I have not engaged this issue–whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer–but have noticed the feverish drive to discredit any such link–the emotionality of which makes me think that the objections have more to do with politics than science. Be that as it may, a new study has come out showing the “ABC” link. From the story:
An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say. A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease. While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion. Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking. The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer. The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka. It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions.
There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year. Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent.
July 1st, 2010 | 7:59 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: An Abortion/Breast Cancer Link After All? http://bit.ly/biZPAx #tcot [...]
July 1st, 2010 | 8:55 pm
Oof, this is going to be a tricky one. There’s so many vested interests from both pro-life and pro-choice camps (one sides wants the link to exist, the other wants it not to exist).
I wonder if it’s possible that women who are predisposed to cancer are also more likely to have an abortion. The correlation might not be causative…
July 1st, 2010 | 9:20 pm
There’s another issue, which is that there are different procedures for performing an abortion, and that may have an effect. Plus they don’t have long term experience with the “morning after” pill.
Josh’s point is interesting, too. It could be women who are naturally extra fertile are, due to their hormone balance, more prone to breast cancer. Since they’d also tend to have a lot of pregnancies, maybe more than they could handle physically and/or economically, they may seek abortions more often. Just speculation, but a plausible way to show that this could be coincidental rather than causal.
I’d also like to see what effect preventive birth control has, that being yet another hormonal treatment.
July 1st, 2010 | 9:53 pm
It doesn’t make a lot of sense, scientifically. I wonder if there’s as big a link between women who have had many miscarriages too then?
July 1st, 2010 | 10:00 pm
I always thought that it made sense for there to be a link, particularly for terminations occuring after the 5 month mark, in which month I believe the production of cells for eventual lactation begin. Those cells are like location-specific stem cells, meaning that they can become a number of different kind of cells for lactation and if the pregnancy is terminated then they could potentially become “rogue” cells with potential but no function, more likely to turn cancerous.
But those are just my microbiological musings….
July 2nd, 2010 | 12:05 am
Josh, pro-lifers want there to be a link? No one but a few kooks wants women to get breast cancer for abortion. That is slanderous. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but there’s hardly anyone in our movement who wants to see women get cancer from abortion.
This is an SHS subject because it involves the politicization of science and research. The ABC link has been known for a long, long time. Efforts to explain it away haven’t worked. Even the (in)famous Melbeye study, the study that was supposed to knock down the ABC link, when stripped of its errors showed a 40-45 percent increased risk. BC is a sad side effect of abortion. The fact that abortion advocates don’t want women considering abortion to know is another example that they could care less about the women. If they cared about the women they would make sure this increased risk was disclosed, they would support anti-coercion laws, report statutory rape suspicions (statutory rapists routinely use abortion clinics to cover up their crimes), they would screen for psychological/emotional impact, support parental involvement laws; they would make sure all abortuaries had proper emergency equipment, had hospital privliges and the clinics met the standards of outpatient surgical centers (or a veterinary clinic), and instead of trying to shut down crisis pregnancy centers where women do get some true information and find other alternatives to abortion, they would run the butcher abortionists out of business. There have been women killed and maimed by legal abortionists this year while the perpetual campaign against crisis pregancy centers has kicked back into high gear and there hasn’t been a whole lot of effort by the aboriton side to root those butchers out like pro-lifers have with our universal pro-life condemnation of people who take the law into their own hands.
We’ve known about the ABC link for over 40, maybe 50 years now. It’s about time it became a mandatory part of informed consent to an abortion. Abortion is the most easily avoidable risk factor for BC. We need more lawsuits against clinics for not disclosing this.
At the end of the day it is bizarre that the people most opposed to abortion are the most insistent that the woman considering an abortion received the most informed consent for her personal health.
July 2nd, 2010 | 12:16 am
Don: You are right as to why this is an SHS issue. I agree with you that pro lifers don’t want it to be true in the sense that could be construed as hoping women get cancer. But I do think they hope that when women are given full information about abortion and its potential consequences–that fewer women will choose abortion.
Why some pro choicers seem to think that would be a bad thing is puzzling to me. But I think some do, given the energy put into squelching the ABC discussion.
July 2nd, 2010 | 12:17 am
Alicia, Dr. Joel Brind has been the leader in explaining the biological rationale. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has it at their site http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/biology/index.htm. Here’s there shorter explanation.
Biological Explanation for the Link
The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.
A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy – after 32 weeks gestation – that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.
When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.
If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.
If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated — and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells — than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.
In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.
A longer explanation is at their site.
July 2nd, 2010 | 12:35 am
Wesley, I agree that we hope that more disclosure would make women reconsider abortion. I would suggest that the other side doesn’t want the full disclosure in part because they won’t abort. There’s probably a lot of motives for not disclosing the risks, especially this one, but that she won’t abort is one of them.
I know abortion is not an SHS topic very often, but I think another appropriate SHS discussion with regards to abortion will be the politicized study out of the UK that tries to say that the unborn does not feel pain by 20 weeks. That will be used to attack the Nebraska law requiring disclosure that the unborn will feel pain from an abortion by 20 weeks. The congress has heard testimony on this in regards to partial birth abortion and so has Nebraska. I pray to God that the abortion industry and their advocates take this one on. How can you possibly punch a whole in the head of a 20 week unborn child and they not feel pain. If the court takes up Nebraska and strikes that law, it will have even less credibility than it has now on abortion. I can only hope they take it up.
July 2nd, 2010 | 2:34 am
As a psychotherapist my attention has turned of late more and more to the neglected area of psychosomatic disease. I feel that the medical profession, with some exceptions, doesn´t receive adequate training about it, nor do psychotherapists, for that matter.
The whole field is a complex one for many reasons, but I wonder if the correlation between breast cancer and abortion could also be partly due to an emotional factor underlying both. An abortion, specially a late one, is a traumatic event for a woman leaving some sort of long term stress sequels. Could they have an influence in the development of cancer? It is a question worthy of far more study.
July 2nd, 2010 | 2:42 am
This is actually rather straightforward: Some studies show a link, others do not. It’s virtually impossible for a layperson to wade through the individual research articles without having their conclusions tainted by pre-established prejudices so we outsource the job to the researchers themselves who, being human, also have pre-established prejudices but who are also familiar with the methodological pitfalls involved in these studies and the mathematical tools involved in meta-analysis. The result isn’t a 60-40 split along ideological lines (with pro-life scientists going one way and pro-choice scientists the other). Rather every major scientific body which has ruled on this (the National Cancer Institute, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and even the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) has come to the conclusions that all things considered and at the present time there is no proof of a causal link between abortion and breast cancer. Individual studies which suggest otherwise are not very meaningful to members of the public (studies which confirm the nonexistence of the link are hardly likely to make headlines or make waves in the blogosphere).
Then there’s the question of how and why “there would be a feverish drive to discredit such a link”. What possible incentive would a cancer researcher (not an abortion rights activist, abortion doctor or politician – though these categories are, of course, not mutually exclusive) have for denying a causal connection? (You’ll notice that the voice of reason mentioned in the Daily Mail article is from Cancer Research UK and not an abortion rights group). One would have thought we would all have realised by now that a newspaper article trumpeting “scientists have discovered X” is hardly definitive proof of anything.
And when it comes to biases, Joel Brind is a pro-life advocate who has virtually made a second career out of his advocacy. He was the single dissenting voice at the NCI conference in 2003 (or at least the only one willing to go down on the record as holding the “minority view”). I have difficulty understanding why the average cancer researcher would conceal data or tweak results to obscure a link but the motivating factors (in the other direction) are much clearer. I am not, of course, alleging that Brind’s results are driven by his ideology – but that is a much easier argument to make than the alternative.
July 2nd, 2010 | 6:06 am
[...] original here: An Abortion/Breast Cancer Link After All? » Secondhand Smoke | A … This entry was posted in cancer and tagged abortion, emotionality, feverish, [...]
July 2nd, 2010 | 6:35 am
VERY few pregnancies are terminated after 32 weeks. Trying to link a possible risk factor in SOME late-term abortions with the vast majority of early-term abortions is simply a scare tactic. The evidence seems very clear that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer at all. I place these kinds of claims in the same category as “ultrasounds are necessary in order for women to make informed choices.” The people who make them have little interest in women’s health and an overwhelming interest in stamping out reproductive choice.
July 2nd, 2010 | 9:08 am
from the results section of Dolle et al 2009:
“Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion, and OC use were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (BC).” The authors included abortion in this list based on their own analysis (shown in their Table I) where having an abortion was associated with BC with an odds ratio of 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.8), indicating a likely 40% increase in BC.
But in the conclusions section they stated, “Unlike well-established risk factors such as family history, early menarche, nulliparity, and lack of breastfeeding (24-27), the relationship between OC use and breast cancer risk has remained less clear.” Curiously, Dr. Brinton didn’t include ‘induced abortion’ as a ‘well-established risk factor’ for BC in this statement. Is this really the statement of someone who “reversed her position”? It’s much more likely that in the results section the authors were referring to their specific data where they observed a correlation between induced abortion and BC. The statement in the conclusions section is an effort to integrate the totality of data available. Clearly the authors’ “position” considers “family history, early menarche, nulliparity, and lack of breastfeeding” but NOT abortion or OC use as well-established risk factors for BC.
As far as I can tell, this is the sole basis for the widely circulated declaration that Dr. Brinton “reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent”. Have any of the pro-life “journalists” who are circulating this statement investigated this further? Has Dr. Brinton made subsequent statements clarifying her position?
Your contention that the increase in BC diagnosis is linked to the legalization of abortion is limited at best. OC use, mammography use, nulliparity and age at first pregnancy have all increased since 1971. The evidence that OC use, nulliparity and age at first pregnancy increased BC incidence is much stronger than the link between induced abortion and BC. Widespread mammography increases the diagnosis of earlier BC.
Induced abortion MAY increase the likelihood of developing BC. The NCI, WHO, AMA, ACOG and ACS all conclude that available data do not support that conclusion. Should abortion providers be forced by the government to “teach the controversy”? Perhaps.
July 2nd, 2010 | 9:11 am
This and the ABC link Don Nelson provided are telling, but I’m still not seeing what I would accept as a causal link. In particular I don’t see this study echoing Dr. Brind’s findings other than a statistical correlation. In other words, I’m not sure they’re talking about the same thing.
The other concern I have is the plethora of outside factors. Another I thought of is that women who have had abortions may be jarred into using birth control more faithfully, and the birth control may be the cause.
For now I’d accept the basic premise, that women who have abortions are more likely to develop breast cancer, but that’s about as far as I’d go. There’s a link, but it’s not a proven causal link.
July 2nd, 2010 | 9:37 am
I respectfully strike my comments on an earlier post, kudos to Dr. Brinton for being honest and accepting the findings from her latest study. Now hopefully she can convince the rest of her colleagues at NCI to publish it publicly. Thanks Wesley for letting us know!
July 2nd, 2010 | 10:13 am
If some show a connection and others don’t, that’s what women should be told. They should NOT be told there is no connection.
July 2nd, 2010 | 10:25 am
Wes: “They should NOT be told there is no connection.”
Wes, who is telling them that?
And what they should be telling them is that there is a CORRELATION, not a connection. The word “connection” implies causality, which has not been established. It may sound like a petty distinction, but I work with biostatisticians, and they’d tell you it’s anything but.
But yes, they should be informed that women who have had abortions have experienced a higher rate of breast cancer.
July 2nd, 2010 | 10:32 am
padraig: A lot of energy has gone into making sure women are not told, or at least I am told. I know, for example, that legislative proposals requiring that information be discloses has been opposed by pro choice groups. Perhaps some pro lifers involved in this issue can provide more details.
But let me tell you, as a former trial lawyer, the potential is here for tobacco company-type litigation against certain groups if cancer info was suppressed.
July 2nd, 2010 | 11:27 am
“Some studies show a connection and others do not” but virtually all attempts to look at large numbers of different studies (correcting for methodological flaws) indicate that there is at yet no proven causal connection.
Women are “not being told” because there is right now, nothing to tell. It would be like telling parents about to vaccinate their children “a paper published in 1998 suggested that this might cause autism.”
JustChris:
As far as I know there’s been no “retraction” from Brinton. That’s just how the media described the article’s publication in the first place. I don’t think Brinton has released any public statements about this. The article itself doesn’t even make any claims about there being a causal link between abortion and breast cancer (just a correllation). It’s unfortunate everyone’s so willing to play “gotcha!”, so eager to look for the handful of papers or researchers supporting their positions rather than leaning back to ask (what does the preponderance of the evidence suggest? or Is there a scientific consensus on this issue? )
July 2nd, 2010 | 11:44 am
I don’t think the pro-life people are excited about this news because it will make no difference to the person deciding to have an abortion. However, this does fly in the face of those pro-death people who constantly want “safe” abortions. They deny this study and deny that women have extreme depression afterwards.
The whole correlation/causation arguement is rather useless. Consider our scientific history with regards to high blood pressure and heart attacks. We didn’t understand all the steps in between the two at the time but we knew there was a link and, by breaking the link, we could prevent the latter from occurring. The same holds with the ABC link. A correlation has been established but the political community will stonewall any information from getting to the women who need it. Hopefully the OB/GYN community will take this to heart when taking care of their patients and be on the lookout for their higher-risk patients.
July 2nd, 2010 | 1:16 pm
I have aways thought my abortion was the reason for my breast cancer – call it womanly intuition. I mentioned it to my consultant/GP right at the beginning of my my cancer journey only to be told there was no connection. It would take a lot to convince me that there is no connection. We need to be told the truth.
July 2nd, 2010 | 2:07 pm
The issue of playing “gotcha” brought up by Raven is an interesting one, especially in the eyes of the court. Anyone familiar with the impact of Daubert motions in cases that teeter on the presentation of scientific evidence by scientific experts understands that the reasoning behind the original Daubert ruling was to prevent “minority” scientific positions from being presented to juries (preventing such experts from “tainting” the consensus science). Historically, this ruling has worked against the trial lawyer and in favor of defendants (generally big industry; see relevant chapter in new OSHA administrator David Micheal’s book “Doubt is their product”). (Wesley can correct me here since I’m no lawyer).
So do the recent studies change the scientific consensus in this politically charged debate? I am a toxicologist by trade, and am not familiar with this particular field, but I’m guessing the answer is no at this point. While supporting the minority opinion, until larger studies show similar results (i.e., demonstrate a stronger correlation), the status quo will remain the consensus. That does not mean a correlation doesn’t exist: clearly the studies show such within the context of the study populations. It’s just that this correlation would never make it to the jury’s ears in such a case since most any judge would strike it from evidence in the event that a pre-trial Daubert motion were filed on behalf of the pro-choice side.
Personally I don’t think pro-lifers are any more prone to playing “gotcha” with science than their pro-choice counterparts. Such is the human condition. As noted, this is a highly charged issue on which even the most objective medical doctor and research scientist has an opinion. It is ironic to me, however, how “progressives” are prone to attacking the Daubert ruling in the case of environmental justice, but in a potential case such as this they would stand in support of such a motion. (This assumes most progressives are pro-choice, which seems like a rather sound assumption here in the States).
July 2nd, 2010 | 2:14 pm
Raven: “It would be like telling parents about to vaccinate their children “a paper published in 1998 suggested that this might cause autism.””
But really it would be like telling parents “4 papers published in the last 2 years suggested that vaccinations might cause autism”. Which wasn’t the case, and that Lancet article was retracted, so the analogy is a weak one.
July 2nd, 2010 | 2:22 pm
Raven,
As Wesley has well documented, scientific institutions are not above playing politics more than anyone else. Researchers aren’t automatons, they are human beings with human concerns. They will always require someone asking “cui bono?” In this case, as ACOG demonstrated, their political views can shade how information is given to the public, and even what information is looked into. The biggest concern is researchers/organizations phrasing things in a way that the media reporting on a study makes a general point not consistent with the actual data.
In terms of the information, prolife groups often have to legally fight just to have basic facts presented to women, because people just aren’t informed about risks or fetal development, especially by abortion providers who stand to profit from telling women “it’s just a blob of tissue.” It’s like arguing with a brick wall, especially on other issues such as the psychological trauma of abortion. When you’ve personally seen women having emotional problems because of a past abortion and then the APA gives (predictably reported by the media as) a blanket statement that abortion doesn’t affect mental health, reality suddenly doesn’t just melt away, and you’d like to start playing gotcha really quick…
July 2nd, 2010 | 3:14 pm
Err, can all of you naysayers explain, then, why there’s been an 80% increase in breast cancer since abortion became legal? I’d say that’s a bright, red, flashing “correlation”, no?
After all, the environment is infinitely more clean than it was in the 70s, so that’s not going to fly as a rationale for explaining that rather huge increase away. It also can’t be a link with genetics for obvious reasons and smoking is also way down from the ’70s so you’re running out of things to explain the massive leap away with.
(The only one I can think of is diagnosis, but 40-80%?!)
July 2nd, 2010 | 3:41 pm
ECM,
The 80% increase was not verified in the article. In the US, the increase is not quite 50%. Several factors that have been on the rise since 1971 are known to contribute to the incidence and/or diagnosis of breast cancer: Early detection by mammography, postponing pregnancy to later in life, use of oral contraceptives, earlier first menstrual period, obesity, not having children, having fewer children, aging (proportion of population that is older). It’s possible the increase in abortions has contributed but the medical data do not support that conclusion.
July 2nd, 2010 | 3:52 pm
ECM,
Women are living longer since Roe v. Wade, this doesn’t mean legalizing abortion is correlated with longevity (though I’m sure there are those who would make that argument using your logic). Also, there is an argument that – though pollution in general is down – the general population is more exposed to certain estrogen-mimicking compounds now due to the make up of consumer products than 40 years ago (think Rachel Carson & Theo Colborn). The “jury” is still out on this one, but it is something to consider nonetheless.
July 2nd, 2010 | 4:20 pm
Jon:
Yes, the analogy is a weak one. It would be more like telling parents “4 methodologically flawed papers in the last few years suggest a causal link between this vaccine and autism, 6 others of varying levels of competence found no link and the American College of Paediatricians says there’s absolutely nothing to worry about”. Parents would obviously think “the fact that he’s telling me in the first place means there *is* something to be concerned about.” You’ll get the facts across but send the wrong message.
JustChris:
Admittedly scientific and professional bodies may be just as political as any others but they usually have an interest in the issue. ACOG would rather not have the government deciding which medical procedures its members are able to carry out. Why would the NCI or the want to deny that something causes cancer if in fact it does? Would it lead to more funding, more prestige, or kickbacks from the Abortion-Industrial Complex? Personally I would have thought they would be biased in the other direction.
July 2nd, 2010 | 5:03 pm
Jeffery said: Early detection by mammography, postponing pregnancy to later in life, use of oral contraceptives, earlier first menstrual period, obesity, not having children, having fewer children, aging (proportion of population that is older).
Jon said: the general population is more exposed to certain estrogen-mimicking compounds now due to the make up of consumer products than 40 years ago
I’m sure that the many studies that have looked into breast cancer have also weighed these factors as risks too. Remember, in this latest study also found that the onset of menopause and smoking were factors too. If something as omnipresent as these estrogen-mimicing chemicals were a major factor, their effects would be spread across the general population.
Here’s a great article on studies on early onset puberty in Europe:
http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/fiona-neill/puberty-blues
One of the things the article notes is that early puberty was always condsidered an American problem due to our obesity problem and hormone eating beef, but these problems are now evident in Europe too. Yet a lot of these ABC studies have been conducted in Europe, pointing to the fact that since early puberty was rare a generation ago, it is also not the most important factor when determining the massive increase in breast cancer there.
July 2nd, 2010 | 5:12 pm
[...] Another study confirms the link between abortion and breast cancer Story from the UK Daily Mail. [...]
July 2nd, 2010 | 6:48 pm
molloaggie,
Although you are correct that studies often measure and control for those variables, to my knowledge the reporting of incidence only adjusts for population age. The incidence reporting does not correct for such variables as obesity, early menstruation, smoking or diet. There is some confusion here. The kinds of studies that we’re discussing here are not the basis for reporting cancer statistics, i.e., the incidence of breast cancer in a country.
According to the NCI the age-adjusted incidence of invasive breast cancer in 1975 was 105.07 per 100,000 population, in 2007 it was 124.68 per 100,000 population, an apparent increase of under 25%. These data are not controlled for such variables obesity, previous abortions, contraceptive use, etc.
July 2nd, 2010 | 8:02 pm
Padraig, you have it right, there’s an increased risk, but that’s the point. Raven I think you know better than to make it sound like there needs to be direct causation between abortion and breast cancer before something should be disclosed. They aren’t saying there is a causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer any more than there is between smoking cigarettes and smoking. Cigarettes don’t directly cause cancer in all smokers. That was the argument that the cigarette manufacturers made back in the day-there are a lot of people who smoke who don’t get lung cancer. In fact most don’t. But we still think that there’s an increased risk that ought to be disclosed and though almost every American who has gotten lung cancer and has been a smoker knows about the risk, the tobacco settlements to the states amounted to billions and billions afterwards. So risks should be disclosed.
How big a risk should be disclosed? I don’t know, but here’s what Attorney John Kindley who has worked a couple ABC notes in 157 of his WI Law Review Article: George Annas, The Rights of Patients: The Basic ACLU Guide to Patient Rights 86 (2d ed. 1992). In the regulatory context:
The gravity of the cancer risk is judged by how far the risk is above the “acceptable” or de minimis, risk level …. In the case of large populations at risk of cancer, a review of one hundred thirty-two federal regulatory decisions disclosed that a de minimis level of one lifetime death per million population at risk is generally used by federal agencies …. In 1990, Perrier Corporation recalled its entire worldwide stock of bottled water because of benzene contamination, at a cost of over seventy million dollars in the United States alone. Perrier’s recall was prompted by an FDA risk assessment which showed that the lifetime risk of cancer from drinking two bottles of Perrier per day was one death per million exposed.
James L. Repace, Risk Management of Passive Smoking at Work and at Home, 13 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 763, 773-74 (1994) (footnotes omitted).
To me that sounds pretty extreme. But, if that’s a standard, and there’s good research-I don’t know how many more studies have to come in before the policy makers and editorial writers are convinced-they never may be, but I would think that with as many women who get breast cancer, the number of abortions every year and abortion showing this kind of increase risk, I would think that should be disclosed.
Brind’s Meta-analysis which was well done showed a 30-50 percent increased risk. Janet Daling of the famous Hutchison Institute found a 50 percent increased risk. That means a woman’s life time risk is increased from 8 percent to 12 percent. What did the editorial writers of the Journal of the NCI say? They wrote it off. A first rate researcher doing excellent work, screen for recall bias and etc, had her work blown off by the editors. I think one of the excuses was that it was insignificant statistically. It makes you wonder if BC and the war against it is really such a big deal if increasing the risk by half is statistically insignificant. But that’s a knucklehead argument anyway when you start with such a big population. Daling said more work needed to be done, but we are getting more work and the abortion proponents are writing it off with each new piece of evidence like the one that just came in. O well. What else is new. Science is politicized.
Daling found even worse numbers for certain groups. I’ll look these up later because I have family pouring into town for my 50th Birthday today, but one disturbing stat was that everyone woman (I think 12) in her study who had aborted their first child before they were 18 and had a history of BC in their family, all developed BC before 45. I’m pretty sure it was by 18. That makes people in that group a dead ringer. Someone ought to screen for that and disclose it. But it won’t happen except by political force because at the end of the day women are expendable to the abortion movement. If they cared they would root out the incompetent legal abortionists, they would report their suspicions of statutory rape to the authorities instead of helping the rapist evade the authorities, they would notify parents, they would demand higher standards and etc. Abortion is the cornerstone for the sex revolution. You can’t do free love without it and it has to be protected at all costs. So the rest of us will have to make sure it happens. Again, it is bizarre that those most opposed to abortion have to make sure women receive the right information.
As to the biological explanation, it seems to hold water. Abortion advocates say bold things about there being no connection in court, but then when they are under oath they note that an abortion would remove the protective effect of a successful first pregnancy. Isn’t that nice.
July 2nd, 2010 | 11:37 pm
Don,
The scientific argument is about whether induced abortion contributes to the incidence of breast cancer. You assume it is settled.
in Daling et al, 1996 the only findings reaching statistical significance were: gestation 8 wks or under; never giving birth; non-Roman Catholic religion. Overall, induced abortion did not increase the incidence of breast cancer. If you think that statistical significance is not important than you are forced to explain in this study why Catholics who have abortions get breast cancer LESS than Catholics who don’t have abortions. In addition you will need to explain why women with 2 or more abortions get breast cancer LESS than women who have 0 or 1 abortions. Finally, you have to explain why abortions when you are between the ages of 20 and 29 PROTECT women from breast cancer. Daling concluded: “The results of the present study give only slight
support to the hypothesis that there is an increase in breast cancer incidence related to a history of induced abortion among women of reproductive age.” Based on your logic, abortion providers should encourage women between 20 and 29 to abort to help prevent breast cancer.
The Daling 96 paper does not bolster your cause.
Please do find the data from the papers where every woman in a subgroup developed breast cancer.
July 4th, 2010 | 9:51 am
Calling all armchair scientists! Here’s one you have obviously chosen to overlook: Hormone replacement therapy connection.
There’s a reason why women stopped taking it precipitously in 2002. Or didn’t you notice?
July 5th, 2010 | 1:26 am
Jeffrey,
We are talking about different studies by Janet Daling. I’m talking about the better known case she published in 1994 “Breast Cancer Among Young Women,” not the 1996 study. Daling reported women aborting before 18 increases their risk 150 percent and women aborting over 30 increases their risk 110 percent. She found a general 50 percent increase risk and others found similar ones. It may be inconsistent across certain categories, but that does not argue against disclosing the risk. But then again, Daling is hardly the only study showing an increased risk.
There are many studies, and they still keep coming in as the current SHS post notes. As Joel Brind PhD told me several years ago, “…one doesn’t have to conclude that the evidence is conclusive or compelling: That 13 of 14 US studies have found an association between abortion and breast cancer (8 with statistical significance) is a simple fact, and women have the right to know it.”
The 1994 Daling paper in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Vole 86, November 2, 1994) is the paper that says all 12 women in a study who had a family history of BC and who had an abortion by age 30 developed breast cancer by age 45. It also says a woman with a family history of BC and has her first abortion after age 30, the risk increases 270 percent. Daling found an overall risk increase in BC with an abortion of 50 percent.
As for the study SHS reported on that sparked this post, “It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions.” Last year researcher Louise Brinton was part of a study on the increased risk of BC from of oral contraceptives. Dr. Brind notes that “abortion appears in the data table which lists the associations found for ‘known and suspected risk factors…. In the text, the effect of the significant risk factors, including induced abortion, were described as ‘consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women.” Not only does this show support for the increased risk and ABC connection, Brinton was lead organizer for the 2003 NCI ‘workshop’ on ‘early reproductive events and breast cancer,’ a panel which reported that the lack of an ABC link had been ‘established. What a way to change a conclusion, bury it in a footnote and hope no one notices. What’s that, back alley research? Leave the light on and hope the authorities don’t notice.
Data has been coming in for over 50 years to show that abortion increases the risk of BC. It’s said to be the most easily avoidable risk to BC. From the looks of it, maybe oral contraceptives do too.
July 5th, 2010 | 9:15 am
One thing is certain, at some point the trial lawyers will figure it all out!
July 5th, 2010 | 3:11 pm
In terms of Dr. Brind – the journal his articles were published in stated ‘no conflicts of interest’.
In terms of bias, I would say there is a huge pro-choice bias against endorsing the ABC link. They have won the public because they claim to only want abortion to be legal because then it will be safe. An ABC link would go directly against that.
I’ve searched out sites meant to simply educate women but that obviously fall under the feminist ideology, and they deny the ABC link completely. They don’t link to studies showing both points of view, but instead claim that it’s just anti-abortion propaganda, and that major medical associations do not endorse it.
July 6th, 2010 | 6:10 pm
Michelle:
Pro-choice activists do not run the National Cancer Institute nor is there any evidence that they influence its findings. Is there any reason to believe that oncologists are overwhelmingly pro-choice or that they stand to gain anything at all from covering up a putative ABC link?
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one: The National Cancer Institute, the American Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and probably dozens of other professional bodies across the globe make the statements they do about abortion and breast cancer not because they’re part of an international pro-choice conspiracy to keep the truth from vulnerable women but because they honestly believe that all things considered there is presently no evidence of a causal connection.
It’s that simple.
Future studies may prove this consensus wrong – but that won’t change the fact that it was based not on “pro-choice ideology” but on analysis of the available data.
As for Dr Brind, he’s a born-again Christian and pro-life activist. The “no conflict of interest” phrase refers to external influence (funding, professional affiliation etc) and not to psychological motivation.
July 7th, 2010 | 6:30 am
I am so tired of all the obfuscations, euphemisms and general dancing around the real issue whenever abortion is discussed. There is a living thing in the womb, that living thing is a human being, and that human being is killed before it is born. The issue is, does the woman whose womb contains this life inside her (or anyone else) have the right to kill it or have it killed? God has made it clear that the answer is no, because this is murder and murder is forbidden. God often judges sin in this life as well as at the final judgment (e.g. STD’s are judgments against sexual immorality). It may not be clear yet whether abortion has a physical consequence for women yet, but it surely has emotional and spiritual consequences, and will ultimately be judged.
July 7th, 2010 | 8:05 am
One of the things that seems to be overlooked in these ABC “studies” is the number of people who have abortions and have absolutely no ill effects afterward. In many respects they remind me of the pornography/sex crime cause-and-effect relationship claimed by people like James Dobson.
They cite the fact that a huge percentage of sex criminals are porn readers, without addressing the other side of the statistic: how many porn readers are NOT sex criminals. In the ABC matter, talking about risk is far different from talking about causality. One is a statistic, the other a fact.
The definitive study on ABC seems to be the one done in Denmark a few years ago, a study that involved an enormous statistical sample — and that concluded there is no link.
July 7th, 2010 | 1:23 pm
This is one of many issues where it is obvious tlhat the abortion industry’s claim of concern for the rights, safety and lives of women is just pretense.
Even IF the only ones concerned about the abortion/breast cancer link were anti-abortion, AND IF the pro-aborts were confident that no such link possibly exists, or could be proven, there is still no valid excuse for opposing such research or for giving women the info so they can decide for themselves (versus abortion industry lobbyists trying to censor the info).
Isn’t it true that one of the researchers who acknowledged the abortion/breast cancer risk stated she was a pro-choice female?
And wouldn’t anyone with a genuine concern for women at least make an effort to read about the research results and the explanation of how abortion, the abrupt, violent, unnatural abortion of pregnancy (unlike a natural miscarriage) affects breast cells, making them more likely to become cancerous?
July 8th, 2010 | 1:05 am
Real Feminist, Janet Daling supports abortion rights and her research has showed a connection. There are many studies showing a connection going back 50 years and I’m sure she’s not the only one.
History Writer, how many times do we have to say we’re not claiming the research shows a direct effect any more than smoking directly causes cancer? You sound like the spokesmen for big tobacco who said most people who smoke never get lung cancer. Most women who have an abortion will never get breast cancer just like most people who smoke will never get lung cancer. We are saying the studies show an increased risk and that the risk ought to be disclosed just like it is with cigarettes.
If you are going to talk about the Danish Study, the Melbye study, bring it on. The Melbye Study was said to show no increased risk, but the study did find an increase. They said that “with each one-week increase in the gestational age of the fetus…there was a 3 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer.” That would be a huge increase for later abortions. And when Melbye was stripped of its errors, it showed a 44 percent increased risk. It classified 60,000 women who had abortions as not having them and it included women who had abortions for whom it was too soon to likely develop breast cancer. Melbye also changed their conclusions two years later without announcing it. There’s some history to write about.
As I noted earlier, there’s been a lot of research showing a connection and an increased risk. “As for the study SHS reported on that sparked this post, ‘It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions.’” Studies showing a link and increased risk have been coming in for 50 years and even Louise Brinton who led the workshop at the 2003 NCI conference to debunk the ABC connection was part of a study last year in which Dr. Joel Brind reports that “abortion appears in the data table which lists the associations found for ‘known and suspected risk factors…. In the text, the effect of the significant risk factors, including induced abortion, were described as ‘consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women.” When is the NCI going to make those effects described as consistent as observed previous studies public? How many studies would there need to be that show an increased risk before it should be part of informed consent for women considering an abortion?
There’s been plenty of research to lead reasonable people to say this should be disclosed. It’s about time it’s done or this will be seen as one more piece of evidence women are expendable to the abortion movement. If they cared about the health of women they would root out the incompetent legal abortionists, they would report their suspicions of statutory rape to the authorities instead of helping the rapist evade the authorities, they would notify parents, they would demand higher standards, screen for psychological danger, coercion and etc. I’m not holding my breath.
July 8th, 2010 | 2:19 pm
History Writer: “One of the things that seems to be overlooked in these ABC “studies” is the number of people who have abortions and have absolutely no ill effects afterward…In the ABC matter, talking about risk is far different from talking about causality. One is a statistic, the other a fact.”
My reservations about your defining causality as “fact” aside, you present a hollow argument. First, causality: the majority of smokers (better than 2/3rds) will not develop lung cancer, yet we have the weight of toxicological and epidemiological evidence to show that tobacco smoke is causally linked to lung cancer. But by your reasoning, the smokers who fail develop lung cancer during their lives is evidence enough to disprove causality. Or how many of us have been exposed to benzene during our lives and will never develop acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)? Though we’re all exposed to a good dose at the gas pump and other places, the vast majority of us will not develop AML. Yet we can conclude from mechanistic and epi studies that at a high enough dose there is a causal link between the two.
Second, risk. You are correct that risk is a matter of statistics (those smokers who do not develop lung cancer still are at risk of developing such). And yet we are always informed by doctors of “the risks” associated with even the most routine procedures (to avoid legal unpleasantries should you prove to be that special 1 in 1,000 or 10,000). Naturally these risks are also based on the preponderance of the literature and not just a few published papers because even the most robust epi studies have their flaws. So just citing the largest study or meta-analysis to disprove potential risk, or simply dismissing a study’s relevance due to small population size, are not valid approaches to understanding risk either.
That being said, it doesn’t sound like there is a definitive causal link for ABC at this point (weight of mechanistic AND epi evidence), but it seems more research is warranted to define the risk.
July 8th, 2010 | 3:23 pm
Raven: “As for Dr Brind, he’s a born-again Christian and pro-life activist. The ‘no conflict of interest’ phrase refers to external influence (funding, professional affiliation etc) and not to psychological motivation.”
Thank you for this most inane phrase: “psychologically motivation”.
You really believe that scientists, aka human beings, shouldn’t be to be influenced by “psychological motivation”? Have you heard of the Union for Concerned Scientists? Environmental Working Group? Natural Resources Defense Council? Environmental Defense Fund? And the examples of such “psychologically motivated” scientists don’t stop with NGOs.
The ideological view that “real” scientists have sterilized themselves of personal bias in the absence of financial gain takes naivety to a new level. Anyone who has worked on a PhD knows that, while the unbiased search for knowledge remains the ideal, rarely do you come across colleagues who do not have personal bias influencing they way they think about things in their field.
Janet Daley over at the Telegraph wrote the following passage that explains things on the level of academia pretty well:
“Most people regard scientific enquiry as the purest expression of the spirit of the Enlightenment: the pursuit of objective truth in an atmosphere of free and open debate unfettered by dogma or intellectual prejudice. This mythical ideal in which the purity of science is pitted in a historical struggle against the forces of superstition and autocracy (taking Galileo and his battle with the Church as its timeless model) is rather out of touch with the modern reality. And now it is plain for all to see: science, for all its splendid contributions to modern life, is as subject to human antipathy, rivalry and downright nastiness as anything else. It survives through a competitive race for grant-funding, academic favour and professional advancement which is as susceptible to corrupt ambition, group-think and peer pressure as any other human endeavour.” – Janet Daley, Telegraph
Cynical no doubt, but closer to the mark than the view that true scientific endeavor is one that has been purged of all personal bias. Let us pray we never see the day when disclosure of our “psychological motivation” becomes a requirement for publication.
July 9th, 2010 | 6:07 am
[...] An Abortion/Breast Cancer Link After All? Wesley J. Smith [...]
July 9th, 2010 | 6:40 am
So, Jon, you’re saying scientific bias is OK because we’re all human and we all have our little quirky opinions, so if we skew the data a little bit to make it fit our preconceptions, — well, what the hell.
If that’s the case then how can we rely upon any “fact” unless each of us tests it in his own laboratory. And even then individual interpretation of the results will be skewed because we’re all biased, right. Sounds like the scientific version of Rashomon.
July 9th, 2010 | 4:19 pm
HW – No, I’m not “OK” with scientific bias, but I recognize it’ll always exist as long as humans are the ones asking the questions, devising and running the experiments, analyzing the data, and formulating conclusions. It is naive to think otherwise. But accusing certain scientists of “psychological motivations” is like noting the sky is blue. Instead of throwing around such superfluous absurdities, look at the science.
Hypothesis-testing done correctly is transparent. All data are made available so that statistical analyses can be verified by others, thus validating conclusions. (Many scientific journals are now accepting “supplemental data” along with the manuscript to allow for such vigorous examination). Statistical approaches and interpretations of results are areas of greatest vulnerability when it comes to personal bias. If the data are available, then this can be addressed and the necessary light shed on any “data skewing”.
Ideally this happens in the peer review stage of a manuscript’s publication, but such work is generally performed pro bono by other scientists who themselves are busy trying to get their work noticed, so not all peer review is created equal. The system is not perfect.
Actually making up data or deleting pesky data points that preclude statistical significance is more difficult to detect and generally is only done so via whistle blower or other labs trying to reproduce the data. There are plenty of examples of such violations over the last several decades.
Obviously I don’t advocate allowing personal bias to affect the scientific process, but scientists as humans are susceptible to the same failings as everyone else. And this doesn’t just apply to scientists in some sectors, but to all scientists, regardless of affiliation (academia, industry, government, NGO). Humans are imperfect. Scientists are humans. Ergo, scientists are imperfect. Does this mean we should expect scientists to be stripped of their personal motivations? No. They should and are expected to disclose financial COI. Otherwise, if certain “psychological motivations” are skewing the science, such will be illuminated, especially in areas of controversy.
I hope this clarifies.
July 9th, 2010 | 5:04 pm
My article on this subject (published in 1999 in the University of Wisconsin’s law school’s Law Review — hardly a bastion of pro-life zealotry), surveying the scientific evidence available at the time within the framework of the traditional criteria for evaluating the likelihood of causality and within the framework of the legal elements for a claim of medical malpractice, is here:
http://www.kindleylaw.com/?page_id=10
July 10th, 2010 | 12:41 am
Regarding the pool of research on abortion’s side effects, can someone elucidate my casual observation that gynaecologists and the like (that is, doctors that are involved in interpersonal medicine) publish research that supports the pro-choice view. ?.
Whereas, those doctors that are closer to doing pure research (not involving as much patient contact) tend to publish research that seems to confirm various negative effects from abortion of which ABC is only one. ?.
July 10th, 2010 | 4:19 pm
Jon:
My comment about “motivation” was made in response to a previous remark about Brind declaring “no conflict of interest”. The point was that strong (and openly acknowledged) ideological biases, though they may affect a scientists ability to interpret data impartially, do not count as “conflicts on interest” (at least as these are defined for the purposes of scientific research). It is impossible to declare all our biases (and who would want to count all the strange beasts lurking beneath the water’s surface?) but if a person holds firmly to views which fly in the face of the scientific consensus then I think it is reasonably to asked if he is being moved by “other factors”. And, once again, this was not an attempt to impugn the quality of Brind’s research – it was in response to a specific statement made by a previous commenter.
Obviously other scientists have “psychological motivations” of their own (and I used that admittedly redundant phrase to refer to internal factors like a desire for ideological consistency etc rather than external factors like the prospect of financial reward or political advancement)- But as I’ve probably said before, when it comes to the ABC link we do not have a split down ideological lines (i.e pro-choice researchers going one way and pro-life the other). People who support the ABC link have to look to individual studies (as opposed to comprehensive attempts to review all the data from all the studies). And no one’s really answered the question: What does the National Cancer Institute or the American Cancer Society gain from denying a link of this sort?
Don Nelson: I may be wrong but it appears you misunderstand what the claim “there is no causal link between abortion and breast cancer” actually means. A causal link implies that the increased breast cancer risk is due to the abortions themselves and not due to a third factor which predisposes women to both abortions and breast cancer. It has nothing to do with the fact that some women who have abortions fail to eventually develop breast cancer. Establishing a correlation (in the absence of causation) is insufficient reason to issue public health warnings (in the absent of direct causation, declining abortions would not reduce breast cancer risk in the counselled women – unless the third causal variable were also affected). http://bit.ly/1evesU
July 13th, 2010 | 7:53 pm
What does the National Cancer Institute or the American Cancer Society gain from denying a link of this sort?
We all like to get along, and sometimes truth is the causalty. Possible reasons:
1. Personal avoidance on a social scale. Given that abortion is the ‘relief valve’ that would otherwise cause people to face, or run from as the case may be, the life-changing responsiblity for the real-world outcomes of their sexual behaviour, I’d say there is an unstated conflict avoidance behaviour at work that is very influential, but largely in the shadows.
2. Cultural influences. Abortion is widely perceived as liberating women, therefore evidence to the contrary would be interpreted in a way that would minimize impact on abortion.
3. Economics: there are very strong pharmaceutical industry and entertainment industry interests that are served by the status quo. They also exert strong indirect and direct influence, and because of the reasons given in item 1, there is a willingness to be influenced.
July 13th, 2010 | 7:54 pm
What does the National Cancer Institute or the American Cancer Society gain from denying a link of this sort?
We all like to get along, and sometimes truth is the causalty. Possible reasons:
1. Personal avoidance on a social scale. Given that abortion is the ‘relief valve’ that would otherwise cause people to face, or run from as the case may be, the life-changing responsiblity for the real-world outcomes of their sexual behaviour, I’d say there is an unstated conflict avoidance behaviour at work that is very influential, but largely in the shadows.
2. Cultural influences. Abortion is widely perceived as liberating women, therefore evidence to the contrary would be interpreted in a way that would minimize impact on abortion.
July 13th, 2010 | 7:59 pm
3. Economic influences and the networking in high places that underly them. I am referring to the pharmaceutical industry and the ‘Hollywood’ style entertainment industry, and their influence upon each of us.
July 19th, 2010 | 7:24 am
[...] An Abortion/Breast Cancer Link After All? Wesley J. Smith http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/07/01/an-abortionbreast-cancer-link-after-all/ [...]
July 19th, 2010 | 7:47 am
[...] An Abortion/Breast Cancer Link After All? Wesley J. Smith [...]
July 19th, 2010 | 8:11 am
[...] An Abortion/Breast Cancer Link After All? Wesley J. Smith [...]
July 27th, 2010 | 3:23 am
[...] An Abortion/Breast Cancer Link After All? Wesley J. Smith [...]
August 6th, 2010 | 5:21 am
[...] An Abortion/Breast Cancer Link After All? Wesley J. Smith [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact