Breast Cancer, Its Risk from Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, by Dr Chris Kahlenborn, is available for FREE reading at
The Q&A format is very reader friendly.
There is a Breast Cancer epidemic in the USA, and this book explains why and how.
[Speech by Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, in 2010. Dr. Lanfranchi is associated with the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.]
Decades of Hope
Breast cancer not only affects A woman. It affects her spouse, family, friends and most especially her children. Yet what we see here today are examples of women who rose to that challenge. What better way to conquer fear than the grace of hope. Hope in a cure. Hope in prevention. Hope that whatever it is they will be challenged with, that they will be able to
surmount it and live their lives to fullest each day into their survivorship.
In October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we all hear that 1 in 8 women, or 12.5% of women, will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. That is the cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer, which is a statistically derived number that assumes all women will live to be the age of 82 and not die of something else first. Many times, women hear that number 1 in 8 and they look about the room and start counting off. 1, 2, 3…they believe that someone in that room will get breast cancer if there are more than 8 of them.
But we also need to know that if a women has no risks for breast cancer (other than that she is a woman, living in this country and getting older) her risk of getting breast cancer is only 3.3%.
Unfortunately few women have no risk factors.
But even if she has a risk factor that increases her risk 100%, or doubles her breast cancer risk, her risk is now only 6.6%. That's a lot different than one in eight.
We also need to hear that a woman's chance of dying from breast cancer in this country is 1 in 35, or less than 3%…
We know for sure that there is hope for prevention.
Look at what happened in 2002 after the Women‟s Health Intiative Study became known to the public because it made the 6 o‟clock news. Women found out that hormone replacement therapy, Pempro, increased breast cancer risk by 26%. That summer 15 million or half of the 30 million women that were on HRT abruptly stopped. As one of my patients said, “I‟d rather have hot flashes than cancer.”
Just a few years later in 2007, it was reported that there was an 11% decline in breast cancer rates in women over 50 with estrogen receptor positive cancers. After much scientific debate, those in the medical field conceded that the decline in rates was attributable to the reduction in the use of HRT.
Information that these hormones could cause breast cancer was in the medical literature for over 20 years. But when that knowledge was put in the hands of women who needed and considered it, many acted upon it and breast cancer rates fell.
What do you think will happen when women learn that these same hormones are in oral contraceptives but in much higher doses? Will half of the 75% of premenopausal women in the United States who take hormonal contraceptives stop these hormones like their mothers did after menopause?
What if they learn that in 2005 the UN‟s World Health Organization listed oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens, the same group that contains asbestos and cigarettes?
I bet that they will learn about the safer methods of fertility control, especially if they have a family history of breast
Breast cancer rates will fall for women less than 50, too.
What if women knew that having children and breastfeeding decreased breast cancer risk substantially?
Would we wait so long to have our children if we knew that a woman who waits to have her first child at 30 has a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than the woman who has her first child at 20? I wouldn't have waited till I was 41 to have my first and only child if I had known.
Unplanned pregnancies could bring unplanned joy, and adoption could be a better option.
It is often said by cancer organizations that 70% of women with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors and that we should give them money to find a cure.
It is simply untrue that 70% of all breast cancer patients have no identifiable risk factors.
If 75% of women of reproductive age have taken oral contraceptives they are at increased risk.
If 20% of the women in this country remain childless, they are at increased risk.
If 50% of post menopausal women have taken hormone replacement therapy, they are at increased risk…
We already know lots about what causes breast cancer and what can increase a woman's risk.
Breast cancer is not the fickle finger of fate randomly pointed at women.
There are many other avoidable risks. We can hope and expect to reduce breast cancer rates with prevention…
[Speech in Somerville, New Jersey on Courthouse Steps for Somerset County Cancer Coalition and Freeholders
By Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center
October 6, 2010, http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LanfranchiSpeech10-2010.pdf]
National Cancer Institute Must Tell Women That Abortion & Breast Cancer Are Linked
Each October, we acknowledge Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is a noble and worthy endeavor to raise awareness of this dread disease and how it affects the women we love and their families.
We have indeed made great strides against this disease in all areas: etiology, early detection, and treatment.
However, the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) pro-abortion political correcting of honestly assessing all areas of causality undercuts the effectiveness of October’s activities, and leaves millions of women at needless increased risk. Specifically, we need to consider the risks associated with oral contraceptive (OC) use, and abortion.
At my blog, I have been analyzing the peer reviewed scientific and medical literature showing the association between OC use, abortion and breast cancer.
For a half-century now, well over a hundred studies have indicated a link between abortion and breast cancer, with increased risks being upward of 50% for abortions before a first full-term pregnancy, with many showing increased risks above 100%.
The biological explanation for this link is very simple and has been demonstrated repeatedly in animal studies. Prior to a first full term pregnancy a woman’s breasts are not fully developed, with her lobules made up of immature and cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells. When she conceives a child, estrogen levels rise dramatically, along with the pregnancy hormone HCG, which stimulate the lobules to undergo massive cell prol
iferation, roughly doubling in number.
These first trimester events leave the woman with twice as many cells where cancer can start.
At the end of the second trimester, the baby begins to protect the mother by secreting the hormone human placental lactogen. This hormone matures the lobule cells into cancer-resistant Type 4 cells, which will produce milk. By the end of the pregnancy 85% of the lobule cells will have undergone this differentiation. The remaining 15% will undergo differentiation to Type 4 Cells during breastfeeding and subsequent pregnancies.
As animal studies bear out, if pregnancy is ended by abortion the woman is left with twice as many immature, cancer-prone cells where cancer can start, but she does not derive the protective effect of the third trimester.
Oral Contraceptives work by the same mechanism of stimulating cell proliferation, without the protective effect of a full term pregnancy. It is simple, elegant, and devastating.
Women who miscarry have abnormally low hormonal levels, and in all studies are shown to be at NO increased risk of developing breast cancer.
So where does this political correcting at NCI come from?
Pro-abortion feminist researchers in and associated with the National Cancer Institute convened a panel in 2003 to craft a denial of their own research showing the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link. Their dismissal of the data was founded on the absurd notion that women with breast cancer are more apt to recall and truthfully report their prior abortions during detailed health histories in research studies than healthy women in the control groups of these studies. This phenomenon is alternately dubbed “recall bias” and “reporting bias”.
Such preposterous thinking is in contravention to the denial that accompanies such devastating disease. If anything, the reverse would be true. However, these researchers suggested that the only valid studies would be those that start in the present and move forward over time. These are known as prospective studies, and are thought to be advantageous over their retrospective counterparts.
But as my ongoing analysis of these studies indicates, these prospective studies are often conducted and funded by the same pro-abortion folks who denied the validity of their own published retrospective studies. These prospective studies, which have purportedly shown no recall bias, are so methodologically flawed, deliberately so, as to literally violate the scientific process.
In the biggest prospective study to allegedly show no ABC link, the Melbye study, the authors began counting breast cancer cases in 1967, but didn’t start a consideration of abortions before 1973.
This puts the cases of disease six years before the suspected exposure to the potential cancer-producing cause.
I would fail an undergraduate biology student on a research project for making such an obvious blunder. But this is the best study to which the pro-aborts point. But even Melbye’s studies indicate a 3% rise in risk of breast cancer for every week a woman waits to have an abortion, until at 18 weeks gestation her risk rises to 89%.
Further, when Melbye studied premature births, it was found that breast cancer risks are elevated in women who deliver before 32 weeks at the same levels that the retrospective studies establish for women who have induced abortions.
Melbye notes the loss of protective effect in these cases of premature delivery.
What Melbye refuses to admit is that the sudden end of pregnancy, through either induced abortion or premature birth, are equivalent biological events where the risk of breast cancer is concerned.
So we [are progressing] through another Breast Cancer Awareness Month where the pro-abortion gang at NCI has conspired to keep the whole truth about risk factors from women, including their chief epidemiologist’s (Dr. Louise Brinton) own paper last year which indicates that women who begin OC use before age 18 are at 540% increased risk of developing the most aggressive and deadly form of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer.
One wonders why there is not near hysteria in the media over such a catastrophic correlation, especially when Planned Parenthood dispenses OCs to teens as though they were M&Ms.
It remains for the pro-life community to patiently bring these scientific truths forward.
The only force more ruthless and uncaring than the pro-abortion crew at NCI is nature.
The laws of physiology and disease are coldly unforgiving of ignorance, political correctness, and willful disobedience. Dr. Louise Brinton and her handpicked coterie of abortion enthusiasts have betrayed women, betrayed scientific integrity, and betrayed their duty to the truth by politically driven machination.
Having dug in their heels, we must simply maneuver around them and take the lead.
[originally published November 5, 2010 by Gerard M. Nadal; 28 Sept 2011, Medical Students for Life of America]