Dr. Joel Brind's Meta-Analysis of the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link
Dr. Janet Daling's Study
Back To Home Page
Being a physician and having
heard talk of a possible link between abortions and breast cancer, I
decided
to investigate this very serious matter. Here are my findings:
The ACS (American Cancer Society) reports that one of every nine women
in the United States will develop breast cancer by age 85.
Breast cancer has risen dramatically in America by 50% since 1973 (
Roe vs Wade
) and is also increasing worldwide. Recent studies, have pointed
out a dramatic relationship between the rate of abortion and the rising
incidence of breast cancer. In fact, as the rate of abortion rises in
America, so does the rate of breast cancer, with those women who have
aborted having significantly higher rates.
Of the 1.4 million abortions done, yearly, in the United States and
accounting
for the increased risk posed by abortion, researchers estimate that the
800,000 first-time abortions performed annually would thus generate
roughly
25,000 excess cases of breast cancer each year, as the first group of
women exposed to legal abortion advances in age. Given the margin of
error,
the researchers predicted that excess cases of breast cancer would be
between 9,000 and 40,000 per year, due to the impact of induced
abortion.
However, the ACS refuses to include induced abortions as a breast
cancer
risk. They say the link is inconclusive, but they are wrong. The
evidence
is overwhelming.
This is not good news for women, who are still actively being kept in
the dark by the very agencies who should warn them about avoidable
cancer
risks.
Yet, they will report minor risk factors, such as weight and diet. But
the most closely guarded secret is the connection between abortion and
breast cancer.
Recently, I was in the office of an oncologist (tumor and cancer
specialist)
and I picked up one of the many brochures concerning breast cancer,
hoping
to finally see induced abortions listed as one of the risks for breast
cancer, but it wasn’t there, so what else is new.
However, the following was one the risks word for word:
“One study suggests that more than three alcoholic drinks per week, may
increase your risk of getting breast cancer.
They included this risk, based on just ONE study and yet, they refuse
to list the Abortion breast cancer risk, even though 13 of 14 studies
in the USA, revealed the risk and 31 of 35 studies worldwide.
Laboratory
test on rats also revealed the risk.
With all this evidence, why is the ACS withholding this vital
information,
BUT, they will expose a risk (alcohol) found as a result of just ONE
study.
This is a question that every women should want answered. They should
write to the newspapers and demand answers. They should write to the
ACS
and complain.
I, personally have written to over fifty newspapers throughout the
country
exposing this risk. I gave them my address and phone number to contact
me and I would give them, all the evidence. You would think, with this
life saving news, the investigative reporters would have my phone
ringing
off the hook, especially, when you consider that no news is as
newsworthy
as this. But, there were no calls and no mail. They don’t want to touch
this with a ten foot pole.
I am not alone, other doctors, more knowledgeable than I, in this area,
have tried for years, to convince the ACS and the media that this link
is real. Those conducting the studies that reveal the link are looked
upon as some sort of a traitor, for even hinting that the link is real.
It has also been discussed in congress, but a certain segment of our
society,
wants the truth hidden. Better women die, then to harm the abortion
industry.
This is tragic and it is sick. Is it any wonder that our society is
referred
to as the "Culture of Death."
I have nothing against the ACS for revealing the alcohol risk, as a
result
of just ONE study, BUT, for goodness sake, if they can include a risk
from just one study, WHY do they refuse to include a risk that was
shown
in over 35 studies.
And what makes this matter even worse is that, in the ABC risk -- the
direct link is known and can be understood by a ten year old. They tell
us that certain foods may increase the risk of cancer. Products have
been
pulled from the shelves on much less evidence. NONE of these come close
to the abortion risk of breast cancer. The abortion link affects the
breast
cells directly, as you will see later.
This is sad -- to expose women to this kind of danger, when it could be
easily avoided. This lie perpetuated by the ACS, when they say the link
is inconclusive has resulted in thousands of women dying needlessly,
every
year.
It's obvious why the lucrative abortion industry will not warn women of
this deadly risk prior to an abortion, but why the silence by the ACS,
the Media, and what about NOW and other feminist groups. Isn’t the sole
purpose of their existence, to help women, or are they just a front for
political agendas.
If they want women to have a choice, then why not give them all the
facts
-- to make the most important decision of their lives.
How is it possible, that in our day and age, something like this could
happen?
The reason is political. It should be obvious to all, that the American
Cancer Society is in lock step with NARAL, Planned Parenthood and all
the other abortion providers, as well as this administration's
pro-abortion
position.
They are so afraid this news would be a major blow to the abortion
industry,
that they will do anything and everything to protect it. And believe me
-- I am NOT exaggerating.
The other risks, though not nearly as great as the abortion risk, are
exposed because they are not political.
It is only a matter of time before there will be a flood of law suits
and the abortion facilities will lose, because they DID NOT warn women
of this risk, prior to their abortions. To withhold this vital
information
in an elective procedure is against medical ethics. The evidence is
overwhelming.
But don’t take my word for it, or the words of those who have
established
the link. One need not be a specialist in the field to understand it --
it’s not that complicated. You be the judge. But first, here are the
basics:
It is estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries, that transforms a
young
girl into a woman.
When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of this hormone causing the
breast
cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to
lay the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing
cells
are more prone to develop cancer.
In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the
influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature
cells,
then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk
producing
tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to
turn cancerous.
When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young
growing
cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic
changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor
are they capable of producing milk.
In plain English, these insulted cells (traumatized) have been hung out
to dry. They are between a rock and a hard place. Scientists have known
for years that any cell in the human body that has been traumatized,
whether
by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma, or any other reason would be
especially
vulnerable to cancer.
One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians heads
from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is
no longer valid.
To suit their political agenda, they would have you believe that an
abnormal
cell is NO more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell. This
defies
all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense and shows the depths
they will go, to keep the abortion industry flourishing. Human life
means
nothing to them.
It has also been long known that a pregnancy carried to term protects
against breast cancer. However, if a woman has an induced abortion,
this
protection is terminated.
The reason is because the proliferation of the undifferentiated,
cancer-vulnerable
cells, by the estrogen secreted early in the pregnancy, no longer has
the protection that comes from hormones released later in pregnancy,
since
the pregnancy has been aborted.
The estrogen/breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many
years,
thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women,
especially
those with any family history of breast cancer.
Manufacturers of oral contraceptives alert the public as to the
possible
link between their product and breast cancer.
The induced abortion risk is greater than the relative risk associated
with oral contraceptives.
Women, who start their periods early and go through menopause late are
exposed to more estrogen, because they have more periods.
And women who have fewer or no children, are exposed to more surges of
estrogen that come with more menstrual cycles. Women who breast feed
their
babies, also have fewer menstrual cycles, thereby lowering their risk.
Foods high in animal fat can increase the blood estrogen level and thus
increase the breast cancer risk. Leafy vegetables tend to help a woman,
to rid her system of estrogen. As you can see, the estrogen factor is
not just in the area of reproduction.
We are warned of these risks by the top medical journals and the media.
We are told what to eat and not to eat, but the biggest risk of all,
the
abortion/breast cancer link, they tell us NOTHING.
One common rebuttal offered by the ACS, and the abortion advocates to
dismiss the ABC link, is to point out that most of the studies done,
have
relied on interviewing women and asking them if they have ever had an
abortion and asking them if they have been diagnosed with breast
cancer,
and then comparing their answers.
So, those who fear the truth say -- probably women who have breast
cancer
are more likely to remember or admit that they have had abortions,
whereas
women who do not have breast cancer may not admit they had an abortion.
They call this, "recall bias." I call it, "grasping for
straws."
But when your back is to the wall, you’ll try anything, even accusing
some women of lying. Women know how important these studies are.
They’re
not going to lie. It means life or death for thousands of women.
After all, they don't have to take part in the study -- they can just
refuse, rather than lie. Notice they don’t actually say they’re lying
- they say more likely to remember. As if someone would forget if they
had their unborn baby killed.
An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According
to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp
497-511,
cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a
cancer-causing
substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed
to carry their pregnancies to term.
Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term
rats,
only 5.5% developed breast cancer.
Too bad they couldn't interview the rats -- they might have found
recall
bias.
With all of the above evidence, even without epidemiological data, and
given the extremely high estrogen levels experienced by women in the
first
several weeks of normal pregnancy, which doctors have always known --
for the ACS to say that the link is inconclusive is not only repugnant,
but in my book, it’s downright CRIMINAL.
But we DO have epidemiological data to prove it. 13 of 14 studies in
the
United States have proven it and 31 out of 35 world wide.
A 1996 study carried out in the Netherlands found almost a twofold
increased
risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion. However, the
investigators
suggested that this figure may have been influenced by reporting bias
attributed to the underreporting of abortions by healthy control
subjects in the largely Catholic southeastern region of the Netherlands.
In the western regions of the country, the association between abortion
and breast cancer was statistically insignificant. The authors
concluded
that their "study does not support an appreciably (whatever that
means) increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion."
These people are constantly looking for excuses. Now, you can’t rely on
this study because someone's religion is involved. Are they trying to
say that Catholics are more liable to lie than Protestants? This is
disgusting.
Why didn’t the study involve the whole country, it's not that big and
average it out? Because they wouldn’t like what they would find. I
never
knew that a certain section of the Netherlands had a largely Catholic
region.
We must also believe that middle-aged black women, in particular, are
incredible liars, as a study published in the Journal of the National
Medical Association (December 1993) traced the breast cancer experience
of about 1,000 black women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as
they
grew older. "Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women:
The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience" confirmed that
the
risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted
than
for those who had not. This fine study found the same overall 50%
increased
risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted.
But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180%
increased
risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370% for black women over 50 who
had
aborted
Well, this completes the cycle -- someone’s religion and now their race
makes them liars.
In the future, in order to save time and money, let’s not include
Catholics
and Blacks in any study, because we all know they are liars. We have
been
told so, by the ACS. So, that eliminates about 35% of the world’s
population
for all future studies.
In 1996-OCT, four US scientists announced the result of a statistical
analysis of previous studies. They selected 23 studies which involved
over 60,000 women. They combined all of their results using a process
known as "meta-analysis." They found "overwhelming"
evidence that women who terminate a pregnancy by an abortion have a 33
% higher chance of contracting breast cancer later in life.
Now, read how this study was attacked by those who are conspiring to
withhold
the truth from the American people:
“This particular statistical method is fraught with hazard, because the
results can easily be influenced by the method of selecting the studies
to be included.
Three of the four scientists in the 1996-OCT study are known to be
vocal
opponents of abortion. They might have been biased, consciously or
unconsciously,
in their selection processes.”
That’s it -- the above statement is doubletalk --sour grapes. Three of
the scientists are pro life, so their study cannot be taken seriously.
What about the other scientist, who was pro-choice? This is too serious
of an issue to involve politics.
The ACS, scanned the entire world, to look for a study that would match
their political views. And sure enough, they found just what they were
looking for -- a study that was done in little Denmark, which stated
that
the link was inconclusive. So they accepted it as the Gospel truth and
published the Melbye/Danish Report.
There was no mention, if those who conducted the Report were pro-choice
or pro-life.
Isn’t it odd that they couldn't find a study in the USA that they
liked.
13 of 14 studies in the United States, showed the abortion/cancer link.
Our country has the best scientists and researchers in the world. They
didn’t publish these studies, because it wasn’t what they wanted to
hear.
On another page, you will read where Dr. Joel Brind shreds this report
to pieces, as well as his ,"Comprehensive Review and Meta
Analysis"
of the Abortion/Breast Cancer risk.
So now, if anyone who is involved in a study, is pro-life, then that
study
cannot be trusted. We can now add pro-lifers to the distrustful list
along
with Catholics and blacks. Now, we have about 65% of the world’s
population
on the list.
Can you see where this is going? Politics should have NO part in
medicine.
It's absolutely ludicrous.
How the American Cancer Society can continue to perpetuate this
cover-up,
is mind boggling, in view of the fact that their own man, Dr. Clark
Heath,
who is the head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the
American
Cancer Society, on February 20, 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC
link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer
risk.
The longer the time to her first term delivery, the greater the risk.
Quite a concession, isn't it? So then, why aren’t women told of this
one
aspect, before they have ab abortion and why don't we hear of this on
TV, or read about it in the newspapers? Why didn't it make the
headlines?
The only court decision, regarding the abortion/cancer risk that I am
aware of -- is a law suit against the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation
(SEPTA) for denying those who wanted to put posters in public transit
areas to warn people of the ABC link.
After hearing both sides of the argument, the appellate court stated
there
WAS a link and ruled in favor of CBM.
It didn't help their case when the SEPTA experts admitted that some
studies
showed a weak association between abortions and breast cancer. If the
SEPTA experts would admit to a slight link, then you know, the link is
much greater. They were paid by SEPTA.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that this is just the tip of the
iceberg.
It's only a matter of time before there will be a flood of lawsuits
brought
on by women who were not warned of the risk by the abortion clinics.
Critics who formerly dismissed the possibility of a relationship
between
induced abortion and breast cancer are increasingly on the defensive,
largely as a consequence of the findings of a fascinating study by Dr.
Janet Daling, (who by the way, is Pro-choice) and her colleagues at
Seattle's
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Their study which shows that
abortions
increase the risk of breast cancer on an average of 50%, is on another
page.
In summation, let's isolate the facts that are indisputable:
1- It's an indisputable fact that Estrogens are strong growth promoters
of normal and most cancerous breast tissue.
2- It's an indisputable fact that most known risk factors for breast
cancer
are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.
3- It's an indisputable fact that maternal estradiol (estrogen) rises
20-fold (2,000%) during the first trimester of a normal pregnancy.
4- It's an indisputable fact that abnormal cells are more vulnerable to
cancerous changes than normal cells.
5- It's an indisputable fact that pregnancies which abort spontaneously
(miscarriage) usually generate subnormal amounts of estradiol; no
increased
risk of breast cancer is seen.
6- It's an indisputable fact that the incidence of breast cancer is
dramatically
increased in rats whose pregnancies are aborted.
Let me know what you think
about my page. Send mail by clicking
here
.
