"The breast cancer epidemic"

pink%20ribbon.gifThe Actuary, a professional magazine for actuaries in the UK, has published an article in its November 2007 issue entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic," about its impact on life and health insurance and health care industries in the UK.

The article was based on forecasts of breast cancer rates published last month in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

In that article, Patrick Carroll, a statistician and actuary, showed that of 7 risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor" of breast cancer trends, and fertility is also a useful predictor.

Carroll used a mathematical model he successfully used previously to forecast breast cancer incidence to project a 50.9% increase in breast cancer in England and Wales by 2029. Other highlights:

1) The increasing rates of abortion and breast cancer run parallel and are highly correlated.

2) "Oestrogen (estrogen), progestin and other female hormones, whether naturally produced or administered medically, fuel breast cancer development," said Carroll.

There are 7 known risk breast cancer risk factors to explain the trend:

1. Abortion before a woman's first full term birth is "highly carcinogenic" because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible.

2. A low age at first birth is protective.

3. Childlessness increases the risk.

4. A large number of children increases protection.

5. Breastfeeding gives additional protection.

unnatural2.jpg

6. Hormonal contraceptives are conducive to breast cancer.

7. Hormone replacement therapy is conducive to breast cancer.

When you analyze #s 1-7, you see it appears that fighting a woman's biological and physiological make-up (i.e., the teachings of modern feminism) contributes to breast cancer.

There is no explanation other than willful ignorance to explain how normally reasonable people, who advocate protecting our natural environment and engaging in healthy lifestyles, would reject the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Even using simple logic based on on understanding of female biology and hormones aside from statistics would conclude the rationality of the ABC link.


Comments:

1) The increasing rates of abortion and breast cancer run parallel and are highly correlated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a direct correlation between the rise in breast cancer rates and the rate of homes with microwave ovens. Microwave ovens must cause breast cancer.

I love it when people run with the correlation. My favorite is "99% of all heroin addicts drank milk as a child. Milk drinking causes heroin addiction."

Posted by: Laura at November 7, 2007 1:20 PM


Laura,
"Even using simple logic based on on understanding of female biology and hormones aside from statistics would conclude the rationality of the ABC link."

Key words here, Laura...simple logic!
100% of all people who don't have the skill of acquiring simple logic will not understand it.

Posted by: PL Laura at November 7, 2007 1:35 PM


I think Laura does not want to accept facts and observations, even scientific ones, if it goes against abortion.

Posted by: RSD at November 7, 2007 2:43 PM


Ha, kind of funny. I am wearing my breast cancer slippers right now. How fitting.

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 3:29 PM


White slippers/pink bow.

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 3:30 PM


Laura,
Did you just make a quick run to meet that someone special in the back parking lot of a Denny's again? Tsk Tsk Tsk

Posted by: Sandy at November 7, 2007 3:36 PM


Sandy, LOL!!!

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 3:41 PM


BTW Laura,
If you are so certain this study is bunk, take it up with the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. I am sure they would love to hear from a "dog catcher" that this article has no value and the statistics are completely false.

Let us all know how it turns out.

Posted by: Sandy at November 7, 2007 3:42 PM


hehehe, there is a study I read in one of my Psych magazines I get.

The study had a correlation between schizophrenia and owning a cat. A "high" correlation at that. So all you cat lovers, watch out, you'll develop schizophrenia...

Posted by: midnite678 at November 7, 2007 3:46 PM


Laura is speculating about the scientific evidence for an abortion-breast cancer link and has clearly not investigated the biological reasons for it. Even critics of the link concede that an abortion-breast cancer link makes good biological sense. No scientist has ever challenged or attempted to refute it.

Drugs containing estrogen and progestin (i.e. oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) are already accepted risk factors for breast cancer. The World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute list the drugs as carcinogens (cancer causing agents).

The estrogen that women's ovaries produce is chemically the same form of estrogen as the steroidal estrogens used in oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy.

Starting early in a normal pregnancy (not most miscarriages, i.e. first trimester miscarriages), the mother is overexposed to estrogen. Estrogen climbs 2000% by the end of the first trimester.

The childless woman's breast tissue consists almost entirely of immature, cancer-vulnerable Type 1 and 2 lobules where 95% of all breast cancers are known to arise.

Estrogen stimulates the mother's Type 1 and 2 lobules and causes breast growth. It does this by causing the lobules to multiply. Therefore, she develops more Type 1 and 2 lobules than she had before she became pregnant. If she has an abortion during the first or second trimesters, she's left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start.

That's the first of three breast cancer risks associated with abortion, and it's the only debated risk.

During the last months of pregnancy, pheromones manufactured by the fetus - hCG and hPL - mature most of her lobules into cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules.

If she carries her pregnancy to at least 32 weeks gestation, she gains 90% of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy.

By the end of a full term pregnancy, 85% of her lobules are fully mature, cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. (These are the lactating lobules.)

That explains why epidemiologists have found a correlation between having more children and a reduced lifetime risk for breast cancer. It also explains the correlation between having an early first full term pregnancy and reduced risk.

Second Breast Cancer Risk of Abortion

The Institute of Medicine lists abortion as a risk factor for subsequent premature birth. Research shows that when a woman has a premature birth before 32 weeks of pregnancy, she increases her breast cancer risk. Since premature birth before 32 weeks gestation and abortion are similar biological events for the mother and the hormonal changes to the breasts are virtually the same, one would expect that the risks would be the same as well. Therefore, this evidence provides additional biological support for an abortion-breast cancer link.

Third Breast Cancer Risk of Abortion
All experts agree that the younger a woman is when she has her first full term pregnancy, the lower her risk is for the disease. It is the single most important thing to do to prevent the disease. (Why? The earlier she has her first baby, the sooner she matures most of her breast lobules into cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules.)

For this reason, it is undeniable that the young woman who has an abortion has a greater breast cancer risk than does the one who has a baby. That is a recognized breast cancer risk associated with abortion.

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 7, 2007 3:55 PM


I don't mean to make a comment on what the article is saying, but I want to say the Journal for American Physicians and Surgeons is a widely disputed journal. Even people at World Net Daily (a pro-life website) have been known to discredit the articles because they often are biased and lack actual medical proof.

I'm not saying the article is wrong, but if you want to cite an article saying abortion leads to breast cancer, you should do so from an unbiased, reputable source. Not one that is known for its inaccuracies.

Posted by: Edyt at November 7, 2007 4:05 PM


but I want to say the Journal for American Physicians and Surgeons is a widely disputed journal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's a "pay-to-publish" rag.
You don't even have to be a physician or surgeon to get your trash published there, just pay the fee.

Posted by: Laura at November 7, 2007 4:13 PM


midnite, welcome back!!!

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 4:16 PM


Hiya Heather. How are you doing?

Posted by: midnite678 at November 7, 2007 4:23 PM


Again, Laura is speculating about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. It is a peer-reviewed medical journal read by 8,000 physicians. When science isn't on your side, it is always best to shoot the messenger.

The message might be an unpleasant one, but women who've had an abortion have a window of opportunity right now to adopt strategies to reduce their risk, so it's no time to hide heads in the sand. For risk reduction strategies, go to the last chapter of this booklet: http://www.bcpinstitute.org/booklet4.htm

Epidemiological research on the abortion-breast cancer link has been conducted since 1957. Women have been kept in the dark about the existence of the research.

Let's use our heads here. If health authorities in the U.S. government wanted women to know about this research, don't you think they would have at least said something about its existence?

Ladies, did they tell you the truth about the risks of using oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy containing estrogen and progestin? That research dates from the 1980s! Women didn't learn about the risk until THE MEDIA told them in 2002 - not the cancer establishment!

Many of the journals that have published the abortion-breast cancer research may be familiar to you. Here is a partial list of the research that has been kept from women's eyes (the vast majority of which support an abortion-cancer link):

Segi M, Fukushima I, Fujisaku S, Kurihara M, Saito S, Asano K, Kamoi M. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN 1957;48(Suppl):1-63.

Watanabe H, Hirayama T. Epidemiology and clinical aspects of breast cancer. Nippon Rinsho 1968;26:1853-1859 in Japanese.

Dvoirin VV, Medvedev AB. Role of women’s reproductive status in the development of breast cancer. In Tallin: Methods and progress in breast cancer epidemiology research, 1978. Moscow: Oncology Science Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences 1978;pp 53-63, in Russian.

Burany B. Gestational characteristics in women with breast cancer. Jugosl Genekol Opstet 1979;19:237-47, in Serbo-Croatian.

FIRST AMERICAN STUDY!
Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, Rosario I, Gray GE. Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Br J Cancer 1981;43:72-76.

Nishiyama F. Epidemiology of breast cancer in Tokushima prefecture. Shikoku Ichi 1982;38: 333-343, in Japanese.

Brinton LA, Hoover R, Fraumeni JF Jr. Reproductive factors in the aetiology of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1983;47:757-762.

Le M-G, Bachelot A, Doyon F, Kramar A, Hill C. Oral contraceptive use and breast or cervical cancer: preliminary results of a French case-control study. In: Wolff J-P, Scott JS, eds. Hormones and sexual factors in human cancer aetiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier 1984;139-147.

Hirohata T, Shigematsu T, Nomura AMY, Nomura Y, Horie A, Hirohata I. Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1985;69:187-190.

Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Kaufman DW, Strom BL, Schottenfeld D, Shapiro S. Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:981-989.

Rohan T, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA. A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:478-489.

Ewertz M, Duffy SW. Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark. Br J Cancer 1988;68:99-104.

Harris B-M L, Eklund G, Meirik O, Rutqvist LE, Wiklund K. Risk of cancer of the breast after legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish register study. BMJ 1989;299:1430-1432.

PROSPECTIVE STUDY IN LONG ISLAND
Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-304.

Adami H-O, Bergstrom R, Lund E, Meirik O. Absence of association between reproductive variables and the risk of breast cancer in young women in Sweden and Norway. Br J Cancer 1990;62:122-126.

Lindefors-Harris B-M, Eklund G, Adami H-O, Meirik O. Response bias in a case-control study: analysis utilizing comparative data concerning legal abortions from two independent Swedish studies. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134:1003-1008.

Parazzini F, La Vecchia C, Negri E. Spontaneous and induced abortions and risk of breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1991;48:816-20.

La Vecchia C, Negri E, Franceschi S, Parazzini F. Long-term impact of reproductive factors on cancer risk. Int J Cancer 1993;53:215-219.

Moseson M, Koenig KL, Shore RE, Pasternak BS. Influence of medical conditions associated with hormones on the risk of breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1993;22:1000-1009.

Laing AE, Demenais FM, Williams R, Kissling G, Chen VW, Bonney. GE. Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience. J Natl Med Assoc 1993;85:931-939.

Laing AE, Bonney GE, Adams-Campbell L, et al. Reproductive and lifestyle factors for breast cancer in African American women. Genet Epidemiol 1994;11:A300.

Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-1592.

White E, Malone KE, Weiss NS, Daling JR. Breast cancer among young US women in relation to oral contraceptive use. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:505-514.

Andrieu N, Demenais F. Role of genetic and reproductive factors in breast cancer. Genet Epidemiol 1994;11:A285 (abstract).

Andrieu N, Duffy SW, Rohan TE, Le MG, Luporsi E, Gerber M, Renaud R, Zaridze DG, Lifanova Y, Day NE. Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast
cancer—a combined analysis of six case-control studies. Br J Cancer 1995;72:744-751.

Luporsi E, (1988), in Andrieu N, Duffy SW, Rohan TE, Le MG, Luporsi E, Gerber M, Renaud R, Zaridze DG, Lifanova Y, Day NE. Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer—a combined analysis of six case-control studies. Br J Cancer 1995;72:744-751.

Lipworth L, Katsouyanni K, Ekborn A, Michels KB, Trichopoulos D. Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece. Int J Cancer 1995;61:181-184.

Bu L, Voigt L, Yu Z, Malone K, Daling J. Risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion in a population at low risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:S85.
(abstract).

Zaridze DG. (1988) in Andrieu N, Duffy SW, Rohan TE, Le MG, Luporsi E, Gerber M, Renaud R, Zaridze DG, Lifanova Y, Day NE. Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer—a combined analysis of six case-control studies. Br J Cancer 1995;72:744-751.

Rookus MA, van Leeuwen FE. Breast cancer risk after induced bortion, a Dutch case-control study Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:S54 (abstract 214).

Rookus MA, van Leeuwan FE. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1759-1764.

Newcomb PA, Storer BE, Longnecker MP, Mittendorf R, Greenberg ER, Willett WC. Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer. JAMA 1996;275:283-287.

Daling JR, Brinton LA, Voigt LF, et al. Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:373-380.

Talamini R, La Vecchia C, Franceschi S, et al. The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:303-310.

Wu AH, Ziegler RG, Pike MC, et al. Menstrual and reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer in Asian-Americans. Br J Cancer 1996;73:680-686.

Tavani A, La Vecchia C, Franceschi S, Negri E, D’avanao B, Decarli A. Abortion and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer 1996;65:401-05.

Palmer JR, Rosenberg L, Sowmya Rao R, et al. Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:841-849.

Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.

Marcus PM, Baird DD, Millikan RC, Moorman PG, Qaqish B, Newman B. Adolescent reproductive events and subsequent breast cancer risk. Am J Pub Health 1999;89:1244-1247.

Lazovich D, Thompson JA, Mink PJ, Sellers TA, Anderson KE. Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 2000;11:76-80.

Tang NC, Weiss NS, Malone KE. Induced abortion in relation to breast cancer among parous women: A birth certificate registry study. Epidemiology 2000;11:177-80.

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 7, 2007 4:34 PM


It's a "pay-to-publish" rag.
You don't even have to be a physician or surgeon to get your trash published there, just pay the fee.

Posted by: Laura at November 7, 2007 4:13 PM

But no doubt if it had an article stating that abortion reduces the chance of breast cancer you would certainly post that on this site.

Posted by: Sandy at November 7, 2007 4:52 PM


Laura, I challenge you to provide evidence to back up your malicious claims concerning the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. If you cannot back up your assertions with evidence, then you have no right to make these claims. Women's lives are at stake.

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 7, 2007 5:00 PM


Patrick Carroll is an actuarian with an agenda. Notice that miscarriages are completely discounted in his 'study'. Apparently he is the only employee of PAPRI. His 'studies' are funded by anti-choice groups.
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is an organization with a conservative political agenda and is not peer reviewed:
Q: What is a peer-reviewed journal?

A: A scholarly periodical which requires that each article submitted for publication be judged by an independent panel of experts (scholarly or scientific peers). Articles not approved by a majority of these peers are not accepted for publication by the journal.

Posted by: Sally at November 7, 2007 5:14 PM


I'm curious, and have a question (at the bottom of this post). If (from Karen Malec's post above) all of this is true:

"Starting early in a normal pregnancy (not most miscarriages, i.e. first trimester miscarriages), the mother is overexposed to estrogen. Estrogen climbs 2000% by the end of the first trimester.

The childless woman's breast tissue consists almost entirely of immature, cancer-vulnerable Type 1 and 2 lobules where 95% of all breast cancers are known to arise.

Estrogen stimulates the mother's Type 1 and 2 lobules and causes breast growth. It does this by causing the lobules to multiply. Therefore, she develops more Type 1 and 2 lobules than she had before she became pregnant. If she has an abortion during the first or second trimesters, she's left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start.

That's the first of three breast cancer risks associated with abortion, and it's the only debated risk.

During the last months of pregnancy, pheromones manufactured by the fetus - hCG and hPL - mature most of her lobules into cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules.

If she carries her pregnancy to at least 32 weeks gestation, she gains 90% of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy.

By the end of a full term pregnancy, 85% of her lobules are fully mature, cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. (These are the lactating lobules.)

That explains why epidemiologists have found a correlation between having more children and a reduced lifetime risk for breast cancer. It also explains the correlation between having an early first full term pregnancy and reduced risk."


...then shouldn't there be studies showing the same correlative link between miscarriage and breast cancer? I'm not trying to argue about this, because I don't know enough, but I really am curious.

Posted by: Carol at November 7, 2007 5:18 PM


Again, Laura, you are making false and malicious assertions without backing up your assertions with evidence.

You have no evidence whatsoever that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not peer-reviewed. I authored an article for the journal, and I know for a fact that it is peer-reviewed.

If you had the slightest concern for women's lives, you would not be so reckless about the facts.

Patrick Carroll used a mathematical model to forecast breast cancer trends. He showed that he successfully predicted breast cancers in England and Wales by using abortion as the predictor in this model. If abortion had not been useful in predicting breast cancer trends in Europe, then his earlier forecasts would have been wildly inaccurate.

I suppose that you would label the insurance industry publication, The Actuary, "anti-choice" too since it did not publish scientific research that was on your side. Just this week it published Carroll's article informing insurance actuaries of his forecasts and the need for the actuaries to adjust their premiums and reserves accordingly.

And what about all of those medical journals that have published research supporting abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer since 1957, but did not tell women about it? Are they, too, "anti-choice"? What about the Journal of the American Medical Association, the British Journal of Cancer, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, etc.?

Bias is not a one-way street, Laura. It is a two-way street. You cannot argue the science because it is not on your side. Therefore, your only alternative is to talk about agendas and ideology. Your behavior suggests that you may be too emotionally entangled with abortion to be rational about the subject.

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 7, 2007 5:40 PM


Carol, most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. Most miscarriages are abnormal pregnancies. Most miscarriages take place in the first trimester.

As I explained above, when a woman is carrying a NORMAL pregnancy, she is overexposed to estrogen. If there is no estrogen overexposure, then there is no increase in risk.

Progesterone is needed to maintain a pregnancy, Estrogen is made from progesterone. When progesterone drops, a miscarriage takes place and estrogen level declines. Estrogen and progesterone rise and fall together.

Women will often remark after having had a miscarriage that they didn't "feel" pregnant. Their breasts weren't sore and tender (because estrogen wasn't stimulating their lobules to multiply), and they didn't feel nauseous.

You can read more about this by going to this link and reading Dr. Joel Brind's lecture here:

http://abortionbreastcancer.com/Brind_Lecture.htm

Start reading under the headings, "Cell Proliferation and Differentiation" and "Estradiol Levels."

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 7, 2007 5:49 PM


Carol, most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. Most miscarriages are abnormal pregnancies. Most miscarriages take place in the first trimester.

As I explained above, when a woman is carrying a NORMAL pregnancy, she is overexposed to estrogen. If there is no estrogen overexposure, then there is no increase in risk.

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 7, 2007 5:49 PM

Hi Karen. Thanks for your response.

If that's the reason for no correlation between miscarriage and breast cancer, then how is there a correlation between abortion and breast cancer, since most abortions take place in the first trimester? Again, I realize that the question may sound aggressive, but I'm not intending it that way.

Posted by: Carol at November 7, 2007 6:24 PM


Women will often remark after having had a miscarriage that they didn't "feel" pregnant. Their breasts weren't sore and tender (because estrogen wasn't stimulating their lobules to multiply), and they didn't feel nauseous.

Progesterone is needed to maintain a pregnancy, Estrogen is made from progesterone. When progesterone drops, a miscarriage takes place and estrogen level declines. Estrogen and progesterone rise and fall together.

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 7, 2007 5:49 PM

Also, having experienced two miscarriages, with fetal death at around 5 to 7 weeks for both, you'll have to pardon my skepticism on this explanation. With both, I definitely felt pregnant and was experiencing pregnancy symptoms. It was actually waking up in the morning and NOT feeling pregnant that tipped me off to the end of the pregnancy and the eventual miscarriage.

Posted by: Carol at November 7, 2007 6:41 PM


Carol,

What skepticism? You're verifying what Karen said. Just before your miscarriage you no longer "felt pregnant". Fetal development had stopped and your hormone levels were dropping. That would explain the loss of symptoms. Also, women carrying "blighted ovums", that is placental sacs but no developing fetus may also have symptoms of pregnancy up until the miscarriage.
I've had women tell me that they sensed something was wrong, even though the pregnancy was progressing normally. Symptoms were mild or non-existent. Many have said they either never really felt pregnant or no longer felt pregnant.

Posted by: Mary at November 7, 2007 7:02 PM


Mary, there is a difference between what Karen said and what I said.

Her post said that many women who miscarry NEVER felt pregnant, indicating little to no substantial change in hormone levels and supporting her assertion that miscarriage wouldn't have the same effect as abortion.

My post said that I did at one time feel pregnant, then fetal death occurred, and I no longer did. Indicating, to me at least, that there had been a substantial change in hormone levels.

Posted by: Carol at November 7, 2007 7:13 PM


Carol,

What skepticism? You're verifying what Karen said. Just before your miscarriage you no longer "felt pregnant". Fetal development had stopped and your hormone levels were dropping. That would explain the loss of symptoms. Also, women carrying "blighted ovums", that is placental sacs but no developing fetus may also have symptoms of pregnancy up until the miscarriage.
I've had women tell me that they sensed something was wrong, even though the pregnancy was progressing normally. Symptoms were mild or non-existent. Many have said they either never really felt pregnant or no longer felt pregnant.

Posted by: Mary at November 7, 2007 7:02 PM
..............................................

I miscarried a 12 week fetus at 14 weeks. I felt pregnant up until the miscarriage. I lost so much blood miscarrying it's hard to say what I felt like after the fact.
Karen insinuates that miscarriage is caused by hormonal levels. I would love to see the evidence to back this up.

Posted by: Sally at November 7, 2007 7:19 PM


Carol, most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. Most miscarriages are abnormal pregnancies. Most miscarriages take place in the first trimester.
............................

Do site your sources.

Posted by: Sally at November 7, 2007 7:21 PM


Sally,

When the body is getting ready to expel what it recognizes as an abnormal fetus, for whatever reason, hormonal levels will drop. The body is preparing to expel the fetus. The cervix will dilatate, the uterus will cramp, and the fetus will be expelled. Falling hormone levels will precede the actual miscarriage itself as part of the process of miscarrying. There are conditions as well where women cannot sustain pregnancy because of hormonal deficiencies.

Posted by: Mary at November 7, 2007 8:01 PM


Sally,

When the body is getting ready to expel what it recognizes as an abnormal fetus, for whatever reason, hormonal levels will drop. The body is preparing to expel the fetus. The cervix will dilatate, the uterus will cramp, and the fetus will be expelled. Falling hormone levels will precede the actual miscarriage itself as part of the process of miscarrying. There are conditions as well where women cannot sustain pregnancy because of hormonal deficiencies.

Posted by: Mary at November 7, 2007 8:01 PM
........................................

Come on Mary! How on earth do you believe that a body is capable of diagnosing an abnormal fetus? If this were so, women would never carry dead fetii to term.

Posted by: Sally at November 7, 2007 8:13 PM


Carol,

All women do not react the same to hormonal changes and symptoms can vary. One woman, such as yourself, may have symptoms and can immediately sense hormonal changes, others will not. All three of my pregnancies felt different. I thought the morning, afternoon and nite sickness with my first one would kill me, I had virtually no symptoms with my last one. In fact I was a little nervous about that. They're both alive and healthy. A woman may not feel pregnant and still be carrying a very normal pregnancy. A woman may feel pregnant and be preparing to miscarry.

Posted by: Mary at November 7, 2007 8:15 PM


Sally,

The body can and does. Just as the body can recognize an invading pathogen or foreign body. Why do you think a woman miscarries? A dead "fetii" won't go to term. Full term deaths usually occur later in the pregnancy, and the body will eventually expel it too. "Stillbirths" usually occur in the last trimester of an otherwise normal pregnancy, the cause often unknown.

I forgot to give you the evidence you asked for in my last post. Any high school biology book.

Posted by: Mary at November 7, 2007 8:24 PM


"The breast cancer epidemic"
...............................

Nothing in this opinion piece proves a breast cancer epidemic. No one in my family has battled it let alone died of it to my knowledge.

Posted by: Sally at November 7, 2007 8:28 PM


What a load of BS! The Melbye study answered this question definitively: there is no link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer. At least not in Danish women. You could make an argument that it might be different in, say, Africans.

All this stuff about hormonal changes and breast tissue responding to pregnancy in a way that make cancer more likely if the pregnancy is interrupted, is a hypothesis. It is not supported by the data of any large study.

There are also small studies that show a (slight) protective effect: that abortion PREVENTS breast cancer. These are also statistical noise, too small to be meaningful.

Posted by: SoMG at November 7, 2007 8:29 PM


Sally,

The body can and does. Just as the body can recognize an invading pathogen or foreign body. Why do you think a woman miscarries? A dead "fetii" won't go to term. Full term deaths usually occur later in the pregnancy, and the body will eventually expel it too. "Stillbirths" usually occur in the last trimester of an otherwise normal pregnancy, the cause often unknown.

I forgot to give you the evidence you asked for in my last post. Any high school biology book.

Posted by: Mary at November 7, 2007 8:24 PM
...........................................

I took advanced biology courses in high school. Please point out what I missed.
Your understanding of biology is a bit off. Well actually, way off. If a woman's body recognized a conceptus as a pathogen, no pregnancies would ever progress to completion.
Dead fetii will and do 'go to term'. My mother delivered 3 of them before the abortion procedure was legal. It is quite dangerous to the woman's health and ability to carry a subsequent pregnancy.
And honey, the expellation of a stillbirth is called labor and delivery.
Where do you get this misinformation?

Posted by: Sally at November 7, 2007 8:36 PM


You can read more about this by going to this link and reading Dr. Joel Brind's lecture here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You do know that Joel Brind is not a physician?

He has a Ph.D in Biology, and teaches Biology at a Business college that doesn't even offer Biology as a major.

At least he isn't a mail-order diploma mill quack like David Reardon.

Posted by: Laura at November 7, 2007 8:50 PM


Sally,

Our biology books were certainly more explicit, we even had pictures of the reproduction systems, which had my mother eyebrows approaching the ceiling.
I did not say the body recognizes the fetus as a pathogen, I said the body recognizes invading pathogens and foreign bodies.

In fact a woman's body does recognize the conceptus as foreign. There is a mechanism that prevents the body from recognizing the fetus as foreign and rejecting it. If this mechanism fails, a woman will miscarry, usually very early.
Dead fetii cannot grow and when they die in utero the pregnancy cannot progress or go to term. That's just common sense. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, a miscarriage or stillbirth will occur. It may occur soon after or take several weeks and that is usually why women will opt for a D&C or induction. In our mother's time, diagnosis of intrauterine death was not as accurate as it is now and women were more likely to deliver when nature dictated, just to be certain.
I'm well aware that the expulsion of a stillbirth is labor and delivery and kindly refrain from calling me honey. I am older than you. The expulsion of a stillbirth can also occur by c-section.

Posted by: Mary at November 7, 2007 10:01 PM


Laura,

Actuaries work for insurance companies. The motivation of insurance companies is to make money. The actuaries use mathematical models to create the tables of risk for different problems based on data of distribution etc. If the insurance companies are looking at these trends to help them make money, there is no reason for them to look for anything but an accurate assessment.

When the insurance companies and the actuaries get involved, I tend to believe the results because their only interest is to make money. If they tweak the data or reinterpret the data, they lose money, which tends to upset the stockholders. I don't think a mathemetician is going to throw out his job and reputation, therby making himself unemployable in the industry just to promote some political ideas.

Posted by: hippie at November 7, 2007 10:54 PM


SoMG,

If you ever actually read the study, Melbye et al. 1997, you will find in the Results section of the paper that that team of researchers found a statistically significant 89% increase in risk for women who have abortions after eighteen weeks of pregnancy. [New England Journal of Medicine 336:81-5]

Melbye et al. also showed there is a dose effect - a critical piece of evidence that meets one of the requirements for establishing causation. Melbye et al wrote, "[w]ith each one-week increase in the gestational age of the fetus...there was a 3 percent increase in the risk of brest cancer."

A dose effect would mean that the longer the mother is exposed to estrogen during her pregnancy before she aborts, the greater the breast cancer risk.

In subsequent research, the study, Melbye et al. 1999, provided another critical piece of evidence that is required to establish causation. Their research showed that women who have premature births before 32 weeks gestation more than double their breast cancer risk. [British Journal of Cancer 80:609-13]

Laura,

You neglected to mention one inconvenient fact - that Joel Brind is a professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York. He studies the effects of hormones in the development of cancer.

Carol:

A decline in the pregnancy maintenance hormone progesterone often precedes miscarriage. Dr. Brind explained during his lecture that, "So most spontaneous abortions don't have normally very high levels of estradiol (estrogen). Now the reason for this is also fairly straightforward, in that the reason why - or at least the proximal reason why - spontaneous abortions occur is because there is not enough of the hormone progesterone to maintain the pregnancy. Well, estradiol is made from progesterone and they rise and fall in parallel in early pregnancy, and so when the progesterone is low, so is the estrogen. The estrogen is not necessary for maintaining the pregnancy. Its job is to prepare the breast to secrete enough milk to feed the baby."

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 7, 2007 11:01 PM


You neglected to mention one inconvenient fact - that Joel Brind is a professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York. He studies the effects of hormones in the development of cancer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One problem; Baruch College doesn't even have an endocrinology department, and doesn't even offer a major in Biology. It's a small private Business college. Here's the website:

http://www.collegebound.net/college/form/baruch-college/?referer=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-49,GGLG:en&q=Baruch+College+biology+major&campaign_id=10991425&

Posted by: Laura at November 7, 2007 11:13 PM


Holy crap, Laura. I don't want to say "fake"...but...damn...

The closest major is MAYBE psychology... at least it has an "ology" at the end....

I don't know what to make of that, Laura, but at least you did your homework.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 7, 2007 11:24 PM


Sally,

Our biology books were certainly more explicit, we even had pictures of the reproduction systems, which had my mother eyebrows approaching the ceiling.
I did not say the body recognizes the fetus as a pathogen, I said the body recognizes invading pathogens and foreign bodies.
.............................

Which would mean exactly what when linked to this gem:
.........................

In fact a woman's body does recognize the conceptus as foreign. There is a mechanism that prevents the body from recognizing the fetus as foreign and rejecting it.

...................

Please identify this mechanism. You can't? Didn't think so.
...................

If this mechanism fails, a woman will miscarry, usually very early.
Dead fetii cannot grow and when they die in utero the pregnancy cannot progress or go to term. That's just common sense.

..............................

Common sense based on limited knowledge and experience of course. You lie. I have proof. You have bull. Gestation of a fetus need not progress for a pregnancy to continue.
.............................

Depending on the stage of pregnancy, a miscarriage or stillbirth will occur. It may occur soon after or take several weeks and that is usually why women will opt for a D&C or induction.
.....................

A D&C is an abortion. Induction of a non viable fetus is an abortion. Why do you have a problem with honest medical terminology?

...............................

In our mother's time, diagnosis of intrauterine death was not as accurate as it is now and women were more likely to deliver when nature dictated, just to be certain.

..........................................

In my mother's 'time' there was no diagnosis of dead fetii. Mom 'quit feeling pregnant' at 7 months with her last and gave birth to rotting pieces of fetus at 10 months. As was God's will of course. I'm sure the hydrocephalic missing a brain was a real joy. Just to be certain? Oh bugger me.
.............................

I'm well aware that the expulsion of a stillbirth is labor and delivery and kindly refrain from calling me honey. I am older than you. The expulsion of a stillbirth can also occur by c-section.
.............................

Older than me? Grow up in a convent or what? A C-section is not an expulsion. It is an invasive and dangerous surgery.
What is your freak over the endearment of honey? Looking for insult where none was intended?

Posted by: Sally at November 7, 2007 11:27 PM


Laura,

Actuaries work for insurance companies. The motivation of insurance companies is to make money. The actuaries use mathematical models to create the tables of risk for different problems based on data of distribution etc. If the insurance companies are looking at these trends to help them make money, there is no reason for them to look for anything but an accurate assessment.

When the insurance companies and the actuaries get involved, I tend to believe the results because their only interest is to make money. If they tweak the data or reinterpret the data, they lose money, which tends to upset the stockholders. I don't think a mathemetician is going to throw out his job and reputation, therby making himself unemployable in the industry just to promote some political ideas.


Posted by: hippie at November 7, 2007 10:54 PM
................................

So you are saying that an acturian has tweaked numbers to somehow replace scientific fact for a political agenda. No kidding. I'm shocked and dismayed.@@
The dude is not being financed by insurance companies. He's being financed by PL propagangists.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 8, 2007 1:20 AM


Joel Brind, Department of Natural Sciences, Baruch College**
Office: Room 608A, 17 Lex., Phone: (646) 660-6240, E-mail: Joel_Brind@baruch.cuny.edu Joel Brind, Ph.D., New York University (Biochemistry, Physiology, Immunology), studies blood levels of steroid compounds as indicators and predictors of human health. His work is published in journals such ...
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/departments/natural_science/faculty/brind.html 09/28/05, 17270 bytes

It falls under the heading "Natural Sciences"...

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 8:17 AM


Field Description

The mission of the Department of Natural Sciences is to foster scientific literacy and an understanding of the scientific method of learning. Offering classes in biology, chemistry, physics, and environmental studies, the department provides introductory-level courses for students who need to satisfy the laboratory sciences requirement. Undergraduates may also work with a faculty advisor to design ad hoc majors to prepare for postbaccalaureate careers in science- and healthrelated fields or for entry to graduate or professional studies.

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 8:18 AM


"The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel,[24][25] is the journal of the association. Its mission statement includes "… a commitment to publishing scholarly articles in defense of the practice of private medicine, the pursuit of integrity in medical research … Political correctness, dogmatism and orthodoxy will be challenged with logical reasoning, valid data and the scientific method." Articles in the journal are subject to a double-blind peer-review process.[26]

Articles published in the journal have argued that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,[27] that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,[28] that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,[29] that HIV does not cause AIDS,[30] and that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[31] A series of articles by pro-life authors also claimed a link between abortion and breast cancer;[32][33] such a link has been rejected by the National Cancer Institute.[34]

The journal is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed[35] nor the Web of Science.[36] Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[37] The World Health Organization found that a 2003 article on vaccination published in the journal had "a number of limitations which undermine the conclusions drawn by the authors", although it noted that the matters raised in the paper were of sufficient importance that "WHO and GACVS will continue to keep the issue under careful and ongoing review."[38]

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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons.

Whoooo! Look at all those refereneces to how OBVIOUSLY BIASED this publication is.

As a journalist, I wouldn't let that pile of crap land on my desk without setting it on fire to cleanse myself of impurities...

Posted by: Edyt at November 8, 2007 8:55 AM


the department provides introductory-level courses for students who need to satisfy the laboratory sciences requirement.

Undergraduates may also work with a faculty advisor to design ad hoc majors to prepare for postbaccalaureate careers in science- and healthrelated fields or for entry to graduate or professional studies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Translation - we provide the easiest pass to get that damn "Earth Science" requirement out of the way.
No one interested in a Medical career or a Science major attends Baruch College. It's a Business School where Joel Brind - no MD - teaches Earth Science.

Why is it that I can post a study involving 105,000 women studied over 10 years performed by the finest minds at HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, and you guys dismiss it.
Then you guys post a lame study performed by a third-rate quack, and expect us to buy it?

Posted by: Laura at November 8, 2007 8:58 AM


"Articles published in the journal have argued that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,[27] that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,[28] that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,[29] that HIV does not cause AIDS,[30] and that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[31] A series of articles by pro-life authors also claimed a link between abortion and breast cancer;[32][33] such a link has been rejected by the National Cancer Institute.[34]"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, so much for The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons."

NEXT!

Posted by: Laura at November 8, 2007 9:05 AM


Sally,
SHEEEEEZZZZZ. Are you sure you aren't PMSing? or do you just flip into attack mode for no reason.

Mary was kindly trying to respond to your questions as she always does. Kindly. All of the explainations about miscarriage Mary has given were definitely the explainations I was given when I had my two miscarriages.

I did tons of reading after as well and all of what Mary is saying is accurate.

You think just because your mother's body did not recognize the death of her babies and expell them in a timely manner that her case is the standard for miscarriage.

BTW
A D&C is not an abortion. The procedure is used for many reasons:

Dilation and Curettage (D&C) Introduction
The dilation and curettage procedure is called a D&C. The D stands for dilation, which means enlarging. Curettage (the C) means scraping. Together, this procedure involves expanding or enlarging the entrance of a woman’s uterus so that a thin, sharp instrument can scrape or suction away the lining of the uterus and take tissue samples.

D&C is usually a diagnostic procedure and seldom is therapeutic. It may stop bleeding for a little while (2-6 months), then the prior abnormal bleeding tends to return.


Why don't you get your facts straight. Missy.

Posted by: Sandy at November 8, 2007 9:09 AM


Edyt:

The New York Times reported on April 14, 1954 (p. 51) that the U.S. National Cancer Institute denied the link between cigarette smoking and increased lung cancer risk in 1954, although the evidence for that link dated from 1929. It was not until 1964 that the federal government came out in full recognition of that link.

The American Medical Association opposed efforts in Congress in February 1964 to require cigarette manufacturers to provide warning labels on cigarette packages. That same month, the AMA accepted $10 million from the tobacco industry to do research on the link. Those "great minds" at Harvard also accepted money, as well as Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and other major cancer research facilities.

By late in the 1970s, the AMA had accepted a total sum of $15 million from the tobacco industry. [See former Food and Drug Administration director Dr. David Kessler's book, A Question of Intent]

One of the leaders of the National Cancer Institute and later the director of the American Cancer Society was "bought out" by the tobacco industry - Clarence "Pete" Little. He went to work for the Tobacco Institute Research Committee after writing during the 1940s that cigarette smoking cannot be healthy for a person. After going to work for the TIRC, he persisted in claiming there is "no proof" of a link - an impossibly high bar to set. (In reality, the burden of proof fell on the industry, just as today, the burden of proof falls on the abortion industry to show that abortion does not cause breast cancer.)

According to the New York Times' report in 1954, a long list of experts denied the tobacco-cancer link. The Tobacco Industry published a booklet entitled "A Scientific Perspective on the Cigarette Controversy," It included a list of "36 distinguished cancer authorities" denying that there was any "proof" establishing a link.

Tobacco state Congressmen also pressured the National Cancer Institute not to admit a link between smoking and cancer.

A professor emeritus of public health from the University of Illinois and a former president of the American Public Health Association accused the U.S. National Cancer Institute in the Los Angeles Times (8/31/03 commentary) of withholding "long-standing evidence predicting up to 210,000 thyroid cancers from exposure to radioactive fallout following atomic bomb tests in Nevada in the 1950s."

During the 1950s, many doctors and scientists went along with the federal government in denying that radioactive fallout would cause cancers. In 1999, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held a hearing charging that the NCI's failure to release the information was "a travesty." Many thyroid cancers could have been prevented with medication if the victims had been warned on a timely basis.

If you bother to read the National Cancer Institute's statements concerning the abortion-breast cancer link, you might learn that the agency actually RECOGNIZES one of the three breast cancer risks of abortion - the effect of delaying a first full term birth (also called the protective effect of a full term pregnancy) - but the agency contradicts itself by denying an abortion-breast cancer link.

All experts agree that the longer a woman delays the birth of a first child, the greater her breast cancer risk is.

So let's exercise a little common sense here. If you have two 17-year-old women who are childless and both are pregnant (all other things being the same), and one has an abortion, but the other delivers a baby at full term, then who has the higher risk for developing breast cancer?

If you deny that the woman who aborts has the higher risk, then it's not even worth discussing this matter any further because you are not willing to be honest.

Laura:

You have been so dishonest in this discussion about the research that it raises questions in my mind whether you work for the abortion industry. Because of your reckless disregard for the facts, it raises doubts that your intentions are good.

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is listed on EBSCO instead of Medline. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why The Actuary, a professional journal for insurance actuaries, would publish a "politically motivated" article discussing the long-term ramifications of an abortion-breast cancer link.

SoMG:

You never read the study, Melbye et al. 1997, so please don't attempt to discuss it.

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 8, 2007 10:34 AM



The dude is not being financed by insurance companies. He's being financed by PL propagangists.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 8, 2007 1:20 AM

Maybe so. He was also "financed" by corporations in the UK to certify the solvency of their pension plans. His name is listed as such on different annual reports of corporations. His PAPRI may be his independent consulting firm. He has also contributed his opinions to the UK gov't regarding pension plan regulations, as evidenced by at least one gov't document.

The actuaries at the insurance companies who subscribe to the journal will likely be revising their premiums taking into account his findings.

Posted by: hippie at November 8, 2007 1:36 PM


Anonymous:

I did not hear any objections when one study was financed by a population control/family planning group - Family Health International. The study is:

Lindefors-Harris BM, Eklund G, et al., Response bias in a case-control study: analysis utilizing comparative data concerning legal abortions from two independent Swedish studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1991; 134: 1003-1008.

Professor Joel Brind proved in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health that they covered up an abortion-breast cancer link among Norwegian women. [Brind et al. Reply. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1998, 52:209-11.]

Nor do I hear any objections when governmental agencies like the UNFPA (which funds population control measures in nations like China) fund researchers at Oxford University whom we publicly accused of making five attempts in 25 years to publish seriously flawed research in order to cover-up the link.

It seems those studies are just fine and dandy with the abortion industry and its allies. But, why should we expect them to care about women's lives when they don't care about children's lives?

Posted by: Karen Malec at November 8, 2007 3:05 PM


Sally,

The mechanism involves "masking" the conceptus so that the mother's immune system does not recognize it as foreign and reject it. I'm not certain exactly what this agent is, if its a protein, hormone or what, but I believe the conceptus or the placenta is the one to express it. If this mechanism fails, the mother's immune system will attack and destroy the conceptus.
I clearly stated that a fetus can die later in a pregnancy, as was the case with your mother, and still take several weeks before expulsion. That sounds pretty accurate where your mother was concerned, so she did deliver around her due date. This is true at any time during a pregnancy. Women often opt for D&C or induction, depending on whether or not they want to wait for nature to take its course. The pregnancy is not "progressing" as such, you are just waiting for the natural expulsion of the dead fetus.
A D&C is not an abortion, though it may be a method used. We do them for diagnostic purposes and abnormal bleeding, though not as often anymore. We also use them for missed abortion, which means the woman may have lost her fetus, i.e. miscarried, but is still retaining a sac, placenta, or may indeed have a dead fetus, as in fetal demise.
Yes, induction of a non-viable fetus is an abortion. Induction is the method used and I have no qualms about referring to it as an abortion.
I'm glad we agree concerning diagnosis of fetal demise in our mother's time. But you can't compare obstetrical care 45-50 years ago to now. Better diagnostic tools and induction techniques today would have provided your mother an accurate diagnosis and the option of an induction. I'm sure it was a terrible ordeal for her.
Did I grow up in a convent? Hardly. I grew up in a working class neighborhood in Detroit. I'm well aware a c-section is not an expulsion, I was pointing out that a stillbirth can be delivered in this manner, as well as through a labor and delivery.
No I am not looking for an insult. I just ask that you kindly refrain from addressing me as such.

Sandy,

Thank you so much for your kind words and support.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2007 4:14 PM


Mary,

My dad's cousin, a very nice woman, was unable to have children because she LACKED the masking mechanism. Her body repeatedly killed any implanted embryos. It's a genetic disorder that somehow only affected her out of her 4 sisters. Basically the only method I know of using to combat this is immune system depressing drugs, but no one wants to do this because it's extraordinarily dangerous for a pregnant woman to have a low immune system.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 8, 2007 10:41 PM


Lyssie,

How sad. They'd have to keep her immune suppressed for at least 7-8 months, which is, as you point out, very dangerous. I don't know how they would treat it either. I've never read of any treatment or if one even exists.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2007 10:53 PM


Apparently, the gene runs on the Italian side of my family. However, it's apparent that my grandma didn't suffer from it (I'm here, aren't I? :P)

I probably did not inherit it, but I was told to be checked for it in the future if I ever have trouble conceiving...by then there might be something they can do about it. (Cousin has already gone through menopause, so she can't do anything about it anymore).

Posted by: Lyssie at November 8, 2007 11:11 PM


Sally,
SHEEEEEZZZZZ. Are you sure you aren't PMSing? or do you just flip into attack mode for no reason.

Mary was kindly trying to respond to your questions as she always does. Kindly. All of the explainations about miscarriage Mary has given were definitely the explainations I was given when I had my two miscarriages.

I did tons of reading after as well and all of what Mary is saying is accurate.

You think just because your mother's body did not recognize the death of her babies and expell them in a timely manner that her case is the standard for miscarriage.

BTW
A D&C is not an abortion. The procedure is used for many reasons:

Dilation and Curettage (D&C) Introduction
The dilation and curettage procedure is called a D&C. The D stands for dilation, which means enlarging. Curettage (the C) means scraping. Together, this procedure involves expanding or enlarging the entrance of a woman’s uterus so that a thin, sharp instrument can scrape or suction away the lining of the uterus and take tissue samples.

D&C is usually a diagnostic procedure and seldom is therapeutic. It may stop bleeding for a little while (2-6 months), then the prior abnormal bleeding tends to return.


Why don't you get your facts straight. Missy.

Posted by: Sandy at November 8, 2007 9:09 AM

.................................................

Little Missy, you get your facts straight and provide the imformation that supports the assertion that a woman's body is capable of recognizing a non viable fetus.
There is more than one type of D&C and the one you have copied and pasted is exactly the type used to terminate my last pregnancy when my body could not. Abortion----termination of a pregnancy.
As for my mother, I'd like for you to explain to me how a woman's body detects brain death of a fetus due to umbilical cord strangulation, a brain crushed hydrocephalic or even a just plain dead fetus? These are the reasons for the late term abortions that freak you PL out and save the ability for women to gestate in the future and of course your biggest uneducated reason for being anti choice.
Too meanyhead for you? Too bad. I never wish to listen to a woman scream in agony while dying from child birth as my grandfather did his mother back when gestation and childbirth were 'just natural' and God's will.
I never again wish to witness a woman knowingly carry a dead fetus for 4 months because there just might be some miracle that will make it undead and it's 'God's will'.

Posted by: Sally at November 9, 2007 1:06 AM


Sally,
First let me start by saying.....
Cookoo! Cookooo! Cookoo!

I think the number of miscarriages will explain the fact that womens' bodies' detect when a pregnancy is not going quite right. Miscarriage occurs in approximately 20% - 25% of all pregnancies which equates to about 1 million miscarriages per year in the US alone. The woman's body detects that there is something not quite right with the pregnancy and it will start an early birthing process. Sometimes it does not and D&C's are performed to end the pregnancy.
Why don't you read up on it Sally.

As for the rest of your post. I can't and don't even know how to respond to your nonsense.

What does abortion have to do with your grandmother diying in childbirth?

What does abortion have to do with your mother carrying dead babies inside her womb??

The pregnancy you terminated??? Were you miscarrying?

Posted by: Sandy at November 9, 2007 8:53 AM


Sandy, she can't seem to keep her answer straight on that one!

Posted by: heather at November 9, 2007 9:34 AM


Sandy, Sally is still trying to get her thoughts in order. She enjoys and advocates 11 year olds receiving oral contraceptives. She never answered if 10 year olds excite her birth control instincts. Keep that in mind when your corresponding with this propagandist for sex at any age. She also is capable of using "planned accidents", which she read about, and converting them into "eyewitness accounts" from being a child of the 70's and buying everthing which those 60's propagandist used to reduce her autonomy and critical thinking skills.
Ps. She enjoys "chocolate mescaline" also. This explains her failure to understand reality is more then the hullucinations of her mind. But, for some reason she associates with racist bigots,such as Hypocrite TexasRED, who detest Mexicans who used peyote for religious purposes.
Then again,she detest Christian religious rites, while using substances of pagan religions for self induced hallucinations. Lucky for us she never used a Aztec knife to cut the heart out of a baby and raised it up for to appease the gods. Hmmm? Is abortion a religious experience for Sally?

Posted by: yllas at November 9, 2007 9:50 AM


Hi Heather!!

Sally,
I just can't help myself and have to ask. Do you really equate abortion with a D&C procedure to clear out a woman's uterus if it does not naturally birth a dead baby?????

If so, you really need to get a reality check.

Posted by: Sandy at November 9, 2007 9:52 AM


Yllas,
AHHHH... another drug abuser. Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Sandy at November 9, 2007 11:48 AM


Sandy, I'm not sure if you have ever read that Sally has had an abortion. She stated that it was necessary to "save her life." Okay, fair enough, but ask her to tell you what the life threatening condition was, and she can't recall.

Posted by: heather at November 9, 2007 12:36 PM


Hey Heather,
I vaguely remember that she stated she had an abortion. Maybe she didn't want to give up her chocolate mescaline. Or maybe due to her chocolate mescaline habit she can't remember why she aborted.

Maybe she actually had a miscarriage and they performed a D&C procedure and she "thought" she had an abortion.

Sally, Sally, Sally

Posted by: Sandy at November 9, 2007 2:09 PM


I think that if doctors told me "We HAD to abort your baby in order to save your life." my FIRST question would be "What the heck was the life threatening emergency?"

Posted by: heather at November 9, 2007 2:20 PM


Sally,

What happened to your mother was very tragic, but highly unlikely in this day and age when better methods will detect fetal demise and a woman can be induced or have a D&C, or suction aspiration, as we do at our hospital. You can also stop losing sleep over women carrying a dead fetus for four months. Your greatgrandmother's death in childbirth was tragic but certainly not unique to that era. Please Sally, stop forever dwelling on ancient obstetrical history.
How the body does many things is a total mystery and how exactly it recognizes a dead or deformed fetus is beyond me. It does. There is plenty about the human body we simply do not understand. We still don't know why some women go into premature labor for no apparent reason and even the mechanism of normal labor is debated.
Our bodies do not run on our timetable. That may be why you needed a D&C, your body was taking longer than your OB or you wanted or the OB may have been concerned about developing infection. Women who prefer to await nature are closely monitored by OBs for infection. I've seen such women end up with suction aspirations because their temperatures began elevating.
As for third trimester inductions to abort a dead fetus, I will definitely not "freak out" over them. I just feel very badly for the woman. It must be an ordeal.

Posted by: Mary at November 9, 2007 3:52 PM


Mary,
Again you come forward with the voice of reason in such a kind way. I admire your posts and enjoy the fact that you can back up what you say with your medical background.
Kudos to Mary!!
Sandy

Posted by: Sandy at November 9, 2007 4:13 PM


Sandy,

Thank you so much for your kind words. I very much appreciate them.

Posted by: Mary at November 9, 2007 8:06 PM