Breast Cancer Rates quadrupling for Women who lived through the Sexual Revolution

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 20th, 2012

Week in Review

Breast cancer rates are rising for older women.  The question is why?  What are our older women doing today that is causing these higher rates?  Or is it something from their past.  Like the effects of heavy smoking catching up to them in their later years?  Health officials think it may just be their aging population causing this.  As people who live longer have more time to have diseases that they didn’t when people were dying in their fifties and sixties.  But breast cancer rates for these women are expected to quadruple.  Which makes one believe there may be something else besides an aging population causing this to happen (see Breast cancer cases in older women set to quadruple by Denis Campbell posted 10/15/2012 on the guardian).

The number of older women with breast cancer will almost quadruple by 2040, according to new research in the British Journal of Cancer.

Currently 340,000 of the 570,000 women of all ages in the UK with the disease are 65 or older. That is set to increase to 1.2 million out of a projected 1.68 million total number of women with the disease by 2040.

That represents a rise in the proportion of all breast cancers among older women from 59% now to 73% then…

“The NHS needs to ensure that every older woman with breast cancer gets the best possible care,” added Devane. “Too many cancer doctors are making assumptions based on age, which often results in older women receiving inadequate care for their breast cancer,” he said.

Women who are 65 today were in their twenties between 1967 and 1977.  A decade of great social change.  Including, of course, the use of birth control and abortion.  Giving us the sexual revolution.  Marking a shift in when women started their families.  Because of birth control and abortion women delayed starting their families.  Could this play any factor in the rise of breast cancer rates?  Some think so.  While some vehemently reject this.  There are studies showing a link.  Studies that some say are flawed.  Unfortunately, abortion is a very politicized issue.  Unlike other health-related issues.  For example, when one study showed that drinking coffee may cause cancer the media reported it widely and some people gave up their coffee.  Then when another study showed that it didn’t people resumed their coffee drinking habits.  But when it comes to a link between abortion and breast cancer politics come first.  And the pro-life people seem to be the only ones talking about it.  While the pro-choice people denounce those studies as being flawed.

But one thing that can’t be denied is that there is a rise in breast cancer rates that haven’t been explained yet by any other cause or factor.  Whereas lung cancer rates have declined by a corresponding decline in smoking.  While they have found no such corollary to explain the rise in breast cancer rates.  Not smoking.  Not diet.  No food preservative or pharmaceutical side effect.  At least, not yet.  But because breast tissue changes after conception and abortion interrupts that change, or simple delays in pregnancy (without ever having an abortion) delays those changes in breast tissue, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support a link between abortion and breast cancer.  And between delays in the change of breast tissue to produce milk and breast cancer (see Abortion ‘triples breast cancer risk’: Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease by Simon Caldwell posted 6/23/2010 on the Daily Mail).

An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say.

A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease.

While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion.

Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking.

The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer…

But Cancer Research UK questioned the accuracy of the figures and said women should not be unduly worried.

Dr Kat Arney, the charity’s science information manager, said: ‘This is a very small study of only 300 women, so there are likely to be statistical errors in a sample of this size…

Although the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has acknowledged the possibility of an abortion-breast cancer link, most medical professionals in Britain remain unconvinced…

Those who believe there is a link say breast cancer is caused by high levels of oestradiol, a hormone that stimulates breast growth during pregnancy.

Its effects are minimised in women who take pregnancy to full term but it remains at dangerous levels in those who have abortions.

There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.

At the least women who have had an abortion, who used birth control to delay pregnancy or who used formula instead of breast feeding should increase their breast cancer screenings.  Even if they politically object to the findings of these reports.  If detected early enough survival rates are far greater.  So just as people who smoke should start having stress tests earlier to detect heart disease so should women who may be at higher risk of breast cancer have earlier and more frequent screenings than women who did not have an abortion, did not delay their pregnancies or breast fed their babies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Women in the UK are using Abortion as Birth Control costing the Government Billions in lost Tax Revenue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 13th, 2012

Week in Review

There are two costs with an abortion.  A social cost.  And a financial one.  The social cost is what these abortions say about how we value human life.  And the financial cost is lost tax revenue.  For every abortion is a lost taxpayer.  Which is pretty serious considering the budget deficits countries are running to pay for the benefits we provide for those babies we didn’t abort (see NHS spends £1m a week on repeat abortions: Single women using terminations ‘as another form of contraceptive’ by Daniel Martin posted 5/13/2012 on the Daily Mail).

The Health Service is spending around £1million a week providing repeat abortions.

Critics said figures revealed yesterday show thousands of women are using the procedure as a form of contraception.

It is not unknown for some women to have seven, eight or even nine terminations in their lifetime.

According to the statistics, single or unmarried women account for five out of every six repeat terminations. Around a third of all abortions carried out in England and Wales are repeats…

In 2010, the latest year for which figures are available, some 189,000 abortions took place. Of these, more than 64,000 terminations were on women who had already aborted a foetus in the past.

In an expanding welfare state having babies is very important.  For to shower everyone with generous benefits, including pensions and health care that last long into a person’s eighties and nineties, you need a whole lot more people entering the workforce than leaving it.  And you do that with an expanding birthrate.  By having more live births than deaths.  The more the better.  For the more live births the more generous the benefits can be further down the road.  Having abortions, though, reduces how generous the government can be in the future.

In 2010 there were approximately 723,165 live births in England and Wales and approximately 493,242 deaths. And, of course, approximately 189,000 abortions.  For every person that died in 2010 there were 1.466 people born to replace them.  If those abortions did not happen and their pregnancies were carried to term that number would have been 1.849.  Which would have been more than the 1.748 during the first decade of the 20th century.  So what does this mean?  Had these numbers held steady or increased from 1901 until today the UK would probably not be having budget deficits.  Because the number of people entering the workforce would have stayed larger than the number leaving the workforce.  Meaning more revenue from income taxes and less from borrowing.  So why is the UK running a high deficit?  And carrying a large debt?

Because of abortion and birth control.  When sex turned into consequence-free fun people had more of it and fewer babies.  The ratio of live births to deaths was 1.748 in the first decade of the 20th century.  It was 1.415 during the second decade.  It was 1.485 during the Twenties.  It was 1.315 during the Thirties and Forties.  It was 1.415 during the Fifties (the post-war baby boom).  It was 1.508 during the Sixties.  And then came birth control and abortion.  And the baby bust generations.  It fell to 1.105 during the Seventies.  It was 1.156 during the Eighties.  It was 1.158 during the Nineties.  And it climbed back up to 1.228 in the first 8 years of the 21st century.

So following the baby boom the population growth rate screeched to a halt.  Just barely replacing each death with a live birth.  Which is why pension and health care costs are busting the treasury in the UK.  The baby boomers are retiring.  And the baby busters are stuck with the bill for their retirement.  If the UK wants a quick path to financial stability they would do well to make abortions illegal.  Because a live birth to death ratio of 1.849 would fix all of their fiscal woes in about 20 years.  They could even borrow money to maintain benefits now with some special 30-year debt.  Which should be easy to refinance in 20 years with all that new tax revenue coming on line.  And old debt would be easier to retire with an expanding population growth rate.  Which a high live birth to death ration will give you.

Let’s just look at those 189,000 abortions.  If they each grew up to earn $40,000 (£23,952) twenty years from now they would earn a total of $7.134 billion (£4.527 billion) in annual income.  If taxed at a tax rate of 20% that would bring $1.512 billion (£905 million) into the treasury.  If 1% of these went on to be millionaires double this number.  Bringing the cost of those abortions to approximately £2 billion ($3.34 billion) in lost tax revenue a year.  Not to mention the lost tax revenue at all the other levels of taxation.  Making abortions costly in more ways than one.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Birth Control and Abortion Activists attack the Catholic Church while Islamic States kill Gays and Lesbians

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 11th, 2012

Week in Review

Christians and Jews are under pressure for their beliefs.  And their existence.  The recent attacks against the Catholic Church by the Obama administration forced the church to defend its Constitutional protections from such state interference.  Catholic theology does not permit the use of birth control.  Or abortions.  Obamacare tried to force Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage that paid for birth control and abortion.  Even though it’s a violation of conscience for Catholics.  You can support and advocate the use of birth control and abortion.  You just can’t be Catholic if you do.  At least, according to Catholic theology.

Christians are constantly being maligned for their opposition to gay marriage.  And their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  People calling this Christian position archaic.  And out of touch.  That not only do Christians hate women (because they preach abstinence instead of birth control and abortion) they also hate gays and lesbians.  Some going so far to say that Christians are persecuting gays and lesbians.  In a cruel and oppressive theocracy.

Jews living in Israel live under the constant threat of rocket and mortar fire into their cities.  The surrounding Arab lands want to replace the state of Israel with a Palestinian state.  Islamist groups Hezbollah and Hamas refuse to recognize the state of Israel and fight for its destruction.  The Islamist state of Iran feels the same way.  And funds and supplies Hezbollah and Hamas in their Israeli attacks.  Despite all of this hostility against the state of Israel, the most important and loyal US ally in the region, there are those in the US that want Israel to surrender land and go back to the pre 1967 borders.  Borders that would greatly weaken Israel’s ability to defend herself.  This despite the fact that Israel is the greatest democracy in the region.  Where Jew, Christian, Muslim, straight and gay all live with the same rights and protections in the Israeli state.  Which is a lot more than you can say about some other nations in the region (see ‘Emo’ killings raise alarms in Iraq by LARA JAKES, Associated Press, posted 3/11/2012 on Yahoo! News).

Officials and human rights groups estimated as many as 58 Iraqis who are either gay or believed to be gay have been killed in the last six weeks alone — forecasting what experts fear is a return to the rampant hate crimes against homosexuals in 2009. This year, eyewitnesses and human rights groups say some of the victims have been bludgeoned to death by militiamen smashing in their skulls with heavy cement blocks…

Like many places in the Muslim world, homosexuality is extremely taboo in Iraq. Anyone perceived to be gay is considered a fair target, and the perpetrators of the violence often go free. The militants likely behind the violence intimidate the local police and residents so there is even less incentive to investigate the crimes.

Emo is short for “emotional” and in the West generally identifies teens or young adults who listen to alternative music, dress in black, and have radical hairstyles. Emos are not necessarily gay, but they are sometimes stereotyped as such…

The Quran specifically forbids homosexuality, and Islamic militias in Iraq long have targeted gays in what they term “honor killings” to preserve the religious idea that families should be led by a husband and a wife. Those who do not abide by this belief are issued death sentences by the militias, according to the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, a human rights watchdog group. The same militias target women who have extramarital affairs…

He said an estimated 750 gay Iraqis have been killed because of their sexual orientation since 2006.

America is not the brutal theocracy some would claim it to be.  At least nothing like that in the Islamic world.  Where there is no separation of church and state.  And no tolerance to those who don’t toe the state religion line.  Yet people in America attack Christianity and Judaism.  But are pretty mum on Islam.  Deferring to their cultural and religious beliefs.  Unlike they will for Christianity and Judaism.  Case in point the recent pressure on Catholic institutions to pay for birth control and abortion.

Where do you think these religious critics would rather live?  Especially the gay and lesbian community?  The United States?  Israel?  Iraq.  Or Iran?  A rhetorical question.  For it is clear they would rather choose the intolerance in America or Israel over the intolerance in Iraq or Iran any day.  Because the intolerance in American and Israel stops at moralizing.  It doesn’t advocate the use of cement blocks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Study links Breast Cancer to Birth Control and Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 11th, 2012

Week in Review

We live in a very sexualized world.  And a very liberated world.  Women are encouraged to enjoy their sexuality.  And they are.  They have bought a fortune of sexy lingerie from Victoria’s Secret.  Even watch their annual lingerie show celebrating the female body.  Yes, even the ladies watch this fashion show.  Because both women and men are buying their products.  Including the Miracle Bra.  To showcase their breasts.  Which women like to showcase.  And men like to window shop at these showcases.  For men like breasts.

So in this sexualized and liberated world we empower women by letting them get sexy to please men.  Not really sure how that empowers them but it does.  I heard women say so.  I’m not complaining, mind you.  I mean, who doesn’t enjoy window shopping?  But as it turns out breasts have another purpose besides pleasing men.  They have a physiological purpose.  They’re part of a system that produces milk for babies.  A pretty complex system.  That goes through a metamorphosis when a woman gets pregnant.  Biological changes.  Changes at the cell level.  Complex stuff for a complex system.  But in the modern era of birth control and abortion, that process is getting interrupted.  Or prevented from happening.  And apparently for the human body to remain healthy this process needs to happen.  For when it’s not allowed to something bad happens.

Research has shown that babies who are breast-fed have fewer allergies than babies who are bottle-fed.  Which could, perhaps, explain an explosion in allergy problems.  But mothers who don’t become mothers are apparently doing even more harm to themselves.  Women who don’t have babies, who have babies late in life, women who have abortions and women who bottle-feed their babies have higher incidences of breast cancer.  Apparently due to the prevention or interruption of that biological metamorphosis.  Stopping that change in cells mid-change.  Leaving an unnatural cell.  And apparently a cell susceptible to cancer.

As women who have children at a younger age and don’t have abortions have lower incidences of breast cancer this will be a very contentious issue.  (As breast feeding is back in vogue that part of the study shouldn’t prove to be contentious).  The science will be challenged and challenged again.  For if these findings are proven true, they say a healthy woman is a mother.  Raising a family.  Which many in the political debate will find unacceptable.  So read the study (see The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors by Patrick S. Carroll posted on jpands.org).  Discuss it with your doctor.  And get other medical opinions.  Just be informed.  And be aware of all the information out there.  Even the information that proves not to be popular.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #40: “Big Government is more efficient when old people die sooner.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 16th, 2010

Revenues Must be Greater than Costs in Both Private Business and Government

Private business must make a profit.  That means the costs of their business can NOT exceed their revenues.  There may be times when costs do exceed revenue.  Such as during a recession.  Or when another business offers the same goods or services for less.  If these periods last too long, a business must act.  Find ways to increase their revenues.  Or cut costs.

Apple continues to innovate and create new products that people want.  This keeps their revenues greater than their costs.  GM, on the other hand, has not.  Their costs have exceeded their revenues.  So they have cut back on production.  And laid off people.  But, in the end, they still needed a government bailout to survive.

Government can tax and print money.  And run perpetual deficits.  So they don’t hold themselves to the same standards as private business.  But if they tax too much or print too much money, it can push the economy into recession and/or inflation.  So they try to make their revenues (taxes) cover as much of their costs (government spending) as possible. 

A Growing Population Can Fund Social Security and Big Government

If you go back 100 years, there was no Social Security.  No Medicare.  No big federal government.  That’s the way the Founding Fathers wanted it.  They minimized the money and reach of the federal government.  Because they were students of history.  They knew governments tended to oppress their people when they had money and power.

In the first century or so of our nation, it was easier to keep the size of government small.  Our population was small.  A big federal budget would require huge per capita taxes.  But that changed as the population grew.  Soon, it was possible to have big federal budgets from modest federal taxes.

We saw the growth of Big Government beginning around the turn of the 20th century.  First it was Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives.  Then came FDR.  He gave us Social Security.  Which was basically a Ponzi Scheme.  It worked at first as all Ponzi Schemes do.  As long as more people are entering into the scheme than collecting benefits, Social Security was sound as a pound.

Population Growth Rate and Big Government Peak and Crash in the 1970s

A growing population means a growing tax base.  The more babies are born, the more future taxpayers there will be.  And when FDR gave us Social Security, it wasn’t uncommon for a family to have 10 or more children.  That’s a lot of future federal taxes they could count on.

Then came LBJ.  He saw what FDR did.  Liked it.  Then tried to outdo him.  He gave us his Great Society (to end poverty and racial injustice).  And Medicare (health care for those 65 and older).  And other stuff.  But these programs were very, very expensive.  So he raised taxes.  A lot.

Then it all crashed in the 1970s.  The increase in taxes to pay for all that government spending stalled the economy.  When they tried to stimulate it with monetary policy, they unleashed inflation.  The U.S. dollar was convertible to gold then.  Which is a bad thing when you’re printing money.  For when you depreciate your currency, you increase the value of gold as measured by your currency; it takes a lot more devalued dollars to buy the same amount of gold.

Well, foreign governments exchanged their dollars for gold.  So much so that Nixon suspended the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971.   Without the gold restraint on printing money, they printed even more.  We had both recession and inflation.  Stagflation.   Double digit inflation, interest rates and unemployment.  This malaise made Carter a one-term president.

Birth Control and Abortion – The Death Knell of Big Government

So what happened?  Where did it go all wrong?  It goes back to the number of taxpayers.  Something happened between FDR and the 1970s.  We weren’t having as many babies.

Instead of 10 or more children in families, many families were having only 2 or 3 kids.  Widespread use of birth control and abortion drastically reduced the population growth rate of the country.  Fewer taxpayers were being born than before.  Which meant that more people would be entering retirement than there would be new taxpayers entering the work force to pay for these retirees.

This is how Ponzi Schemes fail.  When there are more people drawing benefits than paying into the scheme, the whole house of cards collapses.  And this is a big problem for government.  To support their massive spending, they need more, not fewer, people entering the work force.

How can Government Save Social Security and Medicare?  Old People Just Need to Hurry Up and Die.

Well, there’s a couple of ways to address this problem.  First there’s the revenue side.  They can increase the taxes they collect.  By raising tax rates on individuals.  Or by simply creating more individuals to tax.  Such as amnesty for illegal aliens.  But both of these options are difficult to do without hurting your chances at getting reelected.

Then there’s the cost side.  They can cut benefits.  Increase the Social Security retirement age.  But these, too, have political consequences.  Because these old coots tend to vote more than any other demographic.  Which can make them a real pain in the behind.

Of course, if they would jut die before reaching retirement age, the government doesn’t have to pay them or their survivors.  And if they’re dead, they won’t be consuming any Medicare benefits.  You see, not only are they the most vocal group at election time, but they are also the most costly when it comes to government benefits.  The government could kill two birds with one stone if these old codgers would just hurry up and die.

One Way for Big Government to Cut Health Care Costs:  Death Panels

The government doesn’t see your mother or grandmother.  They’re looking at numbers in columns.  They are having trouble increasing the numbers in one column (tax revenue).  And are having trouble keeping the numbers in the other column from growing (benefits).  Because of old people.  Who don’t work anymore.  Or pay much in income taxes.  But they consume the lion’s share of the benefits.  They’re the biggest thorn in the government’s side.  If it wasn’t for them, their programs wouldn’t forever be facing bankruptcy.  You can see why they aren’t the government’s favorite people.

So they increase the retirement age.  In hopes more will die before reaching retirement.  And those who do reach retirement age, well, they’ll have fewer years left to enjoy their benefits.  And they make cuts in the Medicare program.  Disallow some reimbursements.  Maybe prod a few seniors to an earlier death.  Why?  Because these kinds of cost savings are the only cost savings that will have any impact in a government-managed system.

Then there’s the holy grail of Big Government.  Government-managed universal health care.  Obamacare, in its latest manifestation.  And, of course, it will end up just like Social Security and Medicare.  For the same reasons Social Security and Medicare ended up the way they did.  But Obamacare will have a new twist.

Government panels will determine who gets medical treatment.  And who doesn’t.  Based on a ‘return on investment’ analysis used to manage and optimize health care costs.  Will medical treatment result in more taxpaying years for the patient?  If yes, treatment approved.  If not, treatment not approved.  If anything, the government’s death panels will be a model of efficiency.  On paper.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,