New York Times says seniors' concerns are real

I've been studying the pro's and con's of the proposed health care bill and it is confusing.

The most voiced fears are those of seniors who fear health care rationing, a restriction on expensive procedures to prolong life for a few years and limited access to specialists.

I have said since all the debating began that a financially sustainable single payer healthcare system MUST, in fact, include the above and even WITH including the above, did anyone add the price of covering "everyone"? No, I'm sure they didn't but no one has noticed that the income taxes in countries with single payer healthcare are THREE TIMES higher than they are in the USA.

And of course, the President has said several times that we would all have to sacrifice and that he did not agree with a knee replacement for his grandma etc.

And if we had any doubts of this, there is a well researched book by medical ethicist, Daniel Callahan called "FALSE HOPES" where after researching all the single payer, govt systems in the world, he states the same sobering facts (even though he states up front, he feels a single payer system is the way to go).

But many have listened blindly to the politicians telling us that these worries are a "myth". Those were the nice politicians. The nasty ones tell us that the concerns and questions (which were NOT answered in the so called "Town Halls") are a conspiracy by the Republicans and/or Conservatives and/or religionists or whatever.

But now, those of us who have had concerns have had a breakthrough. The New York Times printed a story which included a statement that these concerns of rationing, limited access to specialists and restricting of expensive procedures for the elderly are NOT unreasonable at all.

In fact the Medicare advisory committee, concerned that Medicare is going broke, this week, suggested .... rationing, limited access to specialists (GPs are just as good they say - which we know is a crock) and restriction of expensive procedures as a way to save Medicare!

And we all know that if the New York Times prints it, people will believe what we have been saying for a couple of months now. Because people believe the New York Times like it's the gospel.

Here is another statement in another story in the New York Times (Gospel again, right?). This comes from a story called "Tackling the Mystery of what it costs".

"Under health insurance reform, insurance plans will be required to give consumers much more information about what is covered and what is not. They will be expected to warn consumers that if they go out of network, they can be hit with some very high costs."

To someone not involved with one of the large insurance companies, this may not mean much but I, being thus involved myself, can attest to the fact that we HAD to go "out of network" because the IN network providers were not only "not too good" but absolutely horrendous - wrong diagnosis, unneeded surgeries, wrong treatment etc.

So I HAD to go out of network. And the idea of "high costs" is not a nice one to me.

And then, there are things like the place where you are supposed to get your blood work, looks kind of like you are going to catch something. That is, IF they can get the needle IN. Most always I've gone there, there is a new person just learning - on me. Hence, we finally are paying the doctor's assistant to do the draw!

The pundits tell us that the in network providers will have to be improved. Anyone holding their breath for this to happen?

Anyway, there are REAL concerns for seniors - you can believe it because the New York times printed it. :)

figures, statistics and lies

Today, I got an "alternate health" ad in the mail. It claimed that the number 36,000 deaths a year from flu was a false figure and in fact only about 750 people died a year from the flu and "that was from the CDC".

I didn't believe it. I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu and had quoted the figure myself because it came from the CDC.

But the ad got my curiosity going. Easy enough to look up. I looked up "FLU DEATHS" CDC" and got this page.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

As you can see, it IS on the CDC website. Turns out that the truth (according to the CDC) is no one KNOWS how many die from the flu so the estimations were made from a percentage of those who die from respiratory disease deaths and other mathematical constructs.

The CDC writes:

Does CDC know the exact number of people who die from flu each year?

CDC does not know exactly how many people die from flu each year. There are several reasons for this: First, states are not required to report individual flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications [12]. Third, many flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as a staph infection) [1,8,11] or because influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) [3]. Also, most people who die from flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. Influenza tests are only likely to detect influenza if performed within a week after onset of illness. For these reasons, many flu-related deaths may not be recorded on death certificates. These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical models to estimate the annual number of flu-related deaths. ***

Oh - that's enlightening! No one KNOWS so they use a mathematical model to come up with the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu. Here is it, right from the horse's mouth! But when this figure is quoted, have you ever heard they say they really DO NOT KNOW how many a year die from the flu and that the deaths are usually from something else? hmmmm

This even shocked ME....Somehow I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths they were claiming...

So why DOES the CDC "ESTIMATE" the number of deaths from flu (and puff it up... hmmm)

Here is their answer to that one:

Why does CDC estimate deaths associated with flu?

CDC feels it is important to convey the full burden of flu to the public. Flu is a serious disease that causes illness and deaths nearly every year in the United States. CDC estimates of annual influenza-associated deaths in the United States are made using well-established scientific methods that have been reviewed by scientists outside of CDC [10]. CDC feels that these estimates are a timely representation of the current burden of flu on the United States.

But these numbers are used by the media etc to scare folks into getting the vaccine which is BIG MONEY for the manufacturers....

Enlightening. That's why it's good to read EVERYTHING. I didn't believe the alternate health ad but that claim was bold enough for me to question something I might have never questioned and which, I guess, should have been questioned in the first place.

So let's talk about the proposed Health Care program. Obama tells us that the concerns of the public are all because of the evil Republicans and all a bunch of lies.

For example, abortion won't be paid for in the Health care bill, he tells us. But the bill says different. ALL SURGERIES are paid for and abortion is a surgery. So some Democrats and Republicans tried to introduce amendments that made sure abortion was EXCEPTED out of surgeries. And the amendments failed.

If abortion is not paid for, why didn't the amendments pass? We all remember the youtube video how Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would not deviate from his total abortion stance (from conception to birth).

Seniors are concerned that the Health Care bill might mean rationing of care for seniors. Obama answers us with "there is no rationing in the bill" and that seniors are not to worry but seniors were not born yesterday. Treating seniors is expensive and they suspect unless there is an amendment which GUARANTEES them treatment, they don't trust Obama's reassurance, especially when he admitted that it was right to not give his grandmother a joint replacement and has talked about how expensive it was to treat seniors when they might only have a few years of life left. Seniors know that the expensive health care program has to be paid for in some manner and that in other plans, care IS rationed to save bucks.

This is not the "evil Republicans" or "insurance companies". This is just people finally beginning to do what they should have done in the first place. Question - everything and trust - no one.

You know the old "In God we trust - all others pay cash" idea?

Multiple Sclerosis- Tysabri - miracle drug?

Biogen, the manufacturer of Tysabri, saw its stock fall this week when 3 people taking the medication for Multiple Sclerosis, recently, came down with a potentially deadly brain infection called "progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy", or PML. This was a disappointment because Biogen had hoped to make its mint off Tysabri since its other drug, Avonex has a lot of competition from similar drugs like Rebif. Biogen apparently is already doing damage control with a video on Fox news promising great results for the medication.

But if we listen closely, even the video tells us some rather unsettling things:

• How it works: this medication prevents immune cells from crossing into the brain (probably why it can cause that severe brain disorder - how many OTHER brain disorders can it cause which may not have yet, been connected to tysabri?)


• The patient said it was nice she didn't have to do daily or every other day injections like with the other medications she had tried, but the picture of how Tysabri is administered was quickly flashed with no explanation. It is INFUSED which is done in the oncology ward - an outpatient procedure in the hospital which comes with some issues of its own.


• Tysabri gives many patients a 70 percent improvement in symptoms said the video - but remember the placebo effect with MS is 85 - 90 percent (i.e. 85-90 percent of MS patients get better even if given sugar pills!) so that means not only is Tysabri NOT effective but since it doesn't even match up to the placebo effect, it must be making some patients worse.

Because several in the Tysabri trials also got PML (2 of whom died which is really bad because Multiple Sclerosis does NOT kill its victims), the medication was shelved by the FDA in 2005 pending more research. However pressure from several including a couple of celebs who wanted to take the drug and probably Biogen, caused the FDA to conditionally approve it the following year with a warning label.

And unfortunately many people with MS who are desperate (and feel they would rather be dead than totally paralyzed) flock to DO SOMETHING, take SOME medication even though with NONE of the MS medications is anything like a "cure" promised. The available drugs are called "disease modifying" which in plain English means it MAY make your symptoms better (but no guarantees), something we are hearing more and more often from the medical profession which no longer promises to "first do no harm".

The truth about the slowly progressive MS (which is the only type the medications are supposed to help) is that if you live healthy, do not smoke or drink, do NOT take any drugs or have any surgery for it and get your head together, reduce stress and other healthy things, MS will likely not progress to the point of causing much disability until you are VERY elderly (if at all).

One study by the MS society found that 10 years after diagnosis, the majority of MS patients were still walking and medical treatment of which the side effects are worse than the disease, has traditionally been that which causes early disability as do bad health habits like smoking, party drugs etc. (Note: this study was long before the so called "disease modifying" drugs many MSers take now)

When Sylvia Lawry was alive, and president of the MS society (which she founded - her brother had MS) the society was not real well funded and did not advocate any medical treatment, repeatedly assuring members that the best treatment for MS was good nutrition, good health habits and "some walking, some sitting, some standing and some lying" (i.e. rest periods during the day).

And as many folks who got sick from medical treatments, people still flocked to each new one. There was for example, the Medrol treatment which initially lightened symptoms but in the long run made patients worse and caused tuberculosis in some,and surgery like stereo-tactic brain surgery which Annette Funnicello had - despite the fact that it was condemned as a too risky not effective treatment for MS tremors at the 1972 symposium for MS at UCLA. There were the less risky quack treatments also, like the guy who sold small trampolines and said if you jumped on them facing east every day, the earth's magnetic field would cure your MS.

But when Lawry died, the MS Society took a different turn, perhaps one which Lawry would NOT have agreed with and formed alliances with several pharmaceutical corporations which yielded them millions of research bucks, and bucks for glitzy monthly magazines but had the down side of causing patients to be "strongly encouraged" to buy the medications from the pharmaceutical companies, most of which had not even been tested on diagnosed patients (they were tested on people who were thought to be coming down with MS) and were not shown very effective. (why they call the drugs "disease modifying").

I once asked one of the researchers why no "double blind studies" had been done on the medications offered for MS and he said "well, because they do show improvement in patients, it would be considered unethical to deny the controls the help." Sounded lame to me. Especially as the "improvement" is judged by the number of white patches in the brain which show on the MRI which are thought to be MS related, but the doctor admitted that these can change by the hour and one patient having a lot of white patches in one MRI could have several of these move or disappear in the next MRI. He also admitted that the white patches seen on the brain could be NON MS related.

All seems a bit of a house of cards to encourage patients to put a chemical into their bodies which is known to challenge the immune system thus making them more susceptible to illness INCLUDING cancer.

As shakey as the research was on the so called "ABC" drugs (Avonex,Betaserone and Copaxon), Tysabri was a different case because even their less than great research found the deadly repercussion of PML. (Other side effects include flu like symptoms, infusion-site reactions, fatigue, headaches, joint pain and Increased Susceptibility to Infections.)

It might be prudent for MS patients to rewind back to the society's advice before their marriage with the pharmaceutical companies - live healthy, de-stress and don't overdo - still the best "treatment" for Multiple Sclerosis.

It seems that only miracle about Tysabri is how MS patients flock to take it!

NOTE: a certain number of people diagnosed with MS may be actually suffering neurological symptoms from other disorders including aspartame allergies and/or B12 shortages. Newly diagnosed patients should quit drinking diet soda and other things with aspartame/nutrasweet in them and also consider taking B12 supplements or even B12 shots.

History repeats - swine flu scare campaign to sell flu shots

This video of a CNN "60 minutes" show on the swine flu shot propaganda in 1976.... 4000 people got Guillan Barre (French Polio) from the shot for the "pandemic" which never hit, is a MUST SEE. The show exposes the propaganda, how the tested shot wasn't the one that was eventually given to the people, how the names of celebrities were used to sell the shot. Also interviews one of the victims who survived Guillian Barre. One lady in our church was made a widow by her husband getting Guillian Barre from that flu shot! This show is important considering the propaganda machine is again ramping up to sell us the THREE flu shots for the oncoming flu season.

http://tinyurl.com/swinelie

It should be noted that so far, the swine flu virus seems to be a very mild flu - most of the deaths were in Mexico and we know that 4 of the deaths in the USA were ill people to begin with.

Additionally, the flu vaccine apparently requires a lot of preservative and they use a substance called "Timerisol" which is a form of mercury and very toxic. Some studies have suggested that people who regularly got flu shots are more likely to come down with neurological disease and alzheimers etc.

I took a flu shot the year I was carrying our son in pregnancy and STILL got the flu! Right then and there, I decided that the flu shot didn't work.

It doesn't because there are some 22 flu viruses circulating, any one of which can hit you and cause you to become ill and only 5 or 6 of which are covered in the vaccine.

This Fall we will be pushed to take 3 shots, one for flu, one for Swine Flu and a third booster. As Obama is again buying TV time to push his "fix" for Health care, he has ALREADY stated that he is planning "an aggressive education" of the American people to sell us the flu shots in the Fall.

Finally, to compare the 1918 pandemic to now is ridiculous! In 1918, they had NO INDOOR PLUMBING, no anti biotics, very little idea of sanitation and no idea of nutrition or vitamins (people still died of Beri Beri). The swine flu in 1918 killed 10 percent of the public which means that 90 percent LIVED from it.

Since then, we have been through several "pandemic" (which just means that the same flu hit all around the world during flu season). In the less developed countries with less sanitation, there are more deaths. Here in the USA, most deaths from flu are actually from opportunistic bacteria and we have anti biotics for that.

Bottom line, don't panic... watch this video:

http://tinyurl.com/swinelie

Then perhaps visit the national vaccine information center to make an informed choice. Best way to handle flu is a healthy lifestyle, and if you get sick, rest, lots of liquids and antibiotics if you need them.

Swine Flu Primer - myths and realities

Since the Swine Flu craze started I have been studying it and finally, have enough information to give you a feel for what to expect, what is true, what is a myth or misunderstanding and how to figure out what is happening. Here for your edification is a FAQ. Save this because as you see, you will need it this Fall also, when the swine flu might (or might not) hit hard. (Flu viruses cannot live in the heat of summer).

1. The Swine Flu virus is a new virus so you have no immunity to it. True?

Well, yes but it isn't as bad as it sounds.

A virus is different from a bacteria which used to be called a member of the plant kingdom but now has it's own kingdom. A virus is something inbetween a protein molecule and a simple form of one celled life like a bacteria. It looks kind of like a soccer ball (but is so small it cannot be seen without a very powerful microscope). A virus doesn't eat but it reproduces. That's why it doesn't exactly fit the explanation of "life" (must eat and reproduce)

The way your body recognizes a virus is by its "cover" and when a virus mutates, it changes its cover - think of a pillow - someone changes the pillow cover while you are not looking and you wouldn't recognize it as a pillow you know, would you? This is a simple explanation but without getting into the 50 dollar words, this is similar to your immune system and a mutated virus. That is, ANY mutated virus looks brand new to your body and can get you sick before you have time to make antibodies to fight it. (Antibodies latch on to each virus and disable it).

So it doesn't matter whether it's an old re-worked virus or a new one like the swine flu virus - it's all the same to your body. The body has to make new antibodies to disable it and until it gears up, you might get sick (or you might NOT get sick!). Our body's immune systems make antibodies a whole lot faster than the pharmaceuticals can make a vaccine! Thank Heavens!

2. What does "level 5" pandemic mean?

Well, that doesn't mean it's a killer flu. It doesn't really have much to do with how sick any flu virus will make you, says the CDC. On "the Doctors" TV Show, Dr Stephen Galson, acting surgeon general stated that

"The level 5 is how public health officials communicate with each other on how they will prepare for the flu as far as vaccines etc."

He added:

"The levels do not tell about the severity of the outbreak and people should not pay attention to the levels..."

3. But shouldn't I worry? There have been 2 deaths from the swine flu in the USA now!


Let's look at the 2 deaths. The first was a 22 month old baby who had "other health issues" that is he'd been ill for a while - he was born in Mexico. The second is a lady who had "chronic health issues" (something like MS or Lupus or ?).

38,000 people die each year, as a repercussion of the several flu viruses going around. Now that sounds like a lot but consider that 25 to 50 million GET the flu every year and so those who die are a very small percentage - 1.5% to less than 1% of those who get the flu.

To put this into prospective, Malaria kills 1.5 to 3 million people a year and affects 40 percent of the world's population, about 2400 million. ref: Malaria what it is

So it's not that the swine flu is necessarily deadly (it seems to be not real contagious or deadly but the public health dept has to be ready just in case) but that next flu season, some of the 38,000 deaths from the repercussions of the flu might be from the swine flu.

As Dr Frank Joseph, MD stated in a recent letter to his mailing list (and you can ask any medical provider about this - they will tell you the same thing!):

People do NOT die from the flu, it's the complications that are deadly --mostly pneumonia. In 1918, there were no antibiotics. The people who have currently died from the flu probably waited too long to seek treatment.
Personally, I do not believe in giving antibiotics for every little thing that comes along but in this case they are warranted.

Which brings us to our next question:

4. I worry that a pandemic of flu will kill thousands of people like it did in 1918.

Ever wonder why we have not had such a pandemic since? We had NO ANTIBIOTICS back in 1918. Also no indoor plumbing, no central heating and not a real good idea of vitamins or nutrition. All of which would contribute to people getting pneumonia or some other repercussion of the flu and dying. As the Junkfood science blog pointed out, we have lived through many "pandemics" since then without them killing huge numbers of people.

NOW IS DIFFERENT. Don't worry about it. Tell your friends. This is one of the biggest misconceptions I've heard from many people.

5. Can you catch the flu from a toilet seat?

OK, I'm being silly here but it got your attention, right? :) There seem to be many misconceptions about how you catch the flu. You don't catch it from shaking hands with someone or touching your dog although you can pick up bacteria that way.

Viruses travel through the air when someone coughs or sneezes. That's why flu is so contagious. Being in the same room with a person with flu will expose you.

Another misconception is that if someone coughs at you, and you go home and get sick the next day, you caught whatever that person had.

WRONG. It takes about 2 weeks for you to come down with the flu after you have been exposed to it. (So think about who coughed on you two weeks ago!)

Worse yet, the person is the MOST contagious JUST BEFORE they actually come down with the flu. Nice huh? Viruses are sneaky.

6. So what's the best thing to do if I come down with flu?

Remember the old fashioned remedy? Go to bed, drink plenty of liquids - juice not coffee (and yes vitamin C does help), get lots of rest, eat veggies. If you are a person who works out regularly (I hope you are! Exercise is the best way to help your health!) then continue to work out but do a shorter lighter work out. Why? A workout wil,l believe it or not, help you get better faster. But DO NOT OVERDO IT or you will make things worse. If you are a runner, for example, just walk slowly on the treadmill for a half hour or so.

And if it hangs on or you start getting major chest congestion, see your medical provider! Whatever you do, DO NOT IGNORE IT. This is the best way to get a bacterial infection which can be very nasty.

7. What about the flu vaccine?

Unfortunately, the last vaccine for swine flu was a disaster. The swine flu never really hit but the vaccine ended up killing about 500 or more people.

The CDC assures us that they have a good system for testing in place and the new vaccine should be safe but no one can be sure, they disclaim.

If you are a person who gets a chill and gets pneumonia, you should probably get a jab. If you are a person with a normal immune system (or reasonably normal), it's your choice.

They have announced that for Fall (the start of flu season) they cannot add the swine flu virus to the flu vaccine already in production, so they will have a separate jab or two for it. Three shots they are talking about.

"That's a hard sell" observed Meredith Vierra of "The Today Show" and the official answer was that President Obama is planning "an aggressive education of the public through TV" in favor of getting the shots. (We know President Obama can do 'aggressive TV campaigns" very well!)

In other words, expect a scare campaign from the media which makes our present scare look like kids stuff.

That's why you might need to look at this blog again to remind yourself of the myths and misconceptions.

You might also want to bookmark the National Vaccine Information site. It's your choice, remember and scare tactics are scare tactics. They rarely resemble the truth.

As for me, I took a flu shot when I was pregnant, figuring I didn't want to get the flu then. I still got the flu. I figured the flu shot didn't work and that was my last flu shot and it was a while ago, since the baby I was carrying, our son, is approaching his 40th birthday.

Which brings us to the last question...

8. Why is it that some years I get the flu vaccine and I STILL get the flu?

As I explained before, it takes the pharmaceuticals several months to make a flu vaccine. Here's how they do it. They look at Asia and see what type of flu is going around. Then, out of some 22 flu viruses available, they select 5 or 6 which they think will be THE BIG pandemic or epidemic of the coming flu season and they start making the vaccine for the Fall. That's why there will be several jabs necessary this Fall to protect against the regular AND swine flu. Because they've already picked the 5 or 6 viruses and are producing this Fall's vaccine as we speak and it would be too costly to add the swine flu virus to the vaccine in production.

But of course, as luck will have it, typically the flu which hits the hardest might not be included in the vaccine. It's kind of a game of chance whether it will be included or not. Viruses aren't that predictable unfortunately.

And of course, having the vaccine won't guarantee that another one of the unpicked viruses won't hit. That happened this year - the stomach flu virus which was a really nasty flu hit hard and had not been included in the shot so everyone got that one! (me too!)

As they say, education is our greatest tool in any fight including the fight for good health.

Also, consider a healthy lifestyle - not for weight or size but just for health! I know - that's a strange concept. Bear with me. :) You know, no fast or junk food, no chemicals like aspartame, lots of veggies and EXERCISE.

Some must reading on influenza and scares
Swine Flu update April 29, 2009 - scare tactics and reality

All humanity under threat - not really - Junk Food Science blog

link between anti depressants and sudden death?

Anti depressants are very common prescribed. In fact, most folks I know are taking one of the SSRI's considered to be among the "safe medications".

That being said, Dr Joseph Glenmullen, MD in his "PROZAC BACKLASH" book stated that there is a possibility that long term use of the SSRI's can cause damage to the brain and even Parkinsonism. He should know - he's a psychiatrist and has done research as well as years of observation.

However, what did come as a bit of a surprise is a new research study which suggested that these anti depressant drugs might be linked to sudden cardiac death. The study was published in the American College of Cardiology Journal (J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009; 53:950-958, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.060).

This was an epidemiologal study using the famous "Nurse's study data" (i.e. a "data dredge" study) so I was about to dismiss it except for when I read the last paragraph of the blog which reported the study.

The author reminded that the prescribing information from Eli Lilly for Prozac listed the following side effects:

* Frequent: hemorrhage, hypertension, palpitation
* Infrequent: angina pectoris, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, hypotension, migraine, myocardial infarct, postural hypotension, syncope, tachycardia, vascular headache
* Rare: atrial fibrillation, bradycardia, cerebral embolism, cerebral ischemia, cerebrovascular accident, extrasystoles, heart arrest, heart block, pallor, peripheral vascular disorder, phlebitis, shock, thrombophlebitis, thrombosis, vasospasm, ventricular arrhythmia, ventricular extrasystoles, ventricular fibrillation.

That definitely changed my opinion of the research as just another "data dredge study" to a HMMMM, might be some truth in it.

How many people taking Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft et al, have seen the physician prescribing information.

Kevin Trudeau in his newest book, "More Natural Cures" has a solution which I've seen some folks follow... don't take ANY medications. But truly, there are times when medications can be a lifesaver.

The best approach may be to study things like the prescribing information and to weigh the risks vs the benefits. Since we have only one heart, perhaps the SSRI's should be a last resort rather than so often prescribed (a solution which may not be popular with those who manufacture these medications).

Abortion and Breast cancer

"Abortion does not cause breast cancer" states several news media articles and now, a new health site.

There is one problem with this - it's unproven. In the article I read on the health site, they did not specifically name their cites upon which they are wanting to risk YOUR life but they talked of an (unnamed) 2004 study which is likely the "Melbye study". In this study, Dr Melbye admitted that any woman who had had an abortion before computer records was likely listed as "not having abortion" since ONLY computer recorded abortions were noted in the study AS aborted women. One estimate puts the number of aborted women "overlooked" as 60,000! And these were, of course, the older women who were more likely to have breast cancer. If these 60,000 women were (correctly) recorded as HAVING HAD abortions, the Melbye Study would suggest a STRONGER link between breast cancer than some of the other 38 world wide studies which suggest a link.

Another study they may have used to "prove" that abortion does not cause breast cancer was the Beral study. This study not only used an inappropriate group for comparison (women who had never been pregnant who were known to have a higher risk for breast cancer) but omitted several studies which suggested a link including three of the study author's OWN studies! About this type of study, Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S. wrote:

>>>>Studies that take data from many previous studies and reanalyze” them (or put them into a meta-analysis) need to have sound scientific reasons for excluding some published studies. Without valid exclusion and inclusion criteria, the results can be skewed and inaccurate because they may allow an author’s personal bias to consciously or subconsciously enter the selection process, thus corrupting the conclusion. Undoubtedly, this sort of bias is what has led some observers to call epidemiology a pseudoscience.<<<< (Ethics and Medicine, Vol 29, 11 November 2004)

Just another example of the media perpetuating bad science to the American people to support a billion dollar industry which does NOT care about your body.

More information:
Breast Cancer Faq