Huffington Post article by Dr. Weiss

Interesting - the most recent date listed in the "research" is 2002 - 4 years prior to the scientific study that showed there is no connection between abortion and breast cancer.  Some people are just so misinformed and so reliant on "sham" information, they just won't give it up.  Ignorance is such a sad thing....

She'll be back.....don't worry!

She (or they) always say they're leaving and they, alas, never keep their word.

They just disappear to make up a new name. Some people are so small minded that once they find the information that matches what they believe, they stop reading!!! Duh!

 Just because we know of factors, they have been mentioned and they perhaps touched us does not make us to blame..  We wouldn't win a logic contest here in this thread.

Rubyeye, I think you and your unwanted preachy comments are a risk factor for breast cancer. You cause us great annoyance which affects our mental health and therefore maybe our physical health. Please go away and find your self some other fanaticals who agree with you. You can form your own cabal. Just go away from here.

2tzus, I guess you didn't see my comment from yesterday?

The 2009 paper does not have new information about a link between BC and induced abortion -- the authors simply cite their own 2002 paper.

What I wrote yesterday:

"2tzus,

Just to clarify, the first and second articles you linked to both analyze the same cohort, assembled between 1990 and 1992 in the Seattle area, with BC cases occuring from 1983 to 1990.  What is new about the second paper (published in 2009) is that the authors went back and looked at ER, PR and HER2 status in all those cases (because that information was not available at the time of their original paper, the first article you linked to).  The information about abortion cited in the second paper is FROM the first paper (2002), which the authors themselves state.  That's probably why the authors didn't say anything about abortion in the abstract, or in the Discussion/Conclusions of the body of the paper."

I agree with Esti.   Dr.  Weiss has my respect and well wishes.   Risk factors are just that - risk factors, nothing more.  

2tzus: The point you are missing is that you tried to present data from 2002 as being from 2009.  This is a very sore point with me - the dissemination of unproven theories as fact to push a political agenda.  They are trying to legally require in a Midwestern state that doctors must present this misinformation to women who are in the sorry position of trying to make a decision about whether or not to continue with a pregnancy.  It would be best if there never were the need for abortions, but face it, it is a fact of life in the United States and the constant attempts to make this most personal decision a matter of public policy is just plain heinous.  The whole reason for the 2006 study was to end this and clearly it has not. 

As far as Rubyeye is concerned, she does nothing but try to stir up anger - if you say the sky is blue, if she doesn't like you, she will insist that there is a study that came out in 1955 that proves the sky is green.  That is the reason she was invited to leave, not because of what she presented, but because her only goal is to incite and anger.

I guess the truth hurts.  But it also sets you free

Did anyone notice that there have been over 50 studies linking BC to abortion ?  You are iting old studies.  Doesn't it anger you that there wre studies inthe late 50's and it was hidden ??

Your anger should be toward BCO, they are not giving you accurate information!  I would imagine for the same reason Susan Komen does not.  Because the receive monies from Planned Parenthood the largest provider of abortions

Those of you just coming by here to criticize me.  WHY DON'T YOU GIVE IT A REST ?  You contribute nothing except tying to put me down.  You are all bullies - bully someone else for a change

If I can help one woman's daughter from going through BC, then my posts are worth it to me

See - I said she would quote something from the 50's. 

I said over 50 studies, beginning in the late 50's  I see this as the same type of cover up the tobacco industry pulled off.   Lives could have been saved.  But money talks

My point is not to stir up trouble

Athena, you have a great sense of humor As many of you predicted, she continues to try to stir up trouble and continues to demonstrate her lack of character and lack of knowledge. She is even now denying what she wrote. I guess, Rubyeye, you are good for a laugh

There are a lot of studies out there that don't amount to a hill of beans........and I'm not talking breast cancer here.  I've read studies on breast cancer, thyroid cancer and parkinson's that are at odds with each other for each respective disease.  So citing a study does not mean that study is correct, or true.

Blue...you cracked me up with the "told you" comment! Love it!