I realize that almost no one wants to acknowledge this or discuss it - but as Cassandra commented on your previous post - abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.

Of course, the medical community has gone to great lengths - especially that part of the medical community that consumes our tax dollars - to suppress that fact because of the 'safe abortion' lobby.

If accounting for chemotherapy is an important factor to consider in a recurrence study - certainly the induced abortion factor should be included as well.

Emcee -

I received your e-mail on that topic, but the issue was a bit too complex to render such a rock solid judgment on, so I'm reading up on it before I have an opinion.

I will say that your use of cites was discouraging, specifically Catholic BioEthics group pHD's and anti-abortion groups. Not necessarily discounting (at all) what they have to say (as I haven't read counterclaims yet), but it's kind of tricky to automatically make a judgment about research and medical advice being PC and politically motivated, when the counter researchers making the claim are also working backwards from a political angle.

In addition, this is a study about breast cancer recurrence, and that fact (which separates it from research tying intital incidence of breast cancer to previous abortion), as well as the fact that chemotherapy is factor specifically tied to treating cancer, doesn't really make the factors perfectly analogous.

Bill - As always, I appreciate your thoughts.

As to cites - I'll refer you to Brind's paper which I cite in my post - he's got 97 cites across the medical journals and international spectrum - he's published much more widely than where this current paper is from - it's just that the ranks have closed in the last decade or so. Brind has made a scientifically sufficient case IMO.

Where else are we going to get cites in the current climate in the US anyway? There is no voice of dissent among the compliant cabal that feed off the public largesse.

I'm no medical expert - but I can read. I wasn't suggesting that induced abortion be included as a factor in a diet study on recurrence because it was analogous to chemotherapy - I was suggesting it because it has empirical evidential value in the prevention/causative chain of factors suggested by such a study. Diet selection is a preventative measure that contrasts with the treatment mode of chemotherapy. Can diet overcome the predeliction to malignancy in breast lobules due to induced abortion? Since a completed pregnancy has preventative value relative to breast cancer, is a subsequent successful pregnancy as valuable a prescription against recurrence as diet is? Data points such as these would seem to me to be of as much scientific interest in a prevention study as one treatment modality characteristic of heroic Western medicine would be.

he's got 97 cites across the medical journals and international spectrum - he's published much more widely than where this current paper is from

Which I'm still digging through.

As far as your points about the validity of abortion - depending on the increased incidence of cancer associated with abortion (and I recall reading a couple of cites that said it was quite notable, like more than twice the likelihood), it could be an important stand-alone risk factor, as well as relevant to recurrence studies. But instinctively (w/o statistical analysis) I wouldn't put it necessarily on the same level as a specific treatment factor, as there could be 1000 different lifestyle factors that could account for increased predisposition for breast cancer, in addition to (and with possibly much greater impact than) abortion. Living near powerlines, ingestion of pesticides, etc.

In fact, it just may be likely that women who've had an abortion could have a predilection for breast cancer based on lifestyle choices (other than abortion) that statistically are much more common within populations that tend to have had abortions (like smoking). Or it could be an immune response specifically triggered by the abortion. Dunno.

Long story short, they are testing diet and recurrence in women that already have had it, and chemotherapy probably has a distinct place as an excludable factor because it is a treatment specifically designed to destroy the cancer and prevent recurrence.

Longer story, even shorter - I don't know how valid screening for previous abortion would be in a proper study, relative to other lifestyle factors associated with cancer. Could be very important, could not be. I simply don't know.

I will say that the outraged language of your post - as well as the sources for the cites - raises my healthy skepticism, because it's rather clear that there is a political agenda at work.

That's not discounting the conclusions out of hand, or minimizing your opinion - I'm just inclined to carefully tiptoe around any conclusion until I can look at a variety of sources and make up my mind in an independent manner. You could be right. Dunno.

Bill -

Thanks again for the good thoughts. I enjoy these engagements - I don't mean llama enjoyment - I mean the dialog :)

IMO no lifestyle activity has the impact on malignant predilection of breast lobules that induced abortion does. I agree that there must be a 1000 different lifestyle factors that have impact on breast cancer occurrence and recurrence - but if induced abortion is responsible for up to 10% of breast cancer incidence as those many studies suggest - it has to be in the top 3.

My outrage is rooted in the apparent decisions in the hallowed halls to treat women in our society like chattel instead of citizens. My reaction to suppressed scientific evidence by the very institutions that are supposed to disseminate it is the same that I have towards abuse. It is outrageous!