National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

[JudeBrando]

Could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

I realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it?



"NCI Researcher Now Agrees: Louise A. Brinton, largely responsible for getting the government-funded NCI to deny the abortion-breast cancer link, has co-authored another study which now describes significant risk factors, including "induced abortion." The study also says that these risk factors are "consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women."

"Endocrinologist Dr. Joel Brind of Baruch College in New York City is the original dissenter at the NCI's conference that rejected the abortion link to breast cancer. In Dr. Brind's report on this NCI researcher's paper, read about another finding reported by Brinton, the 320% increase in risk for women taking the birth control pill to develop TNBC, Triple Negative Breast Cancer, a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant cancer."

"At Johnson & Johnson's April 28, 2011 annual shareholder meeting, a co-author of a 2006 Mayo Clinic Proceedings report, testified of their published meta-analysis, that, "After reviewing all of the world's data, we found that... if women took oral contraceptives prior to the birth of their first child, which is when most women take them [that these] women incurred a 44% increased risk" of breast cancer and "that the World Health Organization had recently classified oral contraceptives as a Group 1 carcinogen - the most dangerous type known to humankind."

"...Frontiers of Medicine in China... added their own meta-analysis which "found that women who took oral contraceptives sustained a 112% increased risk in developing breast cancer."

http://americanrtl.org/cancer


DSmma0COO1E

[JudeBrando]

"Former Komen medical research analyst Eve Sanchez Silver explained to the Komen officials that she resigned from Komen two years ago because the organization denies the scientific studies showing the link between abortion and breast cancer, and it provides funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Professor Joel Brind, PhD endocrinologist from Baruch College in New York City attended the meeting after saying on Denver radio that, "the 2003 conference of the National Cancer Institute which denied abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer refused to allow attending scientists to present the opposing position of the scientific research establishing the link, showing that abortion was declassified as a cancer risk for political and not scientific reasons."

Further, "The NCI's own statistics show that breast cancer has increased, and only in women who were of child-bearing age when abortion was legalized in 1973, so much so that nationally, cancer would have steadily declined, except it has held steady at the expense of women getting breast cancer," said Dr. Brind."

http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/news/2008/10/race-cure-protest

[ben m]

Can't tell the difference between abortion and contraception = fail.

[JudeBrando]

"Study Shows 'Best Predictor of Breast Cancer'"

"The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer,"...

"In four countries - England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark - a social gradient has been discovered (unlike that for other cancers) whereby upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer than lower class women. This was studied in Finland and Denmark and the influence of known risk factors other than abortion was examined, but the gradient was not explained.

Carroll suggests that the known preference for abortion in this class might explain the phenomenon. Women pursuing higher educations and professional careers often delay marriage and childbearing. Abortions before the birth of a first child are highly carcinogenic."

"It's time for scientists to admit publicly what they already acknowledge privately among themselves - that abortion raises breast cancer risk - and to stop conducting flawed research to protect the medical establishment from massive medical practice lawsuits," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer."

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/071002/index.htm


"Study: Turkish Women with Abortions Have Statistically Significant 66% Increase in Breast Cancer Risk / Researchers Likely Underestimated the Risk, Reports Scientist

"A retrospective study conducted by Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty and Magee-Women's hospital reported a statistically significant 66% increase in breast cancer risk among women who'd had any abortions."

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/090728/index.htm


"Study: Chinese Women With Abortions Have Statistically Significant 17% Increased Breast Cancer Risk / Scientist Argues Researchers Underestimated Risk"

"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."

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/091111/index.htm

[JudeBrando]

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/feathated

""My goal," says Joel Brind, "is to expose the linkage between abortion and breast cancer in the public mind. When women realize this is something that's dangerous to women, who's going to choose it?""


""Within a few days after pregnancy, the corpus luteum, which is in a woman's ovary, begins to secrete large quantities of a number of hormones," Brind told the crowded courtroom. One of those chemicals, estrogen, makes the breasts grow in preparation for nursing. In the early months of a first pregnancy, "the breasts may be adult size, but the tissue is rather primitive. In other words, it's not specialized for producing milk. It's mostly able just to grow, to proliferate." Later in the pregnancy, he said, the growth switch clicks off, and those cells differentiate into mature, milk-producing cells.

"Now, primitive cells, because they're programmed to grow, are more likely to be sensitive to carcinogenic stimuli," Brind said. If a woman has an abortion, she's left with a large number of these immature cells lining her breast ducts, and she is therefore more vulnerable to cancer down the road—30 percent more vulnerable, Brind says, than a woman who has never had an abortion.

This, the endocrinologist believes, is a terrible truth that the medical establishment—including the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization—has tried to keep from the public."

"Women Have a Right to Know,"

"Brind reserves his harshest words for groups such as the National Cancer Institute, which until its recent equivocation spent almost a decade reassuring the public that abortion appeared not to trigger breast cancer. Brind has charged scientists and staff there with engaging in "a miscarriage of scientific justice" and a "cover-up" of the truth."

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have no cred here Jude. I'll let someone else waste their time looking into this doubtful claim.

[Lowpro]

(Seem's I'm the sucker Ginger)

It's worth posting information against the Abortion-Breast Cancer Hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice also reviewed the available evidence in 2003 and again in 2009. ACOG published its most recent findings in June 2009. At that time, the Committee said, “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”

In 2004, the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, put together the results from 53 separate studies done in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that “the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.” These experts did not find that abortions (either induced or spontaneous) cause a higher breast cancer risk.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

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

I can't find too much that gives conclusive evidence for the hypothesis of the immature cells becoming cancerous because of an abortion (natural or otherwise of course) but it seems even Brinton cannot find conclusive proof and instead took a different angle to argue that the real failure is not warning women of the increased risk of breast cancer even though there doesn't seem to be conclusive proof of the claim. I will say though that I don't know too much about the development of the immature cells. I would expect that miscarriages should also lead to an increase in breast cancer but I cannot even find any particular study for that other than those that conflate with abortions. Overall the studies with a large good pool of participants find no correlation.

I also have VERY serious doubts about the Turkish findings (and that website you linked it from in general) but Peng Xing while not a name I've heard seems legitimate. My problem is that his study doesn't play with this study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.1263/pdf which is also a China study!

And then you have other studies too:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0215%2819960208%2965:4%3C401::AID-IJC1%3E3.0.CO;2-0/pdf


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22001/pdf <---- EPIC study which had a large pool of participants.

The reason I find Peng Xing's paper so dubious is because its data doesn't play against the other data, but I cannot find the paper to determine its methods =\

Edit: https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/60h727v546373185/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=z3hadf2o41ovqzljrdaat2ae&sh=www.springerlink.com it's here by I'm not gonna shell out my 35 bucks for it

[catsmate1]

(Seem's I'm the sucker Ginger)

It's worth posting information against the Abortion-Breast Cancer Hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer



http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

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

I can't find too much that gives conclusive evidence for the hypothesis of the immature cells becoming cancerous because of an abortion (natural or otherwise of course) but it seems even Brinton cannot find conclusive proof and instead took a different angle to argue that the real failure is not warning women of the increased risk of breast cancer even though there doesn't seem to be conclusive proof of the claim. I will say though that I don't know too much about the development of the immature cells. I would expect that miscarriages should also lead to an increase in breast cancer but I cannot even find any particular study for that other than those that conflate with abortions. Overall the studies with a large good pool of participants find no correlation.

I also have VERY serious doubts about the Turkish findings (and that website you linked it from in general) but Peng Xing while not a name I've heard seems legitimate. My problem is that his study doesn't play with this study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.1263/pdf which is also a China study!

And then you have other studies too:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0215%2819960208%2965:4%3C401::AID-IJC1%3E3.0.CO;2-0/pdf


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22001/pdf <---- EPIC study which had a large pool of participants.

The reason I find Peng Xing's paper so dubious is because its data doesn't play against the other data, but I cannot find the paper to determine its methods =\

Edit: https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/60h727v546373185/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=z3hadf2o41ovqzljrdaat2ae&sh=www.springerlink.com it's here by I'm not gonna shell out my 35 bucks for it
So a god botherer is posting lies/distortions from other god botherers to support imposing his views on others.:rolleyes:

[Travis]

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. Abortion is still a very good option for women. It sure beats bringing unwanted kids into a world where God Botherers would have them suffer.

[catsmate1]

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. Abortion is still a very good option for women. It sure beats bringing unwanted kids into a world where God Botherers would have them suffer.
Not to mention significantly safer overall than carrying the fetus to term; if the god botherers really cared about the health of women they'd have few objections to abortion.

[Dinwar]

What would the possible mechanism be? I mean, for chemically-induced abortion there's the chemicals, but is that any different from, say, a fetus being stillborn (often a hormonal thing)? And if it's a mechanical abortion technique how is there ANY causal connection between aboriton and breast cancer?

The idea is silly on the face of it. The fact that it's coming from someone with an axe to grind makes it that much worse.

[ThunderChunky]

"At Johnson & Johnson's April 28, 2011 annual shareholder meeting, a co-author of a 2006 Mayo Clinic Proceedings report, testified of their published meta-analysis, that, "After reviewing all of the world's data, we found that... if women took oral contraceptives prior to the birth of their first child, which is when most women take them [that these] women incurred a 44% increased risk" of breast cancer and "that the World Health Organization had recently classified oral contraceptives as a Group 1 carcinogen - the most dangerous type known to humankind."

From the WHO in 2005: "Combined oral contraceptives As stated in IARC’s review, the use of COCs modifies slightly the risk of cancer, increasing it in some sites (cervix, breast, liver), decreasing it in others (endometrium, ovary). Some of these data refer to older higher-dose COC preparations. Assessments based on risk-benefit calculations are carried out by different teams within WHO. Several WHO committees work on creating evidence-based family planning guidelines and on keeping them up-to-date on a continuous basis. They regularly review the safety of COCs and assess the balance of risks and benefits of COC use and they have determined that for most healthy women, the health benefits clearly exceed the health risks."

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf

[ben m]

And JB's dubious "source":

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit organization founded in 1943.[1] The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 3,000 in 2011.[2][3] Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey;[4] the executive director is Jane Orient, a member of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. AAPS publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, but the journal is not included in Web of Science or MEDLINE/PubMed lists of peer-reviewed scientific sources.[5].

...

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel,[36][37] is the journal of the association.

...

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[39] nor the Web of Science.[40] The National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[3] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[3] including:


that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[41]
that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;[42]
that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[43]
that HIV does not cause AIDS;[44][45]
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[46]
A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[47][48] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[49] the American Cancer Society,[50] and the World Health Organization,[51] among other major medical bodies.[52]


A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[53] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[54] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and wrote: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[55]

Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[56] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News by editor-in-chief Rudy Baum described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[57] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[58]

[Lowpro]

Oh damn I didn't know that ben m O.o although I didn't see the AAPS being part of the sources Jude linked unless they themselves are comments from the AAPS's funded projects.

I still want to find that Peng Xing paper because I doubt the AAPS pulled strings in China, and I want to see it compared to the Shangai study.

[ben m]

Lowpro, AAPS is cited in JB's third post.

[Lowpro]

Ah i see, I was looking at his links.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Jude,
You do realize that up to 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage, right? And that as miscarriage often occurs very early in the pregnancy, it has been speculated that actually, more than 50% end in miscarriage because they happen before the woman even realizes she's pregnant. And of course, most abortions also take place very early in the pregnancy, just like miscarriages.

If you are going to argue that abortion causes cancer and for that reason should not be done, then you also should be telling women not to ever get pregnant, because they are at significant risk of miscarriage and thus, according to you, at risk of breast cancer. there are plenty of ignorant people who are unaware of this danger and plenty of babies need adopting. You should be advising all women to adopt rather than take this risk by getting pregnant. Or at the very least, should be advising them of the risk as they have a "right to know."

And in general, as others have already pointed out, pregnancy itself has many real, verified short and long term health risks associated with it.

I don't know why you think doing something to a woman's reproductive system is inherently dangerous to her overall health. Working at a cancer hospital, gynelogical cancer is very common and women have to have things removed all the time, an ovary, her uterus, etc. Now of course, any surgical procedure itself has risks - but that's from the surgery, not from the absense of the reproductive organ; and obviously if you say, have your uterus or both ovaries removed, you will lose your ability to bear children. But simply having one's uterus removed is like having one's tonsils removed. There aren't implications to a woman's overall health just because a non vital organ like an ovary has been removed (again, past the surgery and the time period right after the surgery when complications can arise).


Now contraception is another matter. There are health risks to contraceptions, and that's why my birth control comes with a long package insert that lists all the health consequences I risk by taking it. I am well informed of these risks but consider them worth not having an unplanned pregnancy.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

Wait a second.

You state that abortion could negatively impact a woman's reproductive system.

You then discuss breast cancer risks.

You think breasts are part of the reproductive system?

Seriously?

Seriously??

SERIOUSLY?????

The level of ignorance presented in this thread is simply astounding.

[GodMark2]

You think breasts are part of the reproductive system?

Well, a nice1 set of breasts will certainly improve a woman's chances of reproduction.




1Large, small, firm, soft, or whatever the bloke fancies. I won't judge.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. Abortion is still a very good option for women. It sure beats bringing unwanted kids into a world where God Botherers would have them suffer.

Said already by Catsmate1 but bears repeating, pregnancy is very dangerous for women. And for the most part currently, we've made great progress in treatment for breast cancer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What would the possible mechanism be? I mean, for chemically-induced abortion there's the chemicals, but is that any different from, say, a fetus being stillborn (often a hormonal thing)? And if it's a mechanical abortion technique how is there ANY causal connection between aboriton and breast cancer?

The idea is silly on the face of it. The fact that it's coming from someone with an axe to grind makes it that much worse.Not that I think there has been any reliable evidence supporting the OP claim, but if there were, the first thing I'd look at is ruling out the confounding problem that having one's first child late in life or remaining childless slightly increases the risk of breast cancer.

[Dinwar]

Same here--and based on the OP's claims, I'd say the researchers would be hard-pressed to factor socio-economic factors out of the equation. A lot of what the OP's references discuss amount to "Poor people have more children earlier in life and die younger than affluent people".

[Lowpro]

That's why I find the China study interesting because China's a GREAT place to study abortion because there is a social license for it so more people have them and report them and manage their pregnancies.

Just a great amount of subjects to examine.

[ThunderChunky]

Here's a copy of the Xing paper in case you didn't get one.

[JudeBrando]

you have no cred here jude. I'll let someone else waste their time looking into this doubtful claim.


1.could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

2.i realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it?

[JudeBrando]

I can't find too much that gives conclusive evidence... cannot find conclusive proof... doesn't seem to be conclusive proof of the claim.
Who said anything about anything "conclusive"? Therefore what?

[JudeBrando]

so a god botherer is posting lies/distortions from other god botherers to support imposing his views on others.:rolleyes:

"Lies"?!

"Imposing"?!

Should a woman have a right to now?


1.could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

2.i realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it?

[Dinwar]

i realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it? There needs to be a name for this fallacy: the typical woo idea (I'd almost say it's diagnostic of the group) that "scientific examination" is something other than looking for flaws in your study. That's what peer review IS--experts looking through your study and seeing just how many holes they can poke in it. So a group of people bringing up serious concerns--for example, disentangling socioeconomic factors from the medical ones, dealing with when the people have the children, when they have the abortion, dealing with spontaneous abortions, dealing with the different types of abortion methods, etc--is actually seriously considering the research. They're saying "This is worth thinking about--and unfortunately it's not good enough to go any further. Here's what they should be doing." If we weren't giving it serious consideration, we'd have blown it off and laughed at at.

As far as academic research or corporate research--the big double-blinded studies and the like--you're going to have to present a plausible mechanism. Until then, you've only got a correlation, and we all know that that doesn't equal causation, right?

[JudeBrando]

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter.

Studying possible evidences of other cancers that have been greatly increasing in our lifetimes "wouldn't matter" either, Travis?

[JudeBrando]

There needs to be a name for this fallacy: the typical woo idea (I'd almost say it's diagnostic of the group) that "scientific examination" is something other than looking for flaws in your study. That's what peer review IS--experts looking through your study and seeing just how many holes they can poke in it. So a group of people bringing up serious concerns--for example, disentangling socioeconomic factors from the medical ones, dealing with when the people have the children, when they have the abortion, dealing with spontaneous abortions, dealing with the different types of abortion methods, etc--is actually seriously considering the research. They're saying "This is worth thinking about--and unfortunately it's not good enough to go any further. Here's what they should be doing." If we weren't giving it serious consideration, we'd have blown it off and laughed at at.

As far as academic research or corporate research--the big double-blinded studies and the like--you're going to have to present a plausible mechanism. Until then, you've only got a correlation, and we all know that that doesn't equal causation, right?

Dinwar, should potential causes of breast cancer be studied?

Dinwar, are there any potential causes of breast cancer that should not be studied?

[JudeBrando]

So a god botherer is posting lies/distortions from other god botherers to support imposing his views on others.:rolleyes:
Not to mention significantly safer overall than carrying the fetus to term; if the god botherers really cared about the health of women they'd have few objections to abortion.
I wonder why animosity toward God was your point twice?

It would seem that you are evidence of:

"Rebellion against God expresses itself in many ways. Promoting the intentional killing of innocent children who are made in His image and likeness is one of the strongest ways to show hatred toward God. This is why our godless culture is so pro-abortion that it will even sacrifice women to breast cancer on the the same altar on which they dismember unborn children."
http://americanrtl.org/cancer

catsmate1, do you hate God?

[JudeBrando]

Jude,
You do realize that up to 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage, right? And that as miscarriage often occurs very early in the pregnancy, it has been speculated that actually, more than 50% end in miscarriage because they happen before the woman even realizes she's pregnant. And of course, most abortions also take place very early in the pregnancy, just like miscarriages.

If you are going to argue that abortion causes cancer and for that reason should not be done, then you also should be telling women not to ever get pregnant, because they are at significant risk of miscarriage and thus, according to you, at risk of breast cancer. there are plenty of ignorant people who are unaware of this danger and plenty of babies need adopting. You should be advising all women to adopt rather than take this risk by getting pregnant. Or at the very least, should be advising them of the risk as they have a "right to know."

And in general, as others have already pointed out, pregnancy itself has many real, verified short and long term health risks associated with it.

I don't know why you think doing something to a woman's reproductive system is inherently dangerous to her overall health. Working at a cancer hospital, gynelogical cancer is very common and women have to have things removed all the time, an ovary, her uterus, etc. Now of course, any surgical procedure itself has risks - but that's from the surgery, not from the absense of the reproductive organ; and obviously if you say, have your uterus or both ovaries removed, you will lose your ability to bear children. But simply having one's uterus removed is like having one's tonsils removed. There aren't implications to a woman's overall health just because a non vital organ like an ovary has been removed (again, past the surgery and the time period right after the surgery when complications can arise).


Now contraception is another matter. There are health risks to contraceptions, and that's why my birth control comes with a long package insert that lists all the health consequences I risk by taking it. I am well informed of these risks but consider them worth not having an unplanned pregnancy.

Schrodinger's Cat, IF abortion and chemical contraception increases breast cancer,
does it matter to you even if it doesn't apply to you?

[JudeBrando]

That's why I find the China study interesting because China's a GREAT place to study abortion because there is a social license for it so more people have them and report them and manage their pregnancies.

Just a great amount of subjects to examine.

Inarguable, you would think...

So you do agree that it is worth study, right?

[BStrong]

I wonder why animosity toward God was your point twice?

It would seem that you are evidence of:

"Rebellion against God expresses itself in many ways. Promoting the intentional killing of innocent children who are made in His image and likeness is one of the strongest ways to show hatred toward God. This is why our godless culture is so pro-abortion that it will even sacrifice women to breast cancer on the the same altar on which they dismember unborn children."
http://americanrtl.org/cancer

catsmate1, do you hate God?

You can't hate something that doesn't exist.

[Resume]

Hey Jude:

How about women who spontaneously abort, otherwise known as miscarry? What's your little study say about them?

[Lowpro]

Who said anything about anything "conclusive"? Therefore what?

Do you even need to ask this question? Not that I appreciate you picking out from my post since it almost pretends that there was nothing else in there to give proper context or anything...


Point is your OP had bad data and they got caught. Rather than admit they suck at research they just clamor and say it's a cover-up. The data does not support their claim.

Sucks for them.

Inarguable, you would think...

So you do agree that it is worth study, right?


Worth doesn't matter anymore. Many studies were done and they show no positive link between breast cancer and abortion. The pet theory of the link between breast cancer and abortion isn't validated.

[Dinwar]

Dinwar, should potential causes of breast cancer be studied?Sure. We studied your claim, and found it to be wanting.

Dinwar, are there any potential causes of breast cancer that should not be studied? Depends on what you mean by "studied". If you mean "Should people waste vast resources and allow many, many women to die because they're chasing some idea that doesn't even include a plausible mechanism", I'd say that yes, there are potential causes that shouldn't be studied. I mean, the mere fact that someone said that something may have some impact on breast cancer isn't enough to justify diverting limited funds, supplies, and time to studying that thing--until it's at least plausible, as well as potential, we simply don't have the resources to devote to it. And I say this as a member of a family that's genetically susceptible to breast cancer, meaning that this is an issue that I take personally (my sisters WILL get it, and my daughters, if I should have them, WILL get it).

Now, since you've gotten Begging the Question and Equivocation out of your system, care to actually address my points? Or are you incapable of doing so? Your OP claims that abortion causes breast cancer. What is the causal connection? How did they factor age out of it? How did they factor socioeconomic factors out of it? How did they deal with spontaneous abortions? And so on. This is what we call "research"--someone made a claim, and we're evaluating it. If you don't like it, you don't want to do research, simple as that.

[catsmate1]

"Lies"?!

"Imposing"?!

Should a woman have a right to now?


Yes, lies. Distortions of dubious studies promulgated by people who know they're untrue or don't care to support their agenda.
I assume you mean "know"? No I don't support lying to people to persuade them to comply with your beliefs.

I note you haven't addressed my point about abortion being safer than pregnancy...............

[catsmate1]

I wonder why animosity toward God was your point twice?
Not toward your mythic god, just towards those who try to impose their beliefs on others using that god as an excuse.

It would seem that you are evidence of:

"Rebellion against God expresses itself in many ways. Promoting the intentional killing of innocent children who are made in His image and likeness is one of the strongest ways to show hatred toward God. This is why our godless culture is so pro-abortion that it will even sacrifice women to breast cancer on the the same altar on which they dismember unborn children."
http://americanrtl.org/cancer
More garbage from the god botherers.:rolleyes:
Why did your god design a reproductive system that aborts some many of the "innocent children"?

catsmate1, do you hate God?
Awwwwwww, isn't that cute, now he's parroting one of the standard lines used by the god botherers when faced with questions and facts they can't answer.

[catsmate1]

Said already by Catsmate1 but bears repeating, pregnancy is very dangerous for women. And for the most part currently, we've made great progress in treatment for breast cancer.
A quick google, while my players plan their landing on a plague ravaged planet, and some browsing of the US CDC data indicates:


The Maternal Mortality Ratio for the US is 13.3/100k [2006] and the trend is upward.
Data from the National Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System shows 10 deaths due to spontaneous abortion and 4 due to legal induced abortion. [Data for 1999, the latest year I could find]
Given 861,789 legal abortions performed that's a mortality rate of 0.46/100k legal abortions.

Now I know this is a gross oversimplification and doesn't account for non-fatal consequences but I find it interesting.

Now, I've a Traveller game to ref.:)

[JudeBrando]

Not toward your mythic god, just towards those who try to impose their beliefs on others using that god as an excuse.

More garbage from the god botherers.:rolleyes:
Why did your god design a reproductive system that aborts some many of the "innocent children"?

Awwwwwww, isn't that cute, now he's parroting one of the standard lines used by the god botherers when faced with questions and facts they can't answer.
You brought up God repeatedly. Obviously, you are the bothered one.

This is about examination into possible cause and effect... you know... science.

Are you against determining whether abortion increases chances for breast cancer? Do you not want to know? Do you not want others to know?

[Skeptic Ginger]

2.
Quote:
i realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it?You flatter yourself, Jude, if you think you are posting something that is valid science but politically incorrect. You only post the latter.

[Dinwar]

This is about examination into possible cause and effect... you know... science.First, what you're objecting to is an examination and evaluation of a causal connection. You've stated that there is one, and we've pointed out numerous objections, which you've ignored--thus, pretending to want to examine possible cause and effect is facetious at best.

Second, examination of causal mechanisms is fine--AFTER you've established that there's some causal connection. While your studies seem to point in that direction, an examination of the broader literature, referenced several times in this thread, reveals that the trend is merely a statistical artifact at best (you CAN get spurious correlations, such as the inverse relationship between global temperatures and pirates through time), and at worst a distortion of the data. You can't claim to do science, and then ignore the parts you don't like.

[Resume]

Hey Jude:

I believe you initiated a thread asking atheists if they cared about slavery other than that depicted in the bible.

Jude, would you care a whit about breast cancer in women if you hadn't run across this "study?"

[catsmate1]

Hey Jude:

I believe you initiated a thread asking atheists if they cared about slavery other than that depicted in the bible.

Jude, would you care a whit about breast cancer in women if you hadn't run across this "study?"
Of course not. He and the rest of the god botherers don't care about women, they only care about their beliefs and imposing them on others; any excuse, spurious health risk or otherwise will do.

[catsmate1]

You brought up God repeatedly. Obviously, you are the bothered one.
As I have already corrected you on this I can only conclude that you are deliberately lying.

This is about examination into possible cause and effect... you know... science.
Yes. Though before looking for a link you might want to see if there is a correlation.

Are you against determining whether abortion increases chances for breast cancer? Do you not want to know? Do you not want others to know?
There have been a number of studies; alas for those (like you and those you parrot) who try and use them to restrict access to safe, legal, abortion they don't support you.
Hence the cherry picking by you and the other god botherers from one dubious study.:rolleyes:


So JB, as you're apparently so concerned with the health of women you'll have no problem agreeing that they should have easy access to safe and legal termination services? After all the science says that termination is far safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Schrodinger's Cat, IF abortion and chemical contraception increases breast cancer,
does it matter to you even if it doesn't apply to you?

1. it would apply to me, because I take birth control. And it would depend on what the risk factor is. Birth control already has potentially deadly side effects, but I take it anyways because the tiny risk of side effects is worth the 99% chance I do not get pregnant when I do not want to.

2. But of course, if there is a link, women should be informed, just like we are currently informed about risks of birth control, and what the risk factors are. As birth control affects hormone levels and is distributed throughout the body, it has much more implications on a woman's overall health than abortion, which is a localized surgical procedure. there has been a lot of studies related to the link between cancer and contraception. There has been some evidence that it may slightly increase the risk of certain cancers, and actually decrease the risk of certain kinds of other cancers. But research is still being done on this as various long range and widely sampled studies have contradicted themselves, one study may show a slightly increased risk, but another did not. In any event, the risk, if real, is so slight as to not impact my decision to use contraception. The fact is that if there is a risk, it is so slight that despite being studied thoroughly for decades, a conclusive correlation has yet to be established.

The abortion/breast cancer link claim has also been investigated, and has been found to have no scientific basis. The fact that you can find a couple random scientists in the world doesn't impress me anymore than the fact than I could find even more who say that homeopathy works. This claim has been looked into, and there has not been found to be any merit to it. So IF abortion caused breast cancer, yeah, women should know the risk. And they should be told the risk of miscarriage as well (and thus pregnancy). But evidence shows there is not. Extensive, exhaustive research into the abortion/breast cancer link since the 50s, it, unlike contraception studies which show a possible slightly increased risk, there has been no evidence that abortion leads to even a slightly increased risk. The charge of a scientific cover up doesn't make any sense. If they were covering it up, why wouldn't they also cover up evidence which has surfaced regarding the link between contraception and cancers? You would also need to provide evidence of this very serious charge.


3. Your thread is primarily about abortion, not birth control. As I've already said, if abortion causes breast cancer, then miscarriages cause cancer, and you should in fact be warning women to not get pregnant at all, not just "don't have an abortion." The fact that you are not making threads telling women that pregnancy can result in breast cancer shows you don't give a crap about women getting cancer, you're just looking for a little agenda pushing. You don't care about informing women of anything or your thread title would have been "pregnancy can cause breast cancer." Of course, if abortion did carry a breast cancer risk, women should be informed of it. But if abortion causes cancer, miscarriages cause cancer, and women should be warned that this is a risk of getting pregnant, period, regardless of whether or not you have an abortion. The fact that you are not warning women about the breast cancer risk of pregnancy shows me even you don't believe this garbage. But I certainly am not going to peddle unscientific, agenda ridden tripe posted by a man who doesn't even know what breasts are.

4.You think breasts are part of the reproductive system. You have posted this not once, but three times. You do not even know what breasts are, where they are, or what their function is.

The fact that you are this shockingly ignorant about basic biology means that you are in no position to be able to correctly weigh the merits or interpret the results of any scientific or medical study. Yet you still feel entitled to dole out medical device despite the fact you have the scientific and anatomical know how of a small child. This is extremely irresponsible. Shame on you.


Forgive me if I believe the top breast cancer scientists in the world over a man who doesn't know what breasts are.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

deleted, duplicate posts

But as you have now posted three times that

could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

I feel compelled to let you know, for the third time as well.

BREASTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY PART OF THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. BREASTS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN PROCREATION. YOU DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN'S BREASTS TO CAUSE IMPREGNATION, NOR DO THE BREASTS RELEASE ANY SORT OF CHEMICAL OR MECHANISM NECESSARY FOR PREGNANCY TO OCCUR.

Here is a web page with diagram (it is meant for children, so easy to understand) of a woman's reproductive system. Notice breasts are not on it.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/female_reproductive_system.html

[Travis]

Studying possible evidences of other cancers that have been greatly increasing in our lifetimes "wouldn't matter" either, Travis?

It wouldn't matter as a point of policy.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Dinwar, should potential causes of breast cancer be studied?

Dinwar, are there any potential causes of breast cancer that should not be studied?

They have been studied already. Exhaustively. No link between abortion and breast cancer was found. Stop acting like this is something that has not already been studied when it has been studied by every major cancer research agency since the 50s. It has been studied and no link was found. The fact that you don't like the conclusions of the research does not mean you get to dishonestly act like this research has yet to be performed, that the cancer agencies are somehow suppressing such research from being done. Of course women deserve to have this information, if it existed. This is why so much research has gone into this subject, so that women could be informed if such a link was found. It simply never was. You have one researcher at the NCI whose work is published on right to life websites. On the other side: every top breast cancer research center, hospital, and charity.

"In four countries - England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark - a social gradient has been discovered (unlike that for other cancers) whereby upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer than lower class women. This was studied in Finland and Denmark and the influence of known risk factors other than abortion was examined, but the gradient was not explained.

Carroll suggests that the known preference for abortion in this class might explain the phenomenon. Women pursuing higher educations and professional careers often delay marriage and childbearing. "

Exactly. There is in fact a link between having your first child late in life and breast cancer. Upper class and upwardly mobile women, on average, have children later in life than lower class women. Thus, an increased risk of breast cancer. Exhaustive studies have not shown a difference in risk between women who have their first child late in life and who also have had prior abortions, and those who have never had an abortion.

[JudeBrando]

BREASTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY PART OF THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. BREASTS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN PROCREATION. YOU DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN'S BREASTS TO CAUSE IMPREGNATION, NOR DO THE BREASTS RELEASE ANY SORT OF CHEMICAL OR MECHANISM NECESSARY FOR PREGNANCY TO OCCUR.


Schrodinger's Cat,
Duh, fine. Great point. Female parts. Are you happy now?

[JudeBrando]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-05-21/news/0105210208_1_breast-cancer-abortion-business-abortion-industry

"Why all the silence about abortion and breast cancer?"
May 21, 2001

"How long will this nation sit by as a powerful, well-funded industry continues to expose women to the No. 1 preventable risk of breast cancer?

How long will the industry's political flunkies, who receive millions in campaign funds from this special interest, be allowed to turn a blind eye to a danger that kills thousands of women every year?

How long will a biased media keep silent in the face of a hazard that directly imperils more than 1 million women a year?

No, I'm not talking about the chemical industry, daily poisoning the environment with its toxins. Nor the producers of fatty food or alcohol, also factors suspected of increasing breast cancer.

The industry I'm talking about is the abortion business--consisting of abortion "providers," their clinics, ideological supporters, grant-giving foundations and the rest of the political power structure that refuses to even admit that a scientific debate, let along scientific evidence, exists about the dangers of induced abortions. They--despite their claims of superior benevolence and compassion--are threatening thousands of women's lives with an unspeakably painful disease."

"...Twenty-seven out of 34 independent studies conducted throughout the world (including 13 out of 14 conducted in the United States) have linked abortion and breast cancer. Seventeen of these studies show a statistically significant relationship. Five show more than a two-fold elevation of risk. In turn, the abortion industry says all those studies are trumped by one study, whose methodology, critics say, is seriously flawed."

[JudeBrando]

"The exhaustive work of Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examined the possible linkage between abortion and breast cancer. Funded by the National Cancer Institute and directed by a woman who describes herself as "Pro-choice," the study can hardly stand accused of coming at the issue with a pro-life tilt."

Dr. Daling's "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion"

On 2 November 1994 Dr. Daling and fellow researchers published an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (pp. 1584-1592) concerning induced abortion and breast cancer risk for premenopausal women. Some key findings:

Women under age 18 who had an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 150%.
Women of age 30 and above who aborted a first pregnancy increase their breast cancer risk by 110%.
Overall, women who have an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 50%."

"Daling et. al.'s conclusion that a spontaneous abortion -- a miscarriage -- does not heighten the risk, putting the emphasis back where it belongs, on induced abortion.

"The demonstration that the risk of developing breast cancer increased after an induced abortion, regardless of how old the mother was at the time of the abortion, how old the unborn child was, or whether the woman had given birth before."

"Being pro-choice didn't shield Darling from the usual attacks. She fought back. "If politics gets involved in science," she then told the Los Angeles Daily News, "it will really hold back the progress that we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. "I would liked to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of what is."

http://www.etters.net/cancerTP.htm

[Safe-Keeper]

Jude, is there any chance you may put all your points in one single post

[Safe-Keeper]

instead of making several consecutive ones?

[Safe-Keeper]

It gets really hard to read and takes up a lot of space otherwise,
ETA: and there is such a thing as the Edit button.

[catsmate1]

<much distortion and kookery snipped>
The ramblings of an anti-abortion nut quoting from that well known pseudo-journal, the grandiosely named "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Which isn't listed as a peer-reviewed by PubMed, and also publishes AGW denialist rubbish, anti-vaccination (http://forums.randi.org/tterly%20toxic%20brew%20of%20bad%20science%20and%2 0extreme%20ideology.) nonsense (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/03/the_geiers_go_dumpsterdiving_y_1.php) and similarly ideologically distorted pseudo-science.:rolleyes:

Really JB is quoting second hand from that toxic mix of bad science and extreme ideology (http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/strange-bedfellows) the best you can do? Can you find no real science to support your claims?
No, of course you can't. All you've got is the god botherer script.:rolleyes:
Pathetic.

Now, as for Janet Daling's study (which was 17 years ago remember) let me quote from something from this millennium, the ACS report on breast cancer [2010]:
There are also persistent claims that women who have had an abortion are at an increased risk for developing breast cancer; however, there is a large body of solid scientific evidence refuting this hypothesis. A review by a panel of experts convened by the National Cancer Institute concluded that there is no association between medical abortion and developing breast cancer. Subsequent to that review, results of a study that followed more than 100,000 nurses from 1993 to 2003 also found no link to a previous abortion, either spontaneous or induced.Or how about the US National Cancer Institute? Their take is:
Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.From the 'Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk factsheet' (link (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage)) and the Summary Report of the Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop (link (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/ere/workshop-report))

So, again you're promulgating obsolete nonsense; the only people quoting that 1994 study are those with an anti-abortion agenda.



I also note you haven't responded to my query at the end of post 46 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7694489#post7694489); I'll quote it for you:

So JB, as you're apparently so concerned with the health of women you'll have no problem agreeing that they should have easy access to safe and legal termination services? After all the science says that termination is far safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

[Lowpro]

I thought that Jude also posted assertions from Brinton that the ACS/NIH/NCI were just ignoring Daling's study. I looked for Daling's study but even in subsequent studies she says:

The second larger study Daling conducted in 1996 (1,302/1,180 ABC cases/controls) found that abortion was associated with a relative risk value of 1.2 (1.0 – 1.5).[16] The study also found a significant relative risk of 2.0 (1.2 – 3.3) for nulliparous women with an induced abortion at less than 8 weeks gestation. Daling et al. concluded that:
“ There was no excess risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion among parous women. These data support the hypothesis that there may be a small increase in the risk of breast cancer related to a history of induced abortion among young women of reproductive age. However, the data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time; neither do the collective results of the studies suggest that there is a subgroup of women in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually high.[16]

Since then there have been other studies, particularly the Shanghai study which has a higher success rate at removing response bias and it didn't find a causal link between breast cancer and induced abortion. There have been no causal link between miscarriages and breast cancer either.

Jude, honestly I think you're just linking angry shouting from dissenters, not people interested in facts.

HOWEVER I personally want to know more about these immature cell's and breast cancer rates. I'd think it interesting if the hypothesis were true, though it doesn't seem to be. I'd have to say that I'd rather see the molecular studies rather than populations because the population studies gave us good data. That said I want to know the physiology of the cells and why they'd be more prone to cancer, what happens to them after abortion, and why if we expect to see cancer from them we don't as the population studies suggest. As far as these studies go Jude the anti-abortion side won't win with them.

[JudeBrando]

As far as these studies go Jude the anti-abortion side won't win with them.

"The anti-abortion side" won't "win."

[JudeBrando]

Of course not. He and the rest of the god botherers don't care about women, they only care about their beliefs and imposing them on others; any excuse, spurious health risk or otherwise will do.

I happen to think it would be better if millions of babies did not die from abortions and if millions of women did not die from breast cancer.

Judging by the tone of your every post to me, I guess that makes me a bad guy to you.

[Lowpro]

"The anti-abortion side" won't "win."

Don't you think so? Even you can tell that trying to push a political agenda using faulty evidence won't help your agenda succeed. Look at the YEC's and believers who can't make history rewrite itself so they can stroke themselves with their pet theories.

Aren't you sickened with how far anti-abortionists are willing to use scare tactics to deny reproductive rights to women? Screw their religious preferences for a second, but anti-abortionists care more that their agenda is ratified in our laws and our social contract that they'll use cancer and scare tactics to make it happen.

That's sick, and I don't believe for a second that you'd sink as low as them Jude, you're better than that.

[JudeBrando]

"Dr. Chris Kahlenborn specializes in internal medicine and practices in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Dr. Kahlenborn has studied the epidemiology of breast cancer in relation to abortion and oral contraceptives for the past six years and has lectured in Canada, Russia, the Philippines, and China, in addition to testifying before the FDA. He writes and speaks extensively in the areas of breast cancer, with its links to Abortion and the pill; artificial contraception; In-Vitro fertilization; and the Chickenpox vaccine. His new book, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Brith Control Pill, is available from One More Soul [www.OMSoul.com]."

Contact: Kahlenborn@aol.com

"Breast cancer: its link to abortion and the birth control pill"
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_20ebookbreastcancer.html

http://www.lifeissues.net/writer.php?ID=kah

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/abckahl.htm


catsmate1, why don't you send him a note? Obviously you are more of an expert than he is...

[JudeBrando]

"The link between abortion and cancer part 1-3"

vmH9k_exdks
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At5QEFaFQTY&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAab2-7cuq4&feature=related

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Schrodinger's Cat,
Duh, fine. Great point. Female parts. Are you happy now?

No. Not happy. Knowing that someone as ignorant as you actually exists, and thinks something that ignorant is so clever that he posted it three time actually has depressed me even more than your evolution thread depressed me where you promoted the view of a man who actually appeared to be mentally impaired. It actually emotionally disturbs me people as uneducated as you are doing things like voting and effecting the lives of other people.

You are terrifying to me as a human being.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

"The link between abortion and cancer part 1-3"

vmH9k_exdks
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At5QEFaFQTY&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAab2-7cuq4&feature=related

Again, I could find a few doctors in the world who claim ANYTHING. I could find doctors who claim that cancer doesn't even exist (yes, such doctors do exists). I could find doctors who say that AIDS doesn't exist. Give me the internet and I could find you doctors around the world claiming anything.

The research has been done on a wide scale, over the course of decades, involving the top breast cancer researchers and doctors in the world. A link was not found. The claims by the doctors you have posted have been investigated. They were found to be false.

Now certainly, if new information were to come to light, it should be investigated and women should be informed of any risks, however small the risk factor is. But the claims you have bandied about here have been thoroughly investigated and found to not be supported by evidence.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I happen to think it would be better if millions of babies did not die from abortions and if millions of women did not die from breast cancer.


No you don't, because you did not start a thread warning women that miscarriage and abortion cause breast cancer, only abortion.

I also don't see any other threads by you about other things that increase cancer risks.

And forgive me if I doubt that a man who doesn't know what breasts are and has to be informed (more than once before it sinks in, at that) actually has a personal interest in and has put a lot of effort into researching breast cancer.

You don't care about breast cancer, you only care about abortion.

And by the way, I'm not even pro choice (if you don't believe me, i have stated this in my posting history elsewhere on JREF)


I just hate pseudoscience and liars. Especially people who lie about medical issues. I think they are some of the worst people in the world.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

"Dr. Chris Kahlenborn specializes in internal medicine and practices in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Dr. Kahlenborn has studied the epidemiology of breast cancer in relation to abortion and oral contraceptives for the past six years and has lectured in Canada, Russia, the Philippines, and China, in addition to testifying before the FDA. He writes and speaks extensively in the areas of breast cancer, with its links to Abortion and the pill; artificial contraception; In-Vitro fertilization; and the Chickenpox vaccine. His new book, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Brith Control Pill, is available from One More Soul [www.OMSoul.com]."

Contact: Kahlenborn@aol.com

"Breast cancer: its link to abortion and the birth control pill"
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_20ebookbreastcancer.html

http://www.lifeissues.net/writer.php?ID=kah

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/abckahl.htm


catsmate1, why don't you send him a note? Obviously you are more of an expert than he is...

Actually, this guy is hardly an expert. I work at one of the top cancer research facilities in the world and I looked into this guy. He is not a trained oncologist or oncological researcher and has done none of his own research. He is an internist (which means he is non specialised and is "only" a general practitioner) who bases his unsubstantiated breast cancer opinions off of reading the papers of other doctors, he then peddled his opinion in a book. He had not been published in medical journals and his work has not been accepted by any cancer groups because he has zero credentials in oncology.


What's next Jude, are you going to post studies about gastrointestinal cancer...written by an opthamologist?

This is why you can only have pro life web pages to reference him. He has not done any of his own research and isn't even trained in hematology/oncology/gynecology. In the medical oncology community, he is a non entity.

And this is your "expert?"

"The exhaustive work of Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examined the possible linkage between abortion and breast cancer. Funded by the National Cancer Institute and directed by a woman who describes herself as "Pro-choice," the study can hardly stand accused of coming at the issue with a pro-life tilt."

Dr. Daling's "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion"

On 2 November 1994 Dr. Daling and fellow researchers published an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (pp. 1584-1592) concerning induced abortion and breast cancer risk for premenopausal women. Some key findings:

Women under age 18 who had an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 150%.
Women of age 30 and above who aborted a first pregnancy increase their breast cancer risk by 110%.
Overall, women who have an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 50%."

"Daling et. al.'s conclusion that a spontaneous abortion -- a miscarriage -- does not heighten the risk, putting the emphasis back where it belongs, on induced abortion.

"The demonstration that the risk of developing breast cancer increased after an induced abortion, regardless of how old the mother was at the time of the abortion, how old the unborn child was, or whether the woman had given birth before."

"Being pro-choice didn't shield Darling from the usual attacks. She fought back. "If politics gets involved in science," she then told the Los Angeles Daily News, "it will really hold back the progress that we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. "I would liked to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of what is."

http://www.etters.net/cancerTP.htm

Her study consisted of 12 patients. 12. Small sample sizes, while they may be cause for further investigation, are not considered appropriate for making medical claims. Other studies which were much more widespread, and involved thousands upon thousands of women world wide did not produce the same results as her sample size of 12.

In fact, even Dr Daling admitted the limitations in her study and pointed out that other studies have not supported her hypothesis, stating in the conclusion:

Our data support the hypothesis that an induced abortion can adversely influence a woman's subsequent risk of breast cancer. However, the results across all epidemiologic studies of this premise are inconsistent - both overall and within specific subgroups. The risk of breast cancer should be re-examined in future studies of women who have had legal abortion available to them throughout the majority of their reproductive years, with particular attention to the potential influence of induced abortion early in life

In fact, follow up studies were done by Daling's employer, the NCI, following her study. One in 2003 (which was far more extensive, and widespread and combined the work of over 100 of the world's top breast cancer reasearch). These follow up studies did not support the hypothesis from Daling's very limited research.

Tell me Jude, do you have any concept of scientific integrity? Because right now you've lied and called a GP an oncology expert, and you've also lied by omission by referencing Daling's work while neglecting to mention that even she admitted her work was not conclusive and only warranted further study, and that follow up studies that she recommended did not support her claims.

As for contraception/breast cancer link, that has far more evidence and is still being investigated as studies have been contradictory on whether or not there is a link. There are also other cancers (like liver cancer) which contraception may raise the risk for. This information, as well as the other risks contraceptions are known or suspected to have, is available to women, allowing them to make an informed decision on whether or not various kinds of contraceptions are right for them. For instance, I choose the nuva ring as my contraception method because as it is inserted directly into the vagina, it has a smaller hormonal release than, say, oral contraception, and thus my risk of side effect is decreased. Many women do not like the ring because they are put off by the insertion process, but for me, the ick factor is outweighed by the reduced risk (this is also why the nuva ring, last time I checked anyways, was the #1 form of birth control used by women health care professionals themselves).

[catsmate1]

I happen to think it would be better if millions of babies did not die from abortions and if millions of women did not die from breast cancer.

Judging by the tone of your every post to me, I guess that makes me a bad guy to you.
"Babies":rolleyes:
And you're still linking abortion with breast cancer, despite being shown there is no evidence of any link. That makes you a bad guy, someone who'll lie to women and endanger their health because of his opinions.



<biased nonsense from a fundie nut on anti-abortion sites snipped>

So the NCI, ACS, NIH et al are wrong and one anti-abortion/anti-contraception fundamentalist Catholic activist with no specific training in oncology, epidemiology or endocrinology is correct? Let's see his data.

Let me quote, again, from the ACS report on breast cancer [2010]:
There are also persistent claims that women who have had an abortion are at an increased risk for developing breast cancer; however, there is a large body of solid scientific evidence refuting this hypothesis. A review by a panel of experts convened by the National Cancer Institute concluded that there is no association between medical abortion and developing breast cancer. Subsequent to that review, results of a study that followed more than 100,000 nurses from 1993 to 2003 also found no link to a previous abortion, either spontaneous or induced. Or how about the US National Cancer Institute again? Their take is:
Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk. From the 'Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk factsheet' (link (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage)) and the Summary Report of the Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop (link (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/ere/workshop-report))


<snip>
Argument from YouTube?:rolleyes: How about some data?

[catsmate1]

No you don't, because you did not start a thread warning women that miscarriage and abortion cause breast cancer, only abortion.

I also don't see any other threads by you about other things that increase cancer risks.

And forgive me if I doubt that a man who doesn't know what breasts are and has to be informed (more than once before it sinks in, at that) actually has a personal interest in and has put a lot of effort into researching breast cancer.

You don't care about breast cancer, you only care about abortion.

And by the way, I'm not even pro choice (if you don't believe me, i have stated this in my posting history elsewhere on JREF)


I just hate pseudoscience and liars. Especially people who lie about medical issues. I think they are some of the worst people in the world.
Well said.

[JudeBrando]

Her study consisted of 12 patients. 12. Small sample sizes, while they may be cause for further investigation, are not considered appropriate for making medical claims. Other studies which were much more widespread, and involved thousands upon thousands of women world wide did not produce the same results as her sample size of 12.


"A number of factors contributed to making Dr. Daling's "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion" a cross-roads in the debate over whether abortion increases a woman's chance of contracting breast cancer. These significant factors include:

1. The size of the study (1,806 women -- 845 women who had breast cancer were compared with a "control" group of 961 women who did not);

2. It’s thoroughness -- women were interviewed one-on-one in their homes for two hours;

3. Daling et. al.'s conclusion that a spontaneous abortion -- a miscarriage -- does not heighten the risk, putting the emphasis back where it belongs, on induced abortion.

4. The demonstration that the risk of developing breast cancer increased after an induced abortion, regardless of how old the mother was at the time of the abortion, how old the unborn child was, or whether the woman had given birth before.

But the Daling study contained even more frightening results, largely ignored by the media. If a woman had obtained her first abortion after age 30, her risk jumped by 110 percent. And if she had her first abortion before she turned 18, the likelihood of having breast cancer increased by 150 percent.
Worse yet, if she has a family history (mother, sister, aunt) of breast cancer and had a first abortion after age 30, her risk went up by 270 percent.
Most ominous of all were the results for women who had had an abortion before age 18 and who also had a family history of breast cancer. Twelve women in the Daling study fit that description. Every one of them had breast cancer!"

http://www.etters.net/cancerTP.htm#6

[JudeBrando]

Argument from YouTube?:rolleyes: How about some data?


Not even slightly surprisingly, apparently you dismissed the doctors themselves giving data without even watching because you want not to know.

At5QEFaFQTY


"Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon in private practice in Bound Brook, NJ. A 1975 graduate of the Georgetown School of Medicine, she is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and certified by the American Board of Surgery. She is a member of the Professional Advisory Committee for the Wellness Community of Central New Jersey, the Somerset County Cancer Coalition and on the Expert Advisory Panel for the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. She is surgical co-director of the sanofi-aventis Breast Care Program at the Steeplechase Cancer Center in Somerville, NJ."

"Dr. Joel Brind is a Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York. A graduate of Yale, he received his Ph.D. from New York University in 1981. He is a biochemist who has specialized in reproductive steroid hormones, such as estrogen, and their links to human disease, since 1972. He has an international reputation as a breast cancer researcher and is widely published in medical journals. He was a member of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2003 to 2006."

http://www.bcpinstitute.org/booklet4.htm

[Foster Zygote]

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/feathated

""My goal," says Joel Brind, "is to expose the linkage between abortion and breast cancer in the public mind. When women realize this is something that's dangerous to women, who's going to choose it?""


""Within a few days after pregnancy, the corpus luteum, which is in a woman's ovary, begins to secrete large quantities of a number of hormones," Brind told the crowded courtroom. One of those chemicals, estrogen, makes the breasts grow in preparation for nursing. In the early months of a first pregnancy, "the breasts may be adult size, but the tissue is rather primitive. In other words, it's not specialized for producing milk. It's mostly able just to grow, to proliferate." Later in the pregnancy, he said, the growth switch clicks off, and those cells differentiate into mature, milk-producing cells.

"Now, primitive cells, because they're programmed to grow, are more likely to be sensitive to carcinogenic stimuli," Brind said. If a woman has an abortion, she's left with a large number of these immature cells lining her breast ducts, and she is therefore more vulnerable to cancer down the road—30 percent more vulnerable, Brind says, than a woman who has never had an abortion.

This, the endocrinologist believes, is a terrible truth that the medical establishment—including the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization—has tried to keep from the public."

"Women Have a Right to Know,"

"Brind reserves his harshest words for groups such as the National Cancer Institute, which until its recent equivocation spent almost a decade reassuring the public that abortion appeared not to trigger breast cancer. Brind has charged scientists and staff there with engaging in "a miscarriage of scientific justice" and a "cover-up" of the truth."

You forgot to quote this part of the article:

There's only one thing wrong with this picture: The vast majority of epidemiologists say Brind's conclusions are dead wrong. They say he conducted an unsound analysis based on incomplete data and drew conclusions that meshed with his own pro-life views. They say that epidemiology, the study of diseases in populations, is an inexact science that requires practitioners to look critically at their own work, searching for factors that might corrupt the results and drawing conclusions only when they see strong and consistent evidence. "Circumspection, unfortunately, is what you have to do to practice epidemiology," says Polly Newcomb, a researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. "That's something Brind is incapable of doing. He has such a strong prior belief in the association [between abortion and cancer] that he just can't evaluate the data critically."
For Newcomb and many others, Brind's crusade highlights challenges that face those who are trying to understand the origins of diseases like cancer, where there isn't necessarily a straight line from A to Z. The crusade also serves as a warning about what happens when politics drives science. For laypeople who are trying to make sense of scientific controversies, it's a reminder of why it's important to study the research itself rather than simply trust the pronouncements of experts.

So you've provided a few links to anti-abortion sources and ignored the consensus of evidence from the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I see no reason to conclude that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer based on the information that you have presented.

[Foster Zygote]

Who said anything about anything "conclusive"? Therefore what?

Inconclusive evidence is good enough for you then? Did you read any of the links Lowpro provided in that post?

[Dinwar]

Inconclusive evidence is good enough for you then? Given his ideas on how to handle paleontological resources, I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of JB's view of evidence: Anything that supports his possition is right, anything else is wrong, and the quality of the evidence isn't a factor.

[catsmate1]

"A number of factors contributed to making Dr. Daling's "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion" a cross-roads in the debate over whether abortion increases a woman's chance of contracting breast cancer.
That would be the study Daling said didn't support that conclusion?
There was no excess risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion among parous women. These data support the hypothesis that there may be a small increase in the risk of breast cancer related to a history of induced abortion among young women of reproductive age. However, the data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time; neither do the collective results of the studies suggest that there is a subgroup of women in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually high.
Since then larger and better studies, which I've quoted from and linked to, show there is no correlation.

Why are you continuing to lie about this? Why do you distort facts and try to endanger women?

[catsmate1]

Not even slightly surprisingly, apparently you dismissed the doctors themselves giving data without even watching because you want not to know.
Awww..... I seem to have annoyed you by posting facts that contradict your beliefs.


"Dr. Joel Brind is a Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York. A graduate of Yale, he received his Ph.D. from New York University in 1981. He is a biochemist who has specialized in reproductive steroid hormones, such as estrogen, and their links to human disease, since 1972. He has an international reputation as a breast cancer researcher and is widely published in medical journals. He was a member of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2003 to 2006."

Brind is, again, an anti-abortion activist and "born again" xian; he's acted as an expert witness for anti-abortion groups. He is a very biased source.
The vast majority of epidemiologists say Brind's conclusions are utterly wrong. His "study", a meta-analysis, has been criticised for gross election bias; using studies with widely varying results, using different types of studies and not working with the raw data from several studies, and including studies that have methodological weaknesses. Brind has also been shown to exaggerate his findings, even his own research shows an increase in breast cancer rates that is barely statistically significant and well within the bounds of error.

"Circumspection, unfortunately, is what you have to do to practice epidemiology. That's something Brind is incapable of doing. He has such a strong prior belief in the association [between abortion and cancer] that he just can't evaluate the data critically."
Polly Newcomb is a researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Here's what the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health said in response to his "research":
However, in the light of recent unease about appropriate but open communication of risks associated with oral contraceptive pills, it will surely be agreed that open discussion of risks is vital and must include the people – in this case the women – concerned. I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called 'pro-choice', you need at the same time to have a view which might be called 'pro-information' without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data.

Perhaps you should peruse the articles in that journal for some less biased information? Or other peer reviewed sources.
I'd suggest you start with Melbye's paper; that study involved over 1.5 million women, over 42 years, with no response bias and excellent methodology. Alas for the anti-abortion crowd it found no correlation between abortion and breast cancer risk; perhaps that's why they never quote it, preferring small, older, more flawed and biased studies.......
You'll find in in the JAN1996 issue of NEJM.

While you're at it take a look at the Lindefors-Harris and Rookus and van Leeuwen studies of bias in studies of breast cancer and abortion links, you might begin to see why scientists consider Brinds work so poor.

"Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon in private practice in Bound Brook, NJ. A 1975 graduate of the Georgetown School of Medicine, she is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and certified by the American Board of Surgery. She is a member of the Professional Advisory Committee for the Wellness Community of Central New Jersey, the Somerset County Cancer Coalition and on the Expert Advisory Panel for the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. She is surgical co-director of the sanofi-aventis Breast Care Program at the Steeplechase Cancer Center in Somerville, NJ."
Another anti-abortion activist, heavily involved with Brind in his BCPI organisation. She hasn't presented any data either. Other have. These show no evidence of a link.

[catsmate1]

Given his ideas on how to handle paleontological resources, I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of JB's view of evidence: Anything that supports his possition is right, anything else is wrong, and the quality of the evidence isn't a factor.
Absolutely. He's so fixated on his beliefs that he can't handle reality when it contradicts them. He'll take an obsolete, small, poorly run, biased study over a superior one if it supports his existing beliefs. His quoting of Brind and is distorting of Daling's work shows this clearly.
Rather common with believers alas.

[MattusMaximus]

Schrodinger's Cat,
Duh, fine. Great point. Female parts. Are you happy now?

"Female parts" - wow. Jude cannot even bring himself to write the word "vagina" or anything related. I'm amazed he didn't refer to the female reproductive system as "naughty bits" :rolleyes:

Message to all the others in the thread:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_7747490a66cadb546.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14198)

[JudeBrando]

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?


"Why aren't women being told?"

"Considering the high incidence of breast cancer among American women, why are married women being encouraged to postpone their first full-term pregnancies and to reduce the size of their families? Why are abortifacients and abortions being foisted on women?"

"Breast cancer is the greatest cancer killer among American women between the ages of 20 and 59. The incidence of cancer climbed 40% in the last quarter of the 20th Century (since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States in 1973), while the incidence for all other cancers has either remained the same or declined. ["Breast Cancer Numbers Up, But US Cancer Deaths Drop," Reuters, June 5, 2001]"
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm

[Lowpro]

Jude I consider the increase is breast cancer to be directly attributed to your increasingly stupid topics. Now, I'm sure you can prove that my evidence doesn't support the theory, and neither does the evidence support abortions causing breast cancer.

[JudeBrando]

No studies? No research? Lies? Distortions? Trolling?!

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research/index.htm




Available Abstracts

On this page we provide you with the mounting evidence of the abortion/breast cancer link. All abstracts were obtained from The National Library of Medicine, an online medical research service. Please visit their site if you would like more information about these particular studies.

Lecture by Dr. Joel Brind on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link (click here)


Available Graphs

Abortion/Breast Cancer Risk Graphs (click here)

"Trends and Risk Factors in English Breast Cancer" (click here)
By Patrick Carroll
Director of Research
Pension and Population Research Institute
British Journal of Cancer, Vol 91 Supplement 1 July 2004 page S24
Presented at the British Cancer Research Meeting 2004 in Manchester

"Total Risk Increase" (click here)
Shows the effects of both breast cancer risks associated with abortion - delaying the birth of a first child and the independent link between abortion and breast cancer.

Full quote of webpage deleted as breach of Rule 4.

[JudeBrando]

Jude I consider the increase is breast cancer to be directly attributed to your increasingly stupid topics. Now, I'm sure you can prove that my evidence doesn't support the theory, and neither does the evidence support abortions causing breast cancer.

Are you capable of seriously answering the question and without personally insulting me?

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?

[JudeBrando]

Why are you continuing to lie about this? Why do you distort facts and try to endanger women?

YOU ARE THE LIAR.

I am quoting.

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?

[Lowpro]

I have no idea Jude; I don't study cancer. I know a little bit about the genes involved, but beyond the molecular genetics I won't be of much help. Luckily, there are people who DO study it. But the studies I read show that the link between abortion and breast cancer provide no link; at least nothing substantive. The ones you've posted have been either self refuted (Daling) or refuted by a better study (The shanghai study)

So, as for what causes the rise in breast cancer over 40 years? It ain't abortions, as far as studies go.

[JudeBrando]

I have no idea Jude; I don't study cancer. I know a little bit about the genes involved, but beyond the molecular genetics I won't be of much help. Luckily, there are people who DO study it. But the studies I read show that the link between abortion and breast cancer provide no link; at least nothing substantive. The ones you've posted have been either self refuted (Daling) or refuted by a better study (The shanghai study)

So, as for what causes the rise in breast cancer over 40 years? It ain't abortions, as far as studies go.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7699849&postcount=81

And thank you very much, Lowpro, for not insulting me yet again. I appreciate your kindness.

[Lowpro]

Two can play that game

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=222170

[JudeBrando]

TODAY

"Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Press Release

Contact: Karen Malec, 847-421-4000

Date: October 24, 2011

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Challenges CBS News, Health.com to Debate Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

CBS News and Health.com have damaged their credibility by publishing identical statements that falsely claim the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link is a myth. Therefore, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer challenges both organizations to debate the ABC link.

"We expect CBS News and Health.com to duck the challenge, just as other organizations have whose leaders would rather see women die of breast cancer than expose the truth that abortion is not safe," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. "After behaving like snipers, they cut and run. They should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/111024/index.htm

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/index.htm

[Robrob]

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?
Probably the same thing that has led to the dramatic increase in testicular caner, improved early diagnosis.

[catsmate1]

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?


"Why aren't women being told?"

"Considering the high incidence of breast cancer among American women, why are married women being encouraged to postpone their first full-term pregnancies and to reduce the size of their families? Why are abortifacients and abortions being foisted on women?"

"Breast cancer is the greatest cancer killer among American women between the ages of 20 and 59. The incidence of cancer climbed 40% in the last quarter of the 20th Century (since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States in 1973), while the incidence for all other cancers has either remained the same or declined. ["Breast Cancer Numbers Up, But US Cancer Deaths Drop," Reuters, June 5, 2001]"
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm
Gee more quote from an anti-abortion site.
Why not provide some evidence?

[Professor Yaffle]

YOU ARE THE LIAR.

I am quoting.

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?

Decreasing birth rate (and increasing age at first pregnancy) is probably one of the main factors. Its not abortions or birth control that are a factor, but the reduction in the amount of time women spend either pregnant or breastfeeding (and consequently an increase in the lifetime number of menstrual cycles) - both of which are protective against breast cancer. Also, increased use of HRT, increased alcohol consumption and increased obesity are probably factors.

[catsmate1]

No studies? No research? Lies? Distortions? Trolling?!

Yep. Quotes from a website that shares you anti-abortion agenda, inclduing a few studies with poor methodology, bias or small sample size padded with various papers that don't actually support the abortion/cancer link to give a sembelence of a scientific debate.
Rather pathetic but as there's no real science I suppose you've no alternative to making it up.
Unless you wanted to be honest about it...........

YOU ARE THE LIAR.
Nope. I'm not the one using dodgy studies, distortions and outright lies to push an agenda JB, that's you.


To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?
What "dramatic increase" is that? Looking at the SEER (http://seer.cancer.gov/statistics/index.html) data the increase is ~20%, easily explained by long-term changes in reproductive and other risk factors, introduction and prevalence of mammography screening, and use of hormones among postmenopausal women.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_162724ea6a043c197c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=24440)
I'd suggest you look at the data on that site and read the 'Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2007' rather than relying on ideologically driven polemics.

Further, I suggest you look at countries outside the USA (yes they do exist); examination of the breast cancer rates in countries with very different policies on abortion like Ireland and Denmark easily refut the anti-abortion lies you've been posting.

[catsmate1]

<snipped anti-abortion links>

Data please JB, not more lies and distortions from people peddling an ideological agenda.

[Dinwar]

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years? Quoting liers is still lying.

And how do you KNOW there's an increase in breast cancer? I mean, we've dramatically improved our ability to diagnose and detect it in the last 15 or 20 (saw the practical results of that myself, as various women in my family were diagnosed and treated through the years). 40+ years ago people were probably misdiagnosed--meaning people who had breast cancer were diagnosed with some other disease, artificially lowering your statistics.

There's also the fact that we live longer, puberty is starting at younger ages, changes in diet, etc. All your demand is, is the Post Hoc fallacy: Roe v. Wade happened about 40 years ago, cancer rates rose about 40 years ago, there MUST be a connection! And space ships poke holes in the atmosphere, leading to global warming.

[catsmate1]

Quoting liers is still lying.

And how do you KNOW there's an increase in breast cancer? I mean, we've dramatically improved our ability to diagnose and detect it in the last 15 or 20 (saw the practical results of that myself, as various women in my family were diagnosed and treated through the years). 40+ years ago people were probably misdiagnosed--meaning people who had breast cancer were diagnosed with some other disease, artificially lowering your statistics.

There's also the fact that we live longer, puberty is starting at younger ages, changes in diet, etc. All your demand is, is the Post Hoc fallacy: Roe v. Wade happened about 40 years ago, cancer rates rose about 40 years ago, there MUST be a connection! And space ships poke holes in the atmosphere, leading to global warming.
Exactly the SEER data shows an increase of ~20% in the period 1975 to 2008 when breast screening became far more common (leading to more diagnoses) and when other, genuine, risk factors became more common.
Of course the incidence rate of breast cancer in that period doesn't correlate well with the induced abortion rate either.
Now if this is compared to other countries, for example the Melbye study of 1.5 million women in Denmark from 1935 to 1978, it shows further evidence that induced abortion (prior to 18 weeks) is not a risk factor. This is further strengthened if you look at data from more countries.
For example in Ireland (where abortion is not available and women must travel to the UK) the cancer data (available here (http://www.ncri.ie)) and the abortion data (available, for example, here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-ireland.html) derived from UK DoH and EU CoE stats) show no correlation either.

[Safe-Keeper]

Um, can I point something out that I just realized?

Giving birth is incredibly dangerous, too.

So even if there is somehow a causual relationship between abortion and breat cancer, I'm almost willing to bet money it's still safer than carrying the fetus to term.

[catsmate1]

Um, can I point something out that I just realized?

Giving birth is incredibly dangerous, too.

So even if there is somehow a causual relationship between abortion and breat cancer, I'm almost willing to bet money it's still safer than carrying the fetus to term.
Ahem (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7694259#post7694259).
A quick google, while my players plan their landing on a plague ravaged planet, and some browsing of the US CDC data indicates:


The Maternal Mortality Ratio for the US is 13.3/100k [2006] and the trend is upward.
Data from the National Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System shows 10 deaths due to spontaneous abortion and 4 due to legal induced abortion. [Data for 1999, the latest year I could find]
Given 861,789 legal abortions performed that's a mortality rate of 0.46/100k legal abortions.

Now I know this is a gross oversimplification and doesn't account for non-fatal consequences but I find it interesting.Despite being reminded of it JB never responded to this data, instead he continued posting bits of the stock anti-abortion nonsense.

[excaza]

Probably the same thing that has led to the dramatic increase in testicular caner, improved early diagnosis.

Can't be, that's what they say is the reason for the rise in autism. Everyone knows that's caused by vaccines, therefore abortion causes cancer.

[catsmate1]

Can't be, that's what they say is the reason for the rise in autism. Everyone knows that's caused by vaccines, therefore abortion causes cancer.
Or smoking marijuana. Interestingly Janet Daling (yep, her again) authored a paper (http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2009/02/09/marijuana.html) on the connection in 2009.

[MattusMaximus]

YOU ARE THE LIAR.

I am quoting.

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?

Argument from ignorance.

Fail.

ETA: Allow me to illustrate the point further. It is obvious what is the cause of the supposed increase in breast cancer rates: the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the United States. We simply don't have a better explanation! [/sarcasm]

See how much fun arguments from ignorance can be? Anyone can play! :)

[JudeBrando]

Argument from ignorance.

Fail.

:)
Says you and you don't impress me either, teacher..

It's late, I'm tired, and I don't live here.

Don't mind me, I'm nobody, just passing through.

Argue amongst yourselves... about me...

when I am utterly and completely irrelevant... again.

Who gets the clue?

Goodnight.

:)

;)

[Lowpro]

MngGyN8Q294

[catsmate1]

Says you and you don't impress me either, teacher..

It's late, I'm tired, and I don't live here.

Don't mind me, I'm nobody, just passing through.

Argue amongst yourselves... about me...

when I am utterly and completely irrelevant... again.

Who gets the clue?

Goodnight.

:)

;)

What, no more lies from anti-abortion websites to post? And no answers for the questions put to you?:rolleyes:

[Foster Zygote]

Says you and you don't impress me either, teacher..

It's late, I'm tired, and I don't live here.

Don't mind me, I'm nobody, just passing through.

Argue amongst yourselves... about me...

when I am utterly and completely irrelevant... again.

Who gets the clue?

Goodnight.

:)

;)

You have a habit of interpreting criticisms of your arguments as personal attacks and then leaving threads.

Mattus Maximus is correct: Your argument is not logically sound. You are implying that abortion is the only explanation for what you perceive to be an increase in the rate of cancer diagnosis (Did you see catsmate1's graph?). The problem is that you are assuming that the only possible explanation that you are personally aware of must be the correct one if (you assume) there are no other explanations available. It would be as if someone posited invisible gravity fairies as an explanation of the mechanism behind gravity and then asserted that this must be the correct explanation because physicists do not have an explanation of the mechanism behind gravity to offer as a counter example.

[MattusMaximus]

Says you and you don't impress me either, teacher..

It's late, I'm tired, and I don't live here.

Don't mind me, I'm nobody, just passing through.

Argue amongst yourselves... about me...

when I am utterly and completely irrelevant... again.

Who gets the clue?

Goodnight.

:)

;)

Somewhere there is a violin playing :rolleyes:

[catsmate1]

You have a habit of interpreting criticisms of your arguments as personal attacks and then leaving threads.
True.
Mattus Maximus is correct: Your argument is not logically sound. You are implying that abortion is the only explanation for what you perceive to be an increase in the rate of cancer diagnosis (Did you see catsmate1's graph?). The problem is that you are assuming that the only possible explanation that you are personally aware of must be the correct one if (you assume) there are no other explanations available. It would be as if someone posited invisible gravity fairies as an explanation of the mechanism behind gravity and then asserted that this must be the correct explanation because physicists do not have an explanation of the mechanism behind gravity to offer as a counter example.
I think JB simply can't handle or accept facts that contravene his worldview.
Because he believes something, whether it's the existence of the xian god, the evils of induced abortion, the falsity of evolution by natural selection or the flaws in radio-carbon dating, it must therefore be true. He just can't cope when his worldview is shown to be wrong.

Basically his faith is week but his ego is strong.

[AmandaM]

I'm confused how early diagnosis would change the rate of reported breast cancer cases. Change the death rate, yes -- but whether I was diagnosed at 30 or 40, wouldn't the numbers stay the same? Not arguing; just not understanding.

[Dinwar]

Your body can handle cancer, to a certain extent, and early detection can include catching tumors that otherwise would have gone away on their own

[Giordano]

I'm confused how early diagnosis would change the rate of reported breast cancer cases. Change the death rate, yes -- but whether I was diagnosed at 30 or 40, wouldn't the numbers stay the same? Not arguing; just not understanding.

For many small, slow growing cancers it is likely that you will die of something else before the cancer ever becomes a problem; therefore in the absence of early detection (or an autopsy) you would never know you had a cancer. This is central to the debate on prostate cancer: is it worth identifying and treating small prostate cancers that might remain relatively inert for decades until you die of heart disease? Or should you treat them immediately, even at risk of serious side effects? It is obvious there are no simple answers until we can fully understand which cancers, once detected, will stay inert for decades, and which ones will not. There are clues as to which are which, but no foolproof methods to distinguish the two yet.

[godless dave]

Are you capable of seriously answering the question and without personally insulting me?

To what do you ascribe the dramatic increase in breast cancer in the last forty years?

Much better early detection. It was only in the last forty years that women in the US were encouraged to do regular self-examinations.

[Professor Yaffle]

Much better early detection. It was only in the last forty years that women in the US were encouraged to do regular self-examinations.

The routine monthly self-examinations are no longer recommended in the UK. Rather they advise being "breast aware" - ie knowing what your breasts look and feel like throughout the monthly cycle and being generally aware of any changes you notice.

http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/breastawareness.html
http://www.cks.nhs.uk/breast_cancer_managing_fh/evidence/supporting_evidence/self_examination

[Foster Zygote]

The routine monthly self-examinations are no longer recommended in the UK. Rather they advise being "breast aware" - ie knowing what your breasts look and feel like throughout the monthly cycle and being generally aware of any changes you notice.

http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/breastawareness.html
http://www.cks.nhs.uk/breast_cancer_managing_fh/evidence/supporting_evidence/self_examination

I can't wait to tell Mrs. Zygote that I'm helping her by being "breast aware".

[Belz...]

Could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system?

I wasn't aware breasts were part of the reproductive system.

[Belz...]

You can't hate something that doesn't exist.

That's not quite true. I hate Rob Schneider's character in Judge Dredd.

[catsmate1]

The routine monthly self-examinations are no longer recommended in the UK. Rather they advise being "breast aware" - ie knowing what your breasts look and feel like throughout the monthly cycle and being generally aware of any changes you notice.

http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/breastawareness.html
http://www.cks.nhs.uk/breast_cancer_managing_fh/evidence/supporting_evidence/self_examination
The USAian view, from the ACS, is that self examination is somewhat useful:
Research has shown that BSE plays a small role in finding breast cancer compared with finding a breast lump by chance or simply being aware of what is normal for each woman.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now I see how Jude's repetitive themed posts go on so long. Interesting.

[AmandaM]

For many small, slow growing cancers it is likely that you will die of something else before the cancer ever becomes a problem; therefore in the absence of early detection (or an autopsy) you would never know you had a cancer. This is central to the debate on prostate cancer: is it worth identifying and treating small prostate cancers that might remain relatively inert for decades until you die of heart disease? Or should you treat them immediately, even at risk of serious side effects? It is obvious there are no simple answers until we can fully understand which cancers, once detected, will stay inert for decades, and which ones will not. There are clues as to which are which, but no foolproof methods to distinguish the two yet.

Ah, thank you :)

[Giordano]

Ah, thank you :)

My pleasure!

The idea of not intervening in a number of cancers makes sense medically. But it is really a bummer thinking, "Oh, no reason to bother with this tumor- I'm sure I'll die of a stroke or heart disease first." I miss feeling immortal, as I once did as a teenager.

[trvlr2]

]What would the possible mechanism be?[/HILITE] I mean, for chemically-induced abortion there's the chemicals, but is that any different from, say, a fetus being stillborn (often a hormonal thing)? And if it's a mechanical abortion technique how is there ANY causal connection between aboriton and breast cancer?

The idea is silly on the face of it. The fact that it's coming from someone with an axe to grind makes it that much worse.

Why, it's god's foaming, furious wrath!...Obviously.

[Robrob]

Could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

[catsmate1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
Don't encourage him; given that JB's posted on evolution in the past he might like that.:rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/reproductive-history

[catsmate1]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/reproductive-history

A few retrospective (case-control) studies reported in the mid-1990s suggested that induced abortion (the deliberate ending of a pregnancy) was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. However, these studies had important design limitations that could have affected the results. A key limitation was their reliance on self-reporting of medical history information by the study participants, which can introduce bias. Prospective studies, which are more rigorous in design and unaffected by such bias, have consistently shown no association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Moreover, in 2009, the Committee on Gynecologic Practice of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that “more rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk”I don't think JB will accept that, it contradicts his opinions.

[Robrob]

Prospective studies, which are more rigorous in design and unaffected by such bias, have consistently shown no association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
But will be ignored in favor of the earlier inaccurate studies by generations of wingnuts to come.

[catsmate1]

But will be ignored in favor of the earlier inaccurate studies by generations of wingnuts to come.
Indeed. They cling to one outlier study with poor design and a tiny sample because it suits them rather than accept the larger, better designed, later studies that don't support them.

BTW, as JB has returned to the forum I wonder will he be rejoining this thread?

[excaza]

Indeed. They cling to one outlier study with poor design and a tiny sample because it suits them rather than accept the larger, better designed, later studies that don't support them.

BTW, as JB has returned to the forum I wonder will he be rejoining this thread?

If he does, he's not going to read any of it and will instead focus on one cherrypicked post.

[catsmate1]

If he does, he's not going to read any of it and will instead focus on one cherrypicked post.
Just like his 14C obsession in the dinosaur bone thread.:rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

now I am not saying I agree with Jude

these are the two sources
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.full
"n analyses of all 897 breast cancer cases (subtypes combined), the multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for examined risk factors were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women (Table 1 ). Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion, and oral contraceptive use were associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. "

Now if you look at the table, it is hard for me to understand what the actual elevated risk was?

and the table here:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157/T1.expansion.html

It looks as though in the sample study, those who never had an abortion had cancer at 1% and those who did had cancer at 1.4%.

However given the low n for total sample, I am not sure if this is within replication error or not.

[JudeBrando]

Posted earlier:
At5QEFaFQTY
9:23

"Do you think that the abortion industry is setting themselves up for class-action lawsuits?"

"There have been two cases in the United States and the day that that jury was going to be picked the malpractice carrier and the clinic settled, and I think one of the reasons they don't want to go to trial on this issue is, just like I explained to you the abortion-breast cancer link, juries will get it."


"Can you sue your doctor for not telling you about the abortion breast cancer link?"
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Your_Rights.htm



It will probably take a large class-action lawsuit led by a brash young attorney or two on behalf of several and then many cancer-stricken women to breach the walls of the politically correct and entrenched edifice of defense around the sacrosanct and sacramental abortion altar.

If our nation and/or western culture survives long enough, it will be a big story, huge news, will make and break careers and fortunes, will be made into a movie, and will be a landmark moment in a pendulum swing of the evolution of a culture,

or more likely,

we will deliberately continue along our headlong plunge into the apocalypse...


...but I don't think catsmate1 will accept that, it contradicts her opinions.

[Lowpro]

See you in Hell then Jude!

[godless dave]

For such a lawsuit to be successful, they would have to find some evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer.

There isn't one.

[JudeBrando]

For such a lawsuit to be successful, they would have to find some evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer.

There isn't one.

Two cases now have settled rather than go to trial.

[Bram Kaandorp]

Two cases now have settled rather than go to trial.

Maybe to save the link-supporters the public embarrassment.

Or maybe they didn't settle at all.

In other words:

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Robrob]

Two cases now have settled rather than go to trial.

You do understand how the court works, right?

Settlement doesn't mean they are "guilty" or admit culpability. Settlement means it's cheaper to pay $X to someone rather than go to the expense of a trial.

[catsmate1]

For such a lawsuit to be successful, they would have to find some evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer.

There isn't one.
Exactly. The god-botherers will continue to push the non-existent link, and lie about it, because it helps their cause and certainly not because they are interested in the health of women.
It's easier and more acceptable to impose restrictions on access to abortion services because of some fictional health risk rather than their true reasons.

[JudeBrando]

You do understand how the court works, right?

Settlement doesn't mean they are "guilty" or admit culpability. Settlement means it's cheaper to pay $X to someone rather than go to the expense of a trial.

You do understand how the court works, right?

Settlement doesn't mean they are "innocent" or free from culpability. Settlement means it's cheaper to pay $X to someone rather than go to the expense of a trial and have a jury openly and publically call a great deal of attention to an inconvenient and extremely expensive truth.

[Bram Kaandorp]

Exactly. The god-botherers will continue to push the non-existent link, and lie about it, because it helps their cause and certainly not because they are interested in the health of women.
It's easier and more acceptable to impose restrictions on access to abortion services because of some fictional health risk rather than their true reasons.

If they were truly interested in the welfare of the woman, they'd try to find a way to reduce abortion-caused breast cancer, in stead of stopping abortion.

I mean, abortion can potentially save a woman's life in cases where child birth would be lethal.

So yes, it's very clear that they are only interested in controlling the uterus.

[catsmate1]

"There have been two cases in the United States and the day that that jury was going to be picked the malpractice carrier and the clinic settled, and I think one of the reasons they don't want to go to trial on this issue is, just like I explained to you the abortion-breast cancer link, juries will get it."
Irrelevant. Juries are easily duped by nonsense leading them to rule in direct contradiction to facts. Just look the the breast implant lawsuits..........



"Can you sue your doctor for not telling you about the abortion breast cancer link?"
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Your_Rights.htm

You can sue anyone for any reason. I wouldn't advise anyone to take advice from a bunch of anti-abortion nuts like Malec and her CWA cronies, who'll push their agenda regardless of facts or women's health. I have no doubt they'll embrace legal harassment and vexatious lawsuits if they think they'll help the 'cause'.

Isn't it interesting how all those pushing the 'link' are anti-abortion; what an odd coincidence; it couldn't be they're distorting facts to mesh with their beliefs, could it?

It will probably take a large class-action lawsuit led by a brash young attorney or two on behalf of several and then many cancer-stricken women to breach the walls of the politically correct and entrenched edifice of defense around the sacrosanct and sacramental abortion altar.
Oh I do like the way you're peppering your rants with religious imagery.
Alas what a court decides won't alter the utter lack of actual evidence linking induced abortion with increased risk of breast cancer.

If our nation and/or western culture survives long enough, it will be a big story, huge news, will make and break careers and fortunes, will be made into a movie, and will be a landmark moment in a pendulum swing of the evolution of a culture,

or more likely,

we will deliberately continue along our headlong plunge into the apocalypse...
Ah, the xian apocalyptic ravings; if you can't find evidence to support your case try play the doom and gloom card to cover the lack.

...but I don't think catsmate1 will accept that, it contradicts her opinions.
I've got facts, evidence, science and all those studies you refuse to read. Nor does xian nonsense interest me, I can handle reality quite well without the god botherer rubbish.

I notice you still are avoiding addressing my point about the relative safety of induced abortion in comparison to carrying a fetus to term.
If you really cared about women's health you wouldn't oppose access to abortion.

Oh, and you might want to correct your choice of pronoun.:rolleyes:

[catsmate1]

......... call a great deal of attention to an inconvenient and extremely expensive truth.
That's be a "truth" that mysteriously doesn't show up in actual studies, only in the imaginations of anti-abortion nuts with an agenda to push and people to exploit.

[Lowpro]

Maybe to save the link-supporters the public embarrassment.

Or maybe they didn't settle at all.

In other words:

Pics or it didn't happen.

He did actually in the http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Your_Rights.htm link.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050126/index.htm

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/031022/

It again is tainted with anti-abortion studies like Daling's though.

I like how the first settlement was in regards to psychological damages though, not just the ABC link. Something doesn't sit well with that prosecution, but they paid out 200,000 says this article (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3409)*

The issue again had to do with Daling's paper, which claims a link between first time pregnancy abortions and an increase in breast cancer. Also the issue is that this Daling paper purports the link of a family with a history of breast cancer giving this 15 year old an even greater risk. It's not so much that there is an ABC link, it's that the doctor didn't warn the risks of her hereditary link at all either but it's important to remember that there was no trial, so as much as Jude cannot say that this is evidence for an ABC link, I cannot say that it's also evidence that this settlement uses the ABC link, and not just hereditary link. Sucks for both of us Jude. BTW, this Malec lady seems zealous, you should hit her up she's your type!

*It's strange. This article cites this page http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42570 and it makes no mention of the 200,000 bucks, so I don't see where the number came from; it's a nonissue though. Gotta remember, WND is a conservative libel tank too... but I go where Google takes me...

[godless dave]

Two cases now have settled rather than go to trial.

Yes, two malpractice cases were settled. Was the alleged malpractice related to breast cancer? Or was it some other kind of malpractice? I notice the article you linked to doesn't link to the actual court documents or even to any statements by the plaintiffs or defendants.

[Elypsis44]

...but I don't think


Thanks for the honesty, Jude.

(Quote-mining is so easy, aint it?)

You know, the 'press and the Obama birth certificate' thread, the 'dino bone' thread, the 'rock-dating' thread and now this one.

Jude, at what point will you stop displaying your willful ignorance when your ideas and opinions are confronted with evidence to the contrary? I mean, really; you look silly everytime you do this.

[catsmate1]

It again is tainted with anti-abortion studies like Daling's though.
<snip>
The issue again had to do with Daling's paper, which claims a link between first time pregnancy abortions and an increase in breast cancer. Also the issue is that this Daling paper purports the link of a family with a history of breast cancer giving this 15 year old an even greater risk.
<snip>
I'd like to point out that Daling, unlike almost everyone who quotes her 1994 paper, wasn't an anti-abortion activist; she was a researcher with the Fred Hutchinson centre doing valid work.
She herself admitted the issues with her paper (small sample size, interview methodology, response bias et cetera) and stated that further research was needed. Hence her 1996 paper and many other subsequent studies, such as the enormous and methodologically superior Melbye study I linked to previously.

However the later studies contradict any significant abortion/breast cancer link so they're not as commonly used by those pushing the anti-abortion agenda.:rolleyes:

[JudeBrando]

You can sue anyone for any reason. I wouldn't advise anyone to take advice from a bunch of anti-abortion nuts like Malec and her CWA cronies, who'll push their agenda regardless of facts or women's health.

That's be a "truth" that mysteriously doesn't show up in actual studies, only in the imaginations of anti-abortion nuts with an agenda to push and people to exploit.


Do you think this lady is a nut?

At5QEFaFQTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At5QEFaFQTY

"Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon in private practice in Bound Brook, NJ. A 1975 graduate of the Georgetown School of Medicine, she is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and certified by the American Board of Surgery. She is a member of the Professional Advisory Committee for the Wellness Community of Central New Jersey, the Somerset County Cancer Coalition and on the Expert Advisory Panel for the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. She is surgical co-director of the sanofi-aventis Breast Care Program at the Steeplechase Cancer Center in Somerville, NJ."

[Giordano]

Do you think this lady is a nut?

At5QEFaFQTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At5QEFaFQTY

"Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon in private practice in Bound Brook, NJ. A 1975 graduate of the Georgetown School of Medicine, she is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and certified by the American Board of Surgery. She is a member of the Professional Advisory Committee for the Wellness Community of Central New Jersey, the Somerset County Cancer Coalition and on the Expert Advisory Panel for the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. She is surgical co-director of the sanofi-aventis Breast Care Program at the Steeplechase Cancer Center in Somerville, NJ."

Do you think this Nobel Prize winner is a nut?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
Be certain to scroll down past all his truly wonderful early pioneering work, successes and awards, past his LSD use, past his AIDS denial, to his seeing glowing green talking raccoons possibly from outer space. Is every opinion offered by a successful person equally valid?

I have no reason to doubt that Dr. Lanfranchi is a good surgeon and doctor. Her qualifications appear to be very solid for a clinician. Being an Assistant Professor is an entry level for academia. I have no reason to think she is a "nut,' but the real question is: does she have the training, experience, and understanding of epidemiology to legitimately and convincingly counter the views of the many experts in these areas who have reached the opposite conclusion? I see no evidence from what you presented to accept her viewpoint versus the conclusons derived from large and well-controlled studies run by experts.

[Giordano]

Two cases now have settled rather than go to trial.
Good point- I always rely on civil litigation to decide issues of scientific fact. Much better than actual research because we know the court system is incredibly reliable. And no one has ever won a legal suit on bogus evidence, let alone settle out of court to save the cost of a nuisance trial.

[Dancing David]

Two cases now have settled rather than go to trial.

And those cases were? And the actual cause of the settlement was?

Magic internet fairy dust?

[Dancing David]

You do understand how the court works, right?

Settlement doesn't mean they are "innocent" or free from culpability. Settlement means it's cheaper to pay $X to someone rather than go to the expense of a trial and have a jury openly and publically call a great deal of attention to an inconvenient and extremely expensive truth.

You know what a lack of citations is don't you?

magic internet fairy dust and probably an outright lie.

[Dancing David]

Do you think this lady is a nut?

At5QEFaFQTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At5QEFaFQTY

"Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon in private practice in Bound Brook, NJ. A 1975 graduate of the Georgetown School of Medicine, she is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and certified by the American Board of Surgery. She is a member of the Professional Advisory Committee for the Wellness Community of Central New Jersey, the Somerset County Cancer Coalition and on the Expert Advisory Panel for the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. She is surgical co-director of the sanofi-aventis Breast Care Program at the Steeplechase Cancer Center in Somerville, NJ."

And your link to her actual research, which shows what level of correlation is?

[catsmate1]

<snippage of repetitive Lanfranchi related nonsense>
JB repeating yourself (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7698070#post7698070) doesn't help your "cause". Have you nothing new? As I pointed out to you three weeks ago Lanfranchi is an anti-abortion activist who works with Brind in his BCPI organisation.
Like you she hasn't presented any data to support her beliefs.

ETA: And JB? Can you try something other than silly argumentum ad verecundiam fallacies (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx).......

And your link to her actual research, which shows what level of correlation is?
No peer-reviewed publications or studies that I can find.
Probably too busy at anti-abortion events to do any research.

[JudeBrando]

catsmate1,
Did you watch her in the video?
Do you consider Dr. Angela Lanfranchi to be a nut or a caring, compassionate and reasonable woman?

[godless dave]

catsmate1,
Did you watch her in the video?
Do you consider Dr. Angela Lanfranchi to be a nut or a caring, compassionate and reasonable woman?

Why is that relevant? Being caring, compassionate, and reasonable doesn't make you right.

Where's her research? Where's the data?

[Dancing David]

catsmate1,
Did you watch her in the video?
Do you consider Dr. Angela Lanfranchi to be a nut or a caring, compassionate and reasonable woman?

Did you present the data from a large scale study, she can be as intelligent and reasonable as anything but without teh data, just giving an unsupported opinion.

[Bram Kaandorp]

catsmate1,
Did you watch her in the video?
Do you consider Dr. Angela Lanfranchi to be a nut or a caring, compassionate and reasonable woman?

Nut and caring are not mutually exclusive.

That being said, "she's biassed" is a better explanation than "she's a nut".

[catsmate1]

catsmate1,
Did you watch her in the video?
Do you consider Dr. Angela Lanfranchi to be a nut or a caring, compassionate and reasonable woman?
Will you be showing us her research? You know, something that actually shows the link she claims rather than just her biased opinion.

Did you read the studies I linked to? The ones that show you and your fellow anti-abortion nuts are lying and deceiving people.

[catsmate1]

Nut and caring are not mutually exclusive.

That being said, "she's biassed" is a better explanation than "she's a nut".
Well given that she's described the hormonal birth control pill as "...molotov cocktail of a group one carcinogen..." and made other claims grossly inflating its risk I'm going to continue describing her as a "nut" at least as far as her opinions on birth control and abortion. She's also opposed HPV vaccination, despite the proven fact that HPV does cause cancer, demonstrating (again) that she's rather selective in what she preaches.

Here (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives)'s the US NCI factsheet on the risks of hormonal birth control.
And here (http://newhumanist.org.uk/1459/choice-busters)'s an article from The Humanist that covers the efforts of the anti-abortion activists to distort science to support their agenda. It mentions Lanfranchi and her partner Brind, who's also been quoted by JB.

[JudeBrando]

From now on, every time you insist on claiming I lie or am "running away" from the thread, I will bump it by adding to it.

Every time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

"A report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that in November 2002, the Bush administration altered the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) website. The previous NCI analysis had concluded that while some question regarding an association between abortion and breast cancer existed prior to the mid-1990s, a number of large and well-regarded studies such as Melbye et al. (1997) had resolved the issue; and there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. The Bush administration removed this analysis and replaced it with the following:

“The possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted pregnancy.”

This alteration, which suggested that there was scientific uncertainty on the ABC issue, prompted an editorial in the New York Times describing it as an "egregious distortion" and a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services from members of Congress. In response to the alteration the NCI convened a three-day consensus workshop entitled Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer on February 24–26, 2003. The workshop concluded that induced abortion does not increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, and that the evidence for this was well established. Afterwards, the director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society said, “This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate." Pro-life activist Jill Stanek put it this way:

“Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not. At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

[Giordano]

From now on, every time you insist on claiming I lie or am "running away" from the thread, I will bump it by adding to it.

Every time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

"A report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that in November 2002, the Bush administration altered the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) website. The previous NCI analysis had concluded that while some question regarding an association between abortion and breast cancer existed prior to the mid-1990s, a number of large and well-regarded studies such as Melbye et al. (1997) had resolved the issue; and there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. The Bush administration removed this analysis and replaced it with the following:

“The possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted pregnancy.”

This alteration, which suggested that there was scientific uncertainty on the ABC issue, prompted an editorial in the New York Times describing it as an "egregious distortion" and a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services from members of Congress. In response to the alteration the NCI convened a three-day consensus workshop entitled Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer on February 24–26, 2003. The workshop concluded that induced abortion does not increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, and that the evidence for this was well established. Afterwards, the director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society said, “This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate." Pro-life activist Jill Stanek put it this way:

“Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not. At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
Jude,

Didn't you intend to post this in the "Republican war against science" thread? It is certainly shameful how often the Bush administration distorted scientific facts to support their own agenda. I quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

[Giordano]

From now on, every time you insist on claiming I lie or am "running away" from the thread, I will bump it by adding to it.

Every time.
[/B]

Excellent- if in "adding to it" you will include documented facts and data (not recycled old discredited distortions and lies from anti-abortion sites).

[JudeBrando]

Michael Coren Interviews Dr. Angela Lanfranchi: The Abortion Cancer Link

October 25, 2011

y41A6KCi944

[Giordano]

Are you trying to punish us with repetition, or convince us about your point of view?
We recognize that you and Angela Lanfranchi believe there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, but a much larger number of actual medical researchers and epidemiologists have, based on facts, reached an opposite conclusion. Feel free at this point to bring in facts, experimental data, large scale studies, citations, and statistics in favor of your point of view.

I'll give you a hint- television news interviews and youtube videos are not widely accepted as evidence in scientific/medical journals.

[JudeBrando]

I'll give you a hint-...


“Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not. At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

[Kid Eager]

...


Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not. At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

"The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies,[5] including the World Health Organization,[6] the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[7][8] the American Cancer Society,[9] the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[10] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.[11]"

[catsmate1]

From now on, every time you insist on claiming I lie or am "running away" from the thread, I will bump it by adding to it.

Every time.
Go ahead, it just exposes you as a biased fool who'll blindly parrot whatever you're told to believe.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

"A report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that in November 2002, the Bush administration altered the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) website. The previous NCI analysis had concluded that while some question regarding an association between abortion and breast cancer existed prior to the mid-1990s, a number of large and well-regarded studies such as Melbye et al. (1997) had resolved the issue; and there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. The Bush administration removed this analysis and replaced it with the following:

“The possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted pregnancy.”

This alteration, which suggested that there was scientific uncertainty on the ABC issue, prompted an editorial in the New York Times describing it as an "egregious distortion" and a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services from members of Congress. In response to the alteration the NCI convened a three-day consensus workshop entitled Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer on February 24–26, 2003. The workshop concluded that induced abortion does not increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, and that the evidence for this was well established. Afterwards, the director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society said, “This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate." Pro-life activist Jill Stanek put it this way:

“Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not. At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
Thank you for this excellent example of politicians distorting science to push their agenda, in the face of facts and scientific opinion. I don't know why you'd think it supports your opinions, however, as it clearly shows they contradict the scientific consensus on the matter.

<Irrelevant Youtube video snipped>
So no facts, just silly videos? Remember, as I've pointed out previously, Lanfranchi also lies about the risks of the hormonal birth control pill, makes claims grossly inflating its risk, and also opposes HPV vaccination, despite the proven fact that HPV does cause cancer.
ETA: Lanfranchi and Brind also claim that condoms can give you sexually transmitted diseases, lead to "cancer in the womb" and can't prevent HIV transmission; she has no credibility in the area of sexual and reproductive medicine due to her ideological biases.

<snipped quote-mine>
The better conducted, larger, methodologically superior and unbiased studies prove there is no link.

A few retrospective (case-control) studies reported in the mid-1990s suggested that induced abortion (the deliberate ending of a pregnancy) was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. However, these studies had important design limitations that could have affected the results. A key limitation was their reliance on self-reporting of medical history information by the study participants, which can introduce bias. Prospective studies, which are more rigorous in design and unaffected by such bias, have consistently shown no association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Moreover, in 2009, the Committee on Gynecologic Practice of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that “more rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk” Now, on to your rather hysterical PM.
You are obsessed. Nope I'm not obsessed, I intensely dislike ideological distortion of science and you're an excellent example of it. I have corrected your lies and will continue to do so.
I am certain it is your guilty conscience.Another god-botherer who thinks he can read my mind. My conscience is clear, I don't lied to women to try and control them in the name of a non-existent god,

HOW MANY ABORTIONS HAVE YOU HAD?Now this is actually funny. JB still thinks I'm a woman. A fascinating insight into his psyche.....

When you die, you will have an opportunity to meet and explain to your murdered children. I won't matter so much to you then.When I die, I die1. There is no evidence of an afterlife, just like there's no evidence of your god or or a link between induced abortion and an elevated risk of breast cancer.
If I should encounter a god after my death my conscience will still be clear.

Repent. For what? Telling the truth?



1 Unless I have myself uploaded into a flying Dalek body, with rotary neutron guns, of course.

[catsmate1]

OK, JB's got himself suspended for a fortnight. No more hysterical PMs in my inbox.....
Perhaps he'll use the time to study the scientific consensus on this issue.

[Lowpro]

While JB isn't here, might as well be a good time to discuss why there isn't an observed increase in breast cancer in populations (Shanghai and Melbye study show none) that have and report abortions.

Basically the theory is that during implantation and progesterone causes proliferation of differentiated cells. Why are THOSE cells not observably prone to cancer, at least any more than other tissues (ie it's not the hormone change that gives rise to breast cancer any more than any other cancers)

I personally am skeptical because it's not been explained.

[catsmate1]

While JB isn't here, might as well be a good time to discuss why there isn't an observed increase in breast cancer in populations (Shanghai and Melbye study show none) that have and report abortions.

Basically the theory is that during implantation and progesterone causes proliferation of differentiated cells. Why are THOSE cells not observably prone to cancer, at least any more than other tissues (ie it's not the hormone change that gives rise to breast cancer any more than any other cancers)

I personally am skeptical because it's not been explained.
You want to have a rational and reasoned discussion of the science?:eek:
Well OK, it'll be a nice change.

[Robrob]

From now on, every time you insist on claiming I lie or am "running away" from the thread, I will bump it by adding to it.

Every time.



Is spamming a violation of JREF's TOS?

[Lowpro]

You want to have a rational and reasoned discussion of the science?:eek:
Well OK, it'll be a nice change.

Well I know JB doesn't know tits for ____ on facts, but I'm interested in why the connection is made. I know there's a lot of bad science when it comes to hormone therapies and cancer, particularly with estrogen, and this argument seems to be another hat thrown in that ring. But then, I mean why would developing cells that stop receiving the hormones needed to develop NOT become cancerous? I just would like to know the epidemiology.

And even then, if induced abortions WERE a direct link to hormone controlled breast cancer, wouldn't the obviously easy thing be to just have a hormone regimen with an induced abortion? Sort of like what birth control already does?

Makes ya wonder...

[Bram Kaandorp]

Well I know JB doesn't know tits for ____ on facts, but I'm interested in why the connection is made. I know there's a lot of bad science when it comes to hormone therapies and cancer, particularly with estrogen, and this argument seems to be another hat thrown in that ring. But then, I mean why would developing cells that stop receiving the hormones needed to develop NOT become cancerous? I just would like to know the epidemiology.

And even then, if induced abortions WERE a direct link to hormone controlled breast cancer, wouldn't the obviously easy thing be to just have a hormone regimen with an induced abortion? Sort of like what birth control already does?

Makes ya wonder...

It's rather odd* how the anti-abortion, anti-nuclear and anti-vaccination movements tend to use the same argument: An argument from the ignorance about the safety.

As long as they can say "It hasn't been tested enough" and "The current papers say that it's unsafe" whilst citing (known or unbeknownst to them) outdated and often also fraudulent papers, they will be in business.

*not "surprising"

[Lowpro]

It's rather odd* how the anti-abortion, anti-nuclear and anti-vaccination movements tend to use the same argument: An argument from the ignorance about the safety.

As long as they can say "It hasn't been tested enough" and "The current papers say that it's unsafe" whilst citing (known or unbeknownst to them) outdated and often also fraudulent papers, they will be in business.

*not "surprising"

This can go for just about anyone with an agenda. But there is no agenda in an experiment other than collecting data; cohort studies of of humans are actually VERY difficult as we've seen from this thread.

I guess it must be difficult to determine for everyone considering breast cancer's hereditary link is a huge wrench anyways.

[catsmate1]

Is spamming a violation of JREF's TOS?
Meh, let him. He'll just be showing the fallacy of the argument again and again.
I suspect his current suspension is, at least partially, a deliberate attempt to evade having to support his arguments for a while.

[Bram Kaandorp]

This can go for just about anyone with an agenda. But there is no agenda in an experiment other than collecting data; cohort studies of of humans are actually VERY difficult as we've seen from this thread.

I guess it must be difficult to determine for everyone considering breast cancer's hereditary link is a huge wrench anyways.

We could say that giving birth causes breast cancer. But it only happens years later, and only in the offspring.

Of course, not in all cases, but if it happens in some cases, then that's enough, and it means that giving birth is too unsafe any way.

So I say, don't give birth!

[/sarcasm]

That's the way any anti-movement will interpret data.

[Lowpro]

Well yea, but in the meantime, what does the epidemiology say for the tissues in question? Or rather, is what it may say matching up to observed results, in other words if we do not see a distinguished rise in breast cancer due to hormones (because let's admit it, the abortions are meaningless here, it's the hormones that matter) can we directly relate that to hormonal effects of developing breast tissues of first time pregnancies?

Another way to put it, can we expect OTHER causes of breast cancer to be eliminated in determining hormonal effects in this particular case, or is it REALLY HARD to determine ANYWAYS.

[Bram Kaandorp]

Well yea, but in the meantime, what does the epidemiology say for the tissues in question? Or rather, is what it may say matching up to observed results, in other words if we do not see a distinguished rise in breast cancer due to hormones (because let's admit it, the abortions are meaningless here, it's the hormones that matter) can we directly relate that to hormonal effects of developing breast tissues of first time pregnancies?

Another way to put it, can we expect OTHER causes of breast cancer to be eliminated in determining hormonal effects in this particular case, or is it REALLY HARD to determine ANYWAYS.

It's a difficult one indeed. The anti crowd aren't making it any easier, though they aren't making it more difficult either (the problem itself, that is), if that's any consolation...

[excaza]

From now on, every time you insist on claiming I lie or am "running away" from the thread, I will bump it by adding to it.

Well, you certainly are adding to it. Unfortunately, the cherry-picked spam that you parrot from whatever integrity-bereft source you get it from is, for the most part, self-debunking when you actually look at the source material it comes from.

[Dancing David]

Michael Coren Interviews Dr. Angela Lanfranchi: The Abortion Cancer Link

October 25, 2011

y41A6KCi944

And her research and data are?

[catsmate1]

Bump. Now that JB is posting again and has had a month to study the topic at hand, any actual evidence for the link yet?

[Lowpro]

THIS thread again?! All JB will do is post some Youtube video and claim victory, probably without even watching the whole video himself.

[catsmate1]

THIS thread again?! All JB will do is post some Youtube video and claim victory, probably without even watching the whole video himself.
Thus demonstrating he's got nothing.......
Look this isn't for him, he's a god-bot parroting whatever the other god botherers say, it's for others who might encounter this particular pernicious lie of the anti-abortion nuts.

[Lowpro]

He's not a God-bot parroter, it's even worse. He's a Conservative parrot, who absorbs ANY message of ANY man or woman who is a Conservative. JB thinks only the absolute worst of leftist (who are automatically "liberal atheists" too. Seriously, Google "JudeBrando leftist" and you will see PAGES of results with JudeBrando from forums OTHER than this, almost ALWAYS with the term "leftist liberal atheist" ) and listens to twits like Enyart who have no ability to actually even DO science.

He parrots MUCH worse than religious people. Most religious people are nice, not bothering people at all. JB...he's different. He's politically motivated, not spiritually motivated.

[JudeBrando]

http://www.bcpinstitute.org/home.htm

To Contact the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:

Write:
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
30 Rehill Avenue, Suite 3400
Somerville, NJ 08876 USA

Call:
Toll free phone: 1-86-NO CANCER
(1-866-622-6237)
Email:
info@bcpinstitute.org

[Hawk one]

"The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies,[5] including the World Health Organization,[6] the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[7][8] the American Cancer Society,[9] the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[10] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.[11]"

You missed this part, Jude.

[JudeBrando]

You missed this part, Jude.

What makes you think that?

So when the majority did not believe that smoking may cause cancer, the correct position was to believe the majority, is that right, Hawk one?

[Bram Kaandorp]

What makes you think that?

Uhm, maybe the title of the thread?

[JudeBrando]

catsmate1, please contact and insult them:

http://www.bcpinstitute.org/home.htm

To Contact the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:

Write:
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
30 Rehill Avenue, Suite 3400
Somerville, NJ 08876 USA

Call:
Toll free phone: 1-86-NO CANCER
(1-866-622-6237)
Email:
info@bcpinstitute.org

[Giordano]

What makes you think that?

So when the majority did not believe that smoking may cause cancer, the correct position was to believe the majority, is that right, Hawk one?

Your argument is backward. Compare:

For many years no one really looked to see if smoking caused lung cancer. Then some scientists had preliminary indications that smoking increased lung cancer risks. Then more data, larger studies, and better analysis confirmed very convincingly that smoking does cause lung cancer.

For many years no one really looked to see if abortion caused breast cancer. Then some scientists had preliminary indications that abortion increased breast cancer risks. But then, more data, larger studies, and better analysis demonstrated it does not cause breast cancer.

Do you see the difference?

[Giordano]

JudeBrando,

I find it intriguing that you are so willing to be convinced by these organizations, such as the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (or the anti-evolution sites you've quoted on other threads). They typically begin with very clear political and religious agendas, and they put forward narrow, often cherry-picked and distorted views that go against the vast wealth of scientific evidence and the vast majority of experts in the field. Yet you buy into what they tell you, and are convinced that somehow the remaining 95% of the experts are wrong and biased.

Why are you so certain there is a conspiracy among the established scientists? They have been willing to warn women that oral contraceptives increase the rate of cervical and liver cancer (and possibly breast cancer), that hormone replacement therapy post menopause had risks, that unprotected promiscuous sex was risky in terms of cervical cancer and other veneral diseases, etc. Yet you are convinced that (due to political correctness or monetary gain from drug companies?) this same scientific establishment is prepared to let millions of women die of breast cancer so that abortions can continue.

Does this ever seem implausible to you?

[catsmate1]

He's not a God-bot parroter, it's even worse. He's a Conservative parrot, who absorbs ANY message of ANY man or woman who is a Conservative. JB thinks only the absolute worst of leftist (who are automatically "liberal atheists" too. Seriously, Google "JudeBrando leftist" and you will see PAGES of results with JudeBrando from forums OTHER than this, almost ALWAYS with the term "leftist liberal atheist" ) and listens to twits like Enyart who have no ability to actually even DO science.

He parrots MUCH worse than religious people. Most religious people are nice, not bothering people at all. JB...he's different. He's politically motivated, not spiritually motivated.
Actually you're right. I don't visit the Politics sub-forum here so I miss much of his ranting. However he definitely seems xian focussed, to judge by his pathetic attempts to "defend" aspects of xian mythology.

[catsmate1]

<snippage>
JB, the website of a couple of god botherer anti-abortion nuts isn't evidence. How about some facts rather than regurgitated lies?
What makes you think that?

So when the majority did not believe that smoking may cause cancer, the correct position was to believe the majority, is that right, Hawk one?
No the correct position is to accept the evidence. Which shows your "link" is mythical, promulgated by anti-abortion nuts with no interest in either truth or the wellbeing of women, just their own beliefs.

catsmate1, please contact and insult them:
Why? You're the one parroting their lies here.

[Lowpro]

Now you'll never get your answer =(

[catsmate1]

Now you'll never get your answer =(
Suicide by mod because he couldn't manage rational civility. How expected and pathetic.

And in here (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_linking_abortion_to_breast_cancer)is a listing of the numerous studies showing the alleged link between abortion and breast cancer is nonsense.