| Author |
Message |
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
 Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:54 pm Pregnancy Centers Found to Give False Information |
|
Pregnancy Centers Found to Give False Information on Abortion
Okay. I have no problem with people believing that abortion is wrong. I have no problem with people outlining the risks of abortion to people considering it. However, the idea that federally funded clinics are flat out lying to people about the risks just makes me sick. Abortion causes an increase in the risk of breast cancer? Come on...
Note: this is not meant to start an 'is abortion right or wrong' debate. I posted it more for the fact that the clinics were lying to patients.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:28 pm |
|
There is evidence both for and against the idea that abortions can lead to an increased risk of certain kinds of cancer. So I do not know where you can get away with calling that a lie. Considering there is research that does suggest a link, I don't think it is wrong to show the mother who wants to get rid of her child this research, as long as you mention that it is controversial.
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:44 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | There is evidence both for and against the idea that abortions can lead to an increased risk of certain kinds of cancer. So I do not know where you can get away with calling that a lie. |
Please provide a link to a study linking arbotion to breast cancer.
I have worked in medicine for almost 30 years and in oncology for 15 of that. I've yet to see any documentation of such a link.
Just knowing the disease mechanism makes that claim extremely suspicious.
Thanks in advance for the documentation. Serious medical research obviously preferred.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:48 pm |
|
Under "Unproven," Wikipedia says,
| Quote: | It has been hypothesized that abortion may increase the risk of breast cancer because of hormones in early pregnancy. Recent large studies do not support this association. [12]
Source |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer#_note-11 has a link to a study about it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:49 pm |
|
Actually, that article goes against it. I am, as well, unable to find a study supporting this theory.
| Quote: | | Induced abortion: Several studies have provided very strong data that induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. Also, there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) in most of the studies that have been published. Scientists invited to participate in a conference on abortion and breast cancer by the National Cancer Institute (February 2003) concluded that there was no relationship. A recent report of 83,000 women with breast cancer found no link to a previous abortion, either spontaneous (stillbirth) or induced. |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:29 pm |
|
Everything I have seen disproves it, too.
So, Puck, it's been disproven by medical research. Continuing to claim a link after something is disproven is, yes, lying, and is also abysmal and unethical medical care. They deserve to be called on the issue.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:31 pm |
|
I wouldn't say it's necessarily disproven, but that perhaps it is merely unproven.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:37 pm |
|
| Quote: | FEDERAL REPORT ON CARCINOGENS AND THE ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LINK
By Karen Malec May 21, 2003
An official list of "known human carcinogens" released by the Department of Health and Human Services in December 2002 includes steroidal estrogens for the first time. The Report on Carcinogens states that steroidal estrogens are used in estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) and common abortifacient drugs. Both kinds of drugs have been widely utilized by American women. The federal report is available on the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences website. [1]
While certain pharmaceuticals might provide limited medical benefits, women must balance these considerations against the fact that breast cancer is the second greatest cause of cancer among American women.
Clearly, the Report on Carcinogens presents a serious conflict for the National Cancer Institute (NCI), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. In February, a panel of grant-dependent scientists chosen by the NCI swept under the rug staggering biological and epidemiological evidence supporting a causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer which has been amassed over the last 46 years.
What do ERT and abortifacient drugs have to do with the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link? Estrogen overexposure provides the biological explanation for most of the risk factors for breast cancer, including abortion. Estrogen is known to increase the rate of cell division. It causes normal and pre-cancerous cells to multiply. A few days after conception, estrogen levels start climbing, so that by the end of the first trimester, a mother's estrogen level is increased 2000% and her breasts are swollen. Scientists theorize that only a third trimester process, differentiation (maturation of cells), neutralizes the mother's exposure to estrogen and provides her with increased protection against breast cancer.
A booklet published by the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, "Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention", explains the critical importance of an early first full term pregnancy (before age 25). This influences breast cell maturity and, consequently, a woman's lifetime risk for the disease. The booklet says:
"If a woman does not have a full-term pregnancy (meaning she is childless or nulliparous), she has increased risk for breast cancer, since she never develops (mature, cancer-resistant) type 3 and 4 lobules. If she has children later in life (after age 30), she has increased risk, because, for most of her menstrual life, her estrogen has been stimulating immature (cancer-vulnerable) type 1 and 2 breast lobules. If she has children as a teenager, she has decreased risk of breast cancer, since her breast tissue matures very early in her menstrual life to type 3 and 4 lobules." [2]
Similarly, women who experience more menstrual periods during their lives are at greater risk. Why? With each monthly period, they're exposed to more estrogen. This is why the risk is greater for women who have fewer or no children, who breastfeed little or not at all, who experience late menopause or early onset of menstrual periods and who delay their first full term pregnancies.
On the other hand, alcohol consumption, lack of exercise and obesity each increase breast cancer risk because they cause a woman's estrogen levels to be elevated.
Use of diethylstilbestrol (DES) has been linked with increased risk. It is a synthetic estrogen given to diabetic pregnant women at risk for miscarriage starting in the 1940's. For almost 25 years, researchers told women there was no link between DES and breast cancer. However, because the disease develops slowly over time, it took 20 years before researchers were able to detect a trend in the direction of increased risk.
Chris Kahlenborn, M.D. wrote in his book, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, that "The risk of DES appears to be greatest in women older than 60." [3]
A similar trend can be observed among women of the Roe v. Wade generation. A Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer for the period 1973 to 1998 from the National Cancer Institute and other agencies reveals that an increasing incidence of breast cancer could be observed starting in 1987 - 14 years after the legalization of abortion. [4] A graph provided by the report's authors, figure 3, clearly shows that the more than 40% increase in breast cancer rates since 1987 was sustained solely by the youngest of three generations - the Roe v. Wade generation.
Just as the risk of breast cancer increases as DES users age, the incidence of the disease is just as likely to rise as the Roe generation ages.
What's the bottom line? Women have become scientists' human guinea pigs. The National Cancer Institute and private cancer organizations are to blame for the nation's out-of-control breast cancer rates. If they really wanted women to know the truth about the ABC link, they would have informed women of the existence of the ongoing research in 1973 when abortion was legalized.
This is why the NCI's leaders were afraid to debate the evidence during its workshop earlier this year. They knew they would lose.
References
1. See www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/10thrc.htm (December 11, 2002) Visited May 20, 2003.
2. Lanfranchi A, Brind J. Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention. Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (2002) P. 8.
3. Kahlenborn C. Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill. One More Soul. New York, New York. (2000) P. 183.
4. Howe HL, Wingo PA, Thun MJ, Ries LA, Rosenberg HM, Feigal EG, Edwards BK. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973 through 1998, featuring cancers with recent increasing trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:824-842. |
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/
And I never said it had been proven, or disproven. I went so far as to say that there is evidence to support the theory that it does, and at the same time, evidence that rejects this theory. As long as it is presented in the correct light, as being controversial, I think these women deserve to know that there is a possible link. Clearly you have not seen everything if you have only seen stuff that disproves the link. I think right now it is safe to say that it is inconclusive.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:40 pm |
|
I think he has a point, teya. When there are, as he has just proven, studies supporting the theory, I don't think we can say that the clinic lied about this. That goes too far.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:12 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | Clearly you have not seen everything if you have only seen stuff that disproves the link. I think right now it is safe to say that it is inconclusive. |
Actually, with all due respect, you don't know what I've seen and what I haven't, do you?
I figured that was where this would probably go--to the estrogen link. The problem with this link--from a *medical standpoint*--is that it is circumstantial and based on evidence from other uses of estrogen.
The article is an "anecdotal study." In other words, it's not a report on a research study, but was written by someone who is using medical data from unrelated studies and claiming a *possible* causal link, but providing absolutely no medical evidence for the link.
First, the article cites increased breast cancer rates among older women who took the early generation high-dose BC pills, as well as those who used DES. Neither of these drugs are on the market now, and they have never been used as abortifacients. As a matter of fact, DES was used to *prevent* miscarriage. Unfortunately, it led to genital cancers in the daughters of the women who took it, and breast cancer later in the women.
Second, the method of delivery differs between abortifacients and high-dose BC or HRT. Both of the latter--where a causal link has been established--are taken over a period of time, for years. There is long-term exposure. This isn't true for abortifacients.
The problem is, if someone doesn't understand the pharmacology, the disease risk, and how medical research is structured, it sounds good. But this isn't a medical study. And there is still absolutely no medical evidence linking abortion to breast cancer.
|
|
|
jonathan95
Delta Prime
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1544
Location: UK Newcastle
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:24 pm |
|
though I have no real facts or figures or anything really to do with the topic, here is a thought to consider,
How many times have we heard that something is good for us then later been told that it increases the risk to cancer or other diseases,
not so long ago we were all told that we should increase X into our diet to help make us stronger and help reduce the risk of such and such a thing, then a few years later we are bneing told that they were wrong in fact is increase's.
I think too much information is flowling through sources, and nobody is keeping up properly,
I dont think Abortion causes a higher risk of cancer, of any kind.
I do think too much miss information is around, and think the governments should really make it clear what they really think not what they hear on the grape vine.
Theories are good and all but till proven fact and then re checked its only a thory.
anyways as they say thats my two sense on this matter.
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:03 pm |
|
| jonathan95 wrote: | I do think too much miss information is around, and think the governments should really make it clear what they really think not what they hear on the grape vine.
|
Now, I'm gonna sound like a Republican. 
Why is it the government's responsibility? Why can't the American public educate themselves?
Yeah, I'm being evil. Thing is, we are so behind the rest of the world in science education, thus we end up with a public who doesn't understand the science in medicine. Then, to make matters even worse, we demand that they be "educated consumers" of medicine--because that's the way free-market medicine works.
And we aren't educated consumers. So we latch onto whatever sounds good (usually something that goes along with something we already believe to be true--whether or not it still is or ever was true).
Is there a solution? From the perspective of a medical professional, I'd love to know what one is. I spend a good portion of my day explaining complex procedures and diseases to patients with no background. I'm pretty good at that, but it does amaze me sometimes how little people know about their own bodies. I mean, we're not talking med school physiology here, we're talking basic HS health classes.
But, a good place to start when looking for information is to look at a variety of sites. FWIW, I am always very leery of sites like the one Puck linked to, so I research further. A further search on this group revealed that they are focused on one issue only--the link between abortion and breast cancer--and that when medical organizations, governmental organization, private organizations, medical journals, come out against their purported research, they simply attack the other organizations as "using women as guinea pigs."
In other words, they go immediately to the consipiracy theory. That always raises a red flag.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:30 pm |
|
But one thing. Was the clinic presenting the Breast Cancer risk as a fact? Or as controversial research? If its the first, then they were lying. The resaerch hasn't been proven or disproven.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:51 pm |
|
I believe they were presenting it as fact.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:49 pm |
|
Then they were lying. Those studies haven't been proven.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
