| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Louis" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2003 03:22:27 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Abortion Breast-Cancer Discussion |
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<bqp2fl$rrq$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Louis <louis_friend@NOSPAMTHXemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
Louis <louis_friend@NOSPAMTHXemail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
Louis <louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
mizzyandrea@aol.com (Mizzyandrea)
Women in Russia & Japan have far more abortions than
American women, yet breast cancer is very low in Japan
and no greater in Russia.
Where's your proof?.............. none exists
Plenty evidence exists, your insistance on proof is
understandable, but at the same time reminds me of
the creationists I debate with insisting on "proof"
of "macro-evolution" while they neglect to take into
account the evidence available to them, and do not
provide a reason why micro cannot lead to macro
evolution.
There are numerous studies, including Daling and
Howe which indicate a link.
Numerous studies that are flawed by self-reporting.
A problem that is not present in the Denmark study.
I'm glad to see you Ray; you're actually the most reasonable
one who has been kind enough to respond to my posts.
Howe actually is a record based study:
Howe et al (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18(2):300-4 and
Dr. Daling explicitly checked for recall bias in her study
(I think it was the second one), by... hmmm... I forgot,
let me check. My bad; it was the first one. (1994)
Daling did another study in the same geographical area,
except instead of breast cancer she asked about cervical
cancer, something with no suspect link with abortion.
The problem with all such questioning is that patients are
much more motivated to recall events if they think it is relevant
to their medical condition.
Don't pull a Mizzy on me Ray. :') I and Dr. Daling appreciate
that... that is why she conducted that other study, along with
controls.
Comparing one recall bias with another doesn't show
that there is no recall bias.
As I already stipulated it isn't proof positive of no
recall bias, but it should force one to re-examine
the assertion of recall bias in the first place.
I should also note that technique (comparing recall
biases) was used to substantiate recall bias in the
Rookus study. I'm glad to see you recognize it has
limited use.
You are correct that the Denmark study avoided the potential
impact of recall bias, but they did not eliminate misclassification
in the least. (ie. they did not include abortions done prior to
I have not read that study in detail and I know of only one person who
has the training in statistical analysis to know if there are any
significant
problems. That's why I assume that the doctors and the NCI know
what they're talking about.
I think they do, and I think they should be ashamed.
Meaning they use statistical analysis indiscriminately...
And what is your training in statistical analysis?
Practically none. I took one course on the basics of
statistics in college years back. But one of the things
I learned in that class is that the finding of zero is
a red flag of the books being cooked.
What I can say, is in the Discovery article pointed out
by RedWych... the article concluded the Denmark study
"was simply using appropriate statistical methods."
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-03/features/feathated/
Which I feel they were... since it is becoming more popular
to use statistical adjustment in epidemiological studies. The
problem is one needs to be very care about how one does
it... and has to *know* for a *fact* what they are adjusting
for.
Which you seem to think you know better than anybody else.
I'll reiterate, I'm not the only one... and indeed this
was pointed out to me by people more educated than myself.
Additionally its not tough to know better than most people
by actually researching and corroborating points.
For example the sloppy conclusion of recall bias made
by Lindfors-Harris was politely exposed by Dr. Daling
in her 1996 study.
There is no indication Dr. Melbye et al. had accurate
statistics for any confounding factors in Denmark... something
And so you assume the worst.
Is this supposed to be funny Ray?
The reason I say this is because
in this thread you have repeatedly assumed the worst
about me, Dr. Brind, and any research(er) which indicates
a link. (recall bias in the Howe study; nice call Ray)
I *looked* at the Melbye study,
they didn't include any studies to justify their
adjustment. This in itself would not be reason enough
to 'assume' the worst, after all it could be in their
rough work along with the raw data.
I also made my 'assumption' based on
the fact everything I've come across putting the link
in question is as unsubstantiated or even sometimes more
sloppily done than the research being criticized for
indicating a link. (be it done by pro-choice or anti-
choice researchers)
.
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Breast-Cancer Discussion |
08 Dec 2003 04:06:43 PM |
|
|
"Louis" <louis_friend@email.com> wrote in message
news:54fde2f0.0312081322.50e2f4ea@posting.google.com...
Practically none. I took one course on the basics of
statistics in college years back. But one of the things
I learned in that class is that the finding of zero is
a red flag of the books being cooked.
You had a bad instructor then.
I also made my 'assumption' based on
the fact everything I've come across putting the link
in question is as unsubstantiated or even sometimes more
sloppily done than the research being criticized for
indicating a link. (be it done by pro-choice or anti-
choice researchers)
Nonsense. In the worst-case scenario, that is to say Joel Brind's
"meta-analysis" which was rife with chances for bias to be inserted through
selection, weighting and so forth, the best increased risk of breast cancer
associated with abortion he could come up with was only 30 percent. That is
to say, a relative risk of 1.3. That is insignificant, epidemiologically
speaking. Anything below RR 2 or 3 is insignificant, particularly when some
studies show a weak positive association between the agent and the cancer,
some show a weak negative association, and some show no association at all
(as is true with abortion and breast cancer). When epidemiologists see
results like this, the conclusion is "No causal association."
Epidemiologists also say that when a *better* measurement of a suspected
agent results in a *lower* risk, which is what happens in better-designed,
case-control and cohort studies of abortion and breast cancer, there is
almost certainly an unidentified confounding factor. This is also why
epidemiologists discount any causal link between vasectomy and prostate
cancer, even though many studies have shown an association between the two.
And here's a suggestion as to what that confounding factor might be:
Journal of Theoretical Biology
2001 Mar 7;209(1):97-102
Hypothesis: gonadal hormones act as confounders in epidemiological studies
of the associations between some behavioural risk factors and some
pathological conditions.
James WH.
The Galton Laboratory, University College London, Wolfson House, 4
Stephenson Way, London, NW 1 2 HE, UK.
There are grounds for suspecting that, to varying degrees, smoking, alcohol
consumption, oral contraceptive use, vasectomy and induced abortion are
markers for high steroid hormone levels. So in epidemiological studies,
false inferences may be drawn that these markers (treated as risk factors)
have causal or exacerbating effects on diseases which are truly partially
caused by high levels of hormones (e.g. probably prostatic cancer and breast
cancer). Analogously, such studies of conditions which are truly partially
caused by low levels of hormones (e.g. bone fractures, poor sperm quality,
and perhaps testicular cancer and rheumatoid arthritis) may yield spurious
suggestions of an ameliorative effect. The results of epidemiological
studies of the above five "risk factors" for the above six pathologies are -
in many cases - in striking disarray. I suggest that this is, at least
partially, because of this form of confounding. The point may be tested by
contrasting the hormone levels of people who self-select for smoking,
vasectomy, etc., at the time that self-selection is made with those of
appropriately selected control subjects.
Below I've appended an article I posted almost 4 years ago now, summarizing
the flaws in abortion = breast cancer claims. Although I might change some
minor points if writing today, the lack of causal association between having
an abortion and developing breast cancer has only become stronger over the
last 4 years - which is why more and more anti-abortion folks are resorting
to the claim that "Okay, but you can't deny that it doesn't *prevent* breast
cancer the way having a baby before age 30 does - so there's still a link,
even if it's indirect." (To which one only needs to respond, "Then why are
we teaching teenagers to abstain from sex until they are married, instead of
recommending all girls to have a baby and nurse it for a year by age 16?")
From: M is for Malapert (minxs@sonic.net)
Subject: Re: *Suing Abortion Clinics*
Date: 2000/01/17
[excerpt]
1. No study has ever shown a significant increased incidence of breast
cancer following abortion. Some studies have shown a weak positive
association, others have shown a weak negative association (a
protective effect of abortion on breast cancer incidence), and others
have shown no association at all. (When it comes to relative risk,
epidemiologists consider a RR > 3 to be a strong association, RR
between 2 and 3 a weak association, RR between 1 and 2 a very weak
association, and RR < 1 a negative association, or the exposure
actually reduces the risk of what you're looking for.) The
abortion-breast cancer RR is claimed by pro-liars to be between 30%
and 50%; that is a RR between 1.3 and 1.5, which is very weak. When
studies variously show a weak positive association, a weak negative
association, and no association, this is considered to be proof that
there is NO causal connection.
2. Most of the studies that do show an increased risk look at
(sometimes exclusively at) young women who develop breast cancer.
Since this is rare to begin with, the RR would have to be even bigger
to be significant. Example: lung cancer is a rare disease. Smoking
cigarettes increases the risk of getting lung cancer by over 1000%.
If smokers were only 30% more likely to get lung cancer than
nonsmokers there would be no reason to be concerned. You can more
easily see that by realizing that among a million nonsmokers, 100 will
develop lung cancer. A 30% increased risk among smokers would mean
that 130, or an additional 30 people per million, would get lung
cancer. That is still nothing to worry about. The numbers are so
small that the association could be an accident. Epidemiology is just
not that exact a science.
3. No biologically plausible reason why a woman would be at increased
risk of breast cancer after an abortion but not after a miscarriage
has ever been proposed. The mishmash of suggestions from abortion
opponents (abortion interrupts the growth of cells but miscarriage
doesn't, 'cause the hormones are different or something) is scoffed at
by reputable scientists.
4. Breast cancer is actually several diseases with multiple causes.
Some breast cancers in some women are linked to genes. Others may be
linked to diet or exercise or smoking or alcohol consumption. Having
children definitely reduces the lifetime risk of breast cancer, but
may increase the risk of developing breast cancer before age 49, and
women who have children are less likely to survive breast cancer when
it hits while they are young than women who have not had children.
Better nutrition, which means that women hit puberty younger and
younger so that their breasts are exposed to more years of estrogen,
may be a cause. Some have suggested that exposure to electric lights
also triggers early puberty. Others look at electromagnetic forces.
One piece of research studied women who wore a bra all day and found a
12,000% increased risk of breast cancer in these women. One
biological hypothesis here was that bras contain manmade fibers that
collect radon during the manufacturing process, after which the radon
decays and emits gamma radiation all day into a woman's breast. The
two Harvard researchers who proposed this theory used exactly the same
language as abortion opponents do in their letter to the journal Risk
Analysis: "Breast cancer has reached epidemic proportions in the
United States...One has to wonder why this alarming increase in
breast cancer in the past few decades and question whether
unrecognized environmental agents may be at work." ("Radon plateout
on synthetic fibers as a possible risk factor in breast cancer." Risk
Anal 1996 Feb;16(1):1-2.)
I just searched MEDLINE for articles on breast cancer risk factors,
and pulled up 328 articles. Go click on a few of them and you will
get an idea of the number of factors that are studied, the complex
etiology of the disease, and the hopelessness of trying to single out
ONE event as a cause of breast cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m_r
5. Women perceive a greater risk of breast cancer nowadays because
first, more and more women are living into their 60s, 70s, and 80s,
which is when they get breast cancer, and second, because more and
more breast cancers are being detected. The same is true of prostate
cancer in men. ALL women who live long enough will develop breast
cancer, as all men who live long enough will develop prostate cancer.
The older a person is, the less likely that cancer will be what kills
them. Breast cancer is still rare among young women, media hype and
the occasional celebrity death notwithstanding. The risk of actually
dying of breast cancer is decreasing, because early detection and
better treatment are making survival the norm.
In fact, many medical experts believe that the overattention to breast
cancer is leading women to ignore the diseases that are actually
likely to kill them, such as lung cancer and heart disease. CHD kills
30% of women, while breast cancer kills only 3%. Eight times as many
women die of lung cancer as of breast cancer. Yet women consistently
list breast cancer ahead of CHD and lung cancer as their biggest
health fear and biggest cancer fear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louis" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Breast-Cancer Discussion |
08 Dec 2003 07:55:45 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
"Louis" <louis_friend@email.com> wrote in message
news:54fde2f0.0312081322.50e2f4ea@posting.google.com...
Practically none. I took one course on the basics of
statistics in college years back. But one of the things
I learned in that class is that the finding of zero is
a red flag of the books being cooked.
You had a bad instructor then.
There you are Malapert. I expanded the newsgroup
list in case you were elsewhere. I had read some
previous posts of yours in alt.abortion, and found
some quite informative, especially the one with the
article concerning the fear of breast cancer outweighing
its actual risk to women. So you post in alt.atheism or
talk.abortion?
At least you didn't call me a moron, :')
this is a good start. Ummm, I guess I should
give a primer on me.
I'm an aspiring writer, interested in science, sci-fi,
philosophy, psychology and I'm currently focused
on politics for various reasons. My interest in this
subject is because of its complex history
and how it touches various subjects, and how they
effect one another. I've been researching
this subject off and on for a year. Oh, and I'm an
atheist.
Could you explain how my statistical 'red flag' is in
error, or used inappropriately?
I also made my 'assumption' based on
the fact everything I've come across putting the link
in question is as unsubstantiated or even sometimes more
sloppily done than the research being criticized for
indicating a link. (be it done by pro-choice or anti-
choice researchers)
Nonsense. In the worst-case scenario, that is to say Joel Brind's
"meta-analysis" which was rife with chances for bias to be inserted
through
selection, weighting and so forth, the best increased risk of breast
cancer
associated with abortion he could come up with was only 30 percent. That
is
to say, a relative risk of 1.3. That is insignificant, epidemiologically
speaking. Anything below RR 2 or 3 is insignificant, particularly when
some
studies show a weak positive association between the agent and the cancer,
some show a weak negative association, and some show no association at all
(as is true with abortion and breast cancer). When epidemiologists see
results like this, the conclusion is "No causal association."
Granted. But as I said previous in this thread prior to expanding
it, I do not base my opinion on this subject on Brind's
meta-analysis. I do however find this criticisms of other
studies interesting... and I'll paste a section from a previous
post in this thread here for your scrutiny.
***
But keep this in mind...
the meta-analysis released by the EPA which 'established'
second hand smoke as a cause of lung cancer, showed
a relative risk of, get this, 19% increase at 90% confidence
interval. I mention this so that you clue into the fact
meta-analyzes aren't released to vacuum of objectivity,
the politics of the day can certainly influence how they
are received... openly... or skeptically.
***
Epidemiologists also say that when a *better* measurement of a suspected
agent results in a *lower* risk, which is what happens in better-designed,
case-control and cohort studies of abortion and breast cancer, there is
almost certainly an unidentified confounding factor.
Could you please list the ones you are referring to,
just to clarify prior to my reponse.
This is also why
epidemiologists discount any causal link between vasectomy and prostate
cancer, even though many studies have shown an association between the
two.
And here's a suggestion as to what that confounding factor might be:
Journal of Theoretical Biology
2001 Mar 7;209(1):97-102
Hypothesis: gonadal hormones act as confounders in epidemiological studies
of the associations between some behavioural risk factors and some
pathological conditions.
James WH.
The Galton Laboratory, University College London, Wolfson House, 4
Stephenson Way, London, NW 1 2 HE, UK.
There are grounds for suspecting that, to varying degrees, smoking,
alcohol
consumption, oral contraceptive use, vasectomy and induced abortion are
markers for high steroid hormone levels. So in epidemiological studies,
false inferences may be drawn that these markers (treated as risk factors)
have causal or exacerbating effects on diseases which are truly partially
caused by high levels of hormones (e.g. probably prostatic cancer and
breast
cancer). Analogously, such studies of conditions which are truly partially
caused by low levels of hormones (e.g. bone fractures, poor sperm quality,
and perhaps testicular cancer and rheumatoid arthritis) may yield spurious
suggestions of an ameliorative effect. The results of epidemiological
studies of the above five "risk factors" for the above six pathologies
are -
in many cases - in striking disarray. I suggest that this is, at least
partially, because of this form of confounding. The point may be tested by
contrasting the hormone levels of people who self-select for smoking,
vasectomy, etc., at the time that self-selection is made with those of
appropriately selected control subjects.
Is this a long form of saying; pay attention to confounding factors?
There certainly are a lot of them, most of them involving hormones.
Below I've appended an article I posted almost 4 years ago now,
summarizing
the flaws in abortion = breast cancer claims. Although I might change
some
minor points if writing today, the lack of causal association between
having
an abortion and developing breast cancer has only become stronger over the
last 4 years - which is why more and more anti-abortion folks are
resorting
to the claim that "Okay, but you can't deny that it doesn't *prevent*
breast
cancer the way having a baby before age 30 does - so there's still a link,
even if it's indirect." (To which one only needs to respond, "Then why
are
we teaching teenagers to abstain from sex until they are married, instead
of
recommending all girls to have a baby and nurse it for a year by age 16?")
Incisive indeed. I'd like to respond in kind. I find it
humorous (tragically so), that anti-choice advocates claim to
have the women's best interest at heart when mentioning the
ABC issue, but at the same time, through aggressively campaigns
and violent action limiting women's access to abortive services.
Meaning some/many? women delay having an abortion because of
lack of funds or availability of abortion services; potentially
being exposed to greater risk generally, and in regards
to the ABC issue.
And I really appreciate your reference post, to go through
all your posts would have taken some doing to find this one.
From: M is for Malapert (minxs@sonic.net)
Subject: Re: *Suing Abortion Clinics*
Date: 2000/01/17
[excerpt]
1. No study has ever shown a significant increased incidence of breast
cancer following abortion. Some studies have shown a weak positive
association, others have shown a weak negative association (a
protective effect of abortion on breast cancer incidence), and others
have shown no association at all.
Are we to assume those studies were properly conducted?
Studies indicating a link like Howe (record-based)
undergo significant scrutiny and criticism, whereas record
based studies such as Lindefors Harris Swedish study (done
not coincidentally just right after Howe was published) showing
a 'protective' effect pass under the criticism radar. This indicates
to me a significant double standard.
(When it comes to relative risk,
epidemiologists consider a RR > 3 to be a strong association, RR
between 2 and 3 a weak association, RR between 1 and 2 a very weak
association, and RR < 1 a negative association, or the exposure
actually reduces the risk of what you're looking for.) The
abortion-breast cancer RR is claimed by pro-liars to be between 30%
and 50%; that is a RR between 1.3 and 1.5, which is very weak. When
studies variously show a weak positive association, a weak negative
association, and no association, this is considered to be proof that
there is NO causal connection.
I'd have to disagree with that characterization.
That is proof of a lack of evidence for a causal connection
according to epidemiological standards. (of which I have
no real quarrel with as long as research is conducted
well, and criticism is balanced)
2. Most of the studies that do show an increased risk look at
(sometimes exclusively at) young women who develop breast cancer.
Since this is rare to begin with, the RR would have to be even bigger
to be significant. Example: lung
ancer is a rare disease. Smoking
cigarettes increases the risk of getting lung cancer by over 1000%.
If smokers were only 30% more likely to get lung cancer than
nonsmokers there would be no reason to be concerned. You can more
easily see that by realizing that among a million nonsmokers, 100 will
develop lung cancer. A 30% increased risk among smokers would mean
that 130, or an additional 30 people per million, would get lung
cancer. That is still nothing to worry about. The numbers are so
small that the association could be an accident. Epidemiology is just
not that exact a science.
This isn't a very good point. How many cigarettes does one need
to smoke to induce a 1000% risk increase? I do however agree an
increase of 30% is little to worry about, however that is a proposed
average increase. Some would be higher and some would be lower
depending on numerous factors, including confounding and abortive
factors, and my goal of speaking about the ABC issue is to have
women be in the lower bracket through preventative treatment (if
available), and perhaps opting for abortive drugs to reduce waiting
time.
3. No biologically plausible reason why a woman would be at increased
risk of breast cancer after an abortion but not after a miscarriage
has ever been proposed. The mishmash of suggestions from abortion
opponents (abortion interrupts the growth of cells but miscarriage
doesn't, 'cause the hormones are different or something) is scoffed at
by reputable scientists.
Actually that is mostly incorrect. I mean I would scoff at
anyone who didn't know what they are talking about...
but as to the rest of it...
here is another section from a previous post in this thread.
***
Spontaneous abortions would not increase the risk because they
are characterized by low hormone levels. No one who understands
the difference would maintain that position, unless it is for
spontaneous abortions that occur in the second trimester,
which typically have higher hormone levels.
Estradiol, estriol and human placental lactogen in
serum in threatened abortion.
http://tinyurl.com/wr5m
HCG, HPL, oestradiol, progesterone and AFP in
serum in patients with threatened abortion.
http://tinyurl.com/wr5i
***
Here is a study conducted regarding invitro fertilization
taking a more detailed look at what occurs during
unsuccessful (abortive) implantations:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/76/6/1470.pdf
As to hormones impacting breast health; there was the
recent Hormones Replacement Therapy study that was
terminated prematurely because of a breast cancer increase.
But that was regarding estrogen & protestin therapy and
protestin could be catalyst.
So more to the point the American Cancer Society
facts and figures states the following:
"Studies suggest that reproductive hormones influence
breast cancer risk through effects on cell proliferation
and DNA damage, as well as promotion of cancer
growth."
www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/BrCaFF2001.pdf
Along with the National Cancer Institute:
"Unfortunately, in addition to these important beneficial effects, estrogen
can also be harmful. The most serious problem arises from the ability of
estrogen to promote the proliferation of cells in the breast and uterus.
Although this ability to stimulate cell proliferation is one of estrogen's
normal roles, it can also increase a woman's chance of developing breast or
uterine cancer."
http://press2.nci.nih.gov/sciencebehind/estrogen/estrogen08.htm
4. Breast cancer is actually several diseases with multiple causes.
Some breast cancers in some women are linked to genes. Others may be
linked to diet or exercise or smoking or alcohol consumption. Having
children definitely reduces the lifetime risk of breast cancer, but
may increase the risk of developing breast cancer before age 49, and
women who have children are less likely to survive breast cancer when
it hits while they are young than women who have not had children.
Quite true. I may put it slightly differently though. I'd say genes and
numerous other factors influence breast cancer risk and incidence...
one cannot (as far as I know) isolate a specific factor for causation...
this of course includes abortion, and that is a good warning to me
to ensure I don't give that impression with abortion.
Better nutrition, which means that women hit puberty younger and
younger so that their breasts are exposed to more years of estrogen,
may be a cause. Some have suggested that exposure to electric lights
also triggers early puberty. Others look at electromagnetic forces.
Interesting. (re: artificial lighting, it happens and is exploited
by chicken farmers... why not humans?) And I'm sure you know
this, but I would supplement exposure to environmental
pollution and perhaps growth hormones in that 'better' nutrition
also influencing earlier menarche and pre-adolescent
breast development.
One piece of research studied women who wore a bra all day and found a
12,000% increased risk of breast cancer in these women. One
biological hypothesis here was that bras contain manmade fibers that
collect radon during the manufacturing process, after which the radon
decays and emits gamma radiation all day into a woman's breast. The
two Harvard researchers who proposed this theory used exactly the same
language as abortion opponents do in their letter to the journal Risk
Analysis: "Breast cancer has reached epidemic proportions in the
United States...One has to wonder why this alarming increase in
breast cancer in the past few decades and question whether
unrecognized environmental agents may be at work." ("Radon plateout
on synthetic fibers as a possible risk factor in breast cancer." Risk
Anal 1996 Feb;16(1):1-2.)
I just searched MEDLINE for articles on breast cancer risk factors,
and pulled up 328 articles. Go click on a few of them and you will
get an idea of the number of factors that are studied, the complex
etiology of the disease, and the hopelessness of trying to single out
ONE event as a cause of breast cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m_r
I've used Medline as my primary source for my medical
research... and I am by no means attempting to isolate
abortion as *the* cause for breast cancer. Please don't
prematurely attribute ideas to me. We will have plenty to
debate without that.
And FYI I've recently read 'When Smoke Ran Like Water' by
Devra Davis. It was a good read and certainly made one painfully
aware of how much we don't know, and how much we are recently
finding out about pollution and its effects
on our health, including breast cancer. Where pollutants (some in
hair sprays no less!) and some plastics can mimic the effect of
estrogens.
5. Women perceive a greater risk of breast cancer nowadays because
first, more and more women are living into their 60s, 70s, and 80s,
which is when they get breast cancer, and second, because more and
more breast cancers are being detected. The same is true of prostate
cancer in men. ALL women who live long enough will develop breast
cancer, as all men who live long enough will develop prostate cancer.
The older a person is, the less likely that cancer will be what kills
them. Breast cancer is still rare among young women, media hype and
the occasional celebrity death notwithstanding. The risk of actually
dying of breast cancer is decreasing, because early detection and
better treatment are making survival the norm.
And indeed it is that early and better detection which is
partially responsible for an 'increase' in breast cancer rates.
In fact, many medical experts believe that the overattention to breast
cancer is leading women to ignore the diseases that are actually
likely to kill them, such as lung cancer and heart disease. CHD kills
30% of women, while breast cancer kills only 3%. Eight times as many
women die of lung cancer as of breast cancer. Yet women consistently
list breast cancer ahead of CHD and lung cancer as their biggest
health fear and biggest cancer fear.
Yes, I was aware of that, and finding your article posting on
that subject was very eloquent on the subject. But at the same
time no one would advocate keeping a potential health risk
away from women; misconceptions or not.
---
"Because bias impedes our vision and is subject to sound inquiry, we are far
from reaching a scientific 'limit.' Indeed, after this excursion into the
issue of abortion, bias, and breast cancer, it seems our future has as much
to do with human behavior as with human biology."
- Drs. Weed & Kramer
(1996) J National Cancer Inst. 88(23):1698-700
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
