[ad_1]
O n June 26 th The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a crisis of pregnancy. options – including abortion. The 5-to-4 vote put in the bad cancer cell (NHGRI)
While critical information about abortion is misplaced at many of the crisis centers, misinformation is apparently readily available. One popular mantra is that abortion causes bad cancer. It's a claim to be vulnerable to the victim The purpose of deep-dive into studies published in the top medical journals shows it is untrue – But findings of those investigations tend to be shared.
Perpetuating an alternate fact
In 2014, NARAL Pro -Choice sponsored by a recent high school graduate Dania Flores. She visited 43 crisis centers in California, focusing on lower-income areas, and kept a diary of what she was told.
Flores told the THE LAW that workers at all 43 clinics informed her that abortions cause bad cancer. "You're 16 and they're telling you're going to get bad cancer," Flores said. "You do not want to get bad cancer, so you do not do it."
Cancer fear is used as a deterrent. Flores' work and that of others contributed to the pbadage of the 2015 law that the Supreme Court just overturned.
A look back at the medical literature reveals where the idea that abortion causes bad cancer may have arisen. It also shows data – yes, facts – While some of the patients are admitted to the clinic during pregnancy
Origin of the idea
Abortion as a risk factor for bad cancer does make a certain biological sense. During pregnancy, bad cells rapidly diversify and then differentiate (specialize) to elaborate the mammary acorns. Breast cancer occurs during the early proliferative phase, but falls as the cells specialize. Observations in the 17 th century that bad cancer is more prevalent among nuns lead to the idea that pregnancy is actually protective
A study from 1980, "Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. II. Pregnancy interruption as a risk factor in tumor incidence, "may have ignited the abortion-bad cancer link. In it, rats exposed to a carcinogen while pregnant or lactating were less likely to develop bad cancer than rats
If an abortion, spontaneous or otherwise, halts the pregnancy, the hormone-guided proliferating cells are more likely cancer to cause cancerous mutations. But epidemiological evidence argues against this theoretical risk, and is more powerful than the emotional rhetoric that hurts slurs rather than presenting data. Consider "Study proves abortion causes bad cancer, where are the headlines?" From a 2013 article in Catholic Online : "Abortion is not safe, no matter what the militant left tells you. Their propaganda can be slick and refined, their tactics are honed, but they're still wrong. These are the facts: life begins at conception, every abortion kills a baby (hardly the definition of safe), and mothers increase the risk to their life with each procedure. "
The Danish study
The lack of the link is crystal clear in the results of a 1997 study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine "Induced abortion and the risk of bad cancer." The peer-reviewed NEJM is hardly my idea of slick
Tapping data from the National Registry of Induced Abortions and the Danish Cancer Registry, researchers badessed the histories of all 1,529,512 women born in Denmark between 1935 and 1978. Of the women, 280,965 had at least one abortion, and of these , 1,338 women developed bad cancer later. But of the 1,248,547 women who did not have an abortion, 8,908 developed bad cancer – a had abortions. Adjusting for various factors makes the risk about equal. The investigators concluded:
The risk of bad cancer among women with a history of noncompliance with a history of bad cancer. 19659018] A trend emerged, however, when considering the risk of bad cancer by pregnancy when the pregnancy ended (age of the woman did not matter). Although the risk of bad cancer was actually lower than that of women, it was less likely that the risk of bad cancer was higher than that of men. (How are many women doing this?) Only 37, out of the 1,338 women who developed bad cancer of the 280,965 women who had abortions. Do the math.
"The fact that such an increase did not affect the overall result, it was based on small numbers and therefore requires cautious interpretation," the researchers wrote.
In case these stats were not convincing, the NEJM ran an editorial, "Abortion, Breast Cancer, and Epidemiology," by Patricia Hartge, ScD, from the National Cancer Institute. "In short, a woman need not worry about the risk of bad cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy," she wrote. And subsequent large studies in other countries. Planned Parenthood describes these studies in detail
Focus on the small, flawed investigations
The pregnancy crisis clinics dishing out misinformation recall bias, and women intentionally not divulging abortion history because the procedure was illegal when performed. For example, this meta badysis that is combined with the results of several small studies that the Danish researchers are biased and the statistics flawed. Yet the Catholic Online article refers to these small studies, giving the appearance of scientific badysis.
Sometimes the deadly warnings of crisis centers do not even bother with data. For example, nozzles in Philadelphia proclaimed a message from " Christ's Bride Ministries" warning that 'women who choose abortion sufferers and deadlier bad cancer. "That's from 1999 – two years after NEJM study appeared.
Investigations that go forward and track data, rather than relying on women recalling an upsetting event, tell a different story.
"Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: A Prospective Cohort Study, "published in J. AMA Internal Medicine countered the findings of the oft-cited small retrospective studies. And the title of this article in The Lancet reveals it's power: "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative rebadysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with bad cancer from 16 countries." They found no link . The paper explains the generalized and fundamental bias of retrospective studies in women with bad cancer.
(Caveat: Large numbers are more convincing, but bad cancer risk is also a personal matter, Genetics counts I badfed 3 children, which lowers my risk, but my mother had bad cancer, and so do I. 1965, 1965 The official word: ACOG 19659005] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee Opinion, Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk from August 2003 and reaffirmed several times with new data, including in 2018.
This article is based on the badysis of the literature and the literature. hould be the gold standard for delivering information on the non-badociation of abortion and bad cancer. Yet Planned Parenthood offers abundant examples of abortion-bad cancer. Still
The NEJM paper on the 1.5 million women clearly showing a lack of a link between abortion and bad cancer has been known for 21 years. This study was published in the most prominent medical journal.
So I can only conclude that the cherry-picking of flawed studies, or providing information on how to get one, is not an honest misunderstanding of or lack of awareness of the findings of the 1997 study. It is actually much more likely to be a deliberate attempt at a religion-fueled, anti-abortion agenda.
Ricki Lewis is the GLP's senior contributing writer on gene therapy and gene editing. She has a PhD in genetics and is a genetic counselor, science writer and author of The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It, the only popular book about gene therapy. ORGANIC. Follow her at her website or Twitter @rickilewis .
[ad_2]
Source link
