disprove or prove the link between abortion and breast cancer...I think that would be the role of the people receiving so much funding for cancer research.Jo anne...why can't there be intelligent discussion on your blog without c_wtf showing such intolerance? He is so bigoted toward Christians that it is a detriment to his argument.Always pulling the religion card.

Cherniak_WTF said...

joanne, what you are grasping it is an argument that you can use as a "reason" in your anti-choice crusade. It seems that you'd like nothing more than be able to say that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.


vicki, odd arguments you have. One of your sources of information has determined that the risk of increased breast cancer is negligible (read no correlation what’s so ever) with abortion. Yet you’d like to believe in the distortions put forth by the anti-choice lobby. Lest you forget the good doctor does have an agenda and even he could not find the link.

The role of Science is not to promote your agenda. And yes, the onus is on you to collaborate your pet theories. You can’t just claim something absurd without demonstrating it…

I can’t wait to see the day when a group such “Stop the cover up” actually looks at the fact with neutrality. I have the feeling that I’ll be waiting a long time.

Having anti-choice crusaders no matter what letters before their names is not science – they are pushing an agenda and should be denounced for what they are – Quacks.

The abortion breast cancer link is false and a gross lie. Disseminating false information is a scary tactic used by the anti-choice zealots. Scientific-sounding does not make it so.

The ABC link does not exist – how hard is that to understand? Brind is a charlatan.


Go ahead and believe the ABC link if you are impervious to reality, but stop presenting it as facts….

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CWTF - but stop presenting it as facts….

I don't think anyone here is attempting to present "facts". There are various studies going on, but nothing conclusive has been found one way or the other.

It seems that you'd like nothing more than be able to say that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps women considering an abortion should be made aware of this potential risk? Not as fear-mongering, but as a yet unproven possibility?

Vicki - Feel free to ignore CWTF. You're right. He detracts from the debate with his one-sided hysterics.

Swift said...

If cherniak calls rational logic and proper scientific methodology wingnuttery then it seems he must believe in such things as phrenology alchemistry the theory of humours and bloodletting. I'm wondering what his method of turning lead into gold is?

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps women considering an abortion should be made aware of this potential risk? Not as fear-mongering, but as a yet unproven possibility?


Contradict yourself much? You're seriously stating that you want women seeking information on abortion to be made aware of "unproven possibilities"?

I'm sure that you would expect that same level of honesty from your doctor: "Thanks for coming in Joanne, before we do this I wanted to make you aware of all the unproven risks not yet associated with this procedure".

Cherniak_WTF said...

If cherniak calls rational logic and proper scientific methodology wingnuttery
Absolutely not. And that is the whole point.

Anti-choice crusaders are fearmongering and using the veil of science to push their agenda.
Once again, there is no ABC link - it's been shown again and again and peer reviewed over and over that there is not increase risk of breast cancer associated to abortions.

The ABC proponants have been debunked so many times yet they continue to preach lies....

Cherniak_WTF said...

He detracts from the debate with his one-sided hysterics.
For someone seeking the truth Joanne, you seem to easily embrace pseudo-junk wingnuttery.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/abortion/AN00855

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_40055.html

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html

All have the same conclusion:
Abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer.


You are doing a disservice to all by impliying otherwise. And I though that Christians are not supposed to lie....