Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
COMMENTARY · 4th June 2011
Merv Ritchie
A new study, being reported in the mainstream media today, is promoting the use of a new drug for women to reduce their risk of breast cancer; citing a 50% reduced risk of breast cancer of women using the drug compared to those using a placebo (a fake pill with no effects). What this study and almost all studies sponsored by drug companies and the Cancer Societies fails to mention is the direct relationship between breast cancer and abortions. This one single factor, (no need for drugs); having a child and not having an abortion has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of breast cancer by an even greater percentage.

This is a basic life cycle issue. All plants and animals have reproductive systems. The use of these systems, the propagation of life, is integral to life itself. Almost all salmon die after they spawn. Some plants die after they go to seed. In humans they same general rule apply. Peer reviewed and published studies show men have an almost 40% reduced risk of prostate cancer as long as they ejaculate frequently, 5 times a week. Same goes for women; get pregnant and have a baby or three. Never, never have an abortion. This is likely the highest risk factor for getting breast cancer. A miscarriage, a natural rejection of the fetus, does not present the same risks. A woman’s natural body functions automatically reverts the breast milk producing cells to their natural state where an induced abortion leaves them in a cancer ready state. Taking the pill throughout a womans early child bearing years and then later having an abortion or even having a child puts the risk up; in unbiased peer reviewed studies, over 50% greater risk of breast cancer. Women keep asking, "Why haven't I been told this before?"

The Canadian Cancer Society as well as all the associated ‘pink and yellow ribbon groups’ raise alarms over a whole range of potential cancer causing products and behaviors. Even factors of only a 5 or 10% increased risk is used to warn the general population. It might not be socially acceptable to advise young and older men to masterbate more frequently; and it certainly isn’t acceptable to the left wing radical feminists to rally against having an abortion, or even forbidding it, but the truth is these simple rules will reduce the profits to the ever increasing drug and cancer treatment industry.

And this is likely why we do not hear this evidence in the mainstream media. Look at their advertising revenue. The drug companies and the Cancer agencies spend many millions, perhaps billions, on advertising. It is these government and private industries that support all the newspaper, TV and radio operations through advertising; as well as ever increasing advertising on the internet. If these mainstream news sources provided the truth they might see a large percentage of their revenue stream cut off.

We find this repugnant and immoral. Hence these companies do not advertise with us. They’d rather see death and destruction than lose a profitable venture.

There are two websites regarding the cause and effects of breast cancer.


There are many news stories on the relationship between prostate cancer and masturbation. A simple google search with these three words is sufficient.

From the USA site we copy the following;

Women have the right to know there are two breast cancer risks associated with abortion. All experts recognize first risk- that abortion denies women an opportunity to reduce their risk for breast cancer through childbearing. Scientists only debate the second risk - known as the "independent link." Eight medical organizations and a bioethics journal recognize the independent link - that abortion leaves a woman with more cancer-vulnerable cells than she had before she became pregnant. An additional medical group, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has called for "full disclosure" of a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and the disease.

Overwhelming evidence of a cause-effect relationship is supported by:
1. A biological explanation which scientists have been unable to disprove and do not challenge.
2. A study on rats.
3. Epidemiological research.

Scientists began extensive research on the abortion-breast cancer link in 1957. Why didn’t the government and cancer fundraising businesses want women to know about the existence of this research? If they cared about women’s health, they would have revealed their research to the public.

According to the "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer (1973-1998)," published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2001, only the youngest of three generations - the Roe v. Wade generation - suffered a more than 40% increase in breast cancer cases since the mid-1980s. These were women young enough to have had access to legal abortions starting in 1973. The increase in breast cancer rates didn’t take place among women from the two older generations that couldn’t obtain legal abortions.

The U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collaborated on the report. Two of the report’s authors had conducted earlier research showing that abortion increases breast cancer risk, but that research and the word "abortion" were omitted from the report. The report’s authors expressed no interest whatsoever in preventing breast cancer. [Howe et al. Jrnl Natl Cancer Inst (June 6, 2001) Vol. 93, No. 11, Figure 3]

Two American women have succeeded in prosecuting their medical malpractice lawsuits against abortion doctors, who failed to warn them about the risks of breast cancer and emotional damage. Neither of the women has yet developed breast cancer.

Post-abortive women are being deprived of a window of opportunity to adopt strategies to reduce their risk for breast cancer, seek early detection, and join clinical trials. They’re denying abortion-bound adolescents and young women their rights to make informed choices about their health care.

The Canadian Cancer Society states the following on this subject:

There are a number of risk factors for developing breast cancer including changes in hormone levels throughout a woman’s life. Levels of hormones can change a great deal during pregnancy.

When a woman is pregnant, her body begins to prepare for breast feeding by altering the levels of hormones. This causes changes to breast tissue. Concern about a possible link between abortion and breast cancer has been raised because it is thought to interrupt the normal cycle of hormones during pregnancy.
The Canadian Cancer Society’s perspective
At the present time, the body of scientific evidence does not support an association between abortion and increased breast cancer risk.

We base this perspective on the findings from a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The workshop was organized by the US National Cancer Institute and it took place in 2003. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk.

Among their conclusions were:

• induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk

• spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk

The Canadian Cancer Society is committed to conveying important information about breast cancer risk to Canadian women. We will continue to closely monitor high-quality, peer-reviewed research findings about this topic and will update our information if warranted.