Breast cancer triples among young women over past 3 decades; researchers “don’t know why”
Update 3-5, 6:50a: The Coalition of Abortion Breast Cancer has posted more details on the JAMA study.
3-4, 8:44a: Washington Post, February 27:
Cases of advanced breast cancer among women younger than 40 have tripled in the U.S. over the last three decades, a trend that researchers said has “been increasing at a steady or even accelerating rate.”… according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association….
“This study identifies a trend that hasn’t been described in the past,” said Rebecca Johnson, medical director of the Adolescent and Young Adult oncology program at Seattle Children’s Hospital and the study’s lead author. “We’ll definitely need future studies to figure out why this change is occurring.”
The analysis found the percentage of advanced cases increased annually and at a faster rate toward the end of the study, researchers said. The rise was independent of race and ethnicity. There was no corresponding increase among older women, the study found.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in 15- to 39-year- old females in the U.S. and accounts for 14% of all cancer in women and men in this age group, the authors wrote. Those diagnosed with the disease at a younger age have a higher risk of dying than those who are older. The national five-year survival rate for 20- to 34-year-olds diagnosed with advanced breast cancer is 31%, compared with 87% for women with less aggressive forms of the disease….
Reasons Unclear
“It’s a real phenomenon and an important one,” said Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the Atlanta-based American Cancer Society. “Why it’s happening, we don’t know. We have identified that this is happening and it’s consistent over time and it’s a source of concern that we have to keep evaluating.”
The researchers looked at data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries from 1973-2009, 1992-2009 and 2000-2009 to determine if the breast cancer rate in young women was rising. The findings show that only advanced cancers, those that have spread beyond the breast to other organs, are rising and mostly among 25-to 34-year-olds….
Studies Needed
Until more studies are done, Johnson said she could only speculate on the reason behind the increase. She said it could be “toxic environmental exposure or changes in lifestyle over the past 34 years.”…
Lichtenfeld… said some of the increase may be explained by the fact that women now delay having children more than women 30 years ago. Having children early in life is protective against the disease, he said.
I am sure it is obvious to these researchers but they dare not say out loud that abortion is a plausible reason for the spike in early breast cancers. It is most telling that they began surveying data from the year 1973, noncoincentally, I’m sure, the same year abortion was legalized in the U.S., one of those unspoken “changes in lifestyle.”
(There is also hormonal contraception, a Group I Carcinogen – along with asbestos, tobacco, and mustard gas – according to the World Health Organization.)
Only political correctness would stop an obviously intelligent person like Lichtenfeld from connecting the dots between delayed childbearing and induced abortion.
The same National Cancer Society that denies a link between abortion and breast cancer acknowledges breast cancer risk factors include having no children, delaying childbearing, and more menstrual cycles – all of which induced abortions cause. NCS also acknowledges breastfeeding helps prevent breast cancer – which abortion stops.
These all have to do with decreased exposure to estrogen and maturation of breast cells so they are less cancer-vulnerable. Thus, one way abortion increases the risk of breast cancer is by inhibiting the protective effect of childbearing.
But there is another way abortion independently raises the risk of breast cancer. During early pregnancy breast cells proliferate. These cells only mature after 32 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion cuts off their ability to mature, leaving more breast cells than before a mother was pregnant vulnerable to breast cancer.
At some point these people will be guilted into coming clean to the general public. Their denial of the abortion and breast cancer link already looks ridiculous to the objective observer.
[HT: Susie Allen]
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.
During pregnancy breast cancer cells proliferate? Huh?
Perhaps not the best choice of terms, but the theory goes that those cells need rapid growth to prepare for the birth of a baby, and by having an abortion, the proper chemical cues of pregnancy never show up to switch off the genes to limit growth, leaving those cells growing too rapidly. Cancer is nothing more than unrestrained cell growth.
I’d like that statement unpacked as well.
yes, and that is different from miscarriage when the body shuts those cells down due to loss. The cells are getting ready for baby when the abortionist takes the baby suddenly away.
An article by Dr. Gerard Nadal published over two years ago explains it in easy to understand language.”
I’m not in research but i know why…abortion
Back when I was in my 20s I worked with 2 women in their 40s and both died from breast cancer. I met a man whose wife died of breast cancer at 50 y.o. What did these women all have in common ? Abortions in their past.
1) Over use of contraceptives (Its a carcinogen)
2) Family History
3) Abortion
Those are the top three reasons, but 1 and 3 are linked
They dare not say the A word.
My my. Maybe the cause is the sun? Tight fitting bras? Exposure to microwaves?
Too many hotdogs? Watching Oprah?
Good grief.
Also my girlfriends mom has breast cancer. I asked her if her mom had ever had an abortion. She said no but my mom was on birth control for years. I took depo provera for years so who knows what poisons I’ve put in my body for yesrs???
Carla lol maybe too much Dr. Phil?
As my pastor put it….it used to be an old woman’s disease. He knows about the link to abortion and breast cancer. Satan is at work..when S. Komen tried to pull away look.at what happened. yes lets keep killing our children and ourselves. Liz is right sometimes breast cancer just strikes because of family history. However i believe it’s on the rise because of abortion n contraception
If indeed there is a connection, don’t expect the medical profession to jump up and announce it to the world. This implicates them bigtime. Its like x-rays. It was years before the medical profession acknowledged they could cause cancer. Personally, I am convinced the use of ultrasound throughout pregnancy may be the cause of autism. Again, only my opinion but I am highly suspicious. In the meantime, expect the medical profession to look for any and every other reason possible for the increase in autism.
Hi Mary..I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if researchers get a history on how many women have abortion or long term contraception use on their records. Medical professionals are reluctant to let this information out.
Check out this video from CNN’s Erin Burnett. Don’t miss the part where the doctor says that a known reason for breast cancer is pregnancies not carried to term.
http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/26/new-study-shows-younger-women-at-greater-risk-of-breast-cancer/
My mom went on the pill when it first hit the market in the 60’s. She was a newlywed and a new nurse and they wanted to space children. She admits even today that that is most likely why she developed breast cancer in her early 40’s. Fortunately she caught it early and she survived. My OB/GyN put me on the pill when I was still a virgin knowing my family history because I had bad menstrual cramps. The disconnect is astounding.
So what if women die? As long as we worship the golden calf of abortion/birth control. I’m not against birth control per se but lets call a spade a spade and stop pretending there aren’t risks to certain types of birth control. It is insulting to women to act like we can’t handle the truth.
Mary,
I think it’s fertility drugs. Back when I was working at the early intervention autism classroom, so many of those kids had older parents who probably needed some help getting pregnant. That’s why, when I was having trouble conceiving my son, my doctor handed me a prescription for clomid, I walked right by the pharmacy and threw it in the trash. My aunt had her tubes untied and along with that was put on fertility medication, she went on to have 3 more children, and two of those cousins are now with autism.
With the current trend to delay child-rearing, it would explain not only the breast cancer increase, but also the autism increase as well.
xalisae, that is fascinating. I’ve never thought of a connection between autism and fertility treatments. I wonder if there are any studies on that topic?
Doesn’t it just “kinda” make sense that when a woman is pregnant and her body is in total overdrive to nuture and support the new life within her, hormones going at full speed and a host of other things…that MAYBE, just MAYBE, forcibly bringing all of that to a screeching halt aint such a good idea ??? Doesa it really take a team of rocket scientists to figure this out ?
What’s sad is how all of those organizations quote a workshop as a fact that abortion does not increase breast cancer risk, yet one of the poobahs at the NCI responsible for it later goes on and authors a study assuming abortion is indeed a risk factor. Nothing has been said, no major media coverage. If I am a scientist who categorically says A is not true because everyone says so, but then put my name on a study showing A is indeed true, wouldn’t the responsible thing to do be say either it appears A is true, or my study is bogus since A cannot be true but the data I used says it is? Apparently it’s something like Obamacare, a non-tax tax.
Yes Sydney…my mom was anti abortion but pro contraception so she simply told me should i become sexually active to make sure i got some birth control. I also told my daughter the same. I suppose we are programed this way. My mom detested a lot of things womens lib did to us. She’s in her 80s now n says That dam** women’s lib destroyed a lot of good women and men. Yes look how far we’ve come murdering our children . How many dead since Roevs Wade??
Mike riiiiiiight. Shoot my only degree is an LPN but i still understand watz up!
Hi X,
Good point but ultrasound is so much more routine than fertility drugs. Also, haven’t fertility drugs been in use a lot longer? Would a woman given fertility drugs be more likely to have higher risk and multiple pregancies, thus more ultrasounds? But who knows? I think the reason, like x-rays causing cancer, is staring us straight in the face and the medical profession is going to have to own up to its own responsiblity in the near future.
I do know there are studies out there that raise the possiblity of autism where ultrasound is concerned.
Mary by u/s does that also include dopler heart monitors?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1990567,00.html
Hi Heather,
How are you and yours?
I’ve been thinking of you and praying for you!!
Hi X,
Thank you. An interesting and informative article. Here’s one concerning ultrasound. Like with anything, one has to look at the research and draw their own conclusions. Two very interesting theories though.
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundrodgers.asp
Hi jamie,
I’m not too familiar with doppler heart monitors but hopefully my article will address your question.
Thank you Mary I will check it out.
I’m currently expecting our 4th child on Sept, so this is of personal interest to me. :)
this IS a very tough call … I really believe that it is a good thing that WE’LL CONTINUE TO STUDY. Often a firm yes-conclusion will lead us to-forget-far-too-easily … once a ‘riddle-is-solved it is forgotten. There have been numerous changes in our diets too (like GMO’s) in the past 3 decades
I forgot to mention that one of our acquaintances got her PhD from the University in Charlotte, VA (can’t remember UVA?) in breast cancer research and she was clear that the research community KNOWS and BELIEVES that Abortion and hormonal contraceptives cause breast cancer, or in her words, “increase the incidence rate of BC by 40-75% depending…”
[Question to self: What is the incidence of breast cancer among young muslim women in third world nations for the previous three decades?]
Breast cancer is just another ‘front’ in the ‘republican war on women’.
Just go any place where there are no republicans and boom botta bing, chitty chitty bang bang, supercalifragilisticexpialidoscious!…….there is no breast cancer or global warming.
But hey, what’s the big deal?
The social planners already have it all worked out.
By their calculations the earth is over populated by several billion people, so just get rid of the superflous uteri and the birth rate automatically drops…cause a hand crafted uterus is incapable of sustaining life.
Just harvest those eggs and freeze that sperm and, when it fits your schedule, you can lease a perfectly good third world uterus to incubate your spawn.
No maternity clothes, no stretch marks, no hemorhoids, no frequent trips to the batheroom at all hours of the night or day, no ‘cravings’, no mood swings.
What the heck.
Why not just adopt an 18 year old, then break their plate, and tell him/her it’s time she/he got out and made it on his/her own.
It is almost like being a homosexual, but without all the emotional baggage.
But what are the progressive humanists going to do about all those muslims who are not buying into ZPG and 2.1 children per household?
A male musllim can have more than one wife.
The Quran says the perfect number of wives his ‘four’. [See ‘Sahara’ with Humphrey Bogart.]
The inherent difficulty with that proposition is that you will have up to four mothers-in-law…unless you marry sisters and that permutation comes with it’s own unique set of problematic probabilities.
The heightened sensitivities of the uber-tolerant humanists will not permit them to tell the adherents of Islam that they are ‘wrong’.
What to do? What to do?
Hi Jamie,
First of all my congratulations to you and your family on your pregnancy. I wish you the very best. I hope you will find this information of value. I’m sure there are opposing viewpoints and research, so you have to do your research and reach your own conclusions.
During my pregnancies ultrasound was used only under very limited circumstances. I had one, and that’s because the doctor thought I miscarried. Thankfully she is now 26y/o. Ultrasound is now as routine as an office visit.
BTW Jamie, a friend of mine teaches special ed. and she is adamant that vaccines do not cause autism. However, she is open to the possibility of ultrasound being a factor.
Carla thanks for asking. sigh i was at my husband’s wake today and I’ve just returned home. I put some pics of myself in the casket and they disappeared after his second ex wife came and went. Her pics remained. I’m hurt but the funeral director told me honey just put some new ones in his suit pocket tomorrow. Tomorrow he will be buried. Otherwise nice service. I’m exhausted!
Funny my husband left her after she had an abortion. Why would someone do that? Although he was Jewish he loved the Sapranos..I put a small pic of Tony in the casket. He would have liked that. It also vanished. My oldest daughter took the time to run that off on line. His first ex wife was as sweet as could be. Now I know how Mindy McCreedy felt.
Didn’t mean to derail the thread but i needed to vent. I’m depressed .
I thought God was responsible for this sort of stuff.
The NCI report came out in 2003. The medical community has been able to hide behind that for a decade.
However, they cannot control clinical research in all corners of the world. Studies hav econtinued to emerge noting the relation between intentional, not spontaneous, abortion and breast cancer.
I have reviewed these data a fair amt. These studies seem to suggest two things beyond a simple ABC connection: the breast cancer may most likely be estrogen receptor positive – which kind of makes sense – and the risk may go back down if a woman goes ahead and has a full-term child soon enough.
That makes sense, too – the breast cells that mature and differentiate during pregnancy get halted mid-development when the abortion happens, placing those cells at risk of run-away cell division. If the woman goes ahead and has a full term child before too long, then those cells are prompted to go ahead and complete the maturation.
if studies have the data sliced and diced this way, you will see higher risks when a woman has delated having a child, or has not had another child.
In China, the pattern is different. In China, women tend to want their child early. If it is female and they kill it off for being female, they are likely to get pregnant fairly quickly, aiming for a boy. So, they have the second-pregnancy effect pretty often, if the first pregnancy is not carried to term.
After they have their one or two children, they will use abortion to please the government and have no more babies. So, their risk may not be as high in epidemiological studies, because the breast cells have gone through the maturation process at least once.
However, they are still vulnerable. But the risk will be differnt if a woman is one-abortion/one-child if the abortion came first versus second – abortion first is our Western way, while abortion second is more common in China.
Three new things have become common in the last 34 years:
1) Hormonal Contraception
2) Abortion
3) Global Warming
Guess which one will be blamed for the increase in breast cancer?
Del. global warming of course!!
Or the war
Just for clarification, when the cells begin to multiply during pregnancy, it is not that they keep multiplying that is the problem; it is that those new cells are more susceptible to the effects of carcinogens (e.g., estrogen). A full-term pregnancy completes the maturation of the multiplied cells, “hardening” them in a sense, making them less likely to become cancerous. A woman who has never been pregnant has those immature, cancer-susceptible cells (which is why delayed child-bearing is a risk factor); a woman who has had an abortion has many times those immature, cancer-susceptible cells, which is why her cancer risk is even higher.
All of the above … From A, BC to V …
Abortion, birth control, chemicals, meds, vaccines.
Most people don’t need a daily pile of pills that looks like a whole bag of skittles – they need healthy food and exercise. And no one needs abortion – they need support and the love of their child! My quickfix generalization: anything that promises to make life better/ easier and takes close to no effort whatsoever on your part is (1) not true (2) actually makes life worse and (3) may even cause cancer.
Sylvia,
Here’s the mechanism in bullet-point:
-Estrogen levels increase about 2000 times at the start of preganacy.
– This increase in estrogen stimulates breast cells to double in number.
-These cells remain as immature, cancer- prone Type-1 and Type-2 cells.
– In the third trimester, the baby secretes the hormone placental lactogen.
– Placental lactogen converts 85% of the Type 1&2 cells into cancer resistant Type-3 and Type-4 cells. These cells remain cancer resistant for life, and produce the milk needed by the baby.
– The remaining 15% of cancer prone cells are increasingly converted to cancer-resistant cells with subsequent breast feeding and future pregnancies.
When a woman has an abortion, she has already undergone the doubling of cells in a first pregnancy, but has not derived the protective benefit of placental lactogen, as this happens in the third trimester. Thus, the woman has more places for cancer to begin.
In a first full term pregnancy (FFTP) mom derives the protective benefit of the third trimester events. In miscarriage, there is NO INCREASED RISK of cancer, because the woman’s estrogen levels never rise much above her non-pregnant levels.
On top of all this is the effect of the estrogen pill, which has been shown to raise the deadliest form of breast cancer in women from 240%-540%, depending on whether she starts the pill after age 22 (240%), or before age 18 (540%).Those numbers come from the same Dr. Louise Brinton of the NCI in her 2009 paper where she also reversed her position on the ABC link by stating that abortion raises the incidence of breast cancer 40%,as well as listing abortion and oral contraceptives under known and suspected risk factors for breast cancer.
All, sorry – should have been “breast cells proliferate,” not “breast cancer cells proliferate.”
hi folks,
speaking the word ‘cancer’ does cause considerable anguish, yet I remain skeptical as to peoples’ motives. We all know that smoking causes lung cancer in far too many people So why do people continue to (are determined to) smoke? Will we continue to seek an abortion-‘fix’ knowing that it causes cancer?
Del only scratched the surface when she delineated changes in the past 30 years. There are many more … but these are prime candidates: the use of cell phones & the radiation given of by televisions even when turned ‘off’ Robert O. Becker author of ‘Cross Currents’. Then there are the GMOs in our foods, We also are exposed to excessive light from our televisions and computer screens. This effectively shuts off all melatonin production by the pineal gland. One of the main jobs of this melatonin is to stimulate the thymus gland to produce thymosin … to rid the body of cancer cells – T.S. Wiley, ‘Lights Out’. PERHAPS, the observed ‘spike’ has to do with cell-phone use?
1) Over use of contraceptives (Its a carcinogen)2) Family History3) Abortion
Probably more like this:
1) More advanced age at first full time pregnancy and childlessness mostly due to the following:
2) Abortion
3) Over use of contraceptives (Its a carcinogen)
Just because use of contraceptives is third doesn’t mean it is a distant third. Rather, it is a close third.
Family History should not be included because it doesn’t change. The others are part of a trend.
If SNL did a Weekend update on this subject, it would sound like this:
“Officials say they must first build another room into which they can research further, as there are too many elephants in this one…”
“Officials say they must first build another room into which they can research further, as there are too many elephants in this one…”
Would those be pro-life republican elephants?
Not to mention all the progressives tip toeing around the decomposing remains of a deceased pro-life democRAT.
No, I meant elephants as in ‘the elephant in the room.’ Lol!
We also need to consider the over-use of Pitocin in labor & delivery.