-
- 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
newsworty 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 ofthe 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.
-
- http://hometown.aol.com/DFjoseph/abclink.html
-
- SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE
http://www.sightings.com
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|