A new way abortion increases the risk of breast cancer
The links between abortion and breast cancer aren’t rocket science… unless you’re a liberal feminist, I guess:
- Estrogen-dependent link 1: Abortion stops breast cells from maturing so they are not cancer vulnerable, which only happens after a mother is 32 weeks pregnant.
- Estrogen-dependent link 2: Abortion causes a woman to have more menstrual cycles than she would if pregnant, exposing her to more estrogen, a Group I carcinogenic as toxic as cigarettes.
- Independent link: A mother who has had an abortion is left with more cancer vulnerable cells than she had before becoming pregnant. Breast tissue has multiplied without maturing.
This is one of those actualities people 50 years from now won’t believe was ever denied – covered up, even – once the facts were in.
Yet even after all this time of trying to reason with pro-abortion ideologues about the link, I still get frustrated that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Now their inability to connect the dots is apparent in a new way. As reported by several news outlets in April, quoting here Babble:
Breast milk might one day serve as a screening tool to assess breast cancer risk.
A new study examined DNA from specific cells present in breast milk that could provide clues to a woman’s risk for developing breast cancer.
Researchers found there were more DNA modifications on certain genes inside these cells in breast tissue that turned cancerous compared to healthy tissue.
The test would be particularly useful for women who become pregnant later in life because they are at a higher risk for breast cancer, said study researcher Kathleen Arcaro….
Obviously, if a mother has aborted she will have no breast milk to screen. So abortion has aborted what may be an important assessment and preventative tool.
But pro-abortion ideologues didn’t get it. The pro-abortion news organizations Huffington Post and National Partnership for Women and Families both reported it, and even the liberal feminist website Feministing spotlighted the study….
I really don’t think they realized abortion was implicated with the very screening measure they touted.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
By this reasoning, wouldn’t miscarriages increase breast cancer risk as well?
Jane, from what I’ve read miscarriage is a more gradual slow down of hormones than abortion. Basically, from the time the baby dies til you actually physically miscarry, your body realizes something is amiss and adjusts. Abortion happens suddenly, so you miss this protection.
That said, I have read that giving birth (or miscarrying)((or abortion)) prior to term can increase your cancer risk because your breast tissue doesn’t switch over to the mature tissue til the very end of pregnancy.
I HOPE not, Jane…since I’ve had FIVE. I get mammograms, and there’s no history of breast cancer in my family, but it’s still a scary thought!
Jane, miscarriages can lead to higher risk for breast cancer as well.
When a woman miscarries her child, hormones are released to deal with that loss. When a baby is aborted, these hormones do not kick in.
When I aborted my child in 1970, I was given an injection to mimic the same hormonal release. Planned Parenthood does not do that – they simply abort the baby and do not do any of what could help prevent breast cancer down the line.
When I first heard of these studies, I freaked out – breast cancer may or may not be one of the consequences of my abortion. I cannot change the likelihood of contracting breast cancer and perhaps I will not, maybe in part due to the injection I was given. I pray that it is so …
Kate – what do you base your statement upon? What studies, please, because I have also had a miscarriage and I am curious.
I’ve rephrased the reasons to clarify. During a pregnancy that results in a miscarriage, production of the estrogen that causes breast cells to proliferate is usually down, hence there is no increase in immature breast cells that do not mature until 32 weeks.
Read more here: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm
Jill, is the same risk present for those of us who have pre-term deliveries? My son was born last Novemeber at 29 weeks gestation. So I’m assuming that means the problem of immature breast cells could be an issue in that case. I also gave birth in 2006 at 18 wks gestation, again preterm labor, this time caused by a massive placental abruption.
What is the risk for women in these circumstances?
So Nurse Stanek knows more about cancer than the National Cancer Institute:
Current Knowledge
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ere-workshop-report.
NCI regularly reviews and analyzes the scientific literature on many topics, including various risk factors for breast cancer. Considering the body of literature that has been published since 2003, when NCI held this extensive workshop on early reproductive events and cancer, the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer. To view regular updates on this topic, please
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
The abortion/cancer link is probably the most shameless example of how the anti-choice movement is trying to intimidate women into not having abortions.
CC – yeah, and the smoking/cancer link was a shameless example of the anti-smoking movement trying to intimidate people into not smoking – just ask the doctors who were paid to appear in advertisements touting the health benefits of smoking – just like the Planned Parenthood employees paid to participate in Lobby Day and tell our legislators that abortion is about women’s health care
Abortion is about money for Planned Parenthood. They don’t give a damn about “woman’s rights”. Science does not lie, women’s health is adversely affected by abortion both physical and mental health
I do know that having your first child when you are fairly young (if I remember right, before 25, but the younger, the increased benefit), having several children (each child increases the benefit) and breastfeeding (the longer you breastfeed for, the greater the benefit) all decrease the risk of breast cancer. When I first read about that last year, I believe it said something about having your first “full-term” child before 25 years of age. So it does make some sense.
I’m also curious if having pre-term babies affects anything? Only my second child was full-term. My first was born at 34 weeks (I had HELLP), my third was born at 27 weeks (my water broke and I was in labor) and my fourth was born at 36 weeks (only sort of pre-term… right on that edge. My water broke and I was in labor with her as well). If it helps any, I successfully exclusively breastfed #’s 2-4 (still going with the 4th as she is only 4 months). I had supply problems with my first, but I gave him as much of my milk as I could get. 2 and 3 were breastfed for over a year. Does that make any difference, even if 3 of them were born early?
CC
Take a look at Dr. Gerard Nadal’s series on the link between breast cancer & abortion. In it you may find some very interesting information about the NCI studies AND what they left out, along with links. What is “shameless” IMHO is the lengths that anti-lifers will go to in order to justify that which is indefensible….Killing innocents & innocence.
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/10/19/the-abc-literature-13/
Dozens of studies in the U.S. and the U.K. have shown that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. It was good to ask the question, but, like with the issue of vaccines and autism, the answer is in and it’s time to move on.
At this point, saying that abortion gives people cancer isn’t just a mistake; it’s a lie.
Julie, from what I’ve read, giving birth before 32 weeks is what puts you at a higher risk of breast cancer, now I don’t know how that changes if you’ve had a birth post-32 weeks as well. Anyone have any studies on that?
(I’ve also had preemies, my first was 30.5 weeks, my second was 35.5 weeks, and my third was 34.5 weeks)
DRF, there are just as many studies that show that abortion does increase the cancer risk.
Having a baby at 32 weeks or later gives a protective effect to the mother – and since women in this society have abortions for their first children, they delay that protection to themselves. Having children before the age of 30 also helps.
FYI – Most of the studies that say there is no effect left out that protective effect of pregnancy to the mother, thereby not including something that the scientists know. Dr. Joel Brind did the extra look at the studies that were already done, to check for this completeness and found those studies lacking in that arena.
if you do a search for the meta-analysis of the studies with the name Joel Brind, you will find a couple of nicely-formulated papers explaining what his findings were, and that researchers just did not report on the links they did find. Very interesting.
Just a thought.
Miscarriages are usually not indicative of a more-breast cancer risk. Usually when a mother miscarries naturally, the levels of the estrogen are lower and the body self-adjusts. It’s the sudden, unnatural ending to a pregnancy, such as accident or abortion that helps leave the body vulnerable.
“This is one of those actualities people 50 years from now won’t believe was ever denied – covered up, even – once the facts were in” – actually, we’ve already made the transition from initial findings and inaccuracies to knowing that those early studies were wrong. Recent independant studies in a number of countires have determined that the earlier indicative links between abortion and increased rates of breast cancer have been discredited.
Bryan, these studies negating the abortion/breast cancer link haven’t been funded by the Kock brothers.
What, so now all women have to complete a pregnancy to be tested for breast cancer?
I was talking with my ex-girl friends husband the other day and he mentioned that she had recently been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer.
That caught my attention because I remember her telling me she had been diagnosed and treated for cervical cancer around ten years ago.
She and I conceived a son together right after we graduated from high school and then conspired together to murder him en utero.
I had already asked her years ago to forgive me for the multiple ways I had mistreated her. I did not get into specifics because I did not want to dredge up stuff that she may have already dealt with and put to rest herself. I asked her to forgive me for not respecting her and not supporting her. She did not seem to understand where I was coming from, but she accepted my apology and she extended to me the forgiveness I sought.
When her husband and I spoke the other day I asked him to forgive for the harm I caused his wife, before he ever met her. I didn” go into details but just confessed my guilt for the harm I caused.
He didn’t seem to understand what I was confessing and what I was asking, in even a general sense, but I hope he at least accepts my sincerity.
He asked me to pray for his sister and his sister-in-law both who have some unusual health issues.
I thought I had resolved all these issues and my conscience was clear, but when I found out about his wife’s latest bout with breast cancer I realized that choices have consequences that seem to keep popping up decades after the fact.
She and I made a ‘choice’ together and she, and perhaps I too, at least indirectly, am still reaping the whirlwind after lo these many years.
These people are my friends. They have two lovely adult daughters. I want the best for all of them.
Their oldest daughter was dignosed with spinal meningitis when she was 5 or 6 years old. She was in the pediatric ICU and the doctors had induced a coma to give her body the best chance to heal itself, but their prognosis was grim. Not likely to survive. If she did, a vegetable.
My ex and her husband called me and asked to pray for her. Me and a good mutual friend went to the hospital. When we went into her room she was completely naked except a cloth covering her groin. Tubes every where. I was stunned. First time I had seen someone in that condition and she was so young. We prayed and left.
Long story short. She recovered completely. Only deficit was a slight hearing loss in one ear. She graduated from college a few years ago, now pursuing a career in acting.
Not bad for an ‘artichoke’.
God is good and HE accepts pre-existing conditions.
Yes, Reality, women won’t be able to get mammograms or biopsies unless they can bring their kid in with them, LOL!!
Ok, I’ve caught my breath from my laughing fit. So, according to your illogical assumption, Planned Parenthood can now take all those mammogram machines and sell them at a big yard sale. Oh, wait, *smacks forehead*, Planned Parenthood doesn’t actually perform mammograms nor owns any mammogram equipment. Never mind!
LOL!!!
Anthony Weiner offering to provide as many free breast exams as his already busy schedule will permit.
I’m glad I gave you reason to laugh ninek. But did you laugh as hard as I did when I read the same tired old rubbish about abortion and breast cancer, topped up with an inference that women really, really ought to have babies so they can be screened for breast cancer risk?
Does he charge ken, or just ask for their vote?
Warning! Warning! Warning! Religious commentary following. Avert your eyes if your sensabilities are such that things ‘religious’ cause you discomfort.
1 Tim 2:15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. NASU
1 Tim 2:15 Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls’ salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child. AMP
1 Tim 2:15 But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. NIV
1 Tim 2:15 So God sent pain and suffering to women when their children are born, but he will save their souls if they trust in him, living quiet, good, and loving lives. TLB
1 Tim 2:15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty. NLT
1 Tim 2:15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. NKJV
Not sure exactly what that means, but the converse is probably true as well.
Reality says: June 10, 2011 at 7:45 pm
“Does he charge ken, or just ask for their vote?”
====================================================
The remuneration for disobedience is death. You have to work at it to earn it.
But the good news is HE has already disbursed your compensation from HIS own personal account.
HE has reconciled your debt.
Jus a matter of timing.
When HE extends you the offer, it will be a deal too good to refuse.
Until then, just be who you are, everyone else is already taken.
Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention Fourth Edition http://www.bcpinstitute.org/booklet4.htm
yor bro ken,
Did you just imply that women who do not have children are not blessed? That seems pretty farfetched and derogatory to me. I am a man, but I take offense to the idea that women are somehow unworthy if they either choose or are unable to have children. That is unforgivably misogynistic.
I find it interesting that someone would post that the abortion/breast cancer link has been disproved…. just like the vaccine/autism link.
Um, no such thing. There have been no definitive studies done that are even close to proving that vaccines play no role in the autism problem. You see, the researchers are savvy. Just like abortion, vaccines are a huge business. So, instead of asking the logical, testable questions, such as “In what way do the adjuvants in vaccines add to the toxic burden in the body and what are its effects on the body?” or “What pre-existing genetic conditions pre-dispose some children to adverse effects from some vaccines or vaccine ingredients?” they ask the unprovable-because-of-the-multitude-of-confounding-variables question: “Do vaccines cause autism?” and then report that they can’t prove that they do….
When you strip away the patently deceptive techniques used, you begin to see the true complexity of the issue. Not only are there neurological consequences to some children from vaccines, other children have life long respiratory, gastrointestinal or immunological disorders. Researchers are so busy protecting their pocketbooks and their big pharma deals that they keep busy refuting unprovable, untestable hypotheses and are not looking at the types of issues that could truly benefit vulnerable populations.
There are real risks to not vaccinating. There are also real risks *to* vaccinating. Parents are not told the real risks… the doctor simply assures them that their child will be safe… even though the full health consequences may not be known for decades. There are individuals allergic to substances as innocuous as tylenol… why are they so resistant to the idea that there are individuals allergic to ingredients in vaccines… especially those that are known neurotoxins and carcinogens? Because they are afraid that if they admit there are things they do not know and that there may be negative consequences they will lose profits.
Which is just like the studies surrounding breast cancer/abortion. They can’t face the implications of the results, so they bury or try to use enough jargon to confound the issue so that the “sacred cow” of abortion remains untouched.
“Parents are not told the real risks… the doctor simply assures them that their child will be safe… even though the full health consequences may not be known for decades. There are individuals allergic to substances as innocuous as tylenol… why are they so resistant to the idea that there are individuals allergic to ingredients in vaccines… especially those that are known neurotoxins and carcinogens?”
Hmmm… When my son was vaccinated we were told that there was a small risk of an adverse reaction, no one hid it from us. The research we did ourselves seemed to support taking that chance over the larger chance that not vaccinating would allow our son or our infant daughter to get sick.
I think the vaccine/autism disproof he was talking about has to do with the fraudulent paper in the Lancet that “proved” a link between the MMR and autism. No such link has been shown to exist, and the guy who did the original study faked his results. Vaccines have been linked, through allergic reactions, to seizures and brain disorders that resemble autism in a very small (less than 1 percent) amount of cases. A lot of the problems surrounding the vaccine/autism debate is the timing – autism symptoms show up around the age that children get vaccinated, causing a correlation that may or may not be related. More research really needs to be done in this area.
I’m sure there are unethical doctors who do not inform parents of the risks. However, painting all pediatricians with the same brush is inaccurate and offensive.
The ‘implications of the results’ Elisabeth, is that the old abortion/breast cancer link has been discredited by numerous independant studies. The most recent ones, which demonstrate that older studies were flawed.
Are you an ‘anti-vaxxer’ then?
The point of this article is that no, it hasn’t been disproven. It’s just been covered up or ignored.
As for vaccines, as a pediatric nurse with 7 children of my own, I am pro-informed and cautious vaccination. Our current vaccine schedule is irresponsible.
Both comments directly after mine show that independent research on vaccines (and the original topic of the article) has not been done.
You can’t lump all vaccines together and then give the statistics you cited… each vaccine has its own unique risks and issues. The rotavirus vaccine, for instance, is in its fourth incarnation… the first three were pulled from the market for causing intussuception. (Sorry, typing with a broken finger so forgive any typos). Intussuception can be fatal and at the very least requires very invasive treatment.
Chicken pox vaccine can cause fatal anaphylaxis in those children who are allergic to eggs. (and small children often have as yet undiagnosed allergies).
As to Andrew Wakefield, independent sources within the British health system have admitted that the so-called “fraud” as it was claimed would have been impossible for Wakefield to pull off because he wouldn’t have had access to the necessary records to do so. In addition, Wakefield himself, when he published that initial study, reported it as something worth investigating further, not that he had conclusively “proven” a link. The smear campaign against him was phenomenal, however.
CC,
No, Nurse Stanek does NOT know more than the NCI. She knows just as much as NCI, because she has read the papers by the NCI’s director of Epidemiology, Dr. Louise Brinton, which all indicate a link between abortion and breast cancer. In 2003, Brinton and her proabort buddies held a sham workshop where they denied the link. I’ve covered the entire debate and reviewed half of the literature over at my blog, with 56 articles to date:
http://gerardnadal.com/category/breast-cancer/
So try getting out of troll mode, grow up, and start getting honest. That begins with reading. In a paper in 2009, Brinton wrote that breast cancer’s KNOWN RISK FACTORS include abortion and the contraceptive pill. And watch how you mock Jill, CC. Foolish women should never go up against women of integrity.
Kristi,
The indications in the literature are that extreme premature delivery (under 32 weeks) have the same risk factors as induced abortion. HOWEVER, the literature also indicates that the earlier one has a term birth and the longer one breast feeds, the more one reduces their risk for breast cancer. This is because the baby produces the hormone placental lactogen, which matures 85% of the immature, cancer-prone breast cells (Type-1 and Type-2 cells) into mature, cancer-resistant Type-3 and Type-4 cells. More term births and more breastfeeding convert more and more of that remaining 15% of cancer-prone cells to cancer-resistant cells.
If you have further questions and want to talk in private email, just say so here and I’ll grab your email from the administrators board on the blog. I can also put you in touch with renowned breast cancer surgeon, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, who can discuss the issues with you further.
But also remember, an increased risk is not a guarantee of cancer.
Backtracking in the conversation a bit to preterm delivery and protection due to the maturing of breast tissue…I don’t have a link to the study. But, even if a baby is born extremely premature your body knows you just gave birth, if breastfeeding is initiated (pumping in NICU most likely in premie cases) the body rapidly matures the breast tissue (giving the same protection as a full term pregnancy) so that it can produce milk. A mom with a premie will have her milk come in the same time a full term mom will (1-3 days) with proper stimulation. Even if the stress of NICU life keeps you from breastfeeding long term or exclusively (when my son was in the NICU a lot of moms ran dry after a few months), just having it come in is sufficient to mature the breast tissue and offer you what protection it does (now that protection does increase the longer you breastfeed, but even a little is better than none). On the other hand, unfortunately, if you are unable to provide appropriate stimulation to bring your milk in (no pumping, no babe nursing, or given meds to keep your milk from coming in) then you miss out on that protection even if you are *almost* full term (and maybe even at term, I’ve read competing views on that).
JackBorsch says: June 10, 2011 at 8:30 pm
“Did you just imply that women who do not have children are not blessed?… That is unforgivably misogynistic.”
==================================================================
JB,
I cut and pasted the same passage from 6 different translations.
I wrote I do not know what the message meant.
If the author of the passage was correct, then might the converse also be correct.
Ps 127:3-5 3 Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. 5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate. NASU
Ps 127:3-128: 3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. [Deut 28:4.] 4 As arrows are in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. 5 Happy, blessed, and fortunate is the man whose quiver is filled with them! They will not be put to shame when they speak with their adversaries [in gatherings] at the [city’s] gate. AMP
Ps 127:3-128:3-5 3 Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him. 4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. 5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate. NIV
Ps 127:3-5 3 Children are a gift from God; they are his reward. 4 Children born to a young man are like sharp arrows to defend him. 5 Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them. That man shall have the help he needs when arguing with his enemies. TLB
Ps 127:3-5 3 Children are a gift from the Lord;they are a reward from him. 4 Children born to a young man are like arrows in a warrior’s hands. 5 How joyful is the man whose quiver is full of them! He will not be put to shame when he confronts his accusers at the city gates. NLT
Ps 127:3-5 3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. 5 Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; They shall not be ashamed, But shall speak with their enemies in the gate. NKJV
Is it possible that the converse of this passage of is also true?
It seems to inicate that children are a ‘blessing’.
What is the opposite of a ‘blessing’?
You are assuming that couples are ‘cursed’ because they are infertile. I would say that couples are ‘infertile’ because they are cursed. The first ‘curse’ is a result of the Adam and Eve in the garden. All of creation is laboring under the results of that curse. But there are many other subsequent ways in which to bring a ‘curse’ upon oneself.
‘Bloodguiltiness’ [murder] is one.
It’s in the ‘book’.
I have often heard that I have decreased my risk of BC because I have had 7 children, the first when I was 23. I have also heard that breast feeding decreases the risk of BC and I was never able to breast feed due to a breast reduction I had when I was 21.
Have I negated the decrease that I get from having multiple births and births young, with not breast feeding any of them?
@ Kristen, from what I’ve read on the subject it’s still under debate. There is benefit to a full term pregnancy, that’s known. There is benefit to breastfeeding, that’s know. But if you have a full term pregnancy and then don’t initiate breastfeeding your body releases the same flood of hormones (to stop milk supply and restart fertility) as if you had lost the baby. This hormone shift is known to be detrimental in general, but whether it’s determental towards breast cancer in specific seems to be unknown or at least debatable. So it seems (logcially) that you didn’t undo the benefit of all those early pregnancies (because whether you breastfed or not your breast material matured with a full term birth) but you didn’t get as much protection as you otherwise may have gotten. I’m not a medical professional, I’m just repeating what I’ve read. But the single biggest protection is full term pregnancy before 25, which you sound like you got!
Kristen, Jesperen,
From my reading of the literature, there is no detriment from not having breastfed. The placenta releases the hormone, placental lactogen during the third trimester, which is responsible for maturing cancer-prone type 1 & 2 cells into cancer-resistant type 3 & 4 cells.
According to the literature, having had your first child at age 23 places you in a category of women who derive the greatest protective benefit of childbirth. Having had six more children gives you even greater benefits, even though you couldn’t breastfeed.
Hi Elisabeth,
Do you have any knowledge, or opinion, of a possible prenatal ultrasound/autism link? I’ve researched on google and the connection sounds very plausible. I was just curious about your take on it given your expertise in maternal/child health. Thanks.
Just a side note, a very good friend who has been a special ed. teacher for years is adamant that vaccines are not responsible for autism but is very open to the possiblity of ultrasound.
CC, just a note that your comments attacking Christianity/the Catholic Church must stop. Consider this a warning. We don’t want to ban you. We welcome differing opinions. But those sorts of comments are over the line. Thanks.
Mary, the only studies I have seen that show that ultrasound has any bearing on fetal development show an increase in left-handedness. Now, this would indicate some changes in the developing fetus but nothing that would reach to that point.
Some of the most interesting research in the field of the neurobiology of autism seems to come from an area called “mirror neurons”. These are neurons in the brain that allow us to look at another human being, note the expression on their face, link it to what the emotion we would be experiencing were that expression on our face, and thereby be able to read the social cues being presented.
Now, some people are born with (a) a deficient number of mirror neurons, (b) defective mirror neurons, or (c) missing connections between the mirror neurons and the correlating portions of the brain or lastly, (d) damaged connections between the mirror neurons and the correlating portions of the brain. Either they can’t receive the information or they can’t link it appropriately. There is not a whole lot anyone can do to change these outcomes (although anything that grows connective synapses in the brain may be useful if those are the issue).
Others are born with adequate, functioning mirror neurons and connective synapses and some damage occurs to one or the other. What can cause damage? Myriad things. Combinations of myriad things. Trying to point to one simple cause is foolhardy. The more “borderline” the number of neurons or connective synapses, the less damage is necessary to cause obvious deficits.
This explains why some children can soar through life despite having tons of toxins in their environment and in their vaccines and so on, while a single insult can be enough to cause massive problems in another.
It’s far too complex a system for anyone to try to prove that one single variable can make the difference.
And just a chicken/egg comment…. I am not fascinated in all of this because I am a pediatric nurse. I am a pediatric nurse studying further certification into developmental delays because I have a son who suffered greatly from seizures after a combination of toxic causes (vaccines being only one of them, very long story) and displayed autistic symptoms (I say that because I believe, as many do, that true autism are those born with it and austistic symptoms are a more appropriate term for those damaged post birth) for many years while we struggled to rebuild portions of his brain via physical therapy.
He is now an honor roll, popular 15 year old boy who stars on the drama team and is a linebacker on the football team.
Hi Elisabeth,
Very interesting. Thank you for your input. I’m glad to hear your son is doing so well after so much difficulty.
My friend has told me many of her autistic students are in fact highly intelligent, and sadly often misdiagnosed as mentally challenged when they cannot learn in conventional classes. They often excel when she teaches them with techniques designed for their needs.
I have also heard about the increase in left handedness and would wonder if this does indicate more neurological effects than we thought. I have read that the noise of the ultrasound can sound like a freight train to a developing fetus and the heat generated by ultrasound may also be damaging. One can only wonder what effect this might have on a developing nervous system.
A TV commercial pointed out that over the past 20 years autism has increased 600%. The use of ultrasound has also become routine from earliest pregnancy in this time period. When I was pregnant in the early to mid 80’s, it was used rarely and strictly for diagnostic purposes. I had only one ultrasound to confirm I had not miscarried.
I’m old enough to remember when autism was a rarity. An autistic child in the hospital would be quite the object of curiousity. There may have been the autism spectrum but no one ever heard of it. Maybe a lot of what we passed of as “quirky” behavior, inability to learn, or retardation was in fact some level of autism.
Seems like the more we learn about the human brain the more we realize how little we know.
Testing to see if I can post on this thread, as I apparently am not able to post on others. Not sure what the glitch is.
Thanks Jespren and Gerard! That makes me feel better.
A veterinarian told my brother that there is a greatly increased risk of breast cancer in a cat if she has had an abortion.