Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« As we worry about Iran's nuclear program, the mullahs are killing Americans in Iraq | Main | Picnic at Tora Bora! »

Monday, October 30, 2006

Mayo spreads the news

The Mayo Clinic has finally gotten around to publishing a news release about the groundbreaking article it published a few weeks ago about the link between breast cancer and birth-control pills. I'll be interested in seeing how the mainstream media, now duly alerted, cover this important medical news.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 30, 2006 in Science | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mayo spreads the news:


It's all a conspiracy by the left and the islamofascists to eradicate the white race. First no kids, and kill then them off with cancer.
Of course MSM would not want to spoil such a grand plan.

Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-30 4:27:27 PM

The tragic thing about this "news release" is that it's not "news" at all--or, rather, it's very old news.

Scientists, doctors, and many health care professionals have known about the connection between the birth control pill and breast cancer for years, but because of the powerful feminist lobby--which considers contraception and abortion as main planks of their agenda for women's equality--and the gazillion$ of dollar$ the pharmaceutical companies make from the birth control pill AND from cancer medications, this connection has been hushed up. Scientists who have "dared" to write about this connection have had their research and studies questioned and disregarded for years.

Another connection which has been deep-sixed for almost 25 years is that between abortion and breast cancer (http://members.aol.com/DFjoseph/daling.html).

Elizabeth Daling, in 1994, a research epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Institute in Seattle published a study, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, revealing that women who underwent an induced abortion had a 50% greater chance of developing breast cancer than matched control women who had not previously aborted.

Joel Brind, in 1997 a professor of endoctrinology at Baruch College, University of New York, conducted a meta-analysis of all epidemiological studies that showed a positive relationship between abortion and breast cancer, the results of which were published in The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.'

Both Brind and Daling's findings were attacked and denied by many in the medical and scientific community. But in 2000, Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published Evidence-based Guideline No. 7: The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion. It said of Brind's meta-analysis that it was "carefully conducted...and that [it] had no major methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded."

A thorough study of these findings can be found in the Canadian publication "Women's Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence" by Elizabeth Ring-Cassiday and Ian Gentles, available at www.deveber.org

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-30 4:27:41 PM

The tragedy, of course, is that the very groups which insist on "choice" for women, have denied women all of the available information about the effects on their health of the birth control pill and abortions.

The only way for women to have genuine "choice" about their reproductive health is to be fully informed of the side-effects of various contraceptive mehtods and induced abortions.

Up to now this hasn't happened, and we have an epidemic of breast cancer in Canada.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-30 4:34:38 PM


Nothing wrong with choice, as opposed to “choice''.

I'm pro-choice in all aspects, as in, once a person thinks through an issue, then he is better equipped to make a choice.

I believe any pro-choice person is a stronger person because the decision they make is based on many choices.

I am against all state monopolies, such as our health care system, especially when it must be staffed with union labour.

After the choice is made, the responsibility for any cost down the road then lies with the person making that choice.

If a person makes a decision without looking at all the choices and consequences, shame on them.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-30 5:17:12 PM

SYF: It's not so much "shame on them" but shame on the health care professionals who have known about the connection between the pill and cancer and abortion and cancer and yet have chosen to deep-six their knowledge and not pass it on to their patients.

I found out about all of these connections because I have two daughters and realized that what I was hearing in the MSM and from feminist health care "professionals" didn't tell the whole story.

"Choice" means that you have all of the available information given to you. Women can have abortions, unlike any other surgical procedure, without having to be told the possible medical side effects. No other surgical procedure can proceed without the patient saying that they have read, understood, and accept the possible known outcomes--and then have signed a release. These are not requirements when a woman has an abortion.

I wonder why not. And the feminists who say they support choice for women have been mum about this (sorry for the deeply ironic pun).

The link I have given seems not to be working. If you want to read more about this, Google (hmmm...could that be the problem?...) Janet Daling--my apologies; the scientist is JANET DALING NOT ELIZABETH DALING--or Joel Brind.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-30 5:23:41 PM

I'm a breast cancer survivor, and I used the pill briefly years and years ago....my mother had breast cancer, and never used the pill.....

What people don't know, or choose to not know, is that there are many many different kinds of breast cancer.....and yes, mine and my mother's was estrogen dependent....I just don't think anyone knows what causes it...:-)

Posted by: anonymous | 2006-10-30 7:23:51 PM

hmm, our country is filling up with old people, and the pill as safe turns out to be a lie. kind of makes you think, doesnt it about the truth behind christian teachings in the bible. oh well that kind of thinking is silly of course.

Posted by: john.a | 2006-10-30 10:09:01 PM

If sex had consequences again - immediate, obvious consequences like pregnancy - just imagine the possible public health improvements. Cervical cancers, breast cancers, AIDS, syphillis, infertility etc. etc. - would all be reduced tremendously. But that's not politically correct and babies can be vacuumed away anyway...

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-10-30 10:16:45 PM

john a.

The state has no place in the bedrooms of our nation.

Ol' Pierre was right about few things, but he was absolutely correct about that, wasn't he?

When the church and state meld and the state takes a superior position through its power to enact laws, what happens to the moral compass?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-30 10:29:27 PM

john a: There's a vast difference between Biblical truths, the wisdom of which have been time-tested and public health (sic) lies told for profit.

For instance, if followed, the Biblical exhortation for a man to cling to his wife, while forsaking all other sexual involvements, reduces to just about zilch any possibility of either the man or the woman contracting an STD or getting a sexually-transmitted cancer.

Now, that's my kind of truth.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-31 6:55:21 AM

Glad to see the Shotgun crowd has decided to read a few scientific studies and actually accept that the results might be valid. Does this mean you'll admit that climate change is real and caused by humans, or do you only like to accept results that reduce women's sexual agency?

Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2006-10-31 8:55:59 AM


Climate change is real.

The degree to which promoters of human collective guilt apportion human causes to the natural changes is unreal.

Science means knowledge and before science was known as science, the first pratictioners were religious figures such as Abraham, who sought universal truths.

There is no contradiction between science and religion ... it is one and the same.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-31 9:18:52 AM

I was in the medical field for years, even before the pill, and noticed that after the pill became a common household name, the incidence of breast cancer increased among women. Not all women who had breast cancer used the pill, but a great number who used the pill are breast cancer victims or survivors today.

Posted by: Freedom of speech | 2006-10-31 11:58:11 AM

Thanks to the Mayo clinic for spreading the news. I worked in a cancer institute for many years, and know how difficult it is to get the word out over the objections of the big drug companies, when it involves some of their best sellers and money makers.

Posted by: Freedom of speech | 2006-10-31 12:01:11 PM

"Glad to see the Shotgun crowd has decided to read a few scientific studies and actually accept that the results might be valid. Does this mean you'll admit that climate change is real and caused by humans, or do you only like to accept results that reduce women's sexual agency?"

global warming denier
= holocaust denier
= evolution denier
= murderer of Africans

and now we find a connection to cancer and the pill.

Global warming! Is there anything it can't do?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-31 3:30:57 PM

been around the block,

Correlation does not mean causation. It is also a correlation that women who have abortions tend to be of the higher risk people in society. Higher risk individuals tend to be less inclined to be healthy, smoke, drink, and do other things. It is also known that women who are poor, less nutrition, and also living in more pol;luted areas, have a higher rate of abortions per capita. Also, people who can afford to live in places where there is cleaner air, and better employment, tend to have their own houses, and keep their own children rather than abort them. Although you point out correlations, if you actually place a plug in the system on abortions, rather than try to reduce as much as possible, through education and adoption options, and my favorite, birthright, all you do is open the door to people, dumb as it is, to go for dangerous illegal abortions, or worse, use coat-hangers. That is after all, what they used to do before medically supervised abortions where available.

Although I am not pro-abortion, and never had one, nor will I ever, I do not see this as a social issue as much as I see it as an economic issue. The solution to women seeking birth control or abortion is in education and ensuring women have adequate incomes. In Alberta the birth rate has gone up, because the economy is so good, and they are feeling support. You want to save babies, then don't do that ban this, ban that thing. That is what leftists do. Rather than that, develop better policies, education and support mechanisms, and do wealth development. The babies lives will be saved in the process. And the women in the groups, will reduce their high risk behaviour as well.

Also, it is not all birthcontrol that increases the risk of cancer. Just the stuff that has been concentrated from horse urine.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-10-31 4:52:05 PM

Lady's comments about my posts puzzle me.

I dont recall, in any of my previous posts, suggesting a ban on anything. I made no claims, pro- or anti-abortion. I merely reported the scientific and medical facts about the relationship of taking the pill and undergoing an abortion procedure to the increasing incidence of cancer in North American women.

I also made the point that, even in 2006 in Canada, there is no such thing as "informed consent" for women having abortions. They are not told of the many possible negative side effects of either the pill or having an abortion, which means that they are not making informed decisions about their choice to do either.

Women's not being informed disturbs me, especially as this lack of information seems to be the result of the biases of the feminist lobby, which considers so-called "freedom of choice" for women to be a sacred cow, and the greed of the giant pharmaceutical conglommerates, which want to make as much profit as they can--even at the expense of women's health and lives.

The feminists are arch-hypocrites for championing "choice," while at the same time suppressing the alarming statistics about epidemic rates of both breast and cervical cancers, many of which are directly related to birth control pills and abortions. Certainly, not all women with breast cancer or cervical cancer have used the pill or had an abortion, but it's hard to argue the point that Freedom of Speech makes above, that "after the pill became a common household name, the incidence of breast cancer increased among women."

As for Lady's comment "it is not all birthcontrol that increases the risk of cancer": It appears from the research that it is the surfeit of estrogen in a woman's body that causes, or at least increases the risk of, cancer.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-31 5:34:40 PM

been around the block,

I understand your tone and view, but to me it appears that you are mixing up two matters.

Informed concent is different from informed decision or choice.

In relation to birth control pills, the dangers are explicit with the pills. Every pill package comes with the total list of all risks. That a person does not consider some of the risks to be important, or as important as preventing conception, is a matter that is separate from the 20:20 vision, when the women gets cancer and searches for the source of her cancer. The same effect is apparent in those who are young and smoke, who later get lung cancer. When they were young, they were immortals, who flaunted with risks.

But when they got older, and wiser, and sick with cancer, suddenly the matter takes on an entirely different round of values. When death is imminent, there is for some, regret. And no one denies the truth that some of the saddest words are: "If I only had..."

A friend of mine held the hand of a teen-age girl as she died from AIDS. I can only imagine what she might have felt.

Not all women choose to use the pill, however it is an option amongst many others. Women have been controlling their birth rate for thousands of years, with various methods and for different reasons. Although you say it is the nasty feminists who are behind their choice, the reality of this is it is up to women. And changeing laws does not change that fact.

I want to strongly stress the point that women have children when they have the support to do so. Women tend, amongst other reasons, to abort or prevent conception when it is not safe to do so.

One of these most urgent issues facing our young women today, and their unborn babies, is crystal meth. and addiction. What a sad world we live in where women are doing that to their unborn babies.

In relation to abortion, the correlation is not anything but a correlation, and this is the scientific view of the matter. Just because something is correlated, does not mean it is causation. Sometimes it is, but in relation to the broad matter of cancer, and the 1,000's of causes, genetic, environment etc..., it is too soon to say that abortion causes cancer. There are many women who have D & C, which is the same as the procedure used in most abortions. I am interested in knowing what the rate of cancer would be for that group of women, with the removal of those who had abortions, from those who just had D & C. This would give abetter indicator as to whether it is the procedure or the life-styles that are at the root of the problem. My guess, it is the life-styles.

However, there are many problems associated directly with abortion, and that are known. One of the biggest, is the death of an unborn baby. The mental legacy of that choice is problematic for some, but not all women who choose. It is known that women who use abortion as a means of birth control, are also typically women who take risks, who do not take the kind of care of themselves that they ought to, and who therefore are expossed to more of the known factors that actually cause cancer. It is no coincidence that women who are insensitive to their unborn are also insensitive to themselves, in relation to these risks. Education and wealth development, I feel, is key to reducing the risks, and saving the lives of babies.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-11-01 1:10:37 PM


I appreciate much of what you say in your most recent post. I agree that being pro-life means much more than merely being anti-abortion. My family has taken a young pregnant girl into our home, to give her the support she needed when there was no other place for her to go.

As to your saying that "it is too soon to say that abortion causes cancer," that actually is not the case. The research done by Dr. Janet Daling and the meta-analysis conducted by Dr. Joel Brind (see above) have conclusively proven that a woman's chances of getting cancer after an abortion, especially if she has never had a child, are quite a bit higher than a woman who has not had an abortion. (Their studies took into account other risk factors.) Again, that doesn't mean that all women who have had abortions will get cancer, but they are at higher risk.

As for D & Cs, I suspect they would afford the same risk as an abortion, because the cancer-causing agent is the estrogen that floods a woman's breasts at conception. (Some women, my sister being one of them, could tell the day after conception that she was pregnant, because her breasts were hyper-sensitive.)

If the woman miscarries, the brain signals the body to dry up the estrogen. (Sorry, that's not put scientifically, but it's essentially what happens in plain English.) An abortion, or a D & C, however, being a surgical procedure, sends no such message to the body, leaving the woman's breasts with a surfeit of estrogen, a known carcinogen. That's the main problem.

The reason I suggest that feminism is implicated in the now epidemic incidence of breast cancer in women is because rather than encourage young women, as families and societies have done for centuries, to save sexual activity for marriage, they lustily and heartily endorsed pre- and extra-marital sex, relying heavily on "the pill" to sexually free up women.

When it became quite clear, as early as the beginning of the 1990s, that "the pill" and abortion were quite likely responsible for a higher risk of breast cancer, did the feminists alert women to the risks?

No. They attacked the findings of scientists like Daling and Brind, accusing them of being "pro-life," a label both of them deny. They both insist that they are neutral, but from a scientific viewpoint were compelled to publish their findings out of concern for the health and well-being of women.

As the mother of two daughters, I too am concerned, and have done everything in my power to make sure that they and their friends are aware of the risk factors of oral contraceptives and abortion.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-01 2:03:21 PM

been around the block,

Again, the interpretation of the science is flawed here. Just because you can measure a specific group, that has undergone a procedure does not mean you can conclude causation.

You can also not conclude that D & C is the same.

You did highlight the known fact that high risk behaviour does mean a person will expose themselves to high risk carcinogens and pathogens that have been correlated with higher incidences of cancer.

Some, have been directly associated, and are known to have direct causation. An example of that is the genital wart virus which is a pathogen known to cause cervical cancer. Has nothing to do with estrogen whatsoever. Has everything to do with exposure to the virus.

Something that has been known for some time, is that the rate of unwanted pregnancies is higher in groups of young women, where the mother and father hold traditional views. It is known that the young women are the least likely to have protection in the form of condoms, as they carry guilt around with them, about their bodies and what can happen. They are more likely to have abortions, because they want to hide the fact that they got pregnant, from their parents. Why? Because of the social condemnation that they would experience, if their families found out.

So, even though you can tell your daughters about the correlations that you have found, and your belief system, you would be well advised to either give them both chastity belts, (or permanent body condomes), and throw away the key, or tell them that if they did get pregnant, that you would embrace them, and help them give their baby up for adoption, should they not be in a situation to raise the child themselves. And, never ever let your daughters fall into a high risk lifestyle. That, more than anything else, is a greater danger to them, than any discusion on birthcontrol or abortion might be.

Having said that, I am still a birthright kind of person.

Furthermore, when women go through abortions, many actually experience their milk coming in, as if they actually gave birth. Many are given a drug to suppress the milk production. It is the same drug that is given to women who choose not to breast feed their babies (although it is better to do what G-d intended). And, many women who go through abortions, do so because they have taken illegal drugs when they got pregnant. They choose not to carry a child that may have permanent birth defects. They openly admit to living a dangerous lifestyle. And that, dear been-around-the-block, is critical that we as a society address. It is absolutely tragic that so many young people today, purposely take drugs, to make themselves feel good. We are truly failing our young people, if that is what they conclude they must do to feel good about themselves.

As for estrogen causing cancer, the issue of estrogen exists in relation to cancer of cells that are influenced by estrogen in the first place, such as breast cancer. Estrogen suppression in women who have breast cancer, is a successful treatment, that delays the progress of breast cancer. Estrogen does not cause breast cancer. It is implicated after the fact.

Interestingly enough, men who have testicular cancer, benefit from testosterone suppression. Many get frustrated as one of the symptoms in some men (see fight club movie for an example) is they develop breasts. In both situations, it is not the hormone that causes the cancer. The cancer occurs in the cells that respond to the sex hormone, yet the problem only exists for those who have cancer of those cells in the first place.

Case in point is that all men and women have sex hormones, and yet only a percentage benefit from the suppression of sex hormones after they have been diagnosed with cancer of cells that respond to sex hormones. If the suppression of sex hormones was the solution, if it were the cause, then sex hormone suppression would make sense, as no one would get the cancer that relates to the cells that respond to sex hormones. It is clear, that this is simply not the case, even though women with particular genetic markers and known breast cancer in their families, have the option of doing estrogen suppression as a prevention. Estrogen, like the gun, does not kill people. Cancer does.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-11-02 12:42:39 PM


I do wish you'd cease and desist from sitting on your high horse from which you dole out condescending advice: "you would be well advised to either give them [my daughters] both chastity belts, (or permanent body condomes)." Very insulting, thanks very much.

I have already told my daughters that should they ever become pregnant outside of marriage, they will have their father's and my full support to see their pregnancy through to completion.

At least if my daughters were to contract an STD or become pregnant in an "unwanted" situation, they won't be able to say that I never told them about the risks. There are multi-risks, aside from cancer, that women who have had abortions experience.

I rest my case.

BTW, do you have children? If so, do you have a daughter or daughters? What have you told them about having sex, and about abortions and STDS?

'Just wondering...

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-03 6:15:27 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.