Tag Archives: City University of New York

Breaking: New bombshell analysis of 36 Chinese studies shows abortion increases breast cancer risk by 44%

breakingGuest post by Joel Brind, Ph.D.

“China is on the cusp of a breast cancer epidemic,” acknowledged a prestigious group of American epidemiologists in 2008 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Studiously avoiding the “A-word” the JNCI group blamed the emerging epidemic on “shifting reproductive trends” among “risk factors associated with economic development [that] are largely unavoidable.”

That’s because NCI still officially denies the reality of the abortion-breast cancer link.

But a new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer in China was just published last week in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, Cancer Causes and Control, dealing the great wall of denial a serious blow.

In this meta-analysis (a study of studies, in which results from many studies are pooled), Dr. Yubei Huang et al. reported that, combining all 36 studies on the ABC link in China that have been published through 2012, the overall risk of developing breast cancer among women who had at least one induced abortion was significantly increased by 44%.

These results, said the authors, “were consistent with a previously published systematic review.” That was the review and meta-analysis that I compiled with colleagues from Penn State Medical Center, and published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal in 1996. Our study reported an overall significant 30% increased risk of breast cancer in worldwide studies.

After 1996, the “mainstream” abortion advocates entrenched in universities, medical societies, medical journals, breast cancer charities, and especially, government agencies like the NCI (In reality, the NCI is just another corrupt federal agency like the IRS and the NSA.) relentlessly targeted the ABC link with fraudulent studies and other attacks, culminating in a 2003 international phony “workshop” by the NCI, which officially declared the ABC link non-existent.

Since 2003, armed with this new official “truth,” NARAL and their ilk have been viciously attacking pro-life pregnancy resource centers for “lying” to women by telling them about the abortion and breast cancer link as a reality. In places like Maryland and New York City they even went so far as to enact laws to muzzle the PRCs. Thankfully, the courts have struck down such laws as violations of free speech rights – so far.

But the new Chinese meta-analysis is a real game changer. Not only does it validate the earlier findings from 1996, but its findings are even stronger, for several reasons:

1. The abortion and breast cancer link is a slightly stronger one, i.e., 44% v. 30% risk increase with abortion.

2. It shows what is called a “dose effect,” i.e., two abortions increase the risk more than one abortion (76% risk increase with two or more abortions), and three abortions increase the risk even more (89% risk increase with three or more abortions). Risk factors that show such a dose effect have more credibility in terms of actually causing the disease.

3. In their new meta-analysis Huang et al. also put to rest the main argument used to discredit the abortion and breast cancer link, variously called the “response bias” or “recall bias” or “reporting bias” argument. The argument is that, due to social stigma attached to induced abortion, healthy women – as opposed to women who’ve developed breast cancer – are more likely to deny prior abortions in their medical history study questionnaire. Hence, it would appear – erroneously – that abortion is more frequent among women who’ve had an abortion. Invoking an argument used by authors in an earlier Chinese study that did not find an ABC link, Huang et al. explain: “The lack of a social stigma associated with induced abortion in China may limit the amount of underreporting and present a more accurate picture of this [abortion-breast cancer] association.”

4. Huang et al. then proceed to explain why two earlier high-profile studies in Shanghai (including the one noted above) did not find the link, essentially by citing and pursuing the argument I articulated in the British Journal of Cancer in 2004. Basically, risk factors tend to be underestimated when the potentially risky exposure (abortion in this case) is so prevalent that it becomes the rule rather than the exception. Simply put, the healthy comparison group of typical, unaborted women, to whom one needs to compare the postabortive women, does not exist, since most women in the population have had an abortion. Huang et al. not only endorsed this line of reasoning, but demonstrated a strong trend among the Chinese studies that backed it up.

5. Finally, the Huang study follows right on the heels of two new studies this year from India and Bangla Desh, studies which reported breast cancer risk increases of unprecedented magnitude: over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions.

But even the more modest risk increases like those found in the new Chinese meta-analysis are alarming enough, when one considers that there are over a billion women in China and India alone. A 50% risk increase in half those women due to abortion alone, raising their lifetime risk from 4% to 6% – all very conservative estimates – means 10 million women getting breast cancer because they had an abortion. Numbers like that cannot be suppressed forever.

The irony is that it’s the American government desperately doing the suppressing – not the Chinese communists.

Joel Brind, Ph.D. is a Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York, and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Somerville, New Jersey.

New York City’s Class I carcinogenic mayor

Guest post by Joel Brind, Ph.D.

We could all go along happily with his anti-smoking crusade. After all, everybody knows cigarette smoking – and maybe even second-hand smoke – causes cancer.

Then there was the elimination of trans-fat. Well, okay, there’s some evidence that’s bad for you, and no one could taste the difference if a food has any in it or not.

Then we started getting a bit more troubled: We don’t get to choose how much salt content or the volume of a soft drink we can buy? But we still managed to chuckle a bit at the new restrictions on bottle-feeding infants in hospitals. At least we all know it is better for babies to be breast fed. So we could still be amused at our “Nanny Bloomberg,” for we could be sure of at least one thing: All those things he has mandated are beneficial to human health.

But now our nanny mayor wants to give our school children – orally and by injection, without parental knowledge or consent – cancer-causing steroid drugs.

Say what!? You read that right: cancer-causing steroid drugs. You thought “the pill” was harmless, right? Just a little bit of harmless hormones, to stem the tide of costly, unhealthy teen pregnancy. Sorry, “hormonal contraceptives” are indeed cancer-causing steroid drugs. Who says so? Why, the World Health Organization says so, but why pay any attention to them? They’re only class 1 carcinogens for breast cancer, cervical cancer and liver cancer, according to the WHO.

And the reason I put “hormonal contraceptives” in quotes is that it is not true. The pill contains no hormones – artificial or otherwise. They are steroid drugs that act like hormones (hormone agonists, to be professionally precise). In fact, hormones would not work as a pill, so they have to be synthetic drugs. In fact, they are really the same type of steroid drugs that professional athletes can go to jail for taking. They are just the female version (which makes the breasts grow), rather than the male version (which makes muscles grow).

If you read the small print on the package insert for “the pill,” you will find increased risk of stroke, because these steroids can cause blood clots. But cancer? How long have researchers known that? Not too long. The first high-profile, peer-reviewed paper that documented the increased risk of breast cancer was just published in 1987, only a quarter-century ago. Of course there have been scores of papers since then.

But what about the more modern injectable form, the “depo” that is also included in the Mayor’s plan for NYC schoolgirls? Isn’t that safer, since it contains no estrogenic drugs?

Yeah, they are newer, and it takes years for stuff to cause cancer. So the first good study in the peer-reviewed medical literature just came out a few months back. A prominent, National Cancer Institute-funded group just published their findings: Yes indeed, “depo” significantly increases the risk of breast cancer…

I think Mayor Bloomberg should certainly have known about all this. But even if all his politically correct wizards of smart conveniently ignored the cancer risks of contraceptive steroids, he could have just called me. After all, I’ve been a full-time professor on the faculty of Hizzoner’s own City University of New York, teaching human biology and endocrinology for almost 27 years now (and researching steroid hormones and drugs for more than 30 years).

Seriously Mr. Mayor, if you really want our city’s citizens to be healthier – not sicker – please, call me!

Readers are encouraged to forward this post to the mayor’s office. Just maybe it will wake him up. Here’s the link to his contact page.

Pro-life blog buzz 9-4-12

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN and Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.

  • Culture Campaign reports on a new study from Yale University and City University of New York, which “shows that if the Republican Party abortion platform came to fruition and states could outlaw abortion, not only would the national abortion rate drop, but the rate among non-white Americans would drop the most.”

    Some point to this and claim racism on the part of Republicans… but really, doesn’t this just prove the pro-life point that abortion is used as a eugenic weapon and disproportionately takes the lives of minorities?

  • 40 Days for Life proudly announces that the upcoming fall campaign will be the longest and largest ever, with 314 locations planned, both here and abroad: 49 U.S. states (plus D.C.), 7 Canadian provinces, Australia, England, Spain, and – for the first time – Uganda, and many more. The full list of locations has just been posted.

  • Live Action says the Democrats are focusing on the GOP’s imaginary “war on women” (labeling female Republican leaders, “shiny packaging”) while attempting to excuse and downplay Barack Obama’s pro-infanticide abortion extremism:

    So unless pro-abortion politicians use the words “I support infanticide,” we can’t hold them accountable for protecting de facto infanticide. Too bad they aren’t such sticklers for rhetorical charity when calling pro-lifers sexist religious fanatics who want to legitimize rape, leave women for dead in back alleys, control people’s sex lives, and incite violence against abortionists….

    There’s simply no getting around Obama’s record of protecting infanticide. Nor can the rest of the president’s right-to-life record – nearly unlimited abortion during all three trimesters, federal funding for abortion, opposition to states’ right to make their own abortion policy – be spun as moderate.

  • The Anti-Abortion Gang shares a Twitter conversation in which a pro-choicer points to orphans and the cost of caring for humanity as reasons to promote the killing of preborn children.

  • Big Blue Wave has a great quote from Ben Stein (pictured right), host of the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

    For me, the number one issue is right to life. I don’t think the Democrats are very good on the right-to-life issue…. People who think of abortion as a reasonable method of birth control just are never going to get my vote.

  • Euthanasia Prevention Coalition notes a group from Boston calling themselves, “Second Thoughts: People with Disabilities Opposing the Legalization of Assisted Suicide.” Formed in 2011 to educate and organize the Massachusetts disability community to respond to the Question 2 ballot initiative, the group “emphasizes that rather than offering individual choice, assisted suicide laws create a potentially discriminatory and dangerous practice.”
  • The Abolitionist Society of OK lists 7 reasons why the abortion abolitionist movement must reject violence.
  • American Life League’s Judie Brown continues to ask why the Catholic Church is playing out a drama involving both political parties when the stakes for religious liberty and abortion are so high.
  • Accepting Abundance writes about “sacred parenting” when a preborn child is given a terminal diagnosis. Often, “therapeutic” abortion is chosen, but this video explains an option that both honors the life of the child and helps the family heal. (Tissue alert.)

YouTube Preview Image

[Images via Fair2012.com; celebritiesheight.com]