Abortion and Breast Cancer in Women: Is there a Significant Link? Another Study. The Same Result? Is this the Real War on Women?

The Tea Party Leadership Fund Push to Primary John Boehner. Your signature is needed by January 31, 2014!

http://primaryboehner.com/

Also, January 21, dine at Chick fil A to support Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty

March for Life is January 22 in Washington D.C. and other communities throughout the nation!

—

From: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/evidence-of-abortion-breast-cancer-link-explodes-on-the-asian-subcontinent?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b141fcf52d-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-b141fcf52d-397568157

“Evidence of abortion-breast cancer link explodes on the Asian subcontinent
by Joel Brind, Ph.D
January 16, 2014

January 15, 2014 (NRLC)—Hot on the heels of the new systematic review and meta-analysis of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC link) in China published by Dr. Yubei Huang last November and reviewed in NRL News Today in December, comes yet another blockbuster study from the Asian subcontinent.

On Christmas Eve, a study by A.S. Bhadoria et al. of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences—‘Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India’—appeared online in the ‘Indian Journal of Cancer.’ These new Asian studies are changing the game in ABC link research

The Bhadoria study of 320 breast cancer patients and 320 age and socio-economic status-matched healthy control women reported a 403% increased risk of getting breast cancer among Indian women who have had any abortions. Not only is this increase much larger than what had been reported in the Huang meta-analysis (44%) and by my colleagues and me in our worldwide meta-analysis of 1996 (30%), but it closely matches the 538% among Indian women reported earlier in 2013 by Dr. Ramchandra Kamath et al.

Also in 2013, Dr. S. Jabeen and colleagues reported a risk increase of almost 2,000% among women in Bangladesh!

Taken collectively, the studies from Asia should completely abolish any lingering credibility of the US National Cancer Institute’s ‘politically correct’ dictum that there is no ABC link (My use of red—my addition).

As explained in my December article (‘Chinese Abortion-Breast Cancer bombshell: Meta-analysis of 36 Chinese studies shows abortion increases breast cancer risk by 44%’), the Huang meta-analysis reproduces and validates our findings from 1996. It also demonstrates what is called a ‘dose effect,’ i.e., two abortions increase the risk more than one abortion (there is 76% risk increase with two or more abortions), and three abortions increase the risk even more (an 89% risk increase with three or more abortions).

Risk factors that show such a clear dose effect have more credibility.

I also previously described how the Huang ‘meta-analysis’ (a study of studies) dispatched with the tired old canard used to discredit the ABC link, variously called the ‘response bias’ or ‘recall bias’ or ‘reporting bias’ argument. The argument goes like this.

Due to social stigma that is attached to having an induced abortion, healthy women are more likely to deny prior abortions in their medical history study questionnaire than are women who’ve developed breast cancer. Hence, the argument goes, it would erroneously appear that abortion is more frequent among women who’ve had an abortion.

Although no credible evidence for this response bias hypothesis has ever been presented in ABC link research (and there is plenty of good evidence against it) [My use of red—my addition], the NCI and others have continually cited it as if it were a matter of fact in order to deny the reality of the ABC link. Huang et al. argued for the absence of response bias (abortion is very common in China and there is a lack of social stigma), but ABC-link detractors still cite response bias.

Click ‘like’ if you are PRO-LIFE!

But the sub-continental studies really do put the final nail in the coffin of the response bias argument. Such response bias is only even plausible when the relative risk is relatively low, such as around 1.5 (i.e., a 50% risk increase).

But such bias becomes extremely implausible when the relative risk is strong—e.g., 5 or 6 (i.e., a 400-500% risk increase) or more. Thus, while one might attempt to explain how some women with breast cancer might be more or less inclined to report their history of abortion, the numbers from India and Bangladesh are just too overwhelming. That’s why the percentage risk increases come out so high.

In the Bhadoria study, for example, the majority (61%) of the breast cancer patients had had at least one abortion, whereas only 16% of the control women were post-abortive. The data from the other two studies show similarly lopsided comparisons of cancer patients and controls. That’s why the risk increases come out so high.

It is important to note that these high relative risk numbers raise the question as to why, if abortion should have the same effect on women everywhere, there should be such a strong link on the Asian sub-continent. The answer is straightforward.

In India and Bangladesh, breast cancer is still relatively rare because a) early marriage and childbearing—the best known protection against breast cancer—is nearly universal; and b) breastfeeding (also a protective factor against breast cancer) is also nearly universal. Consequently, there’s not much in Bangladesh besides abortion to cause breast cancer (My use of red—my addition), so it really stands out.

As noted in my earlier piece on the ABC link in China, the impact of abortion on a population of over a billion women—in India and China alone—means breast cancer cases exceeding 10 million for the current generation of women of childbearing age, and millions of them dying from it (My use of red—my addition). And by the way, in contrast to the typical age of onset of breast cancer in the West, Asian women are stricken more often when in their 40’s.

Welcome to the real war on women (My use of red—my addition).

Reprinted with permission from NRLC”

If true, our current President, who has been a loud and proud advocate for both Planned MURDERHOOD and the MURDER of unborn babies, is also, by extension, advocating breast cancer in women. Further, based upon statistics, because more Black women have abortions percentage wise than other races within the U.S., he is a racist against the very race with which he claims to identify. So, this is Barack Hussein Obama, the “caring” President—caring about MURDER and breast cancer!

Remember this: MURDERERS LIE! When they deny that life begins at conception they are lying about a scientific, irrefutable FACT! When they deny that there is a causal link between abortions and breast cancer are they also lying? It does not take a rocket scientist to determine the truth. MURDERERS MURDER. Liars lie! And MURDERERS lie to protect their cash cow—the MURDER of unborn, innocent babies. Instead of being taught in public schools how to have intercourse and being encouraged to have intercourse “safely,” female students should be taught the causal link between MURDERING their unborn child and breast cancer. Of course, they should also be taught that with every abortion, at least one MURDER occurs!

—

The March for Life in Washington D.C. is January 22, 2014. Roe v. Wade will be the illegal, unconstitutional “law” of the land for 41 years on that date!

We will have been MURDERING unborn babies for 41 years! A total abomination for any nation! A total atrocity for any nation! A total evil for any nation!

No one has the “right” to MURDER another person! NO ONE!

Christians were bold in the First Century church! Are Christians as bold today?

Christians were resolute in the First Century church! Are Christians as resolute today?

Christians stood for the truth in the First Century church! Are Christians standing for the truth today?

If not Christians, who? If not now, when?

—

This is my two part suggestion to Tea Party groups, social conservatives, Constitutionalists, and anyone else who wants to save our Republic from the approaching destruction.

1) Run as many conservative candidates in as many Republican primaries as possible.

2) Then, run as many independent and/or third party candidates as possible in as many races as possible where we did not win the primary.

That is why I am working to get the Constitution Party on the ballot in Texas. If we get on the ballot, we will have two Congressional House candidates running and two State candidates running. Getting on the ballot is the first step. Winning elections is the second. Winning elections will grow the Party. The Constitution Party is much more in line with the Tea Party movement than is the Republican Party. And I have been involved with all three!

—

The Constitution Party of Texas website: http://cptexas.us/home/


—
If elected to Congress, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for present Speaker of the House John Boehner to be Speaker of the House. I call on every Republican primary candidate running in Texas Congressional District 19 to publicly (in writing) make the same pledge. It would not be a bad idea for every Republican candidate running for the House of Representatives to give the same pledge. See my post at http://christiangunslinger3.blogspot.com on December 16, 2013 entitled “Speaker of the House John Boehner Attacks the Tea Party Again for Being Fiscally Responsible!”

—

If I am elected to the House, I will use the Constitution, as written, to do everything in my power to stop judicial tyranny! Will the other candidates pledge the same? I know our present Representative has NOT done everything possible to stop judicial tyranny! Why is that?


—
Competition is good for the economy and competition is good for the Republican Party!!! Competition keeps Congressmen committed to we the people!!! Primary Republicans who do not support the Constitution as written.

—

The Constitution Party of Texas website: http://cptexas.us/home/

—

If you haven’t seen this video by Ray Stevens: “Mr. President, Mr. President”, watch it today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBOMjZU-aCE#t=116