August 14, 2013 (NRLC) – Some epidemic diseases are caused by bacteria, the smallest of living things. Some are caused by viruses: rogue bits of DNA or RNA; non-living, but nonetheless infectious bits of destructive information. We are all familiar now, of course, with computer viruses that act in the same way.
Breast cancer, on the other hand, is one of those “epidemic” diseases believed not to be infectious. But infectious bits of destructive information are viruses indeed, and they don’t need computers to be carriers. The bad information can be in any language.
Suppose one were to introduce cigarettes to a population that had never smoked, along with the instruction: “Smoking cigarettes is not harmful to your health.” That sentence, embodying false and destructive information, would—just like a molecular virus—surely cause an epidemic of lung cancer in due time, would it not?
Here’s another example: “Abortion does not increase your breast cancer risk.” This particular strain of the “safe abortion virus” can be traced back to at least 1982 in Oxford, England, and it has now spread worldwide.
The awful news is it is now poised to claim the lives of millions of women in the world’s most populous nations. Let me explain why.
The ABC link essentially has two prongs. First, it is universally accepted that having a child decreases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, because the maturation of the cells in the breast into milk-producing cells renders them less susceptible to becoming cancerous
Second, pregnancy hugely increases the number of breast cells vulnerable to cancer. A live birth provides enough time for these “progenitor cells” to differentiate into more mature, more cancer-resistant cells.
Therefore, abortion leaves a woman’s breasts with more places for cancer to start than were there before the pregnancy began.
This latest study has the dubious distinction of showing by far the strongest ABC link ever observed: Women in Bangladesh who had an abortion were found to have a 20-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer!
Why such a high relative risk? That’s because almost all women in Bangladesh get married and start having children before they are 21, and breast-feed all their children as well. Consequently, breast cancer has been almost unheard of in Bangladesh, until recently. 
Even a very conservative estimate results in some deeply troubling numbers for the world’s most populous nations. If abortion doubles a woman’s breast cancer from say, 2% to 4% lifetime risk that would add 2% lifetime risk. There are over a billion women in India and China alone. Two percent of a billion is 20 million! With a mortality rate of 50% (It’s a lot higher in Asia than in the US), that makes 10 million women dying of breast cancer because they chose abortion!
Numbers like that are daunting enough to get the attention of top researchers at Harvard, who, 5 years ago in the flagship journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) acknowledged: “China is on the cusp of a breast cancer epidemic”. Of course they do not mention abortion. Instead they lament, “some risk factors associated with economic development are largely unavoidable” and call “for urgent incorporation of this disease in future healthcare infrastructure planning.” That mainly means mammograms and treatment facilities, not stopping the “virus” (denying the link between having an induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer) that spreads the “safe abortion” myth.
Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!
That the “virus” continues to be spread is evidenced by a ABC denial study from Denmark just published this past April. Christina Braüner and colleagues, published their finding:”Our study did not show evidence of an association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk.”
This is not surprising because the way the study was constructed it was incapable of showing whether that is true or not. Specifically, they took a highly selected group of Danish women who were healthy until at least age 50 and only looked at their medical history for about 12 years after they joined the study.
Hence, even an average woman in the Danish population who’d had an abortion, would had to have survived cancer-free for almost 3 decades before even being eligible for the study! On top of that exclusion of most of the vulnerable population, they further restricted the study to only women who had at least one child, thus eliminating the women most at risk (since not having children is a strong risk factor for breast cancer).
One wonders when the world will finally wake to the unfolding breast cancer pandemic beginning to unfold before our eyes. The power of denial “viruses” continues to amaze.
 Relative risk measures in the other Asian studies have been a bit more like those more commonly observed, e.g., 3.4-fold in Sri Lanka, 2.4 and 2.1 in two Chinese studies, 1.9 in an Indian study, 1.6 in an Iranian study and 1.3 in a Turkish study. (A relative risk greater than 1 indicates increased risk, e.g., 1.3 means 30% greater risk, 3.4 means 240% increased risk, etc..
The variation is great from county to country because the measure is relative, i.e., it depends on how common the disease is if abortion were not a factor. So in the Western world, the average is about 1.3 (a 30% increased risk), whereas it is more like 2 in Asia, where lifetime breast cancer risk is typically less than 2% if abortion were not a factor.
Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a professor of Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York. He is a co-founder and Board Member of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, having conducted ABC-link research since 1992, and a long-time contributor to NRL News.
Reprinted with permssion from NRLC