Abortion Causes Breast Cancer?

Study: Chinese women with abortions have statistically significant 17% increased breast cancer risk

MEDIA ADVISORY, November 12, 2009/Christian Newswire

Chinese researchers Peng Xing and his colleagues conducted a case-control study in Northeast China examining reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer. They found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk for all subtypes combined) among women with induced abortions. [1]

Earlier this year, a Turkish study reported a statistically significant 66% increased risk for women with abortions. [2] Both studies show that, when honest research is conducted outside the control of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and other Western governmental agencies or organizations tethered to abortion ideology and politics, the truth emerges that abortion raises risk. Studies reporting no abortion- breast cancer (ABC) link were proven in medical journals to be stupendously flawed (fraudulent). [3-13]

“The Chinese and the Turkish studies are relevant considering the debate over government-funded abortion through healthcare reform,” said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. “Government-funded abortion means more dead American women from breast cancer.”

See entire article at http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2009/11/study_chinese_w.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Prolifeblogs+(ProLifeBlogs)

An abstract of the study is at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771534?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

 

Advertisements

13 Responses to Abortion Causes Breast Cancer?

  1. Matt has requested [edited – DE]. So I’ll just point out:

    1. No Surgeon General has ever said anything in support of the a-b-c “link”. That includes Surgeons General under pro-life, Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. [edited – DE] Bush. Nor has any Surgeon General ever objected to the mainstream medical organizations (AMA, ACOG, WHO) saying there is no link. Surgeons General are physicians first, and everyone understands that even MENTIONING the word “cancer” when it is not appropriate is malpractice.
    [Edited – DE]

    2. There are always some studies that get the wrong answer, because of statistical noise. If you looked hard enough, you could find studies, good ones, objectively evaluated, whose results say smoking PREVENTS lung cancer. How likely a study is to get the wrong answer because of dumb bad luck, depends on the size and design. That’s why we have skilled professionals to figger out which are small, biased, or flawed, and which are large, honest, and robust, and then give us the big picture.

    Actually, this very study provides a nice example! Everyone knows that having kids lowers your risk for bc, right? We’ve known that for a long time. But here, in this particular study, Xing, Le, and Jin found that multiparity was associated with a HIGHER risk of b/c. A lovely example of statistical noise, and it’s possible BECAUSE…

    3. …This study examined fewer than 1500 b/c patients, plus controls. The small size makes it susceptible both to statistical noise and to confounders.

    There, that’s a free lesson in epidemiology from a former-professional. [Edited – DE]
    [edited -DE]

  2. Matt says:

    Perhaps your response – edited to remove the satire, insults and most of the hostility – illustrates something.
    When liberals (and also fascists and anarchists who are also liberals) argue they include insults and non-sequiturs. More importantly they presume from intellectual bias (er ‘viewpoint bias’) -knowing intrusive government is (respectively) the best way, the only way, the expedient way to get what they know to be “good” for society- that “that which isn’t forbidden is mandatory.”
    By this I mean that since a Republican-appointed Surgeon General did not proclaim something it does not disprove the point. It means that the point is still open for investigation and analysis. Conservatives know that government is at best a blunt instrument. Conservative medical doctors I suggest are among the most convinced of this. Liberals know “government” to be the best thing since tribal councils replaced single combat to the death for chiefdom. (I was going to note “sliced bread” but that invention is not understood as hyperbole these days and so is not impressive to most folks today.) So your statement that “no Republican said so” just points out that many in the grip of the Democrats are very willing to say “not so” on equally shaky intellectual grounds and so makes my point not yours.
    Instead I ask you, in all your former-professional epidemiological majesty could you review the study – at least the abstract – and comment on whether the correlation is proven to be caused by something else? Is the evidence clearly statistical error or are you stating this because it supports YOUR viewpoint bias? Then I’ll point you to the study in Turkey and others at the site I linked to. If you would deign to investigate rather than obfuscate then perhaps we wouldn’t be having this side argument?

  3. I tried to get the whole study but I was only able to find the abstract. But if, as you suggest, the correlation were PROVED to be due to something else, they would have reported that. If you know of a confounder, you discuss it and you adjust for it before you draw your conclusions. (By the way, we’re not talking about “statistical error” as you say; we’re talking about statistical NOISE, which occurs because “unlikely” is different from “impossible”. Even if you’re choosing from a pool of a million white sheep and only a hundred black sheep, sometimes you will just happen to choose ten black ones in a row.)

    Republican Surgeons General: If, as you say, the Republican Surgeons General remained silent about the a-b-c “link” because it “is still open for investigation and analysis”, that very fact would show that if it’s there at all, it’s not big enough to be worth scaring patients (and the public) about. People have been studying this question for decades. If there were a link, and it were strong enough to be worth spooking patients (and the public) about, it would have been proven by now.

    In fact, with a few exceptions, the big, well-designed, robust studies say no link, and the studies which report a link are small, design-flawed, and biased. (There are also studies which report a small NEGATIVE link, that abortion PREVENTS b-c. Just more statistical noise, that’s all.)

    Yes, I’ll go over the Turkish study if you post a link, but permit me to say that if you’re gonna opine publically on the question, you should be able to analyse it yourself. If you need to consult me, then you don’t know enough about the question for your opinion to matter. I don’t mean that as an insult, just as an objective statement of fact. Would you listen to someone talk about global warming, if that person didn’t know the basics of the interaction of light and heat, with matter? Would you have someone who had never taken a course in biology nor medicine diagnose your kid’s illness, if it had one? No, and no. Same principle. You should educate yourself first, and opine publically afterwards, when you know what you’re talking about.

    And why did you edit out my excellent proposal for a learning exercise? Ask your own doctor about the a-b-c “link”–tell your doc you have a loved one who has had five abortions and is worrying about whether she’s at higher risk for b-c, thinking about maybe having her breasts removed prophilactically, as women with genetic risks for b-c do. Then report to us what the doc says. And if you care to make a small wager on what the doc’s answer will be, I’m happy to bet, say, ten thousand bucks on what I think it will be.

    I’m still waiting to hear how you think abortion should be punished, and who should suffer the punishment. And I’m also still waiting for you to explain the distinction you made on another thread, between “banning” something (which you say is impossible) and “outlawing” it (which you say is possible). What’s the difference? Please illustrate with an example of something which is banned, but not outlawed, or outlawed, but not banned. Thanks!

  4. One more point: if, as you suggest, we don’t yet know whether a-b-c is true, then the AMA, ACOG, WHO, etc. would be WRONG to say we do know and you don’t need to worry about it. They should be saying we don’t know. But in that case, the Republican Surgeons General would say this publically. They would CORRECT the AMA, ACOG, etc. Their silence is tacit acknowledgement that the AMA etc are correct, not overreaching.

  5. Laura says:

    OC -Since the discussion appears to have moved to this post, I’ll address something with you here rather than in the old post:

    I don’t see how you can call opposing abortion “murder,” and compare our opposition to the deprivation of human life. I fail to equate the penalties of criminalizing abortion – which could be a simple censure by a peer review board, a monetary penalty/fine, or at absolute worst some jail time – the horrific violence and atrocity of the actions associated with abortion.

  6. [edited – DE] fines are violent because they are collected under the threat of violence if you won’t pay, and capturing someone and confining them is obviously very violent.

    As far as your not seeing how I can call opposing abortion murder, I already told you, that comes directly from the Supernatural Entity. We don’t need to understand it and it’s presumptious to think we should. It’s not for us to question the Supernatural Entity. Go read the book of Job again.

    Oh, and abortion is not an “atrocity”; it’s justifiable homicide.

  7. Laura says:

    Oh, nonsense. The closest out-of-womb parallel I can think of is the old practice of taking criminals and having them hung, drawn and quartered. And you would have that ghastly practice (for the individual would be taken off the gibbet, drawn and quartered before he was actually dead!) – in which an unborn child is ripped apart, by either vacuum extraction or by curettage –

    – all for the sake of selfish gratification of the … let’s be frank, here: it is far too often men who demand this atrocity, rather than owning up to their responsibilities as MEN –

    – you would call this “justifiable homicide.”

    To which I say NO. IT IS NOT, EVER, EVER JUSTIFIABLE.

  8. Matt says:

    I disagree that “capturing someone and confining them is obviously very violent.” By that argument every driver is violent because he could deliberately not stop for a J walker and thereby do violence. We create laws that regulate where we park and how we have to clean up our dog poo. Surely those aren’t “violent.”
    In physics you could refer to violence is the collision of two opposing bodies. The resultant deformation of them as a result of the energy released could be termed violence and we would agree. However the metaphor breaks down when you apply it to people.
    Your hyperbolic argument against God isn’t an argument. It’s not repeatable and it’s not independently verifiable. I am convinced you offer it only as an attempt at humor and with no sincerity. Note carefully that I here at DE have NOT used this argument to convince non-believers. It’s almost futile. See our How to Debate page. I can and have posted arguments based on science, reason, law and common sense. Could you do the same?
    Finally I disagree with your statement “abortion is not an atrocity; it’s justifiable homicide.” Dismembering a person without cause is by any reasonable definition an atrocity and a homicide. In this debate you have not been able to justify this act.

  9. Laura says:

    Matt, I agree with you, and I like the way you put it. Arrest is not to be equated, or even considered equivalent, with the sort of force, violence, abject cruelty of abortion. It is utterly and completely irrational and inhumane to even try to do so.

  10. Matt says:

    Back to Breast Cancer. OC, did you read any of the other studies at http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com ?

  11. Matt, RE: “We create laws that regulate where we park and how we have to clean up our dog poo. Surely those aren’t violent.”

    What do we do to people who BREAK those laws? Well, we fine them, but what if they refuse to PAY the fine? Eventually, we enforce the laws by doing something VIOLENT to people who break them and refuse to cooperate with the punishment. So yes they are violent. I’m not saying they’re BAD, nor that they are UNJUSTIFIED, but they ARE, in fact, violent. ANY law which gets enforced by cops with guns, is violent.

    RE: “abortion not justifiable”: You are just wrong, that’s all: abortion on demand IS justifiable homicide. If someone or something is inside your body, then you are entitled to have it killed, and killing it on your behalf IS justifiable. This applies equally to unborn people inside your body, and to already-born people who (hypothetically) go into your body. It applies equally to women and (hypothetically) to men. In fact if ALL the people in the WHOLE WORLD were assembled somewhere inside your body, along with Baby Jesus, Almighty God, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you’d be entitled to holocaust them, for any reason or for no reason. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”. If you don’t agree, then your disagreement shows that you don’t understand English, just as someone who insists that the summer sky is green, obviously does not understand the meaning of the word “green”.

    And abortion on demand is NOT, as you say, “dismembering people without cause”. It’s dismembering (or killing by means of medicine) people WITH cause. The cause is to remove unwanted people from your body, where they have no right to remain except with your continuing permission, and, to avoid the big-time medical/surgical trauma of labor and delivery, which no one, born nor unborn, has any right to force upon you.

    Back to breast cancer. Yes, I perused the site a couple of years ago, and read some of the studies. It’s all garbage, or, more technically, it’s one-sided amplification of statistical noise. As I explained before, there are always some studies which get the wrong answer, because of dumb luck. The web site just lists them, and then says “See, abortion DOES cause b-c!” with no attempt to EVALUATE the listed studies nor to COMPARE them with the studies which say there is no link. That’s garbage.

    You say you are “convinced” that my religious argument is not serious? That’s pretty funny, coming from you. You’re Catholic, right? You think a Jew was resurrected from the dead, and that he can do the same for you if you first apologise to him for your sin, which you bear because a woman long ago followed the advice of a talking snake and ate fruit from a magic tree??? You think that a cracker is flesh and wine is blood (literally, not just symbolically), and you say you can’t believe MY religion is serious??? Wow.

  12. Oh yeah, I knew I’d forgotten something. I DID read the Turkish study and I blogged about it.

    http://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-right-to-lifers-report.html

  13. Laura says:

    OC – your attitude about “justifiable homicide” is atrocious, inhumane, callous, insensitive, selfish, and reprehensible. It is also ignorant, to assign willful defiance and invasion by an unborn child – who was conceived by his/her parents’ actions, and not of his/her own volition. I find it almost unbelievable that a member of a civilized society could represent himself in such a manner as you do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: