Scientific Review of 72 Studies, Biological Evidence Supports Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

jajajaja so you revert to throwing insults?!? Nah man, I have better things to do.

I never said anything about “NON hormonal pharmaceuticals to treat random diseases or illnesses” and yet that was used as the crux of your debate material. That is a compete and total non sequitur. Next you will claim the embryo is a parasite.

This article is relevant to our discussion. - Huffington Post Blasted for Falsely Telling Women Abortion is Not Linked to Breast Cancer - LifeNews.com -

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The synthetic hormones of women break down so slowly that the progesterone from birth control be found in the mountains from Alaska all the way down to Chile. Natural hormones have a very short half life. Even guys who juice often have shrunken testicles because their bodies don’t see a need for a natural cyclic hormone. The body will always excrete hormones, afterwards the hormones should never remain the same. Especially for longer periods of time.

[/quote]

You have almost no idea what you are talking about. If it were possible, it seems as if you actually have a negative amount of knowledge. You sound like some damn rabid anti-vaccination or organic vegan herbalist hippie in your science talk. There are so many things wrong with your post I don’t even know where to start. For one, almost everything you said about “hormones” above can be applied to other NON hormonal pharmaceuticals to treat random diseases or illnesses.[/quote]

42

Biological science is complicated and the studies are very empiric. As someone who worked a very little bit in this field you should take every study with a grain of salt (or a lot more).

43

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
jajajaja so you revert to throwing insults?!? Nah man, I have better things to do.

I never said anything about “NON hormonal pharmaceuticals to treat random diseases or illnesses” and yet that was used as the crux of your debate material. That is a compete and total non sequitur. Next you will claim the embryo is a parasite.

This article is relevant to our discussion. - http://www.lifenews.com/2014/08/13/huffington-post-blasted-for-falsely-telling-women-abortion-is-not-linked-to-brest-cancer/ -

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The synthetic hormones of women break down so slowly that the progesterone from birth control be found in the mountains from Alaska all the way down to Chile. Natural hormones have a very short half life. Even guys who juice often have shrunken testicles because their bodies don’t see a need for a natural cyclic hormone. The body will always excrete hormones, afterwards the hormones should never remain the same. Especially for longer periods of time.
[/quote] [/quote]

[/quote]

I suppose so yes. After all, the last time I went ahead and got a bibliography, sourced all my information, and decided to actually tell you the science you effectively put your fingers in your ears and told me you weren’t listening because “science was on your side”. Phenomenal argument, that one. clearly I waste my time engaging you in actual scientific talk, so insults are more entertaining.

Re: the embryo as a parasite–you clearly know nothing of my views on abortion or read my posts on the subject, because you would understand why exactly that is a retarded statement to make. Not to mention it is exactly as scientifically illiterate as the bullshit you just spouted, just from the “other side” so I suppose that means it is ok in your mind.

To clarify, non hormonal pharmaceuticals can be found outside in water and the environment (this is why we have EPA and hazardous waste rules as well as environmental impact studies). non hormonal pharmaceuticals (NHP) can remain for some time. This is because the chemical bonds are broken through enzymatic reaction (again the same for hormonal and non hormonal). When the molecules are photostable and acid/base resistant they can remain intact for long periods of time. Incidentally this is also true for “natural hormones” outside of the body. The extent of photostability and resistance to acid hydrolysis has literally NO BEARING on whether a drug, hormone, herb, or “synthetic hormone” is safe or healthy or useful. I can take a test tube, create an identical copy of “natural testosterone” and sit it on a shelf in the sunlight for years and it will still contain unbroken testosterone when I test it again. That, incidentally, is exactly what you are claiming makes this “synthetic hormones” so unhealthy.

By the way, the phrases “the body will always excrete hormones” and “afterwards they should never remain the same” are so vague as to be meaningless. Natural hormones are metabolized quickly because they are subjected to very specific enzymatic catalysis. Incidentally, the oldest and most widespread form of birth control you take every day (read: short “natural” half life). Additionally the assumption that any modification of a molecule is “unhealthy” or dangerous–which was another of the threads in your post that was left implicit–is ridiculous.

It MAY lead to more prevalent toxic side effects (because any and all chemicals are already toxic at a certain level, “natural” chemicals or otherwise) or it may DECREASE the toxicity…or it might have no effect on toxicity and a large effect on binding affinity, or any other marker of effectiveness. Put more bluntly, the assumption you speak of–modification is dangerous and unhealthy–is in direct opposition to THE ENTIRETY OF THE HISTORY OF DRUG DEVELOPMENT, which hinges on the opposite notion, that we can modify herbal and drug molecules to make them safer, more effective, and better than their original ‘versions’. This is why I brought up non hormonal drugs, although you didn’t see the connection.

It was, in fact, very germane to the conversation.

44

668×1115 322 KB

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
…
It was, in fact, very germane to the conversation.
[/quote]

A moment.

I deduce that kneedragger has been in one or more serious injuries. I would guess by his avatar that he has experience traumatic brain injury (TBI), possibly induced coma and all the horrors of the intensive care unit. for orthopedic and neurologic injury.

And he has made an astounding recovery. Those of us wingers who complain about “scapular winging,” or rotator cuff impingements, or the chiropractic fictions that occupy these forums, have no idea what repetitive TBI can be, what recovery may mean.

When we look at Marcel Duchamp, we may see the abstraction of the solid form in motion, rendered into planes of color, all suggesting the intoxicating grace of the female form, alive and imperfect. For a TBI patient, it is all jagged, barely comprehensible, a mockery of the skeins of logic and information which has taken months, or years, to reweave into the tapestry of life.

Now I do not think of kneedragger as the object of pity, and I sense that he would reject it if offered. He is beyond that. And he is to be congratulated, whether I agree or not with his premises or his conclusions.

Our injury, the more grave, is the deficiency of loving-kindness.

45

You are quite correct Doc. My apologies to kneedragger. I am suitably chastised

46

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You are quite correct Doc. My apologies to kneedragger. I am suitably chastised[/quote]
Oh!

None of this was directed to you, Aragon.
Us. We. Our.
The readers and writers.
Your post allowed a moment of reflection.

…and on the other hand, kneedragger might have been as big an a–hole before his accidents as after.

47

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

When we look at Marcel Duchamp, we may see the abstraction of the solid form in motion, rendered into planes of color, all suggesting the intoxicating grace of the female form, alive and imperfect. For a TBI patient, it is all jagged, barely comprehensible, a mockery of the skeins of logic and information which has taken months, or years, to reweave into the tapestry of life.

[/quote]

All I see when I look at Marcel Duchamp is entartete Kunst - jagged, incomprehensible shit.

48

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

When we look at Marcel Duchamp, we may see the abstraction of the solid form in motion, rendered into planes of color, all suggesting the intoxicating grace of the female form, alive and imperfect. For a TBI patient, it is all jagged, barely comprehensible, a mockery of the skeins of logic and information which has taken months, or years, to reweave into the tapestry of life.

[/quote]

All I see when I look at Marcel Duchamp is entartete Kunst - jagged, incomprehensible shit.[/quote]

The diagnosis is confirmed…

49

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

When we look at Marcel Duchamp, we may see the abstraction of the solid form in motion, rendered into planes of color, all suggesting the intoxicating grace of the female form, alive and imperfect. For a TBI patient, it is all jagged, barely comprehensible, a mockery of the skeins of logic and information which has taken months, or years, to reweave into the tapestry of life.

[/quote]

All I see when I look at Marcel Duchamp is entartete Kunst - jagged, incomprehensible shit.[/quote]

The diagnosis is confirmed…[/quote]

No complaints here. You can sleep with a rock formation; I’ll take the Venus de Milo.

50

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

When we look at Marcel Duchamp, we may see the abstraction of the solid form in motion, rendered into planes of color, all suggesting the intoxicating grace of the female form, alive and imperfect. For a TBI patient, it is all jagged, barely comprehensible, a mockery of the skeins of logic and information which has taken months, or years, to reweave into the tapestry of life.

[/quote]

All I see when I look at Marcel Duchamp is entartete Kunst - jagged, incomprehensible shit.[/quote]

The diagnosis is confirmed…[/quote]

No complaints here. You can sleep with a rock formation; I’ll take the Venus de Milo.
[/quote]

I am disarmed.

51

Aragon -

Thank you for being so willing to help me understand what you are trying to teach me. You talk a lot about the past, yet that cannot be changed so please give me an opportunity each time, that is all I can ask and you seem like an awesome dude and hopefully we can go through the discussion.

Of all the typing you did, there was one sentence that stood out to me - “Natural hormones are metabolized quickly because they are subjected to very specific enzymatic catalysis.” - This is precisely the point. The world has been functioning perfectly for well over four thousand years of recorded history. Wouldnâ??t it be very, very arrogant to believe that people can modify a chemical hormone so it doesnâ??t break down, and that is somehow beneficial? Please correct me if I am wrong, but arenâ??t cyclic hormones by their very nature compounds that break down rapidly so the human body sees a need and produces the hormones.

Personally I am enthralled by gyroscopic wheels and natural cycles ; )

[quote]Aragon wrote:
Natural hormones are metabolized quickly because they are subjected to very specific enzymatic catalysis.[/quote]

52

DrSkeptix and Aragon -

You are correct about my injuries! Kind of creepy how you know so much about me and that is imformation I have never shared with anyone. I might have to build up my defense perimiters ; )

As a side note, my most recent anoxic brain injury was just over a year ago. Here is some information about the injury - anoxic brain injury at DuckDuckGo - I never picked up mono as a baby / kid / teenager and the number of people in the population who share that characteristic with me is less than three percent. Does that make me special? ; ) I tell you this because all my previous memory came freakin’ back!! How awseome is that.

In all seriousnress, I know that I am a cocky, bulll headed pos but I do know that everyone at the table can bring something to the table, even me. I would never take anything on a forum or in real life too personally. Cars cannot kill me, how could words even effect me? You guys are too cool to do mean things anyway BWJAA JAA JAA JAA

Be well and GOD Bless with Love my T-Nation Brothers = D)

53

Peacefully and calmly still waiting for someone to successfully prove to me that LIFE does not begin at the moment of conception.

When people choose to have sex; the only result is a new LIFE. Every abortion including ALL birth control, barriers are the only exception kills an innocent child in a horrendous fashion. The fallen nature of mankind has allowed this to happen for the past forty one plus years in America.

People often claim that the body of the woman is her own. I have no debate there. When a woman becomes pregnant, nature determines the location for the child to mature. The rights to her body are superseded by the child’s. Remember she consented to the act which created the new LIFE within her womb.

54

People realized I have had multiple TBI’s with an anoxic injury to finish the list, and now suddenly any topic I defend is done with. Awesome judgments everyone!! Jajajaja!!

55

Many people here typed that I was off my rocker when I posted about a cancer link after injesting birth control. Here is another study confirming the same findings. Simple logic, reason and science will show the cause of ingesting large quantities of a synthetic hormone causes many devastating effects in the human body.

"Scientific Review Urges Doctors to Inform Women of Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

by Karen Malec | Washington, DC | 10/30/14 2:00 PM

A second scientific review in 2014 has strongly urged physicians to warn patients about the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link before an abortion and argued the evidence for a cause-effect relationship is substantial.[1,2] A. Patrick Schneider and his colleagues authored the latest review entitled, â??The breast cancer epidemic: 10 facts,â?? for the journal, The Linacre Quarterly.[1]

There are multiple, serious, health risks[3,4] associated with using the birth control pill and combined hormone replacement therapy (CHRT), both of which contain estrogen and progestin, although the former contains a larger dose. The authors of both reviews urged physicians to warn patients about the harms of taking either these drugs.

Schneiderâ??s team said, â??â?¦having more than one risk factor compounds the risk of breast cancer via synergistic mechanisms,â?? meaning the risk increase the woman incurs is greater than the sum of the risks for each of her risk factors. They explained:

â??The strength of the breast cancer epidemiological evidence substantiates the necessity that all females receive full and accurate informed consent before they are provided hormones, induced abortion, or both. This informed consent is especially imperative for a girl (and parent/guardian) or a young woman, who is in the pre-FFTP (first full term pregnancy) breast cancer â??susceptibility window.â??[1,2] As a family history of breast cancer, of which the child may be unaware, increases the risk for the girl considering an abortion, the presence of a parent may provide clinical information critical to accurate informed consent.â??

The â??susceptibility windowâ?? is the period between the onset of menstruation and first full term pregnancy (FFTP) when nearly all of the breast lobules are immature and cancer-susceptible. The worst time to be exposed to a cancer-causing agent is during the susceptibility window.

After citing the World Health Organizationâ??s warning about the Pill and CHRT as Group 1 carcinogens for cancers of the breast, liver and cervix,[10,11] and how some physicians use a carcinogen (the pill) to treat benign conditions (i.e. acne, irregular menstrual periods, menstrual pain). The authors declared:

â??The prescribing of a known carcinogen to a child for any non-lethal disease is problematic. Such a practice without the provision of full and accurate informed consent for the girl, and at least one parent or guardian, is medically, legally, and ethically indefensible.â??

Schneiderâ??s team cited â??evidence of an emerging breast cancer pandemic.â?? Noting the words of Harvardâ??s Professor Brian MacMahon, the â??founder of modern epidemiology,â?? who said â??many of the prevalent forms of human cancer are preventable,â?? and citing his landmark research[12], they listed other ways women raise their risk: delay (or avoidance) childbearing, reduced duration (or avoidance) of breastfeeding.

Itâ??s despicable that U.S. cancer groups and Planned Parenthood continue to deceive women about the ABC link and downplay the breast cancer risk associated with the Pill.

References:

  1. Schneider AP, Zainer CM, Kubat CK, Mullen NK, Windisch AK. The breast cancer epidemic: 10 facts. The Linacre Quarterly 2014;81(3):244-277. Available at:
    http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000027.

  2. Lanfranchi A & Fagan P. Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors. Issues in Law and Medicine 2014;29(1):1-133. Available at: http://abortionbreastcancer.com/docs/Breast-cancer-and-induced-abortion-Lanfranchi-Spring-2014.pdf.

  3. Combined oral contraceptives (the Pill) can be delivered orally or via skin patch or vaginal ring. The following increased health risks are associated with taking the Pill:

Breast cancer
Liver cancer
Cervical cancer
Heart attacks
Strokes
Blood clots
Greater susceptibility to sexually transmitted diseases

Schneiderâ??s team wrote the following about progestin-only Plan B, â??Although it can now be purchased by a child of any age as easily as candy, Plan B One-Step is equivalent to the ingestion of 40-50 oral contraceptives (the Pill) at one time (FDA 2013). Regrettably, there is substantial evidence that progestin-only contraceptives, including levonorgestrel, are as carcinogenic as (the estrogen plus progestin birth control pill), and likely more so. Yager and Davidson 2006) in their authoritative review state â??progestins tend to increase cell proliferation (multiplication),â?? which is a known mechanism for carcinogenesis.â?? (emphasis added) They added:

â??There is, in fact, reason to suspect that the progestins, such as levonorgestrel (Plan B), are more carcinogenic than combined hormone replacement therapyâ?¦.Similarly, the World Health Organization-IARC (2007, 2876) final version of data released in 2005, although veiled, is revealing: â??The addition of progestogens appears to enhance significantly the modest increase in the rate of breast cell proliferation caused by estrogen-only therapy. This is consistent with the notion of an increase in risk for breast cancer associated with combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy, over that associated with estrogen-only menopausal therapy.â?? [WHO-IARC 2007, 2876; Grosse et al. 2009] emphasis added

  1. The authors listed the following risks associated with taking combined hormone replacement therapy, as reported by the Womenâ??s Health Initiative study:

Invasive breast cancer
Increase in total cardiovascular mortality
Increase in â??heart attacksâ??
Pulmonary emboli
Probable dementia for women >65 years old
Abnormal mammograms
Ovarian cancer
Breast cancer mortality (near doubling)
Stroke occurrence

  1. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf.

  2. Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-1592. Available at: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/86/21/1584.

  3. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter DM, Severs WB. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302.

  4. F.M. Biro and M.S. Wolff, Chapter 2: â??Puberty as a Window of Susceptibility,â?? in Environment and Breast Cancer, ed. J. Russo (New York: Springer, 2011), 29-36.

  5. Glantz S and Johnson KC. The surgeon general report on smoking and health 50 years later: Breast cancer and the cost of increasing caution. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:37-46.

  6. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Straif K, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

  7. Press Release No. 167, â??IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the â??pillâ??) and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans,â?? World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005. See http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2005/pr167.html.

  8. MacMahon, B, Cole P, Lin TM, Lowe CR, Mirra AP, Ravnihar B, Salber EJ, Valaoras VG, Yuasa S. Age at First Birth and Breast Cancer Risk. Bull WHO 1970;43:209-221."

56

Which is the “new study?” The author of the article(Karen Malec) is a pro-life activist. The first link is to a study by Schneider(a pro-life activist). The second reference is to a study Lanfranfri(a “controversial” pro-life activist):

Where is the “new study?” Is it written by a radical pro-life activist? Is it peer reviewed?

57

The first “study” is actually an article and the references lead back to Lanfranchi again. Maxine Morand, CEO of the Breast Cancer Network Australia, says Lanfranchi “peddles debunked theories aimed at scaring women”. The breast cancer abortion link has been “universally discredited by research across the scientific world”.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110113001029/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html

58

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Many people here typed that I was off my rocker when I posted about a cancer link after injesting birth control. Here is another study confirming the same findings. Simple logic, reason and science will show the cause of ingesting large quantities of a synthetic hormone causes many devastating effects in the human body.

"Scientific Review Urges Doctors to Inform Women of Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

by Karen Malec | Washington, DC | 10/30/14 2:00 PM

A second scientific review in 2014 has strongly urged physicians to warn patients about the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link before an abortion and argued the evidence for a cause-effect relationship is substantial.[1,2] A. Patrick Schneider and his colleagues authored the latest review entitled, â??The breast cancer epidemic: 10 facts,â?? for the journal, The Linacre Quarterly.[1]

There are multiple, serious, health risks[3,4] associated with using the birth control pill and combined hormone replacement therapy (CHRT), both of which contain estrogen and progestin, although the former contains a larger dose. The authors of both reviews urged physicians to warn patients about the harms of taking either these drugs.

Schneiderâ??s team said, â??â?¦having more than one risk factor compounds the risk of breast cancer via synergistic mechanisms,â?? meaning the risk increase the woman incurs is greater than the sum of the risks for each of her risk factors. They explained:

â??The strength of the breast cancer epidemiological evidence substantiates the necessity that all females receive full and accurate informed consent before they are provided hormones, induced abortion, or both. This informed consent is especially imperative for a girl (and parent/guardian) or a young woman, who is in the pre-FFTP (first full term pregnancy) breast cancer â??susceptibility window.â??[1,2] As a family history of breast cancer, of which the child may be unaware, increases the risk for the girl considering an abortion, the presence of a parent may provide clinical information critical to accurate informed consent.â??

The â??susceptibility windowâ?? is the period between the onset of menstruation and first full term pregnancy (FFTP) when nearly all of the breast lobules are immature and cancer-susceptible. The worst time to be exposed to a cancer-causing agent is during the susceptibility window.

After citing the World Health Organizationâ??s warning about the Pill and CHRT as Group 1 carcinogens for cancers of the breast, liver and cervix,[10,11] and how some physicians use a carcinogen (the pill) to treat benign conditions (i.e. acne, irregular menstrual periods, menstrual pain). The authors declared:

â??The prescribing of a known carcinogen to a child for any non-lethal disease is problematic. Such a practice without the provision of full and accurate informed consent for the girl, and at least one parent or guardian, is medically, legally, and ethically indefensible.â??

Schneiderâ??s team cited â??evidence of an emerging breast cancer pandemic.â?? Noting the words of Harvardâ??s Professor Brian MacMahon, the â??founder of modern epidemiology,â?? who said â??many of the prevalent forms of human cancer are preventable,â?? and citing his landmark research[12], they listed other ways women raise their risk: delay (or avoidance) childbearing, reduced duration (or avoidance) of breastfeeding.

Itâ??s despicable that U.S. cancer groups and Planned Parenthood continue to deceive women about the ABC link and downplay the breast cancer risk associated with the Pill.

References:

  1. Schneider AP, Zainer CM, Kubat CK, Mullen NK, Windisch AK. The breast cancer epidemic: 10 facts. The Linacre Quarterly 2014;81(3):244-277. Available at:
    http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000027.

  2. Lanfranchi A & Fagan P. Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors. Issues in Law and Medicine 2014;29(1):1-133. Available at: http://abortionbreastcancer.com/docs/Breast-cancer-and-induced-abortion-Lanfranchi-Spring-2014.pdf.

  3. Combined oral contraceptives (the Pill) can be delivered orally or via skin patch or vaginal ring. The following increased health risks are associated with taking the Pill:

Breast cancer
Liver cancer
Cervical cancer
Heart attacks
Strokes
Blood clots
Greater susceptibility to sexually transmitted diseases

Schneiderâ??s team wrote the following about progestin-only Plan B, â??Although it can now be purchased by a child of any age as easily as candy, Plan B One-Step is equivalent to the ingestion of 40-50 oral contraceptives (the Pill) at one time (FDA 2013). Regrettably, there is substantial evidence that progestin-only contraceptives, including levonorgestrel, are as carcinogenic as (the estrogen plus progestin birth control pill), and likely more so. Yager and Davidson 2006) in their authoritative review state â??progestins tend to increase cell proliferation (multiplication),â?? which is a known mechanism for carcinogenesis.â?? (emphasis added) They added:

â??There is, in fact, reason to suspect that the progestins, such as levonorgestrel (Plan B), are more carcinogenic than combined hormone replacement therapyâ?¦.Similarly, the World Health Organization-IARC (2007, 2876) final version of data released in 2005, although veiled, is revealing: â??The addition of progestogens appears to enhance significantly the modest increase in the rate of breast cell proliferation caused by estrogen-only therapy. This is consistent with the notion of an increase in risk for breast cancer associated with combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy, over that associated with estrogen-only menopausal therapy.â?? [WHO-IARC 2007, 2876; Grosse et al. 2009] emphasis added

  1. The authors listed the following risks associated with taking combined hormone replacement therapy, as reported by the Womenâ??s Health Initiative study:

Invasive breast cancer
Increase in total cardiovascular mortality
Increase in â??heart attacksâ??
Pulmonary emboli
Probable dementia for women >65 years old
Abnormal mammograms
Ovarian cancer
Breast cancer mortality (near doubling)
Stroke occurrence

  1. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf.

  2. Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-1592. Available at: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/86/21/1584.

  3. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter DM, Severs WB. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302.

  4. F.M. Biro and M.S. Wolff, Chapter 2: â??Puberty as a Window of Susceptibility,â?? in Environment and Breast Cancer, ed. J. Russo (New York: Springer, 2011), 29-36.

  5. Glantz S and Johnson KC. The surgeon general report on smoking and health 50 years later: Breast cancer and the cost of increasing caution. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:37-46.

  6. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Straif K, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

  7. Press Release No. 167, â??IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the â??pillâ??) and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans,â?? World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005. See http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2005/pr167.html.

  8. MacMahon, B, Cole P, Lin TM, Lowe CR, Mirra AP, Ravnihar B, Salber EJ, Valaoras VG, Yuasa S. Age at First Birth and Breast Cancer Risk. Bull WHO 1970;43:209-221."

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/10/30/scientific-review-urges-doctors-to-inform-women-of-abortion-breast-cancer-link/[/quote]

You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to con people into believing this ABC bullshit. This lie is continually perpetuated by the anti-science anti-abortion crowd. Congratulations on trying to scare women.

jnd

59

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Aragon -

Thank you for being so willing to help me understand what you are trying to teach me. You talk a lot about the past, yet that cannot be changed so please give me an opportunity each time, that is all I can ask and you seem like an awesome dude and hopefully we can go through the discussion.

Of all the typing you did, there was one sentence that stood out to me - “Natural hormones are metabolized quickly because they are subjected to very specific enzymatic catalysis.” - This is precisely the point. The world has been functioning perfectly for well over four thousand years of recorded history. WouldnÃ?¢??t it be very, very arrogant to believe that people can modify a chemical hormone so it doesnÃ?¢??t break down, and that is somehow beneficial? [/quote]

No. It would not be. The world worked just fine before vaccinations–but vaccinations made life better. World was fine before the railroad, the steam engine, the airplane and the automobile, not to mention the computer, but those were all things that made life better. World was ‘fine’ with just herbal medicines but artificially created medicines prolonged our lives and made them much easier. The history of medicine is against you. Hormone therapy itself gives hope and help to cancer patients and survivors, people with Addison’s disease, Klinefelter’s syndrome, and people suffering from endocrinological imbalances.

No, you are mistaken. Hormones are broken down because they are subjected to specific enzymatic reactions. In the absence of these reactions many hormones–natural hormones–will persist much longer. The stability of the hormone in question is given by its molecular structure, not whether it is “natural” or not.

In fact it has been documented that natural, dietary, and endogenously made estrogens (that means made by your own body) far and away contribute more to environmental presence of estrogens in water than “artificially modified” estrogens. See Caldwell, D. J.; Mastrocco, F.; Nowak, E.; Johnston, J.; Yekel, H.; Pfeiffer, D.; Hoyt, M.; DuPlessie, B. M.; Anderson, P. D. An Assessment of Potential Exposure and Risk from Estrogens in Drinking Water Environ. Health Perspect. 2010, 118 ( 3)

If you are unsatisfied you can look up more studies of people actually doing the analysis.