Abortion Breast Cancer Link

I'm sure it won't be long before I get blasted for being a left win liberal, or advocating the killing of babies, or some such nonsense, but the fact is that there have been numerous studies on the subject, and it has never been shown that abortions cause cancer.

The American Cancer Society states very clearly: "research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer." Out of any not-for-profit organization, the ACS would benefit if there were such a link, yet they plainly state there is none:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/c...tion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

And for the record, I'm 100% against elective abortion, across the board.

 

No, You wont get blasted as supporting abortions:

You will get blasted, however, for your refusals to accept valid data by those of professional stature who are acquainted well with research processes and have published their conclusions: IOW, you are publishing on this BB your ignorance and acceptance as the botton line the stand of the politically and corporately supported organizations, supposedly 'reputable', i.e. the NIH and ACS as being the bottom line and honest.

What about this statement is so difficult for Johnv to understand. 3/4ths of the studies have been suppressed by the influence of money and power behind the abortion mills:

People think the AMA is a valid organization. They don't realize that the hierarchy of its organization are those in positions of research and accademia. They are seldom, if ever, involved in private practice and their lively hood is dependent on government or pharmeceutical funding with pre-determined outcomes expected. They support each others promotions and recognition within their organization and ostracize and break the reputations of those who dare to break rank who would expose their deliberate manipulation of data.

The ACS also is publically and privately funded and supported.... but a major funding and promotion comes from big Pharmaceutical companies. The pharmeceutical companies make their billions of dollars in income based upon the treatment of disease and chronic conditions and not in the CURE. People in top positions move in and out of the FDA and DOD and the boards or positions within the pharmeceutical industry, and benefit not only from their personal investments but also self serving employment security. The ACS benefits from many donors and pick our pockets either due to our own experience with cancer or our sympathies and relationship to others who have cancer. They promote some research, education in cancer diagnosis and s/s (signs and symptoms) of cancer, and the accepted standards of treatment. So much of their literature and promotion is backed by pharmeceutical industry, that it can hardly be called devoid of influence.

The way the MSM references these and others as authorities and spokemen for health related issues.... we make assumptions of trust. We fail to recognize that often controversies are not presented or if presented, are not given with their reference of experience, studies, or groups recognizing them so that we can check out their credentials.

But, believe what you want to johnv. You were so certain regarding the H1N1 pandemic and the necessity of the flu shot. There is so much evidence coming out that it was a global manipulation of people's fears..... some in the EU are calling for an investigation. Here, many are now saying that much of the hospitalization attributed and tallied as being swine flu related wasn't validated and wasn't so. The incidence of reactions to the vaccine and the spontaneous miscarrages which occurred in pregnant women wasn't adequately kept or investigated by the FDA. These agencies and orgnizations do have their own agendas..... and it is not as benevolent as we're lead to believe. Follow the money. The Bible is correct. THE LOVE OF MONEY is the ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

 

That would be a first. I've been accused of such several times.

The problem is that the OP doesn't reference said data. The OP simply makes the claim, but without referencing said data. Plus, it doesn't address study after study after atudy that shows no cause and effect link whatsoever between abortion and breast cancer, such as:

A 2008 study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
A 1989 study by Drs Senie and Bzduch on abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40.
Three separate mammary carcinogenesis studies by Dr J Russo (1980, 1982, 1987)
A 1996 study by Drs Daling, Brinton, Voigt, and others, studying the frequency of breast cancer among white women following abortion.
A 1997 study by Drs Melbye, Wohlfahrt, Olsen, Frisch, Westergaard, Helweg-Larsen, Andersen, and others, on abortion and the frequency risk of breast cancer.
Three separate studies by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

and about 20 others.

You're dead wrong there. ACS is 100% private and not-for-profit. While it's true that ACS gets donations from numerous corporate donors, the bulk of funds is at the grass-roots level, from individuals like me and you.

If your claim is that they purposefully skew or hide studies to favor pharmaceutical companies, the facts say otherwise. They've released studies showing that several pharmaceuticals mask cancers, such as prescription anti-inflammitories, as well as studies on how some pharmaceuticals are ineffective against certain cancers.

Additionally, if abortions caused cancer, it would benefit the ACS, since they could use it as a fundraising opportunity, plus pharmaceuticals would benefit, since they could market their products to combat such cancers. So, given the fact that that ACS would benefit from an abortion-cancer link, their reporting that no such link exists says a lot, not to mention that fact that it's true. There just isn't sufficient evidence to link abortion to cancer.

I believe the facts as they are, not conjecture, speculation, or innuendo. I'm all for speculating, but but refrain from passing off speculation as objectivity.

You're quite mistaken. My position was that claims of the H1N1a vaccine being dangerous were fictitious, and it turned out to be true. My position was that people should vaccinate themselves against H1H1a in the same manner as the common seasonal flu. In fact, if you look at my posts, I said very consistently that there are some 40k deaths from the flu ever year, and that even if we got 50k deaths from H1N1a, this would be within the realm of normal.

 

But false, nonetheless, especially the last paragraph. Given the fact that you, revmitchell, once called me a "libbie" for my position on abortion (something for which youv'e never repented), I find your reponse amusing.