If you missed Part I last week, read it here.
In the past lesson we saw that the hormones estrogen and progesterone are responsible for normal breast development in an adolescent girl’s menstrual cycles. Birth control pills have extremely high levels of these hormones which mimic the elevated levels of the hormones during pregnancy. In either case, the breasts are stimulated to develop numerous extra cancer-prone Type-1 and Type-2 lobules with doubling of the number of ductules on each lobule. Today we consider the mechanism (we love that word in biology), or how, these situations give rise to cancers.
In past lessons we covered mitosis. During mitosis, DNA is replicated. When this happens, errors in DNA synthesis occur. Sometimes the errors escape the notice of a proofreading molecule that corrects these errors. When the repair crews come in they can make mistakes which lead to permanent mutation. If such a mutation occurs in certain cancer-causing genes, as illustrated in the diagram to he left, that cell is in danger of becoming cancerous.
Type-1 and Type-2 cells have greater numbers of receptors to bind estrogen and progesterone, which precipitates the DNA synthesis. The more these cells are stimulated, the greater the chance that the requisite number of mutations in a cell will be reached leading to cancer, as shown below right.
The conversion of 85% of these cells to cancer-resistant Type-4 cells at the end of a first full term pregnancy (FFTP) is the good news of pregnancy. The younger a woman is when she has a FFTP, the less cancer-prone cells she has developed over time. One Harvard study puts the risk of breast cancer at 3.5% elevation per year after the age of 24 until a woman has a FFTP. After a FFTP, the number of Type-4 cells produced from the remaining 15% of Type-1 and Type-2 cells increases.
Women add substantially to their risks when they delay FFTP, take oral contraceptives and/or have induced abortions, as these leave the breasts with an ever-increasing number of cancer-prone cells over a greater period of time in which cancer can develop.
Again, miscarriages are the exception to this rule, as it is precisely the lack of elevated estrogen and progesterone that led to the miscarriage.
Next time: Lies, damned lies, and more damned lies (from pro-choice hacks in lab coats).
Illustrations from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
Coming Home 
It would seem that the best measure to prevent breast cancer is for a woman to have a child as soon as possible after puberty. This, of course, raises a host of social problems, including emotional immaturity, economic unreadiness, the fact that it is much easier to have a love affair and get pregnant than to pick a suitable mate for life-long monogamous marriage.
I infer that abstinence poses relatively low risk for the first few years — but is there specific information on this point?
Also, its not clear exactly what the impact of oral contraceptives is — they mimic pregnancy, but not well enough? It does appear that different mechanisms for contraception should be developed, which do not pose the same risks. Or, perhaps after two or three children, men should get vasectomies so that their wives don’t need to take oral contraceptives.
And — someone will accuse me of being sarcastic, but I’m just trying to look at ALL the implications — it seems that some remedial treatment might be developed for women who remain single, including religious orders which practice chastity, but certainly not limited to that specific reason. Any woman who has never had a pregnancy, even if she never uses contraception and never has an abortion, would seem to be at risk.
Of course, you also have a lower risk of breast cancer for every year that you nurse a baby.
Besides the chemical ties between oral contraception, abortion, and breast cancer, there are also ties between the use of contraception and abortion outside of marriage and cervical cancer. A woman’s cervix isn’t mature until her early twenties and having multiple partners (encouraged by the contraceptive mentality) before the cervix forms a thicker protective layer naturally can then introduce bacteria and viruses that mutate the immature cervical cells.
“Or, perhaps after two or three children, men should get vasectomies so that their wives don’t need to take oral contraceptives.”
I don’t believe the solution is now to ask men to mutilate themselves.
Haven’t we done enough damage already by neutering, maiming and defeminizing women through the use of contraceptives and abortion?
Let’s find solutions that respect the inherent dignity of both men and women.
I’m wondering WHY you would want to limit families to just two or three children?
My sister is way ahead of the game. She nursed both her children until they were four. Of course, that may not be for every woman. Like any life choice, it has some benefits and some drawbacks.
I don’t presently have occasion to seek a vasectomy, but I would cheerfully have one if the occasion arose. It is neither mutilating nor neutering. One does have to be certain that one won’t decide in three years to have more children for one reason or another. At present, it would be unfair for me to father a child, considering that when it reached the age of 18, in need of strong, energetic, well-balanced, compassionate, parental guidance — a very difficult combination when the child is almost your size — I would be 74. I could be a good grandfather at that age, but not a good father.
Reasons for limiting families to just two or three children? First, it is no longer the case that half the children women bear will die before growing to maturity, and it was on average literally true up to one hundred years ago. So, its not a bad idea to limit the number born. That may not be your choice, and you don’t have to follow anyone else’s idea. But for couples who do choose to limit the number of children, it should be done in ways which limit exposure to breast cancer. No reason a man shouldn’t make an effort to protect the love of his life.
Second, in an urban economy, it can be much more difficult to raise a large number of children, although some do so quite well. It was a little different when more hands on the farm brought in more food from an early age.
Meantime, I’m worried about the women who elect to remain single, whether due to a religious vocation, or because they have no desire for a man in their life, or because the available men are a bunch of jerks. We should find ways to help reduce their risk of breast cancer too.
“Reasons for limiting families to just two or three children? First, it is no longer the case that half the children women bear will die before growing to maturity, and it was on average literally true up to one hundred years ago. So, its not a bad idea to limit the number born.”
I find that often people who speak about limiting the number of children are really talking about limiting the number of children OTHER people have. They are rarely interested in restricting their “choice” to themselves.
Its a draconian notion and is an insult to God himself who gave us, the only other creatures he made the direct ability to choose to be partners with him in creation, through our intellect and our will. A choice not even the angels have.
“That may not be your choice, and you don’t have to follow anyone else’s idea.”
Ah but there’s the rub. It often doesn’t matter if it’s not my choice because usually people who have this pov are QUITE motivated to make sure that it is MY choice. As couples in China and India know all too well. A more recent attempt was made in the Philippines as well.
The voice to restrict families to ONE child is out there and growing stronger.
“But for couples who do choose to limit the number of children, it should be done in ways which limit exposure to breast cancer. No reason a man shouldn’t make an effort to protect the love of his life.”
The best way a real man can protect the “love of his life” is to realize that women were designed for bearing new life. It is a healthy choice for us. It healthier for us emotionally, physically, psychologically and spiritually. Abortion and contraception destroy every aspect of a woman, whether she or her husband realize it. Research proves it. The science is there. The personal testimonies are there.
These two alone perhaps may be the biggest reason why recent studies show a dramatic decline in women’s overall happiness.
“Second, in an urban economy, it can be much more difficult to raise a large number of children, although some do so quite well. It was a little different when more hands on the farm brought in more food from an early age.”
Well this is a nice shot at big families! Grudgingly granting that “some” do quite well.
Most very large families do quite well thank you Mr. J. These are often the families that have given us doctors and nurses, teachers and musicians.
The children from large families are overwhelmingly well adjusted productive citizens.
In fact, many of us came from large families.
It is the families with one or two children who have the problems with competitiveness and loneliness. China is a wonderful example of the phenomena of little lone princes and princesses who are overweight and have had every demand of theirs met unquestioningly.
I know you don’t like me harping on you Mr. J.
Your ideas on the surface seem….reasonable. But they are not.
They do not respect our true human nature nor the feminine gifts of women. They go against the gift of manliness. They are not ideas that enrich marriages and help men and women relate better to each other.
Mary Catherine, you’ve made very clear that you have chosen to accept, and God has blessed you with, many pregnancies and children. I have, I think, made clear more than once that I support your legal right to so choose and accept. If anyone comes along to argue that you should be forcibly sterilized, I’ll volunteer to do research and drafting for any lawyer representing you. That is something I’m quite skilled at. It is no doubt true that many people have in mind that someone else’s family should be limited in size, not their own. In theory, the tragedy of the commons could become an issue. But when a man has a vasectomy, which was the original point of discussion, he is definitely limiting the size of his own family, not someone else’s.
I’ve said before that China arrived at its present tragic condition because in 1949 or so, the new communist government declined to support voluntary family planning, which could have been quite effective, and instead encouraged large families with an eye toward military power and prestige.
My mother had three children, and my sister is a doctor. Large and small families have given the world geniuses, idiots, and everything in between. Generally, large families who do quite well have parents who wanted large families, appreciated them, and were fully prepared to undertake the responsibility. I infer you are among them.
Women are, among other things, designed for bearing new life. There is such a thing as becoming worn out from excessive child bearing, and that like everything varies with individual size, physiology, hormonal balance, and so many other circumstances. There is no single pattern that fits every woman, or every family.
In closing, this has been one of our better conversations. We don’t agree, but we’re talking reasonably and with mutual respect. There are times when you seem to be talking to score points, or repeat a mantra over and over. Praise God we are each able to rise above that sometimes.
In my continuing efforts at ideological cross-pollination, I posted some thoughts of my own, incorporating the information Gerard has posted regarding breast cancern, at the Alexandria site on Word Press, with links to the two most relevant pro-life academy presentations. Here is a synopsis of responses, and how I have followed up on them:
“a couple of things do raise the red flag even for a lay person. One: he says breasts “double in size” during pregnancy. Not! I’ve been pregnant four times, and you’d think I would have noticed. They expand somewhat while lactating, but that’s because they’re full of milk. And fat can be added to them with general weight gain.”
This is from a known and vehement critic of both the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, a sparring partner of Erin Manning’s — but, just as I do not discount microbiology merely because Dr. Nadal offers it, I do not discount her experiences as a woman. I am neither a microbiologist nor a woman.
Another commenter, generally a calm, evidence-oriented man, recommended an article at Science Based Medicine.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2749
I checked it out. This is obviously by a man with a point of view (bias) who makes no bones about what it is, expresses considerable doubt about the credibility of Karen Malec (who hasn’t impressed me either), and writes in a very entertaining way.
He explains very well four different types of breast cancer, which have different responses to different hormonal triggers and therapies. That adds a significant factual dimension to what has appeared at “Pro Life Academy.”
However, when he got down to brass tacks, it appeared that the factors he outlined were entirely consistent with the mechanisms Gerard has explained. I am less interested in any number of studies of statistical correlation, than I am in an explanation about WHY and HOW a correlation might exist. Gerard did provide one. Gerard could be totally wrong, but I haven’t been referred to a good study showing that pregnancy and lactation really have nothing to do with the transition of Type 1 and 2 cells to Type 3 and 4.
The same person noted that “Physicians tend to be leery of scientists who focus on just one aspect of a problem.” On principle, I agree. Focusing on a link between abortion and breast cancer is not so helpful, from a dispassionate concern about women’s health, as including the impact of pregnancy and abortion on the contributing mechanisms of breast cancer in a larger, and very complex, overall picture.
I think the following concerns have merit: “The other strength of the physician approach is that we look at the total patient. Making decisions at age 16 based solely upon future breast cancer fears is, frankly, bizarre. We should care for our patients based upon what is best for their total health and well being.
“Also, when reading these bear in mind the difference between abortions causing cancer and pregnancies providing protection. There is little debate that pregnancy, especially early ones, have a protective effect. Do we therefore want to make preventing breast cancer the most important focus in a young woman’s life? Should we insist that young woman have children?”
A separate response which I think is entirely appropriate was “Like I’ve said in similar context, in practice this would be handed to the patient who would be told this is a state mandated form about the risks of abortion, please sign here.
“I’d also want to see where a woman could sign a statement that she has really, really thought about it and she wants to do it anyway – and then would bypass all the “educational information” that some people would want to put between the patient and her doctor.”
My position remains, I’m taking the material Gerard has presented seriously, it has not single-handedly motivated me to abandon my pro-choice philosophy, but the information should be widely available, and if inaccurate, should be debunked by more rigorous study (of the biology more than the statistics), not by rhetorical dismissal. I’ve seen some draw an analogy to “creation science,” which seems to me wide of the mark — there is no significant science behind “creation science,” except for the wishful thinking of the advocates, and, in my seldom humble opinion, a pathetic inability to fit empirical observations confidently into the framework of a comprehensive faith. There is significant science behind what Gerard has presented about the mechanism of breast cancer — whether it is complete, or whether better explanations can be developed, is always an open question in any field of science.
SJ,
When you read the material that I posted, specifically the quote from the Brinton paper, I quoted Brinton as she cited a number of different risk factors for breast cancer. Science too looks at the whole person. The point that I am making is in highlighting THE ONE RISK FACTOR DENIED by the broader medical community:
The statistically significant increased risk between abortion and breast cancer, a link ranging from 33%-95% increased risk, depending on the study.
I have no cause here to delve into other risk factors, save oral contraceptives. The other risk factors are well known, well published.
My concern is the conspiracy of silence surrounding abortion. The numbers speak for themselves. With 1 in 9 women contracting breast cancer, with over 50 million abortions and those women being at 30-95% increased risk, it doesn’t take a math genius to figure things out.
We have a major problem here.
Can you find some women who exist in the far reaches of the Bell Curve whose breasts did not approximately double in size during first pregnancy? Sure. Just as we can find women whose breasts may well have tripled in size at the other end of the Bell Curve.
But did that woman whose breasts did not grow appreciably use oral contraceptives for years prior to pregnancy? They will cause a proliferation in lobes, resulting in less proliferation when she becomes pregnant.
The science of histological analysis of the four cell types is well known. It should have become apparent to you by now SJ, that I ONLY use mainstream data. VERY mainstream data. I steer wide of the margins for several reasons.
First, there is no need for junk science while there is a treasure trove of great mainstream peer reviewed data.
Second, as will become increasingly evident as we set sail into deeper waters, even the peer review process has missed glaring errors which invalidate the studies which purportedly invalidate the literature establishing a link between breast cancer and abortion.
Thus will it be demonstrated that the valid literature has been dismissed based on whim, while the data used to dismiss it is fatally flawed, both methodologically and analytically.
People such as Karen Malec, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, Dr. Joel Brind and myself are the subjects of a pernicious double-standard. Brinton and crew can outright lie with impunity because they are protecting abortion, and so get a pass.
We, on the other hand, are held to the most exacting standards by the very liars who threw their scientific integrity away decades ago.
I love it!! I relish it!!! When we speak, it’s because we’ve checked ourselves ten times. Then we submit our analyses to other scientists and physicians for rigorous cross-checking. So when we speak, we speak the truth of what has been investigated and what those data actually say.
My prediction is that within five years the link between abortion and breast cancer is going to be mainstream knowledge. Already out west, an abortionist settled a case with a 19 year-old who had an abortion at his clinic before her 18th birthday, and listed a family history of breast cancer. It seems the good doctor failed to tell her that mainstream research shows teenagers with a family history of breast cancer who have abortions before their 18th birthday have an incalculably high risk of developing breast cancer.
OOPS!
Whether or not you remain pro-choice is your call SJ. My job here is to bring mainstream data from top flight journals to bear on the harm being done to women, and the cover-up involved in denying these data by those committed to the slaughter of innocents.
As for the physician’s critique that we can’t be concerned about the risk factors for future cancer in a 16 year old, would that jackass make the same claim about teens smoking? Would he make the same claim about preventing childhood obesity because of future diabetes and heart disease? Does this fool believe that diet, exercise and substance abuse ought not be proper material for medical advice simply because their sequellae exist twenty to thirty years down the road?
An MD, Ph.D. with his brains in his behind. Thanks for holding up yet another prime example of how pro-abort hacks are the true deniers of truth and will compromise well-established scientific and medical principles in an effort to protect the slaughter of innocents.
Once again Dr. Nadal, a excellent reply to Jenkin’s.
Astran, you are totally missing the point. One begins to think you share the capacity for reflexive self-deception that Dr. Nadal attributes to many in his profession — and possibly quite rightly attributes to them.
Dr. Nadal, I’m not sure if you recognize or not, that I am trying to cross-pollinate between two different milieus on this specific subject. I’m taking as much flak at the other site, promoting that your exposition on breast cancer is reliable and well-supported, as you’re giving me here for posting a summary of some of the better-thought out skepticism. But I’m glad you took the time to reply.
My own most recent response to some further expressions of skepticism includes:
Try that again Steve, because you’re not coming across as having a factual argument, you’re coming across like you’re engaged in a turf war. You could be right, but you’re not making that clear.
Speak directly to the exposition on Type 1, 2, 3 and 4 cells. Is this complete fiction? Is it a set of conclusions made without valid data to support it? Is it a legitimate exposition of a real biological mechanism, but simply not as significant as some are making it out to be?
Is it an exaggeration to say that Type 1 and 2 cells are more prone to produce cancerous cells during mitosis? Are there are mechanisms known which do contribute to breast cancer, which have been overlooked?
I really don’t care much about the number of studies or the balance of how many respected scientists signed on to this study or that study. I care about scientists who have real data presenting it in a manner that a non-expert can make sense of. Anyone who says “I’m an expert, take my word for it” just lost me.
So, the reason I’m trying to stimulate broader discussion specifically of your material on breast cancer is because it does present hard data in a manner that a non-expert can make sense of. The reason I’m posting a summary of the objections is so I can get a sense of what you have to say about it. Some of the same things I’ve cited from Dr. Gould about every scientist having a bias seems to apply to the objections I’m seeing to the position you’ve laid out, and I’ve told the skeptics so.
To keep this in perspective, without indulging in denial, an increased risk of 33% to 95% is not the same as up to 95% risk of having a cancer, but if your previous risk was 10%, the additional factor means your risk is now 13.3% to 19.5%, certainly a very substantive consideration for a disease which has better than 33% chance of killing the patient once the cancer appears.
Good point on one woman’s personal experience with breast size during pregnancy. Like most things, there are a wide range of relevant factors and circumstances.
I don’t consider this a make-or-break for being pro-choice. But just because there is intense political controversy over abortion, doesn’t mean doctors performing abortions should get a free pass on patent malpractice. Just because this set of data can be used as a talking point by the pro-life movement, doesn’t mean it should be set aside and ignored, particularly when it has real implications for the health of the patient.
While I continue to believe that Roe v. Wade sets up a proper legal framework for state intervention, within that framework, a sharp reduction in reliance on abortion as a primary method of contraception, albeit most of that is in the first trimester, a sober recognition that there are prices for promiscuity, one way or another, and that abortion carries real risks which must be weighed, is in my seldom humble opinion all to the good.
SJ, you are totally missing the point. One begins to think you share the capacity for reflexive self-deception and totally missing the point.
I read your post, then read Dr. Nadal’s reply to your post, and then come to the conclusion that your being reflexive and self deceptive.
Do you exhibit reflexive and self deceptive writing when discussing the science of the liver? Or kidneys? Or the seat of self awareness, which is not self aware of itself………… the neuron?
SJ,
I pulled your latest comment. Condescending commentary on a fellow blogger’s brevity (in light of your verbosity) is entirely out of bounds. At least the person whom you chose to target for ridicule does not deny scientific truth.
And yet, the earth still moves.