A thread for JSF

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, October 14, 2021 09:58
VIEWED: 1053
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 12, 2021 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
JSF: Having first pregnancy just for the purpose of interrupting it via abortion is what actually INCREASES the risk.
What is so magical about a "first" pregnancy ending in abortion, as opposed to a second, or third? Isn't it just the total number of years being pregnant and breastfeeding the important factor? I see no biological mechanism for that "first pregnancy" trope. And since 30% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, have "they" also studied the effect of THAT? That's beyond a woman's control and is certainly a very common experience.
IIRC, most cancers are generally considered to be some natural process, but run amok, or in the wrong place/tissue, or unreigned reaction or hormonal situations.
First pregnancy is the first full cycle of powerful hormone storms, in specific stages, over a specific time frame. When this cycle is interrupted in a way evolution did not anticipate, the hormone sequence, which is supposed to stop or counter whatever the prior hormone release did, is disrupted. Uncontrolled hormone release sequence results.
I do not recall that the full term but stillborn was specifically identified as increasing risk, but subsequent studies would indicate that the lack of breastfeeding would increase risk.

The studies I recall had indicated that miscarriage was equally increasing risk as induced abortions, but now I read that other studies have indicated miscarriages are not as high risk - perhaps evolution has found a way to work around that.
Remember, this was all supposed to be about the first pregancy, as I recall - much of what I am reading now does not differentiate between first and any other following pregnancy. I have not heard specifically of any study which stated that non-first pregnancies had any effect on risk, whether they were completed births, or stillbirths, or miscarriages, or induced abortions.

Quote:
Link a credible study, or be done.
You have spent the past 30 years erasing, scrubbing, obfuscating that facts, remember? Hard to find the stuff you scrubbed.

But let's try one of your beloved .gov sites:

https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk

Excerpts:
The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some (politically correct) studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results.

Early age at first term birth is related to lifetime decrease in breast cancer risk.

The additional long-term protective effect of young age at subsequent term pregnancies is not as strong as for the first term pregnancy.

One of the particiapants was not adequately PC, and was more interested in solving brest cancer than in perpetuating breast cancer like the rest of the participants and other deniers:
The participant remains "convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real, independent, positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk." In a general statement, the participant noted that the workshop summary report contained no comment of dissent.

Persistence in other searches:
https://abortionrisks.org/index.php?title=Cancer_Risk_Associated_With_
Abortion

"Between 45-50% of U.S. women undergo induced abortion of their first pregnancy each year. It is well established that an early full-term childbirth has a protective effect against breast cancer in women."

"The researchers also stated that " data suggested an increased risk associated with abortion contrary to t

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, October 12, 2021 7:50 PM

Oh... you filled it in.

I thought a thread with the title "A thread for JSF" and a blank post was a joke that I just wasn't getting or something.

Out of the garden where it doesn't belong is a good thing. Maybe the title should be changed after the point is made though.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 14, 2021 7:34 AM

Gorram thing logged me out halfway through

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 14, 2021 8:28 AM

Quote:
JSF: Having first pregnancy just for the purpose of interrupting it via abortion is what actually INCREASES the risk.

SIGNYM: What is so magical about a "first" pregnancy ending in abortion, as opposed to a second, or third? Isn't it just the total number of years being pregnant and breastfeeding the important factor? I see no biological mechanism for that "first pregnancy" trope. And since 30% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, have "they" also studied the effect of THAT? That's beyond a woman's control and is certainly a very common experience.

JSF: INIIRC, most cancers are generally considered to be some natural process, but run amok, or in the wrong place/tissue, or unreigned reaction or hormonal situations.
First pregnancy is the first full cycle of powerful hormone storms, in specific stages, over a specific time frame. When this cycle is interrupted in a way evolution did not anticipate,

This is the first problem. Evolution doesn't "anticipate", it is ADAPTIVE. The environment changes and the organisms adapt (or not!) to the new environment. If evolution was able to " anticipate" there wouldn't be so many extinct species. It may seem a small point, but... Humans no longer live under the same conditions that the did eons ago.
And how far back do you want to set the evolutionary pointer, anyway?

Quote:
JSF: ...the hormone sequence, which is supposed to stop or counter whatever the prior hormone release did, is disrupted. Uncontrolled hormone release sequence results.
I do not recall that the full term but stillborn was specifically identified as increasing risk, but subsequent studies would indicate that the lack of breastfeeding would increase risk.

Sounds a little hazy on the specifics.

Quote:
The studies I recall had indicated that miscarriage was equally increasing risk as induced abortions, but now I read that other studies have indicated miscarriages are not as high risk - perhaps evolution has found a way to work around that.

Maybe, maybe not.

Quote:
Remember, this was all supposed to be about the first pregancy, as I recall - much of what I am reading now does not differentiate between first and any other following pregnancy. I have not heard specifically of any study which stated that non-first pregnancies had any effect on risk, whether they were completed births, or stillbirths, or miscarriages, or induced abortions.

So we're relying on your memory of something you read decades ago.

Quote:
SIGNYM: Link a credible study, or be done.

And this is where you whip your dick out to prove your conservative bona fides and you start spoiling for a fight...

Quote:
JSF: You have spent the past 30 years erasing, scrubbing, obfuscating that facts, remember? Hard to find the stuff you scrubbed.

MOI? Who the fuck do YOU think you're posting to? *I* have done no such thing.

Quote:
JSF: But let's try one of your beloved .gov sites:

https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk

Excerpts:
The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some (politically correct) studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results.

Early age at first term birth is related to lifetime decrease in breast cancer risk.

. OK, so let me pick nits.

This doesn't say what you think it does. All it sa

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:38 AM

Here is an answer, altho perhaps not THE answer, and certainly one that won't satisfy JSF

Quote:
By far the strongest study to date on the association between breast cancer and abortion was a population-based cohort study made up of 1.5 million Danish women born April 1, 1935, through March 31, 1978. [27] Of these women, 280,965 (18.4%) had had one or more induced abortions. After adjusting for potential confounders of age, parity, age at delivery of first child, and calendar period, the risk of breast cancer for women with a history of induced abortion was not different from women who had not had an induced abortion (relative risk [RR] = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.94-1.06). The number of induced abortions in a woman’s history also had no significant relation to risk of breast cancer.

A statistically significant increase in risk was found among the very small number of women with a history of second-trimester abortion. Results from this population-based prospective cohort provide strong evidence against an increase in risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion during the first trimester. Comparable results have been observed in a large cohort of women in China [28] and the California Teachers Study. [29] Taken as a whole and accounting for the limitations of the case-control study design, the available evidence does not support any important relation between induced abortion and risk of breast cancer.

However, a 2018 meta-analysis of 25 studies in the English language literature up to December 10, 2016, indicates there is no association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk. [25] A subgroup analysis suggested that induced abortion may raise the risk of breast cancer in parous women but not in nulliparous women. [25]

https://www.medscape.com/answers/1697353-195942/how-does-abortion-affe
ct-a-women39s-risk-for-breast-cancer

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:52 AM

The protective effect of pregnancy.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15987443/

(No mention of abortion)

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:58 AM

This was interesting.
The focus seems to be on stem cells.

Quote:

cancer is a first magnitude problem of public health worldwide. There is increasing evidence that this cancer is originated in and maintained by a small population of undifferentiated cells with self-renewal properties. This small population generates a more differentiated pool of cells which represents the main mass of the tumor, resembling the hierarchical tissue organization of the normal breast. These cancer stem cells seem to share a similar phenotype with their normal counterparts but they display dysfunctional patterns of proliferation and differentiation, and they no longer respond to normal physiological controls that ensure a balanced cellular turnover. The origin of these cancer stem cells is controversial; it is not well known if they are originated from normal stem cells or from more differentiated progenitors where a de novo stem cell program is activated by the oncogenic insult. Here we review the origin of breast cancer stem cells and their role in the pathogenesis of cancer development, together with their implications in breast cancer progression, treatment and prognosis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18220924/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME