I’ll admit, I often say “conspiracy theory” without actually meaning it. But after doing more and more research, I’m really beginning to wonder…
Many people know the abortion/breast cancer link, but for those that don’t I’ll elaborate.
Years ago, the government marked estrogen as a known carcinogen (something that can cause cancer). When a women gets pregnant her body starts to produce massive amounts of estrogen. It’s what makes the skin pretty and hair shiny and also what makes the boobs bigger. This is because it causes the tissue in the breast to increase/multiply. It does this in order to breastfeed (sorry, I’m no scientist and can’t describe the exact event). Anywho, in the 3rd trimester your hormones start to change again and the cause the increased breast tissue to change again (for breastfeeding purposes) which leaves the cells less likely to develop into breast cancer.
Well, in abortion, you cut off that process. You never are allowed to get to the last trimester where those cells are made “safer” or “less carcinogenic”. Therefore you are left with an increase in carcinogenic breast cells. Now miscarriage does not show to do this, because generally that hormone was lacking in the first place. But pre-term babies (before 32 weeks) have shown an increase.
Studies done over several decades have noted this risk and firmly stand beside their findings that abortion greatly raises a women’s risk. In fact, 8 research facilities from around the world are 100% convinced that abortion causes an increase risk of breast cancer anywhere from 30-200% depending on certain variables (age, race, how far along, etc).
99% of scientists will admit that pre-term babies will put you at risk. But many of those same scientists will feverishly deny that abortion does any such thing. Contradiction?
Some other studies, that have remained unpublished have been done by some leading cancer research facilities that have said that abortion causes NO such risk. Note, these are unpublished. Also note that the same research facilities that did these studies have “leaders” that were former members of the abortion industry.
Now, there is a huge problem with that last statement. Cancer researchers and their board are not suppose to have any “conflict of interests”. It’s a major no-no, especially when being funded by tax-payers dollars. Wouldn’t former abortion industry members, on any level from rights-activists to the doctors that perform them, be a huge conflict of interest? Especially if certain studies were true?
Some coalitions that fight for more research, more information and more public knowledge have openly and repeatedly challenged several of these non-believing research facilities to a public debate – the “breast cancer link” vs. the “it’s a sham” side; the numerous published, well-documented and substantiated studies vs. the few unpublished studies performed by cancer groups currently run by former abortion industry members. What was there response? Silence.
One cancer research group (National Breast Cancer coalition fund) openly gave one coalition a “Golden Boob Award”. Now, I was shocked and a little offended by this. In the words of the awarded coalition, isn’t that equivalent to a childhood leukemia group giving a “Little Baldy Award”? Harsh, huh?
So, me being forthcoming and a tad bit confrontational, I emailed them asking them first, why they wouldn’t debate and second, why they had such a crass award. Here was their response:
Thank you for your recent message regarding the nomination of the Abortion/Breast Cancer Coalition (ABC)for the National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund’s Golden Boob award. They were nominated because they are promoting a message that has been definitely declared false after extensive study by the National Cancer Institute. If you would like to read the NCI report, please use this link:
The purpose of the Golden Boob is to bring information that is harmful to women’s health and our mission to end breast cancer to the public’s attention. ABC’s materials fall into that category.
Sincerely, The National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund
Hmm, that didn’t answer my question of debate at all…And how come if ONLY ONE group (NCI) did a study that showed the info to be false and many, many more have done studies showing it to be true did they side with that ONE STUDY? That one study done by a group that used to work in the abortion industry?
AND, how is this information “harmful to a women’s health”. How is not getting an abortion harmful?
Now I’m going to step out on a limb and say I can possibly see how it is harmful to the NBCC’s mission. I think it could be harmful it the public found out that the info was even remotely true or was improperly or under studied and that they found out they they were funding an organization that would not even look into it further than ONE STUDY, an organization that is being run by people that support or are being supported by abortion groups. That is certainly harmful to the NBCC.
Here’s something else to support my “theory”:
A journal known as Nature in June 2005, anonymously polled thousands of NIH (national institute of health) funded scientists. 20% of them admitted to participating in scientific misbehaviors in the last three years. 20%!!! If 20% will anonymously admit it, how many more wouldn’t admit it at all?
What about the Los Angeles times reporting some NIH scientists are moonlighting for pharmaceutical companies? How are these scientists maintaining objectivity in their studies when they are moonlighting or have questionable pasts?
Like I said, I usually don’t mean it when I say “conspiracy theory” but this time, I do.
And in the spirit of education, I encourage everyone to do their own research. www.abortionbreastcancer.com is FULL of info as well as the studies, who they were done by and even some slides showing the tissues, etc.