Pink M&Ms

[Nienna]

Have you noticed all the merchandise for breast cancer awareness? If not, you don't get out much! :p It far surpasses advertising for any other cause I can think of. M&Ms, jogging shoes, clothes, car magnets, cereal... there's even "Breast Cancer Awareness Month": October. I always noticed this and wondered if they put as much money into finding the cure as they did into advertising.

Well, this morning, reading the news, I came across this tidbit:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004246.cfm

What an unholy alliance! The Breast Cancer Foundation donates to America's number one abortion provider. Abortions, especially first trimester abortions, CAUSE breast cancer. Seems to me as if they aren't truly racing for the CURE; they are racing to line their pockets!

I stopped giving to cancer research long ago, when I found out that many cancer research organizations fund embryonic stem cell research. Besides being morally wrong, embryonic stem cell research has shown that these stems cells, once again, CAUSE cancerous growths when injected in test subjects. Why fund something that works directly against your objective?

I have lost faith in cancer research organizations. Either they are blinded by their ideology or they are just out for the money. I would love to see an org TRULY working to defeat this disease, and I believe that many of the scientists are trying. But I doubt that any money I would donate would go toward USEFUL research. Instead, it seems likely to be funneled toward goal-defeating enterprises. :(

[Psychoblues]

Would this not more appropriately be addressed in the Lounge (if it hasn't already) or ar you really that gullible?




Have you noticed all the merchandise for breast cancer awareness? If not, you don't get out much! :p It far surpasses advertising for any other cause I can think of. M&Ms, jogging shoes, clothes, car magnets, cereal... there's even "Breast Cancer Awareness Month": October. I always noticed this and wondered if they put as much money into finding the cure as they did into advertising.

Well, this morning, reading the news, I came across this tidbit:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004246.cfm

What an unholy alliance! The Breast Cancer Foundation donates to America's number one abortion provider. Abortions, especially first trimester abortions, CAUSE breast cancer. Seems to me as if they aren't truly racing for the CURE; they are racing to line their pockets!

I stopped giving to cancer research long ago, when I found out that many cancer research organizations fund embryonic stem cell research. Besides being morally wrong, embryonic stem cell research has shown that these stems cells, once again, CAUSE cancerous growths when injected in test subjects. Why fund something that works directly against your objective?

I have lost faith in cancer research organizations. Either they are blinded by their ideology or they are just out for the money. I would love to see an org TRULY working to defeat this disease, and I believe that many of the scientists are trying. But I doubt that any money I would donate would go toward USEFUL research. Instead, it seems likely to be funneled toward goal-defeating enterprises. :(

Beats me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[5stringJeff]

I had not heard of that before, J, but I'll do my research now before I give to such organizations.

[grunt]

"Abortions, especially first trimester abortions, CAUSE breast cancer"


No they do not. This is a myth, a lie.

[5stringJeff]

"Abortions, especially first trimester abortions, CAUSE breast cancer"


No they do not. This is a myth, a lie.

If so, please refute the evidence at the following link:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html

[grunt]

If so, please refute the evidence at the following link:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html



After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was conducted provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribut e_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

[grunt]

If so, please refute the evidence at the following link:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html

BTW, your "link" is very biased.

[Sitarro]

Would this not more appropriately be addressed in the Lounge (if it hasn't already) or ar you really that gullible?





Beats me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Beats you is right, who gives a shit? You can't even get the quote feature correct no matter how much I have tried to help your sorry ass, leave Nienna alone.

[Sitarro]

BTW, your "link" is very biased.

Really, every pro abortion site I have ever seen is biased, so what do you expect? Every Global Warming site is biased.....show me a truely unbiased site on anything.

[Abbey Marie]

Nienna, I decided the same thing a long time ago about major fundrasing orgs. They are generally bloated, and I don't trust their agendas. I'm not much into redundant animal torture, either. For me, though, it all started with seeing a a list of which groups the United Way actually supports.

[5stringJeff]

After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was conducted provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribut e_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

The results of the study that you quote above were refuted by a member of the 2003 NCI conference that you linked to:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/minorityreport/index.htm

[JimmyAteWorld]

BTW, your "link" is very biased.

"link"? So... you don't believe it's a link?

Anyway...

Going to both sites, let me share what I see. Jeff's site names names and gives specific reference to studies. It actually backs up what it says.

Your site, like most things that lean to the left, is mostly general comments, assumptions, and thinly veiled accusations. To complete the National Enquirer-ish feel, it finally references a study... done four years ago... in Denmark.

BTW, when something doesn't fall in line with your agenda that doesn't mean it's "biased".

[grunt]

Really, every pro abortion site I have ever seen is biased, so what do you expect? Every Global Warming site is biased.....show me a truely unbiased site on anything.

What are you talking about? The site referenced here is "anti-abortion". The site I referenced is "The American Cancer Society". Which one do you think would provide the best information on cancer?

[grunt]

The results of the study that you quote above were refuted by a member of the 2003 NCI conference that you linked to:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/minorityreport/index.htm

Again, your "reference site" is an anti-abortion site. My site is the American Cancer Society. Your site says abortions cause cancer. Well, that is the puprose of your site, to scare people away from having abortions.

If we were to discuss, say, races and their equality and differences, would you expect me to believe a Nazi site or some scientific site?

[JimmyAteWorld]

What are you talking about? The site referenced here is "anti-abortion". The site I referenced is "The American Cancer Society". Which one do you think would provide the best information on cancer?

Apparently you weren't paying attention to what started the thread.

[Psychoblues]

Great conversation gone to hell in a handbasket by those that know nothing of the subject at hand. Better luck next time.

I would like to know more about it myself.

[grunt]

"link"? So... you don't believe it's a link?

Anyway...

Going to both sites, let me share what I see. Jeff's site names names and gives specific reference to studies. It actually backs up what it says.

Your site, like most things that lean to the left, is mostly general comments, assumptions, and thinly veiled accusations. To complete the National Enquirer-ish feel, it finally references a study... done four years ago... in Denmark.

BTW, when something doesn't fall in line with your agenda that doesn't mean it's "biased".


Are you retarded?

I put link in quotes, because it's a very biased site. I do, in fact believe it to be a link, that's why I called it a link.

My site is the "American Cancer Society"...his site is an anti-abortion site selling yellow ribbons proclaiming abortion to be wrong. Which I agree with, yet do not agree that abortions cause cancer. If you believe that the American Cancer Society is "left-leaning" then fine, but if you ever get cancer, just realise that most treatments you will receive have been pioneered and researched by this "left-leaning", biased organization.

[grunt]

Apparently you weren't paying attention to what started the thread.

Obviously you didn't get to the statement by 5stringJeff. Here let me help you out:


If so, please refute the evidence at the following link:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html

[Psychoblues]

Dude!!!!!



Obviously you didn't get to the statement by 5stringJeff. Here let me help you out:


If so, please refute the evidence at the following link:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html



Don't get your panties in such a wad!!!!!! You are full of it, we all know you are full of it, your incredible links prove you are full of it, your mind is too weak to comprehend it, give it a freakin' rest!!!!!!

[grunt]

Dude!!!!!






Don't get your panties in such a wad!!!!!! You are full of it, we all know you are full of it, your incredible links prove you are full of it, your mind is too weak to comprehend it, give it a freakin' rest!!!!!!



LOL! My incredible links?? :laugh2: :laugh2:

I linked the American Cancer Society to prove something about cancer and to refute an absurd idea that "abortion causes cancer". What have you done here? What are you even commenting on?

You have to be retarded.

[Missileman]

The results of the study that you quote above were refuted by a member of the 2003 NCI conference that you linked to:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/minorityreport/index.htm

Who to believe?...

From: http://www.breastcancer.org/research_abortion.html


In February 2003, an expert panel at the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed all available studies on links between pregnancy, abortion, and breast cancer. The experts concluded, based on the evidence from all the studies, that there is no link between natural or induced abortions and breast cancer risk.

[5stringJeff]

Again, your "reference site" is an anti-abortion site. My site is the American Cancer Society. Your site says abortions cause cancer. Well, that is the puprose of your site, to scare people away from having abortions.

If we were to discuss, say, races and their equality and differences, would you expect me to believe a Nazi site or some scientific site?

Don't go ad hominem on me. My link shows specific scientific studies which show that there are links between abortion and breast cancer. Your link ignores those studies. (Minuteman, the snippet from your link is the same snippet as from grunt's link. The 2003 NCI conference ignored the evidence that I linked to.)

[grunt]

Don't go ad hominem on me. My link shows specific scientific studies which show that there are links between abortion and breast cancer. Your link ignores those studies. (Minuteman, the snippet from your link is the same snippet as from grunt's link. The 2003 NCI conference ignored the evidence that I linked to.)

Ad hominem?!? Where did I attack you personally? I don't think you know what ad hominem means.

Again though, your site does not show anything credible. It references a study that has been shown, by the American Cancer Society, to be biased at the least and corrupt at the worst. Listen, I don't like abortion, would never ask a girlfriend or wife to have one, but I just don't think it's the Fed Gov's right to step in and play the parents. The states should make their own laws, based upon how the people vote, on whether or not they want abortion legal or not in their own state. And it is entirely legal for a private funded organization to spew whatever rhetoric or falsities it wishes, but I just don't think it's right to try and scare women who have had or will have an abortion with the thought of cancer. The myth of cancer=abortion was debunked a long time ago by those who have been researching cancer their entire lives. Now, again I ask you, who are you going to believe; a site that advocates pro-life or an organization that is the backbone of cancer research for the entire world and who has no interest in abortions other than to find out if they really do increase chances for cancer? I'll pick the latter. I guess that's just me being all objective and shit. :cool:

[5stringJeff]

Ad hominem?!? Where did I attack you personally? I don't think you know what ad hominem means.

I didn't say you had attacked me personally. I meant that instead of attacking the points that my site made, you attacked the site itself, claiming that its bias made it a non-credible source.


Again though, your site does not show anything credible. It references a study that has been shown, by the American Cancer Society, to be biased at the least and corrupt at the worst. Listen, I don't like abortion, would never ask a girlfriend or wife to have one, but I just don't think it's the Fed Gov's right to step in and play the parents. The states should make their own laws, based upon how the people vote, on whether or not they want abortion legal or not in their own state. And it is entirely legal for a private funded organization to spew whatever rhetoric or falsities it wishes, but I just don't think it's right to try and scare women who have had or will have an abortion with the thought of cancer. The myth of cancer=abortion was debunked a long time ago by those who have been researching cancer their entire lives. Now, again I ask you, who are you going to believe; a site that advocates pro-life or an organization that is the backbone of cancer research for the entire world and who has no interest in abortions other than to find out if they really do increase chances for cancer? I'll pick the latter. I guess that's just me being all objective and shit. :cool:

I am still waiting to see the study that refutes the evidence given, that abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer. Your last link ignored that evidence; it did not refute.

[grunt]

I didn't say you had attacked me personally. I meant that instead of attacking the points that my site made, you attacked the site itself, claiming that its bias made it a non-credible source.



I am still waiting to see the study that refutes the evidence given, that abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer. Your last link ignored that evidence; it did not refute.


Attacking the bias of your site is not ad hominem, it's using my brain, and it's bias doesn't make it a credible site. I'm sure there are Nazi sites out there with "evidence" that black people are a different species than white people. Do you believe those studies? Would you even have to do some research not to believe those studies or would you just consider the source and be done with it? My site didn't ignore your "study". It clearly stated that the study was done poorly and was biased. Re-read the entire thing:


Can Having an Abortion Cause or Contribute to Breast Cancer?

Both abortion and breast cancer are topics that can bring out strong emotions in people. The issue of abortion generates passionate personal and political viewpoints, regardless of a possible disease connection. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and it can be a life-threatening disease that most women fear.

Linking these 2 topics understandably generates a great deal of emotion, as well as controversy. Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

Background

A woman’s risk of developing breast cancer is related to hormone levels in the body. Breast cells normally grow and divide in response to the levels of certain hormones, such as estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin. Levels of these hormones fluctuate throughout a woman’s life but can change a great deal during pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, her body begins to prepare for breast-feeding by altering the levels of these hormones. This causes changes in the breast tissue.

Concern about a possible link between abortion and breast cancer has been raised because it is thought to interrupt the normal cycle of hormones during pregnancy. This interruption is believed by some to increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

There are different types of abortion:

Spontaneous abortion, which most people refer to as a miscarriage, is the loss of a fetus before 5 months (20 weeks) gestation. It is often caused by problems with the fetus or with the maternal environment in which it is growing.

Stillborn birth (stillbirth) is usually considered to be the death of a fetus after 5 months gestation while still in the uterus (womb).

Induced abortion is probably what most people consider "abortion," in that a woman chooses to end a pregnancy.
All of these situations have been studied to see what effect they may have on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

Research on Abortion and Breast Cancer

Many studies have looked at a possible link between abortions and an increased risk of breast cancer. But because of the nature of the topic, these studies have been difficult to conduct, which may help explain why some have reached different conclusions.

Before 1973, induced abortions were illegal in much of the United States. Therefore, when researchers asked about a woman's reproductive past, women may not have been comfortable disclosing the fact that they had an illegal abortion. Even though abortion is now legal, it is still a very personal, private matter that many women are hesitant to talk about.

Studies have shown that healthy women are less likely to report their histories of induced abortions. In contrast, women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease.

The likelihood that women who have breast cancer will give a more complete account of their abortions than women who do not have breast cancer is called "recall bias," and it can seriously undermine the accuracy of study results.

Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer used a case-control study design, one that is very prone to recall bias. In these studies, women with and without breast cancer were asked to report past abortions. The frequency of abortions in women with breast cancer and the disease-free controls were then compared. It is likely that the higher rates of reported abortions in breast cancer cases (vs. controls) observed in many of these studies were not true findings because of recall bias.

A prospective study design is stronger and less prone to bias. In this type of study, a group of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then are observed over a period of time to see if a new cancer occurs. In this type of study, there is no chance that having the disease will influence a woman's memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions.

Some prospective studies have addressed the problem of recall bias by using innovative ways to document induced abortions. For example, a recent study used birth certificates of children born to women with breast cancer to identify women who had had induced abortions. (The number of previous abortions were listed on these birth certificates.) This study found no increase in breast cancer risk in women whose abortion is followed by a live birth.

The largest, and probably the most reliable, single study of this topic was conducted during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In that study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. So all information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries, was very complete, and was not influenced by recall bias.

After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was conducted provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

Recent research has confirmed that the type of study likely plays a role in what is found. A review of the previous studies on this issue (see below), covering tens of thousands of women, showed that women followed in prospective studies (which are less prone to bias) had no increased breast cancer risk if they had had an abortion. Retrospective (case-control) studies, on the other hand, pointed to a slight increase in risk.

What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a term pregnancy (resulting in the birth of a living child).

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies conducted in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."

Conclusion

The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of human populations and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints among many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer, in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms, even when both the exposure and the disease are of great importance and interest to us all. At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer.

References

ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 285, August 2003: Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:433-435.

Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, et al. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: Collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet. 2004;363:1007-1016.

Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:81-5.

National Cancer Institute. Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop. Available at: www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report. Accessed August 23, 2005.

If that's not good enough:

"In response to an outcry over the fact sheet's alteration, the NCI assembled more than 100 of the world's experts (including Love) in the fields of early reproductive events and breast cancer. After a three-day review of the scientific literature, the group concluded that the strongest evidence shows abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer."

http://www.msmagazine.com/june03/jordan.asp


Current Knowledge



Now, as you can see, I have sited NON-ABORTION RELATED WEB SITES.

[Nienna]

Ad hominem?!? Where did I attack you personally? I don't think you know what ad hominem means.

Again though, your site does not show anything credible. It references a study that has been shown, by the American Cancer Society, to be biased at the least and corrupt at the worst.

The American Cancer Society may not be all that unbiased on the issue of abortion. Awhile back, my daughter's school was doing a fund-raiser for The American Cancer Society. I, personally, called that organization for information about their research. The woman who answered the phone read me the official position statement of that organization, which said that The American Cancer Society supports research involving embryonic stem cells. What's a real good source of embryonic stem cells? Aborted fetuses.

[grunt]

The American Cancer Society may not be all that unbiased on the issue of abortion. Awhile back, my daughter's school was doing a fund-raiser for The American Cancer Society. I, personally, called that organization for information about their research. The woman who answered the phone read me the official position statement of that organization, which said that The American Cancer Society supports research involving embryonic stem cells. What's a real good source of embryonic stem cells? Aborted fetuses.


That proves nothing, either way, on what the ACS position on abortion is. This just tells me that they support stem cell research.

[Missileman]

(Minuteman, the snippet from your link is the same snippet as from grunt's link. The 2003 NCI conference ignored the evidence that I linked to.)

Your link is to the dissent of one doctor who participated in the conference. Are you suggesting we ignore the opinions of all of the other conference attendees and take this one person's opinion as gospel?

[Nienna]

That proves nothing, either way, on what the ACS position on abortion is. This just tells me that they support stem cell research.

Was just refuting your point that the ACS could have NO reason for bias on the issue of abortion.

[grunt]

Was just refuting your point that the ACS could have NO reason for bias on the issue of abortion.


And I still believe they don't. Being for something doesn't mean you're for or against something else.

[Nienna]

And I still believe they don't. Being for something doesn't mean you're for or against something else.

Believe they don't what?

[manu1959]

this guy sure belives there is a link...

http://www.errantskeptics.org/AbortionBreastCancer.htm

Critics who formerly dismissed the possibility of a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer are increasingly on the defensive, largely as a consequence of the findings of a fascinating study by Dr. Janet Daling, (who by the way, is Pro-choice) and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Their study which shows that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer on an average of 50%.http://members.aol.com/DFjoseph/daling.html

In summation, let's isolate the facts that are indisputable:

1- It's an indisputable fact that estrogens are strong growth promoters of normal and most cancerous breast tissue.
2- It's an indisputable fact that most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.
3- It's an indisputable fact that maternal estradiol (estrogen) rises 20-fold (2,000%) during the first trimester of a normal pregnancy.
4- It's an indisputable fact that abnormal cells are more vulnerable to cancerous changes than normal cells.
5- It's an indisputable fact that pregnancies which abort spontaneously (miscarriage) usually generate subnormal amounts of estradiol; no increased risk of breast cancer is seen.
6- It's an indisputable fact that the incidence of breast cancer is dramatically increased in rats whose pregnancies are aborted.