February 28, 2001
volume 12, no. 59

America's Best Kept Secret Revisited

    Does anyone care that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer? Does anyone care that thousands of women die needlessly every year, because they are not warned by abortion mills prior to having their baby killed? Does anyone care that the Media is silent on this VERY newsworthy story? Does anyone care that the ACS (American Cancer Society) is sitting on its hands with this life saving news?

    The evidence is overwhelming. 13 of 14 studies done in the United States and 27 of 34 worldwide have shown the risk.

    How many times have you heard that cell phones “MAY” increase the risk of getting brain tumors/cancer. The media is constantly warning us of this danger.

    I heard it again on TV yesterday. Dr. George Carlo, who was the former chief scientist for the Cell phone Industry was one of two persons being interviewed. He wrote a book entitled: “Cell Phones -- invisible hazards in the wireless age.”

    He said and I quote, “5 out of 7 studies done on cell phones, showed an increase risk of brain tumors. This against a backdrop of our expectations, when you wouldn't expect to see anything like this in 15 -20 years. The fact that we have 5 studies that show an increased risk of brain tumors is quite alarming.”

    Dr. Carlo then went on to say, “Lab studies clearly shows that radiation from cell phone antennas causes genetic damage to human blood.

    John Boice, who was on the same show said there was NO risk and cited a study that was done in Denmark, which said the link was inconclusive. Remember that name -- “DENMARK.”

    The Media -- TV and newspapers are all over this story -- constantly. Can you blame the them? They are concerned and want people to know that 5 of 7 studies have shown the link. They are concerned about peoples’ welfare. Very commendable, indeed.

    HOWEVER, these same people don’t give a darn that 13 of 14 studies done in the United States and 27 of 34 worldwide have shown the increased risk of breast cancer from abortions.

    Yet they are constantly warning of the risk of cell phones on just FIVE studies.

    I think it’s fine that the Media warns people of the cell phone risk of brain cancer. But why don’t they warn women about the abortion/breast cancer risk? How many studies do they need, that show the risk, when it comes to abortions -- 40, 50, 100. Just how many?

    They jumped at just five studies, when a cancer risk had NOTHING to do with abortions. Ah, there’s the rub -- ABORTIONS.

    In Jefferson City, Mo, a bill was heard this past Wednesday that would require physicians performing abortions to tell patients "of the increased risk of breast cancer associated with the proposed abortion." The notice must come 24 hours before the procedure.

    Kerri McBee-Black of Planned Parenthood of Kansas City testified that the waiting period "places an undue burden" on Missouri women.

    Since an abortion is an elective surgery, I’m still trying to figure out, what that undue burden could possibly be on Missouri women? Could it be that there’s something about Missouri women that I don’t know?

    Remember that word -- DENMARK? At the hearing, it was cited that a study done in Denmark in 1997, showed that cell phones did not put users at a risk for brain tumors/cancers.

    When studies first came out that smokers were placed at a higher risk for lung cancer, that too was debunked. Why do thousands of people have to die, before we finally put politics aside and use just plain common sense?

    What is this love affair that Democrats, (90% are pro-aborts), have with Denmark? The United States has the best scientists in the world and 13 of 14 studies done in our country have shown the abortion/breast cancer risk. They had to look high and wide to find a study that they liked and sure enough, they found it in little Denmark, in whose study claimed that the abortion/breast cancer link was inconclusive. I have to say that the Denmark study was full of flaws and was shredded to pieces by Dr. Joel Brind, the world’s most knowledgeable person on this subject. Click on Dr. Brind for details.

    Lo and behold, the cell phone Industry ALSO found what they wanted to hear in Denmark. How is that for a coincidence? Surely, this has got to tell you something. It reminds you of “hired gun” professionals, who testify in trials. They will say whatever you want to hear -- if the money is right.

    To warn women of an increased risk of breast cancer should be WELCOMED. If they are going to make the most important decision of their lives, shouldn’t they have all the facts? Where was NOW (National Organization of Women)? Aren’t they in the business of looking out for the welfare of women, or are they just a political organization?

    All of this is just more proof that our country has earned the title of, "the culture of death.” In addition to killing 1.4 million unborn babies every year -- 5,000 a year while they are being born and suffer excruciating pain -- now we don’t care if women get breast cancer and die. A very serious accusation -- but TRUE.

    There are people in our society who will bend over backward to hide the truth. All to protect the multimillion dollar abortion industry. They go by the names of liberal Democrats and naturally are backed by Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW.

    The other risks, though not nearly as great as the abortion risk, are exposed because they are not political. This is so sad -- 5000 women will continue to die every year from breast cancer, when it could have easily been avoided. But, such is the state of our nation -- politics over health.

    It's obvious why the lucrative abortion industry will not warn women of this deadly risk prior to an abortion, but why the silence by the ACS and the Media? That is the question.

    Why should the truth be hidden? Let women decide, after they have all the facts, so they can make the proper choice. Or does the word “choice,” which the pro-aborts love, only matter when one wants to have their child killed?

    Why don’t YOU, the readers of this article be the judge, if you are not satisfied that 27 studies worldwide have shown the risk. You don’t have to be a medical doctor, or a scientist to understand the mechanism behind the risk. It’s not that complicated.

    It is estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries, which SURGES, when a pregnancy occurs. This hormone causes the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to lay the foundation for the production of milk. In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous, because this IS the normal physiology of a woman’s body during a pregnancy. This is what our Creator intended.

    However, if a woman has an induced abortion, this protection is terminated. The reason is because the proliferation of the undifferentiated, cancer-vulnerable cells, by the estrogen secreted early in the pregnancy, no longer has the protection that comes from hormones released later in pregnancy, including placental lactogen, because there is NO longer a placenta, because it was removed when the baby was dismembered and removed.

    When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk and are MORE prone to develop cancer.

    In plain English, these insulted cells (traumatized) have been hung out to dry. They are between a rock and a hard place. Scientists have known for years that any cell in the human body that has been traumatized, whether by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma, or any other reason would be especially vulnerable to cancer.

    One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians and scientists heads from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is no longer valid. To suit their political agenda, they would have you believe that an abnormal cell is NO more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell. This defies all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense and shows the depths they will go, to keep the abortion industry flourishing. Human life means nothing to them, whether it be the killing of unborn babies, or women who may die from cancer after they have their unborn babies killed.

    The estrogen/breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many years, thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women, especially those with any family history of breast cancer.

    Manufacturers of oral contraceptives alert the public as to the possible link between their product and breast cancer. The induced abortion risk is greater than the relative risk associated with oral contraceptives.

    According to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511, cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term. Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats, only 5.5% developed breast cancer.

    There you have it. What do you think? Should women be warned prior to an abortion?

    Is it as important as the Media warning people about cell phones, on only FIVE studies? Now, you know more about this subject than most doctors. I even asked two oncologists (doctors who specialize in tumors and cancers) about the ABC link and both said, they had never heard about any studies. How could they -- the AMA, the ACS and the MEDIA - keep it -- “America’s best kept secret'?

    For more details on this subject, click on Abortions-Breast Cancer, on my web site.

Dr. Frank Joseph

For past columns by Dr. Frank, see PRO-LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS Archives

February 28, 2001
volume 12, no. 59
Dr. Frank Joseph's PRO LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS column
Return to Today's Issue