Breaking: New bombshell analysis of 36 Chinese studies shows abortion increases breast cancer risk by 44%
Guest 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.
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.
Its no longer an ” old womans disease” young girls are stricken with it. The body count rises with every abortion for the baby and mom. BTW when we were all discussing Bette Davis and her abortions just thought Id add that she also contracted breast cancer.
As I have said: researchers outside of the “modern,” “Western” world do not suffer from the oppressive hegemony we here in the modern world have regarding ABC.
Here, if you want to study ABC, you have to worry about your academic career trajectory, since that will depend upon review by your peers when promotion comes up. You have to worry about funding – NIH is not in the mood to openly assess this issue.
You also have to worry about journal reviewers. Any study is limited, and has flaws. So, any study noting an ABC link can be rejected based on being flawed. (This is true of any study – we need to take various pieces of info and put them in context.) So, good luck getting published.
There are many studies noting moderate alcohol use as a possible predictor of breast cancer. The effect is very modest. Yet, this has been taken very seriously for years, and the questions has been raised whether women should avoid alcohol altogether to avoid the 4% additional risk.
Findings are mixed, however, so you can continue to imbibe - for the time being. The authorities are not yet quite ready to recommend avoiding alcohol altogether. All of this on a weak finding of possible 4% elevation.
However, the ABC signal is pretty clear, across the globe. Yet you can get a breast cancer risk study published without including abortion history as a “control” variable. Thus, published studies have bias in them that is not controlled due to political pressure.
Abortion is confounded with socio-economic status, alcohol use, and smoking. So, we in the West” will not get a clear picture until the prevailing hegemony changes its mind, or fades into history.
As for the rest of the world, they are no under our control. They have less stigma about abortion, and they may be very concerned about the “healthcare” practices pressured upon them from the “West:” abortion and birth control.
There will continue to be published a steady stream of papers assessing ABC from these Asian countries, and we will be able to argue them away only for so long.
Sadly, the increased chance of losing a breast or two, or maybe even losing their life, won’t change the the mindset of a pro-abort.
Ah, the good old ‘meta-analysis’ on data which itself hints at correlation, shows no causation and ignores a range of other potential impacting factors even more likely to have an effect as abortion.
But the new Chinese meta-analysis is a real game changer. Not only does it validate the earlier findings from 1996 (I suppose you could claim that repeating the same mistake is a type of validation), but its findings are even stronger, for several reasons: – no, it’s just a newer analysis which is statistical in nature which, yet again, also excludes other potential factors.
No serious investigation has been conducted into the impacts of genetics, hormonal sensitivity (which in turn affects susceptibility to a long list of socioeconomic and environmental factors), environmental carcinogens (immense changes in a short period of time in China – and India), delayed child rearing, less breastfeeding, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), early menarche and increased rates of obesity.
From the ‘acknowledged‘ link above:
“We evaluated the relative impact of changes in modifiable risk factors, including alcohol intake, parity, postmenopausal hormone use, and adult weight gain, on cumulative incidence of breast cancer.”
“Modest reductions in hormone and alcohol use, and weight maintenance could prevent 270,000 of these cases.”
The ‘Breast Cancer Prevention Institute‘ – the hobby horse of the thoroughly discredited Brind and Lanfranchi.
After 1996, the “mainstream” abortion advocates entrenched in universities, medical societies, medical journals, breast cancer charities, and especially, government agencies like the NCI – you mean the mainstream, serious, unbiased, non-hobby-horsing scientists and analysts.
Since 2003, armed with this new official “truth,” – official because it is the truth.
Pretty sad to see “Reality” reaching so far to uphold his or her quirky world view.
A range of possible explanations are presented: “genetics, hormonal sensitivity (which in turn affects susceptibility to a long list of socioeconomic and environmental factors), environmental carcinogens (immense changes in a short period of time in China – and India), delayed child rearing, less breastfeeding, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), early menarche and increased rates of obesity.”
Why not add UFOs, fluoride in the water, BPE, and vaccines?
“Anything, please, anything, but ABC.”
All operating across these various countries to add up to a whopping 30% or 40% boost in likelihood of BC, with abortion simply a statistical quirk riding along with these other factors, misleading everyone. Dogmatically buying that story is quite a feat of mental gymnastics.
The reason the China study is a game-breaker is that it was conducted outisde the States, thus not under the political pressure of feminists who push abortion as “reproductive health” and groups that have benefited from the abortion industry. There is also a growing breast cancer industry that includes insurance companies and Big Pharma. A study from China is under none of the pressure to conform that our medical communities face. Moreover, it is not encumbered by “recall bias” which was THE reason given for discounting earlier studies from the United States. Dr. Denise Hunnell: “We now have at least three independent research groups documenting the exponential rise of breast cancer among young women since the 1970s in both the United States and Europe. ” That time span also saw the rise in the incidence of induced abortion. Go figure. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/14/younger-women-face-higher-rates-of-breast-cancer-thanks-to-abortion/
More thoughts here: http://51piratealley.blogspot.com/2013/12/disney-princesses-pinktober-and-abc.html
Reality is……not into reality.
You know they are just grasping at nothingness (again) when they simply dismiss the scientists as “discredited.” Discredited by WHO? The way this works in science is that if indeed a published study is found to be biased or incorrect, then it is CHALLENGED by someone else. So where are the challenges to all these studies the last 20 years? Nowhere, that’s where. Just anonymous online insults to researchers. That’s all they have. That’s all they EVER have.
Those suggesting that this meta-analysis was done without pressure should remind themselves that abortion is MANDATORY in China for a majority of pregnancies as a matter of government policy. The pressure is there alright, and the bravery of the researchers should be acknowledged.
Now note the list of complicating factors that “reality” tries to muddy the water with… Keep in mind that these were all factored in already in the studies themselves (so this is just a diversion from her), but notice these:
*****”delayed child rearing, less breastfeeding, hormone replacement therapy (HRT),”*****
Earth to Reality……………….Abortion and oral contraceptives (Group One carcinogens) cause delayed child rearing and less breastfeeding!!
So here we go again, watching as she goes around and around avoiding the actual science and the actual conclusions, and just tries to insult the researchers and muddy the waters with complicating factors that – wait for it – lead us right back to abortion and the pill causing breast cancer.
These folks don’t even believe themselves, so nobody else should either.
Why not add UFOs, fluoride in the water, BPE, and vaccines? – well for a start I’d like to think that any extra-terrestrial lifeforms who had the ability, let alone the desire, to visit our orb would be more inclined to assist with the curing of cancer. There is no evidence that fluoride in water causes cancer. Dental examinations? Vaccines are a no as well.
Despite your cursory dismissal, even some of the ABC link claimants speak of breast-feeding being a contributing factor. Heavy metals and toxins from pollution and antiquated industrial processes have been proven to cause cancer. Obesity rates too. Genetics are a well proven indicator in the likelihood of breast cancer.
Since both China and India have experienced massive and sometimes less than careful growth in industry, infrastructure and the consumption of non-traditional foods, it’s not surprising that cancer rates have increased.
Try for a factual world view.
Human Rights–the pressure I refer to is the Western-styled feminism that pushes constantly for abortion as a “reproductive right.”
The China study acknowledges confounding factors that increase the likelihood of cancer. Its aim is to purport the relative risk of breast cancer among similar women living in the same polluted environment. The study found: “IA is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases.”
You know they are just grasping at nothingness (again) when they simply dismiss the scientists as “discredited.” Discredited by WHO? – the scientific community. The array of relevant groups of professionals in the appropriate field who say there is no link. I’m not the one doing the discrediting, I’m simply pointing out that those who would know do so.
The way this works in science is that if indeed a published study is found to be biased or incorrect, then it is CHALLENGED by someone else. – which is what has occured. As has been said –
“The vast majority of epidemiologists say Brind’s conclusions are dead wrong. They say he conducted an unsound analysis based on incomplete data and drew conclusions that meshed with his own pro-life views. They say that epidemiology, the study of diseases in populations, is an inexact science that requires practitioners to look critically at their own work, searching for factors that might corrupt the results and drawing conclusions only when they see strong and consistent evidence. “Circumspection, unfortunately, is what you have to do to practice epidemiology,” says Polly Newcomb, a researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “That’s something Brind is incapable of doing. He has such a strong prior belief in the association [between abortion and cancer] that he just can’t evaluate the data critically.”
So where are the challenges to all these studies the last 20 years? Nowhere, that’s where. Just anonymous online insults to researchers. That’s all they have. That’s all they EVER have. – you are incorrect. They are not anonymous. They are not just online. And they are not ‘insults’, they are repudiations based on science.
Those suggesting that this meta-analysis was done without pressure should remind themselves that abortion is MANDATORY in China for a majority of pregnancies as a matter of government policy. The pressure is there alright, and the bravery of the researchers should be acknowledged. – that doesn’t mean that they are right. And the earlier studies?
Now note the list of complicating factors that “reality” tries to muddy the water with… Keep in mind that these were all factored in already in the studies themselves – no they were not. That is the point. The studies actually point out that they haven’t been factored in. That is why the ABC link claim is discredited.
(so this is just a diversion from her), but notice these:
*****”delayed child rearing, less breastfeeding, hormone replacement therapy (HRT),”*****
Earth to Reality……………….Abortion and oral contraceptives (Group One carcinogens) cause delayed child rearing and less breastfeeding!! – reality to HRSH……….abortion isn’t solely responsible for delayed child rearing or less breastfeeding. And you haven’t addressed HRT. And have you checked out the list of group one carcinogens! Quite a few potential indicators there. How about the rise in fuel usage in China and India?
So here we go again, watching as she goes around and around avoiding the actual science and the actual conclusions, – I’m not the one avoiding the ‘actual science’. It is the actual science which demonstrates the actual incorrect conclusions of the ABC link claim.
and just tries to insult the researchers and muddy the waters with complicating factors that – wait for it – lead us right back to abortion and the pill causing breast cancer. – the meta-analysis amounts to little more than a statistical observation that abortion rates and cancer rates have both increased. No in-depth comparative analysis or study has been done on the lifestyle, dietary or even residential location; all factors which may demonstrate links between those who are more likely to have abortions and those who are more likely to get cancer.
These folks don’t even believe themselves, so nobody else should either. – I assume you are referring to those who claim the ABC link.
What’s also interesting Faith, is that IA rates are higher amongst women who live in urbanized areas and work in industry and commerce than those who live and work in more rural locations. Which also includes dietary variances.
In other words, those who are more likely to have an IA are also more likely to live in an environment, with a lifestyle, which is more carcinogenic.
Aborted babies don’t breastfeed much….
I rest my case.
So will you be telling all those women who have never had an abortion but were unable to breastfeed for some reason, or those who were unable to have children, that they are more likely to get breast cancer or shall I?
You may be resting a little too soon.
Also, if the abortionists themselves (the ones who regularly thwart scientific honesty at ACOG, AMA, NCI, and so on) had a case, they would have CHALLENGED this peer reviewed, published studies a LONG time ago.
But they never do.
They strongarm these organizations to remain silent because they ARE TERRIFIED OF BEING SUED OUT OF EXISTENCE. This is all playing itself out in the same way that it did in the 70’s and 80’s with the tobacco industry.
This just in from “Reality:”
Environmental pollutants give women in Asia cancer, but not men.
Other factors which may contraindicate a link in a medical study can indeed be included and factored into that study, but she reserves the right to simply dismiss it all. “Because I say so” is now a scientific method.
Abortions do not effect the rate of breastfeeding, or when women women first give birth. That stuff is only valid if it supports a politically correct viewpoint regarding a scientific meta-analysis. It magically becomes invalid if it goes counter top that political perspective. Why? Because I said so.
Also, if the abortionists themselves (the ones who regularly thwart scientific honesty at ACOG, AMA, NCI, and so on) – Hah! – had a case, they would have CHALLENGED this peer reviewed, published studies a LONG time ago – your choice to ignore that fact that this has taken place does not negate it.
This just in from “Reality:”
Environmental pollutants give women in Asia cancer, but not men. – oh please, do show me where I mentioned anything at all about cancer and men let alone made such a claim.
Other factors which may contraindicate a link in a medical study can indeed be included and factored into that study, – yes they can, but in this case they weren’t.
but she reserves the right to simply dismiss it all. – can’t dismiss what doesn’t exist.
“Because I say so” is now a scientific method. – no, because the valid science say so is the scientific method.
Abortions do not effect the rate of breastfeeding, or when women women first give birth. – why would you make such a claim? I wouldn’t.
That stuff is only valid if it supports a politically correct viewpoint regarding a scientific meta-analysis. – what is valid is the scientifically correct viewpoint, not some pre-ordained, targeted outcome from someone pushing an agenda.
It magically becomes invalid if it goes counter top that political perspective. – it becomes invalid because it is contrary to the facts.
Why? Because I said so. – the true science tells us the truth.
“Despite your cursory dismissal, even some of the ABC link claimants speak of breast-feeding being a contributing factor.”
I dismissed low breast-feeding experience as a risk factor for breast cancer?
Even “some” ABC claimants recognize this?
This is totally recognized.
early onset of menses, later menopause, less breastfeeding, and fewer children are all associated, mathematically, with breast cancer risk.
These associations are based, yes, on the suspect “correlation,” without causal proof.
Yet they are recognized as valid.
This is the same game the tobacco lobby played – no one ever conducted a controlled trial to see if those assigned to a lifetime of smoking got lung cancer more than those assigned to a lifetime of not smoking. -You simply cannot randomize people to be smokers or not. So, we yet have not had a study pinning down smoking as a cause of cancer.
Likewise, we are not randomly assigning women to have more kids or fewer kids, or to breast feed more or less, or to start menses earlier or later.
those studies will never be done.
Instead, we have to use various other sources of info to figure out what leads to lung cancer, and what leads to breast cancer.
The studies looking at ABC are the same quality as studies looking at breast feeding, etc.
Also, there is a great amount of data on the biological mechanism – partly developed breast cells that do not fully transform into milk-producing cells when the pregnancy is interrupted by elective abortion.
It is pretty obvious that breasts undergo changes in pregnancy. The scientific term is “b()()b fairy.”
Abortion interrupts this transition, leaving a certain type of breast cell half-way transformed, and later vulnerable to cancerous growth promotion by estrogen.
So, there is a biological explanation, and plenty of these population-wide studies to support this.
BTW: if a woman goes and has a subsequent pregnancy, and goes to term, these cells that were left half-way get the chance to fully transition naturally.
Correspondingly, across these studies, the risk for breast cancer is less, and even none, for women when they have a subsequent baby, if it is done within some certain time span.
One way to hide the ABC link is to fail to separate out women with and without subsequent full-term pregnancies. That cuts the chance to see the actual effect in half.
This biology does not happen with a miscarriage; the woman’s body knows when a miscarriage happens, and the process that otherwise would return those cells to their beginning state at the conclusion of breast feeding proceeds to take place after the miscarriage, as well.
These are a couple of the tricks that can be done to mask the ABC signal in a study.
Yet another is to ignore in situ BC – this drops the number of cases overall, and so drops the possibility to detect the ABC signal among all the noise.
Among other analyses, Brind has reviewed the studies reviewed by NCI so they could deliver the political view that “there is no ABC.” They played some tricks with what studies were declared worthy to be included, and the included studies have limits or weaknesses, like I have noted, which allowed the committee – where some selection of the committee tricks were played as well – to point to a handful of studies and provide the decision that was written before this supposedly dispassionate, non-political committee ever made its supposedly dispassionate, non-political declaration.
Some people are happy to go ahead and believe any story as long as it fits the prevailing political agenda, and seems scientifick-y.
Most of us do not have the time, and the science skills, to sort through these issues.
Over the years, I have, so I know some of the tricks that have been used.
Most importantly, we need to use common sense.
ABC is not a big deal for pro-lifers. Killing a baby before it gets a chance to be born is wrong just because it is wrong. A 4-week old fetus is a human being. Science knows that. The embryology texts declare that life begins at conception, and there is no science book presenting a new phase of the mammal life cycle that is called “a potential life.”
No where.
The reason to be concerned about ABC is that this white-wash of the issue show the degree that abortion is a huge political issue, at many levels. Lots of money and power.
Ted Kennedy was pro-life, then abortion became legal, and the money started to look pretty good.
Jesse Jackson was pro-life, then abortion became legal, and the money began to look pretty good.
The American Medical Association was firmly pro-life, as was the Hippocratic oath. The AMA changed their position. They also changed the Hippocratic Oath.
There is no new biology knowledge making us change our view of life beginning at conception.
There is just rhetoric on other topics, such as “choice” and “rights.”
All we have is new biological information showing more and more how intricate and advanced a fetus is way earlier than we formerly knew.
Science is making it obvious that life is demonstrated in gestation in many ways ever earlier, not later. We are doing surgeries on 25-wk-old fetuses while politically we are fighting to keep it legal to abort at 25 week.
That is all about political views and political power, not science and biology.
Those parroting that there is no ABC face the problem of ever-mounting evidence. When Komen, ACOG and the NCI have to back-track, it I snot going to be pretty.
I dismissed low breast-feeding experience as a risk factor for breast cancer? – no, HRSH appeared to. Or at least thought I’d said so. Which I hadn’t.
Even “some” ABC claimants recognize this?
This is totally recognized. – I’m glad we agree.
These associations are based, yes, on the suspect “correlation,” without causal proof.
Yet they are recognized as valid. – on correlation plus science, unlike the ABC correlation.
Likewise, we are not randomly assigning women to have more kids or fewer kids, or to breast feed more or less, or to start menses earlier or later.
those studies will never be done. – the studies can be done without any ‘assigning’ required. Did Brind ‘assign’ women to have or not have abortions?
The studies looking at ABC are the same quality as studies looking at breast feeding, etc. – perhaps they are. The problem lies in the fact that the data is not of a quality to support the claimed conclusion.
It is pretty obvious that breasts undergo changes in pregnancy. The scientific term is “b()()b fairy.” – yes, I’m well aware of the standard of your scientific acumen.
This biology does not happen with a miscarriage; the woman’s body knows when a miscarriage happens, and the process that otherwise would return those cells to their beginning state at the conclusion of breast feeding proceeds to take place after the miscarriage, as well. – but it doesn’t know when an abortion has taken place? Wow. Let’s see. Miscarriage – fetus dies, leaves the body. Abortion – fetus dies, leaves the body.Hm.
Brind has reviewed the studies…..what studies were declared worthy to be included, and the included studies have limits or weaknesses (the ones Brind based his work on)…..some selection of the committee tricks were played as well…..provide the decision that was written before this supposedly dispassionate, non-political committee ever made its supposedly dispassionate, non-political declaration (no, it was Brind who started with a conclusion and then created the results to ‘support’ it) – nice conspiracy theory you’ve got going there.
Killing a baby before it gets a chance to be born is wrong just because it is wrong. – that’s not very scientifick-y.
Kennedy – money. Jackson – money. AMA – money. – more conspiracy theory.
There is just rhetoric on other topics, such as “choice” and “rights.” – it’s fundamental, not ‘rhetoric’.
All we have is new biological information showing more and more how intricate and advanced a fetus is way earlier than we formerly knew. – intricate, maybe. Advanced – oh yes, in which ways?
Science is making it obvious that life is demonstrated in gestation in many ways ever earlier, not later. – I thought it was agred that it was a ‘life’ from conception, how can it get any earlier?
That is all about political views and political power, not science and biology. – the perennial republican playbook.
Those parroting that there is no ABC face the problem of ever-mounting evidence. – the ‘ever-mounting’ evidence says no.
When Komen, ACOG and the NCI have to back-track, it I snot going to be pretty. – not a situation which will arise.
“Science is making it obvious that life is demonstrated in gestation in many ways ever earlier, not later.”
“– I thought it was agred that it was a ‘life’ from conception, how can it get any earlier? -”
Agreed: abortion ends a human life. My work here is done.
Dude, I’ve always said that abortion kills a gestating fetus of the human species. That doesn’t change the errors in Brind’s claims.
And since we all already agree that a human ‘life’ starts at conception you could try explaining how science is demonstrating that it exists even earlier.
My work here is done – glad to hear it :-)