MEDICAL JOURNAL SHOWS HOW TO REDUCE RATES OF BREAST CANCER, PREMATURE BIRTH

Two letters published this month in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons show how the exceptionally high rates of breast cancer and premature birth can be reduced in the U.S. [1,2]

The first letter by Brent Rooney and William Johnston reports that Poland dramatically reduced its rates of premature birth, maternal mortality and infant mortality within a few years after its abortion rate declined by 98% between 1989 and 1993 (as a result of the passage of restrictive abortion laws). 

The authors predict that U.S. rates of premature birth and breast cancer will decline if a similar decline in the abortion rate takes place.

The authors said no published animal studies exist that prove the safety of vacuum aspiration (VA) abortion.  Noting that that makes abortion on women medically unethical, the authors wrote, "Thus, as of 2007, VA is an unproven experimental procedure."

The second letter, by Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, discusses Patrick Carroll's earlier research [3,4], which showed that abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer" and fertility is the second-best predictor.

"Abortion and Breast Cancer Link. A remarkable article by Patrick S. Carroll, M.A., Director of Research at the Pension and Population Research Institute (PAPRI), London, U.K., makes an important case for the existence of a link between these two entities – to the extent that the data provided can be used to forecast the incidence of breast cancer for England & Wales.  All in all, seven reproductive risk factors were examined, and induced abortion was found to be the best predictor for breast cancer.

In summary, 'In England, a high rate of abortion leads to the large forecast increase.  In Scotland, the lower abortion rate, offset by lower fertility than in England, leads to a slightly lower rate of increase expected.  In both Irish jurisdictions, a continuation of low abortion rates and comparatively high fertility rates leads to low forecast increases in incidence of breast cancer.  In Sweden, a high abortion rate is offset partly by fewer nulliparous abortions and a high level of fertility and breastfeeding.'  

The author concludes, 'The increase in breast cancer incidence appears to be best explained by an increase in abortion rates, especially nulliparous abortions, and lower fertility.  And the social gradient, which is not explained by fertility, seems also attributable circumstantially to abortion.  A linear regression model of successive birth cohorts of women with abortion and fertility as explanatory variables fitted to the cancer incidence up to 1977 has produced forecasts that have performed well in the years 1998-2004 in Great Britain. … The new forecasts for eight countries can be tested in the coming years.'

(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2007;12:72-78; from Hippocratic Resource, LA Physicians for Life).   

Carroll’s correlational research provides key evidence because it shows the impact of the abortion-cancer link on the community at-large.  Abortion is a common exposure, and breast cancer is a common disease.

Therefore, to establish that the link exists, scientists must see its impact in the population at-large.

Malec observed that different avenues of research - biological, epidemiological and experimental - all point in the same direction to an abortion-breast cancer link. She said no one has challenged Dr. Joel Brind's conclusions in his 2005 review of 10 studies that the abortion industry uses to dismiss the cancer link. [5]  Brind proved that ideological opponents of the link in the scientific community have authored seriously flawed studies that have been used to mislead the public.
     "Women are the medical establishment's guinea pigs," declared Malec.  "We have been fed a pack of lies about the safety of abortion and the use of hormonal contraceptives."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
References:
1. Rooney B and Johnston WR. Letter: More on the Adverse Effects of Abortion. J Am Phys Surg (Winter 2007) Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/correspondence.pdf>.

 2. Malec K. Letter: More on the Adverse Effects of Abortion. J Am Phys Surg (Winter 2007) Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/correspondence.pdf>.

3. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. Available at:
<http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.

4. Carroll P. The Breast Cancer Epidemic. The Actuary (November 2007) p. 30-31. Available at:
<http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/pdfs/07_11_30-31.pdf>.

5. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at:  <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>. [11Dec07, Abortion Breast Cancer Coalition Press Release, http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/071211/; Media Advisory, 11Dec07, Christian Newswire; ProLife America Daily News, 12Dec]

BREAST CANCER
ABORTION PREDICTS BREAST CANCER BETTER THAN OTHER FACTORS, STUDY SHOWS. [see study below] A new study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 3Oct07 finds that abortion is the best predictor of whether women will contract breast cancer. Abortion also is a better indicator of future breast cancer issue than six other commonly used factors.

Patrick Carroll of the Pension and Population Research Institute in London conducted this new study and showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence.

"Induced abortion is found to be the best predictor, and fertility is also a useful predictor," he writes. "The increase in breast cancer incidence appears to be best explained by an increase in abortion rates, especially nulliparous abortions, and lower fertility."

He found that, when abortion rates are low such as in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, a smaller increase is expected.

And in nations experiencing a decline in abortions, like Denmark and Finland, a similar decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales. He based the model on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004.

In four nations -- England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark -- he discovered a social gradient unlike that for other cancers. He found upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer than lower-income women.

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, he explained.

Carroll used national data from nations believed to have "nearly complete abortion counts." Therefore, his study is not affected by recall bias.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, commented on the new study in a statement sent to LifeNews.com.

"It's time for scientists to admit publicly what they already acknowledge privately among themselves that abortion raises breast cancer risk," she said. Malec said such scientists need to "stop conducting flawed research to protect the medical establishment from massive medical practice lawsuits."

Related web sites:Read the new study at http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf[4Oct07, Ertelt, LifeNews.com London, England]

 

The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf
ABSTRACT
Using national cancer registration data for female breast cancer incidence in eight European countries—England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark—for which there is also comprehensive data on abortion incidence, trends are examined and future trends predicted.
Seven reproductive risk factors are considered as possible explanatory variables. Induced abortion is found to be the best predictor, and fertility is also a useful predictor. Forecasts are made using a linear regression model with these explanatory variables. Previous forecasts using the same model and incidence data for years through 1997 for England &Wales are compared with numbers of cancers observed in years from 1998–2004 in an Appendix. The forecast predicted 100.5% of the cancers observed in 2003, and 97.5% of those observed in 2004.

The Challenge ofAbortion for Epidemiologists in Female Breast Cancer Research Trends
It is difficult for epidemiologists to discover women’s abortion history. In any study the numbers of women who have had abortions may be underreported.

National data on abortions in most countries tends to be deficient, with abortions underreported. Official abortion statistics in the United States and France are known to understate the numbers of legal induced abortions.The countries considered in this study are believed to have nearly complete official abortion counts.

The long lag time for the development of breast cancer magnifies the problem. The average age of diagnosis is over 60, while most abortions and live births occur at ages under 30. The modern increase in breast cancer incidence is obvious at ages over 45, and Figure 1 for England &Wales shows the increase is small below age 45.

Abortion did not become legal in most Western countries until the 1970s, and earlier abortions among older women are not recorded. Consequently, the older women, whose breast cancer incidence is known, have abortions not detectable by a longitudinal study, while the younger women, whose abortion history is known, tend to be too young to have experienced most of the modern increase in breast cancer. Where the increased risk is apparent, even under age 40 in a study free of recall bias, there is an acknowledged need to extend the study to women older than 40. The long time lags, however, can be used to make long-term forecasts of cancer trends...

Conclusion

The increase in breast cancer incidence appears to be best explained by an increase in abortion rates, especially nulliparous abortions, and lower fertility. And the social gradient, which is not explained by fertility, seems also attributable circumstantially to abortion. A linear regression model of successive birth cohorts of women with abortion and fertility as explanatory variables fitted to the cancer incidence up to 1977 has produced forecasts that have performed well in the years 1998–2004 in Great Britain (AppendixA).

The new forecasts for eight countries can be tested in the coming years.

Patrick S. Carroll, M.A., is Director of Research, Pension and Population
Research Institute (PAPRI), 35 Canonbury Road, London N1 2DG, UK

Acknowledgements: Particular thanks are due to the charities LIFE and The Medical Education Trust, which funded the research, to the national statistical offices and cancer registries, which provided the data, and to the statisticians who kindly gave advice. Figure 10 is reproduced from the publication with permission of the Cancer
Surveillance Team, Information Services Division (ISD), NHS National Services, Scotland. Computing was done by Andrew Chan and Lee Young.

Potential conflicts of interest: none disclosed.
[The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors, Patrick S. Carroll, M.A.,  Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007, http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf]

[The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors, Patrick S. Carroll, M.A.,  Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007, http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf]

BREAST CANCER LINKED TO ABORTION. A new UK study says that induced abortion is the “best predictor” of breast cancer, and calls the current widespread incidence of breast cancer “epidemic.” The study appears in the Fall edition of The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, and is authored by Patrick Carroll, M.A., who is the Director of Research for the Pension and Population Research Institute in London.
 
The study is based on data collected in eight European countries: England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; the Irish Republic, Sweden; the Czech Republic; Finland; and Denmark. The national cancer registration data in each of these eight countries was correlated with comprehensive abortion data on file. The study made special note of the fact that such detailed, reliable data is not available in the United States, asserting that “official abortion statistics in the United States and France are known to understate the numbers of legal induced abortions.”
 
The forecasts for the increase in breast cancer in the eight countries studied are huge and they are dire. In England and Wales, for instance, the cases are expected to explode from the 39,229 cases reported in 2004 to over 65,000 in 2025, an increase of more than 66 percent. Similar trends are forecast in the other seven countries.
 
The study lists seven known factors which either raise the risk of breast cancer or lower it.
 
Factors that raise the risk:
 
• Induced abortion. Induced abortion is given as the number one risk-raising factor, especially when a woman has never given birth to a child because, the researchers said, such an abortion “leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible.”
 
• Hormonal contraceptives
 
• Hormonal replacement therapy (HRT)
 
Factors that lower the risk:
 
• Bearing children
 
• Giving birth at a low age.
 
• Higher fertility – giving birth to a larger number of children.
 
• Breastfeeding
 
The study concludes that the increase in breast cancer rates is tied first to an increase in abortion rates, and second to lower fertility (fewer births). For the immediate future, the study said a further increase in breast cancer is to be expected because women who are now older than 45 have had more abortions and fewer children than previous generations.
 
[7November2007, Sylvia Hubbard, Newsmax.com; prolifeamerica.com]
Related:
    * Prevent the Serial Killer of Women: Breast Cancer. Fight Fear with Facts. http://w3.newsmax.com/blaylock/33a.cfm