Abortion - Breast Cancer Link Is
Best Kept Secret
Joel Brind's Meta-Analysis of the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link
Janet Daling's Study
Being a physician and
having heard talk of a possible link between abortions and breast cancer,
I decided to investigate this very serious matter. Here are my findings:
The ACS (American Cancer Society) reports that one of every nine women in
the United States will develop breast cancer by age 85.
Breast cancer has risen dramatically in America by 50% since 1973 (Roe
vs Wade) and is also increasing worldwide. Recent studies, have
pointed out a dramatic relationship between the rate of abortion and the
rising incidence of breast cancer. In fact, as the rate of abortion rises
in America, so does the rate of breast cancer, with those women who have
aborted having significantly higher rates.
Of the 1.4 million abortions done, yearly, in the United States and
accounting for the increased risk posed by abortion, researchers estimate
that the 800,000 first-time abortions performed annually would thus
generate roughly 25,000 excess cases of breast cancer each year, as the
first group of women exposed to legal abortion advances in age. Given the
margin of error, the researchers predicted that excess cases of breast
cancer would be between 9,000 and 40,000 per year, due to the impact of
However, the ACS refuses to include induced abortions as a breast cancer
risk. They say the link is inconclusive, but they are wrong. The evidence
This is not good news for women, who are still actively being kept in the
dark by the very agencies who should warn them about avoidable cancer
Yet, they will report minor risk factors, such as weight and diet. But the
most closely guarded secret is the connection between abortion and breast
Recently, I was in the office of an oncologist (tumor and cancer
specialist) and I picked up one of the many brochures concerning breast
cancer, hoping to finally see induced abortions listed as one of the risks
for breast cancer, but it wasnít there, so what else is new.
However, the following was one the risks word for word:
ďOne study suggests that more than three alcoholic drinks per week, may
increase your risk of getting breast cancer.
They included this risk, based on just ONE study and yet, they refuse to
list the Abortion breast cancer risk, even though 13 of 14 studies in the
USA, revealed the risk and 31 of 35 studies worldwide. Laboratory test on
rats also revealed the risk.
With all this evidence, why is the ACS withholding this vital information,
BUT, they will expose a risk (alcohol) found as a result of just ONE
This is a question that every women should want answered. They should
write to the newspapers and demand answers. They should write to the ACS
I, personally have written to over fifty newspapers throughout the country
exposing this risk. I gave them my address and phone number to contact me
and I would give them, all the evidence. You would think, with this life
saving news, the investigative reporters would have my phone ringing off
the hook, especially, when you consider that no news is as newsworthy as
this. But, there were no calls and no mail. They donít want to touch
this with a ten foot pole.
I am not alone, other doctors, more knowledgeable than I, in this area,
have tried for years, to convince the ACS and the media that this link is
real. Those conducting the studies that reveal the link are looked upon as
some sort of a traitor, for even hinting that the link is real. It has
also been discussed in congress, but a certain segment of our society,
wants the truth hidden. Better women die, then to harm the abortion
industry. This is tragic and it is sick. Is it any wonder that our society
is referred to as the "Culture of Death."
I have nothing against the ACS for revealing the alcohol risk, as a result
of just ONE study, BUT, for goodness sake, if they can include a risk from
just one study, WHY do they refuse to include a risk that was shown in
over 35 studies.
And what makes this matter even worse is that, in the ABC risk -- the
direct link is known and can be understood by a ten year old. They tell us
that certain foods may increase the risk of cancer. Products have been
pulled from the shelves on much less evidence. NONE of these come close to
the abortion risk of breast cancer. The abortion link affects the breast
cells directly, as you will see later.
This is sad -- to expose women to this kind of danger, when it could be
easily avoided. This lie perpetuated by the ACS, when they say the link is
inconclusive has resulted in thousands of women dying needlessly, every
It's obvious why the lucrative abortion industry will not warn women of
this deadly risk prior to an abortion, but why the silence by the ACS, the
Media, and what about NOW and other feminist groups. Isnít the sole
purpose of their existence, to help women, or are they just a front for
If they want women to have a choice, then why not give them all the facts
-- to make the most important decision of their lives.
How is it possible, that in our day and age, something like this could
The reason is political. It should be obvious to all, that the American
Cancer Society is in lock step with NARAL, Planned Parenthood and all the
other abortion providers, as well as this administration's pro-abortion
They are so afraid this news would be a major blow to the abortion
industry, that they will do anything and everything to protect it. And
believe me -- I am NOT exaggerating.
The other risks, though not nearly as great as the abortion risk, are
exposed because they are not political.
It is only a matter of time before there will be a flood of law suits and
the abortion facilities will lose, because they DID NOT warn women of this
risk, prior to their abortions. To withhold this vital information in an
elective procedure is against medical ethics. The evidence is
But donít take my word for it, or the words of those who have
established the link. One need not be a specialist in the field to
understand it -- itís not that complicated. You be the judge. But first,
here are the basics:
It is estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries, that transforms a young
girl into a woman.
When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of this hormone causing the breast
cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to lay
the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing cells are
more prone to develop cancer.
In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the
influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature
cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk
producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less
likely to turn cancerous.
When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young
growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone
drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells,
nor are they capable of producing milk.
In plain English, these insulted cells (traumatized) have been hung out to
dry. They are between a rock and a hard place. Scientists have known for
years that any cell in the human body that has been traumatized, whether
by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma, or any other reason would be
especially vulnerable to cancer.
One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians heads
from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is no
To suit their political agenda, they would have you believe that an
abnormal cell is NO more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell.
This defies all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense and shows
the depths they will go, to keep the abortion industry flourishing. Human
life means nothing to them.
It has also been long known that a pregnancy carried to term protects
against breast cancer. However, if a woman has an induced abortion, this
protection is terminated.
The reason is because the proliferation of the undifferentiated,
cancer-vulnerable cells, by the estrogen secreted early in the pregnancy,
no longer has the protection that comes from hormones released later in
pregnancy, since the pregnancy has been aborted.
The estrogen/breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many years,
thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women,
especially those with any family history of breast cancer.
Manufacturers of oral contraceptives alert the public as to the possible
link between their product and breast cancer.
The induced abortion risk is greater than the relative risk associated
with oral contraceptives.
Women, who start their periods early and go through menopause late are
exposed to more estrogen, because they have more periods.
And women who have fewer or no children, are exposed to more surges of
estrogen that come with more menstrual cycles. Women who breast feed their
babies, also have fewer menstrual cycles, thereby lowering their risk.
Foods high in animal fat can increase the blood estrogen level and thus
increase the breast cancer risk. Leafy vegetables tend to help a woman, to
rid her system of estrogen. As you can see, the estrogen factor is not
just in the area of reproduction.
We are warned of these risks by the top medical journals and the media.
We are told what to eat and not to eat, but the biggest risk of all, the
abortion/breast cancer link, they tell us NOTHING.
One common rebuttal offered by the ACS, and the abortion advocates to
dismiss the ABC link, is to point out that most of the studies done, have
relied on interviewing women and asking them if they have ever had an
abortion and asking them if they have been diagnosed with breast cancer,
and then comparing their answers.
So, those who fear the truth say -- probably women who have breast cancer
are more likely to remember or admit that they have had abortions, whereas
women who do not have breast cancer may not admit they had an abortion.
They call this, "recall bias." I call it, "grasping for
But when your back is to the wall, youíll try anything, even accusing
some women of lying. Women know how important these studies are. Theyíre
not going to lie. It means life or death for thousands of women.
After all, they don't have to take part in the study -- they can just
refuse, rather than lie. Notice they donít actually say theyíre lying
- they say more likely to remember. As if someone would forget if they had
their unborn baby killed.
An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According to
a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511,
cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a
cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half
were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term.
Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats,
only 5.5% developed breast cancer.
Too bad they couldn't interview the rats -- they might have found recall
With all of the above evidence, even without epidemiological data, and
given the extremely high estrogen levels experienced by women in the first
several weeks of normal pregnancy, which doctors have always known -- for
the ACS to say that the link is inconclusive is not only repugnant, but in
my book, itís downright CRIMINAL.
But we DO have epidemiological data to prove it. 13 of 14 studies in the
United States have proven it and 31 out of 35 world wide.
A 1996 study carried out in the Netherlands found almost a twofold
increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion. However, the
investigators suggested that this figure may have been influenced by
reporting bias attributed to the underreporting of abortions by healthy
control subjects in the largely Catholic southeastern region of the
In the western regions of the country, the association between abortion
and breast cancer was statistically insignificant. The authors concluded
that their "study does not support an appreciably (whatever that
means) increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion."
These people are constantly looking for excuses. Now, you canít rely on
this study because someone's religion is involved. Are they trying to say
that Catholics are more liable to lie than Protestants? This is
Why didnít the study involve the whole country, it's not that big and
average it out? Because they wouldnít like what they would find. I never
knew that a certain section of the Netherlands had a largely Catholic
We must also believe that middle-aged black women, in particular, are
incredible liars, as a study published in the Journal of the National
Medical Association (December 1993) traced the breast cancer experience of
about 1,000 black women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as they grew
older. "Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women:
The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience" confirmed that the
risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than
for those who had not. This fine study found the same overall 50%
increased risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted.
But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180%
increased risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370% for black women over 50
who had aborted
Well, this completes the cycle -- someoneís religion and now their race
makes them liars.
In the future, in order to save time and money, letís not include
Catholics and Blacks in any study, because we all know they are liars. We
have been told so, by the ACS. So, that eliminates about 35% of the
worldís population for all future studies.
In 1996-OCT, four US scientists announced the result of a statistical
analysis of previous studies. They selected 23 studies which involved over
60,000 women. They combined all of their results using a process known as
"meta-analysis." They found "overwhelming" evidence
that women who terminate a pregnancy by an abortion have a 33 % higher
chance of contracting breast cancer later in life.
Now, read how this study was attacked by those who are conspiring to
withhold the truth from the American people:
ďThis particular statistical method is fraught with hazard, because the
results can easily be influenced by the method of selecting the studies to
Three of the four scientists in the 1996-OCT study are known to be vocal
opponents of abortion. They might have been biased, consciously or
unconsciously, in their selection processes.Ē
Thatís it -- the above statement is doubletalk --sour grapes. Three of
the scientists are pro life, so their study cannot be taken seriously.
What about the other scientist, who was pro-choice? This is too serious of
an issue to involve politics.
The ACS, scanned the entire world, to look for a study that would match
their political views. And sure enough, they found just what they were
looking for -- a study that was done in little Denmark, which stated that
the link was inconclusive. So they accepted it as the Gospel truth and
published the Melbye/Danish Report.
There was no mention, if those who conducted the Report were pro-choice or
Isnít it odd that they couldn't find a study in the USA that they liked.
13 of 14 studies in the United States, showed the abortion/cancer link.
Our country has the best scientists and researchers in the world. They
didnít publish these studies, because it wasnít what they wanted to
On another page, you will read where Dr. Joel Brind shreds this report to
pieces, as well as his ,"Comprehensive Review and Meta Analysis"
of the Abortion/Breast Cancer risk.
So now, if anyone who is involved in a study, is pro-life, then that study
cannot be trusted. We can now add pro-lifers to the distrustful list along
with Catholics and blacks. Now, we have about 65% of the worldís
population on the list.
Can you see where this is going? Politics should have NO part in medicine.
It's absolutely ludicrous.
How the American Cancer Society can continue to perpetuate this cover-up,
is mind boggling, in view of the fact that their own man, Dr. Clark Heath,
who is the head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the American
Cancer Society, on February 20, 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC
link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer risk.
The longer the time to her first term delivery, the greater the risk.
Quite a concession, isn't it? So then, why arenít women told of this one
aspect, before they have ab abortion and why don't we hear of this on TV,
or read about it in the newspapers? Why didn't it make the headlines?
The only court decision, regarding the abortion/cancer risk that I am
aware of -- is a law suit against the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation (SEPTA) for denying those who wanted to put posters in
public transit areas to warn people of the ABC link.
After hearing both sides of the argument, the appellate court stated there
WAS a link and ruled in favor of CBM.
It didn't help their case when the SEPTA experts admitted that some
studies showed a weak association between abortions and breast cancer. If
the SEPTA experts would admit to a slight link, then you know, the link is
much greater. They were paid by SEPTA.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that this is just the tip of the
iceberg. It's only a matter of time before there will be a flood of
lawsuits brought on by women who were not warned of the risk by the
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%, is
on another page.
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.
Let me know what you think
about my page. Send mail by clicking here.