National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion Breast Cancer Link

Remember in 2003 when the NCI issued the report proclaiming There is no link between abortion and breast cancer? Now the top researcher of that report has issued a new study which quietly contradicts the '03 study.

It's been ignored by the MSM and the medical community but, luckily, LSN has brought it the attention it deserves.


Life Site News

WASHINGTON, DC, January 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. National Cancer Institute researcher Dr. Louise Brinton, who was the chief organizer of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop in 2003 that persuaded women that it was "well established" that "abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk," has reversed her position and now admits that abortion and oral contraceptives raise breast cancer risks.

An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality, in women under age 45, contained an admission from Dr. Brinton and her colleagues that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%.

The study found that "a statistically significant 40% increased risk for women who have abortions" exists, and that a " 270% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer (an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality) among those who used oral contraceptives while under age 18 and a 320% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer among recent users (within 1-5 years) of oral contraceptives," also exists.

This means that women who start using OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times.

"Although the study was published nine months ago," stated Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, in a press release, "the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."

I think it's criminal how the politicization of this subject has kept these findings quiet. If those organizations truely wanted to protect women from breast cancer they would have publicized the report as soon as it came out.

Instead, they quietly sat on it to appease their feminist supporters.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
It's been ignored by the MSM and the medical community but, luckily, LSN has brought it the attention it deserves.

Ignored because it is just not true!
pushingrope.blogspot.com...

Especially, after the the National Cancer Institute conducted their own study with over 100 medical experts and found Malec's finding to be bunk.www.msnbc.msn.com...

I think it's criminal how the politicization of this subject has kept these findings quiet.

no, what is criminal is the way you lie about the findings

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons-Angela Lafranchi-Spring, 2008

The NIH has failed to perform its mission in very significant ways. There is evidence of widespread fraud in connection with NIH-funded research. In June 2005, a study of NIH grantees by three scientists, published in the prestigious British journal Nature, documented fraud. Anonymous questionnaires revealed that a statistically significant 15.5% of scientists admitted to "changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source," i.e. the NIH itself. More alarmingly, NIH proved to be a corrupting influence, as 9.5% of early career scientists admitted this unethical behavior, and by mid-career 20.0% admitted to it.

The NCI has also flagrantly ignored one of its major missions of "new information dissemination mandates" as required by Congressional legislative amendments to its original National Cancer Programs

There is either an effort to obfuscate, for medical personnel, the increased breast cancer risk with oral contraceptives, or incompetence at NCI

I think I see a rabbit hole!!
This would not surprise me one bit. Depopulation? Conflict of interest? I'm kind of at a loss for words. When in highschool me and my partner used this twice as a cautionary measure, and we were told it was perfectly safe.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by heyo]

reply to post by dereks


I am sorry, you linked a blog and a media outlet as evidence? Come on, you can do better than that.

Face it, hormones that are endemic in a woman's body during pregnancy are shut off prematurely with an abortion. It is ignorant to assume this would not have a detrimental effect to the woman.

I have read a little on it, but I would not want to stick my foot in my mouth without doing further reading. I guess we will have people doing what I hope to avoid.

I have a view that would be prejudicial to this so I will not comment further without further research. I hope others here would do the same.

Emotions run high on this topic. I will leave giving my viewpoint so that everyone can see where I am coming from. Maybe everyone should do this to show their biases. I believe abortion is wrong except for the case of the health of the woman, rape or incest. Late term abortions are an even more heinous act.

That being said, everyone should read up on this, because if true, abortions are increasing the risk of CANCER.

If true, why not think of adoption as an option. And do not ASSUME, that I am not speaking from experience of this very subject.

edit to add-My position WOULD NOT ELIMINATE abortion for anyone. In my view you CANNOT legislate morals. So please do not attack others making assumptions on their positions.

[edit on 1/8/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by dereks


This study was not done by Karen Malic, it was conducted by Louise Brinton the same NCI researcher who headed the '03 study which found no link between abortion and cancer.

Karen Malic only commented on Brinton's study.

Nice try at misdirection though.

FAIL.



[edit on 8-1-2010 by FortAnthem]

One thing that should not be lost on the reader is the study also found the effects of Oral Contraceptives (OC) greatly increase the risk of breast cancer.

This means that women who start using OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times.

People have been using the pill for years, often recommending them to their daughters when they come of age. Those who start when under the age of 18 are at even greater risk!

This information needs to get out to the public so that women can know the health risks before making the decision to go on the pill.

I cant speak for abortion and breast cancer BUT this is my experience. I suffered a miscarriage at 30 years old. This is after I had had children and non-event pregnancies. BUT THE FIRST QUESTION the ER doctor asked me was HAVE I EVER HAD AN ABORTION? I said when I was 18 I had an abortion. I remember him nodding his head as if this answered everything ( of course thats just my opinion)...I thought it was an odd question to ask at that moment but unfortunately I was not in the frame of mind to ask him the significance of it, which I later regreted. There is no doubt that having an abortion can cause all sorts of health related issues, even years later...... I pray women will give serious thought before making the decision to have an abortion. Being older and wiser I wish I had made a better decision.

Any event which increases the amount of circulation estrogen in a woman's body will raise the risk of breast cancer at some point in her life, as well as a few other disorders (like gallstones). This is why women who have had children are more at risk for breast cancer than similarly-aged women who have not had children.

Abortion implies that the woman had, at one point, been pregnant, which would mean she had higher estrogen levels. The increase in estrogen (and thus higher risk for breast cancer) are due to the pregnancy, not the abortion. Abortion, as a process, has not been shown to increase a woman's risk of breast cancer by any peer-reviewed study to date. An off-hand comment by one researcher at one institution doesn't outweigh the worldwide concensus of medical science.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Wow talk about a LOAD OF CRAP.....your post is it! Abortion is one of the most intrusive surgeries a woman could have done. I mean my god. Reproductive organs in a woman are some of the most sensitive part of a female. You nor any scientist nor ANY DOCTOR have ANY clue in this day and age how abortion directly affects a female's body and physiology. Your diatribe is a much junk science as the lipid hypothesis.

There are probably LOTS of reasons why breast cancer is on the rise. But make no bones about it................contraceptive use and abortions have been on the rise for DECADES!

Contraception is getting completely out of control.. Look at how the drug companies advertise these drugs is if they are completely harmless and benign. THERE IS NOTHING BENIGN ABOUT MANIPULATING YOUR BODIES HORMONES OR ITS PHYSIOLOGY!

THERE IS NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT SHUTTING DOWN A WOMAN'S DRIVE TO REPRODUCE BY MANIPULATING HER HORMONES. Ever see what happens to a man that takes steroids for decades on end? More than likely his ability to regain his fertility is SEVERELY hampered and his ability to naturally produce testosterone. So you're wrong about circulating estrogen and in fact estrogen circulation goes DOWN as a woman ages.

I'm definitely pro choice but I wouldn't be surprised if there are serious repercussions we are going to find from having abortions. Many young women use abortion as a form of birth control which the human body is NOT set up to endure that kind of reproductive trauma unnaturally.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Wow talk about a LOAD OF CRAP.....your post is it! Abortion is one of the most intrusive surgeries a woman could have done. I mean my god. Reproductive organs in a woman are some of the most sensitive part of a female. You nor any scientist nor ANY DOCTOR have ANY clue in this day and age how abortion directly affects a female's body and physiology. Your diatribe is a much junk science as the lipid hypothesis.

So you think the hundreds of publications on the topic in peer-reviewed, international journals are all bunkus? Care to explain why? Where did you get your degree in biological or medical science?

There are probably LOTS of reasons why breast cancer is on the rise. But make no bones about it................contraceptive use and abortions have been on the rise for DECADES!

I agree with both of these statements. If you'll re-read my post, I never disagreed that contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer. In fact, I think they most likely do, as they aid in increasing circulating estrogen levels, which is thought to be a major triggering even for oncogenesis in breast tissue.

THERE IS NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT SHUTTING DOWN A WOMAN'S DRIVE TO REPRODUCE BY MANIPULATING HER HORMONES.

That's not what contraceptives do. In fact, I would wager that women who take contraceptives have MORE libido, knowing that there is relatively little risk of pregnancy.

Ever see what happens to a man that takes steroids for decades on end?

Estrogen has an entirely different action (and in fact, completely different cellular receptors) than testosterone. Comparing the action of one distinct chemical to another disticint chemical is disingenuous and deceitful.

Many young women use abortion as a form of birth control

Source?

which the human body is NOT set up to endure that kind of reproductive trauma unnaturally.

Source? Humans have used abortion-inducing herbs for as long as records go back. Roman and Greek apothecaries sold what was essentially a natural "morning after pill".

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Oh brother.....the Romans and Greeks did A LOT of things medically speaking..........what the heck is your point? As if Greek and Roman civilization was some sort of twilight of humanity?

And my point about testosterone was that estrogen is the MAIN sex hormone in women as testosterone is the main sex hormone in men. BOTH have repressive effects in their respectful genders. Meaning.........why the hell do you think one huge reason why women have such a hard time getting pregnant nowadays? It's because they spend 10-15 years of their life taking drugs so they DON'T get pregnant. Hormones specifically sex hormones like testosterone and estrogen work on a negative feedback loop in the body meaning that when you introduce exogenous sources of many hormones not just sex hormones it tricks the body into decreasing its own production. I don't care what you or any scientist or doctor says, contraception is INHIBITORY for women and can lead to long term consequences we have yet to realize.

Also trust me if you've DONE ANY reseach on the lipid hypothesis or the diet heart theory you'd realize copious amounts of studies and peer reviewed medical journals MEANS JACK CRAP in proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Studies can and most definitely are manipulated at all levels of the medical-government-pharma complex.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa



Oh and just so you know............MEN WHO TAKE TESTOSTERONE HAVE MORE LIBIDO as well...........that doesn't mean anything. You can be sterile as a man and have the libido of Ron Jeremy........you're point is......oops you don't have one. Introducing exogenous hormones be it thyroid hormones, growth hormone, sex hormones have a direct effect on the body's ability to produce its own hormones. Estrogen in women is no different. We have yet to really grasp the wide ranging side effects of pushing so much contraception on our women.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Oh brother.....the Romans and Greeks did A LOT of things medically speaking..........what the heck is your point? As if Greek and Roman civilization was some sort of twilight of humanity?

I was using the Greeks and Romans to point out that abortion has been around for most of human history. There are also cases of animals using spontaneous abortion when conditions are unfavorable for offspring.

And my point about testosterone was that estrogen is the MAIN sex hormone in women as testosterone is the main sex hormone in men.

This statement is factually incorrent. Both hormones play a large role in BOTH sexes. Theya ren't mutually exclusive.

Meaning.........why the hell do you think one huge reason why women have such a hard time getting pregnant nowadays? It's because they spend 10-15 years of their life taking drugs so they DON'T get pregnant.

Again, another false statement. Human beings are made to be low-offpsring producing individuals, due in part to our long gestational period, as well as the immense energy expenditure needed to produce/give birth to an offspring.

Also trust me if you've DONE ANY reseach on the lipid hypothesis or the diet heart theory you'd realize copious amounts of studies and peer reviewed medical journals MEANS JACK CRAP in proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Studies can and most definitely are manipulated at all levels of the medical-government-pharma complex.

And if YOU had done any research, you would know that selective estrogen receptor agonists (like tamoxifen) are actually used to TREAT breast cancer. Tamoxifen is, to this date, the absolute most effective treatment for breast cancer, and contributes to our nearly 90% 5-year survival prognosis. Of course, early detection is key, but having a powerful drug doesn't hurt.

I find it most disheartening that you make such claims with little to no evidence. All you do is use ad hominem attacks, while offering no scientific background to any of it. Which do you think is more likely to be true: the side that has decades of research and hundreds of thousands of doctors and scientists behind it, or the side based on what "somebody said" on the internet?

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Oh and just so you know............MEN WHO TAKE TESTOSTERONE HAVE MORE LIBIDO as well...........that doesn't mean anything. You can be sterile as a man and have the libido of Ron Jeremy........you're point is......oops you don't have one. Introducing exogenous hormones be it thyroid hormones, growth hormone, sex hormones have a direct effect on the body's ability to produce its own hormones. Estrogen in women is no different. We have yet to really grasp the wide ranging side effects of pushing so much contraception on our women.

Testosterone has little to nothing to do with sterility. Sterility is a result of germ cell issues, not testosterone production (in most cases). I don't think I understand what you're trying to claim here.

And as for "thyroid hormones" (which are actually multi-class and vary greatly, so I don't know why you're just calling them "thyroid hormones" unless you're totally cluelass as to what you're talking about), adminsitering exogenous hormone is absolutely necessary for the survival of patients who have had their thyroid removed, most often due to cancer.

I'm well aware of nolvadex and it is a VERY TOXIC drug and in fact there are medical studies done showing that it has been linked to other cancers and liver problems.

If you are a person with a healthy functioning thryoid and you take exogenous thyroid medication for long periods of time there is a risk of permanently shutting down your own body's production. And this is also the case with testosterone use as well. In fact at one time the medical community was thinking of using testosterone as a form of male birth control when if used long enough can disrupt a man's ability to produce sperm through the supression of LH, FSH etc. Exogenous testosterone directly affects the Leydig cells in the testes which are responsible for producing sperm. Whenever you introduce excess amounts of hormones into the body it ceases production of its own. This is scientific and medical fact.

And yes both men and women have testosterone and estrogen flowing through their bodies. But they exist in entirely different levels. In fact in a male the brain uses estrogen levels in the brain to detect testosterone levels in the body. This is due to the aromatization of estrogen into teststerone. Estrogen is a very important hormone in both sexes.

MY POINT in this whole debate is the medical and pharmaceutical companies are completely out of control with their push for women to take contraception. And you're wrong about abortion. A spontaneous abortion because they body senses something wrong with the fetus is completely different than going up into a woman's uterus and sucking out an intact fetus or taking a drug to abort said fetus. One is completely natural and one is completely unnatural.

And low off spring is completely subjective. No human beings are not meant to have 7 kids every year like a dog. But there is nothing unnatural for a woman to give birth to many babies over the span of her life. And it's scientific fact that in many cases it's healthier for a woman to have children at a younger age than to wait until she is older.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
I'm well aware of nolvadex and it is a VERY TOXIC drug and in fact there are medical studies done showing that it has been linked to other cancers and liver problems.

The only cancer it has been linked to is endometrial cancer, and even then, the risk is small to insignificant. If you have an absolute diagnosis of breast cancer, and a drug is offered which promises a 90% chance of remission, but a less than 1% chance of endometrial cancer, would you turn that drug down and let breast cancer rip through your body?

I know I sure wouldn't turn the drug down.

If you are a person with a healthy functioning thryoid and you take exogenous thyroid medication for long periods of time there is a risk of permanently shutting down your own body's production.

No one has suggested doing this, and I've never seen a therapy that would involve this sort of treatment.

And this is also the case with testosterone use as well. In fact at one time the medical community was thinking of using testosterone as a form of male birth control when if used long enough can disrupt a man's ability to produce sperm through the supression of LH, FSH etc. Exogenous testosterone directly affects the Leydig cells in the testes which are responsible for producing sperm. Whenever you introduce excess amounts of hormones into the body it ceases production of its own. This is scientific and medical fact.

This is only half-true. Yes, taking exogenous testosterone was (and is) suggested as a form of male birth control. However, the Leydig cells are not responsible for sperm production. You're thinking of Sertoli cells.

I have a very hard time taking anything you say seriously when you can't even get the basic science correct.

MY POINT in this whole debate is the medical and pharmaceutical companies are completely out of control with their push for women to take contraception.

That's your opinion, one with little to no science behind it, to date. Being loud doesn't make you right (referring to your preference for all caps in your posts).

And you're wrong about abortion. A spontaneous abortion because they body senses something wrong with the fetus is completely different than going up into a woman's uterus and sucking out an intact fetus or taking a drug to abort said fetus. One is completely natural and one is completely unnatural.

I would argue that any motivation for an abortion is a natural impulse that "something is wrong". The human psyche is a product of natural development. If a woman wants an abortion, there is obviously something urging her to do so, whether psychologically (a natural process) or biologically. I have yet to see a study showing a strong correlation between abortion and any serious disorder.

And low off spring is completely subjective. No human beings are not meant to have 7 kids every year like a dog. But there is nothing unnatural for a woman to give birth to many babies over the span of her life. And it's scientific fact that in many cases it's healthier for a woman to have children at a younger age than to wait until she is older.

I have no doubt that it's healthier to have children at a younger age. In fact, I made this exact statement several posts up. I don't see what your point in posting this is.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Oh brother.........You're splitting hairs now:
The male generative glands also contain Sertoli cells which require testosterone for spermatogenesis. Bottomline is testosterone is a PIVOTAL hormone in males........when it is suppressed through exogenous testosterone administration a whole host of problems can occur. I.e. hypogonadism, decreased libido, decreast feritlity and in extreme cases sterility.

No you're wrong........nolvadex hasn't simply been linked to uterine cancer......it's also been linked to gastrointestinal and liver cancer. Besdies nolvadex is a KNOWN CARCINOGEN.

It wasn't long before laboratory studies showed that tamoxifen acted as a carcinogen. It binds tightly and irreversibly to DNA, the genetic blueprint of a cell causing a cancerous mutation to take place. No amount of tamoxifen is safe when it comes to carcinogenic effects.

The irony of tamoxifen is that while widely publicized as the leading treatment for the recurrence of breast cancer, it is, in fact, a known carcinogenic substance. The World Health Organization, after reviewing the existing information about the carcinogenicity of tamoxifen, found unequivocal evidence confirming tamoxifen as human carcinogen.

On May 16, 2000, The New York Times printed an article, "U.S.. Report Adds to List of Carcinogens". It reported that National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences listed 218 substances known or suspected to cause cancer in people. Tamoxifen was included in that list.

The premise for taking tamoxifen is its supposed role in protecting breast cancer patients from its recurrence. However, the benefits of tamoxifen are limited. Virtually all women who take it become resistant within five years. It was postulated that it prevented breast cancer from occurring in the opposite breast, known as contralateral cancer. However, disturbing findings continue to surface challenging tamoxifen's effectiveness. In 1992, the New England Journal of Medicine showed that tamoxifen may reduce the incidence of contralateral cancer but only in premenopausal women and only in three of eight trials. In another 1992 study, tamoxifen not only failed to reduce contralateral cancers in premenopausal women, it actually increased their incidence.15

The shocking truth about tamoxifen's effect on breast cancer, appeared in a recent study published in the journal, Science in July 1999. Researchers acknowledged that tamoxifen eventually loses its effectiveness and then may actually help some cancers to grow. Their clinical experience revealed that after only two to five years, tamoxifen's supposed anti-estrogen fades and estrogen-sensitive cancers begin to grow again thus increasing the risk of breast and uterine cancers!

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


Just so you know, Zosynspiracy, plagiarism is a no-no in real life AND on these boards, Especially when you try to pass off literature from a site known to be full of lies and fabrications as scientific research. I googled one line from your post, word for word, and lo and behold, I found the entirety of your post here:

www.whale.to...

Reported for plagiarism and spreading hoaxes. It's one thing to cite or quote a page, but to lift entire sections without disclosing where you got it or even who originally wrote it is dishonest at best, and disgusting at worst. To suggest that the mountain of evidence for tamoxifen being a powerful and necessary tool in breast cancer therapy is "bunk" and "lies" is ignorance on a monumental scale. I have personally treated about a dozen patients with this therapy with wonderful results. I have also performed follow-up visits for women at the five, seven, and ten year mark after receiving such therapy, and only one has seen an additional malignant growth, which was a recurrence of the original breast cancer.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Plagirism? It's not plagirism when the parts of the article I posted have stated the NEW YORK TIMES, WHO, and STUDIES.

And we now know how you feel about alternative medicine and where your viewpoints stem from. You'll probably believe saturated fat causes heart disease and everyone should be on lipitor as well. LOL.