Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D. :: Townhall.com Columnist
Want Protection From Breast Cancer? Have Some Babies
by Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D.
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, ladies. Time for pink ribbons, fundraising, mammograms, and that familiar list of lifestyle changes you can make to decrease your risk.

I bet most of you can recite it in your sleep: examine yourself monthly, watch your weight, exercise, eat berries, vegetables and fiber. Don’t smoke or drink excessive alcohol. Avoid red meat and fatty foods.

Those are the guidelines etched in our brains, women young and old, desperate to dodge the dreaded bullet that will strike one in eight of us. But as you stock up on blueberries and sauerkraut, please know one more thing. The “lifestyle” choice that provides the best protection from this epidemic has nothing to do with diet, cigarettes, or booze.

You won’t find it highlighted in women’s magazines or health websites, but it’s the mommy track that provides the greatest protection against breast cancer: giving birth before thirty, having a bunch of kids, and breastfeeding them—for a long time. Numerous large studies have shown that each birth will reduce your risk by ten percent and each year of nursing by at least four percent. So if you start your family early, have three kids and nurse them each for two years, you’ve decreased your risk by about 54 percent.

That’s dramatic, and much more protection than you’ll get from staying a size six and snacking on Brussels sprouts.

Here’s how it works: breast tissue is not fully mature on a cellular level, until the last trimester of pregnancy. Immature breast tissue is more susceptible to malignant change. When motherhood is delayed, the breasts remain immature and vulnerable for a longer period, giving more opportunity for cancer to develop. The mechanisms by which nursing confers protection are less clear, but are related in part to interrupting ovulation.

Of course, not every woman has the option or the opportunity to become mothers. Many prefer to spend their twenties and thirties in pursuit of other vocations, and others happily choose childlessness. But that’s beside the point. Not everyone is able to, or interested in, working out three times a week, or substituting salmon for their cheeseburger, but we instruct them about the benefits of such nonetheless.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, right? It’s all about publicizing the facts, so women can make informed decisions. If we’re encouraging women to rethink their “lifestyles,” why omit the most critical lifestyle choice of all?

It’s another instance of ideology trumping science. Emphasizing the benefits of early motherhood could—gasp!—encourage some young women to give marriage more priority, and postpone their demanding career. They might decide it’s a diamond they most want now, not a PhD.

Yes, yes, I know: Betty Friedan, founding mother of feminism, is convulsing in her grave. I hear her cry: here goes forty years of progress down the drain!

The problem is biology itself is sexist. And that’s unlikely to change—even with threats of legal action from the ACLU or NOW.

This is not by any means the first instance of political correctness corrupting women’s health. In 2001 the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, responding to widespread misconceptions about delaying motherhood, sponsored a media campaign. Ads and billboards featured a baby bottle in the shape of an hour glass, reminding women that fertility begins to decline at 30.

“Our doctors were getting sick of hearing patients say, ‘No one told me,’ so we tried to educate women,” a spokesman said. But for doing so, they drew the ire of NOW, who argued that the campaign sent a negative message to women who might want to delay or skip childbearing. Mall and theater managers refused to make space available, and the campaign died.

Is this sort of intimidation happening again? Could some group of health professionals—oncologists or breast surgeons, perhaps, who see the devastation of this disease daily - have tried to publicize the protection of early childbearing on breast cancer, only to be silenced by ideologues claiming to represent all women?

As we munch on those carrots and sip that pomegranate juice, it’s something for us to consider.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Miriam Grossman, M.D. is a board certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist. She is author of the new book "You're Teaching My Child What?"
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sauce for the goose
As it turns out, frequent sex can also help prevent prostate cancer in men. A study has shown that regular ejaculation every other day can reduce the risk of prostate cancer by one-third. Probably by flushing toxins out of the prostate.

Of course, that might result in producing too many babies. So for you devout Christian men that aren't married or just don't believe in birth control, try regular masturbation.

Ridiculous!
My wife and the mother of my two daughters passed away in August 28 this year at age 66 from breast cancer.

I guess if she had four babies instead of two she would still be alive? Right...

There are far too may kooks with strange
theories and agendas masquerading as
authorities.




cornpone harry
An admission of being ridiculous is what your post demonstrates. The column is by a doctor speaking on a medical subject. She sites 'numerous studies' as evidence of her position. You site anecdotal evidence to refute her position. In the absence of a refutation of the studies she refers to I would have to accept her position.

Dr. Grossman is saying that having babies and nursing decreases the risk of breast cancer, she is not saying it eliminates the risk. Not smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer yet some who have never smoked contract the disease. Just because a course of action does not produce perfect results doesn't mean it isn't the thing to do.

Truth Hurts
Its really shameful that feminist ideology is permitted to trump the truth.

Truth hurts when the truth is that extending childhood into the 30's is a bad idea. Truth hurts when the truth is that being a responsible member of society who is actually contributing to the future is better for you than the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure.

We breastfeeding advocates have been talking about this issue since long before I nursed the baby who turned 16 this summer. We thought that women who wanted wanted the "convenience" of letting someone else raise their baby might pay attention to the ways breastfeeding benefits them personally instead of just benefiting the baby.

However, as a general rule, they close their eyes and ears to anything that might interfere with their perceived "right" to maximize their personal convenience and minimize their responsibilities.

Sigh.

The math is wrong
"Numerous large studies have shown that each birth will reduce your risk by ten percent and each year of nursing by at least four percent. So if you start your family early, have three kids and nurse them each for two years, you’ve decreased your risk by about 54 percent."

The statement requires the assumption of a "static baseline"--but such reductions work on "dynamic baseline" (which bins cornpone harry's ideology). The real reduction turns out to be about 45%, not 54%.

But does not invalidate Dr. Grossman's basic points.

Ironically, one point NOT made by Dr. Grossman also addresses the "woman's vanity" point. Many women complain that it is very difficult to reduce the fat-deposits in their butoocks; guess what the best way to metabolise these away is--production of breastmilk (and nursing baby).

(As a male, I'm expecting to get quite a lot of flak on this)


Reposting
The math in "Numerous large studies have shown that each birth will reduce your risk by ten percent and each year of nursing by at least four percent. So if you start your family early, have three kids and nurse them each for two years, you’ve decreased your risk by about 54 percent." is incorrect, as it assumes "static-baseline", when should be "dynamic-baseline"--which changes the net reduction to 45% rather than the 54 stated. However, it does not at all invalidate Dr. Grossman's basic premise (though it DOES bin cornpone harry's ideology).

One point NOT raised by Dr. Grossman--in all the health/vanity guidelines mentioned: many women complain of difficulties in reducing fat-deposits from buttocks--and it turns out that the best way to metabolise these away is BREASTMILK PRODUCTION (and by inference, nursing babies).

(Being a male, I'm expecting plenty of flak for this)

What about prostate cancer?
Pink ribbons are everywhere… the mainstream media cannot go a week without having a mention about fighting breast cancer… yet we rarely hear about prostate cancer.

I did some research on the CDC and National Cancer Institutes websites…


Breast and prostate cancer have very similar incidence and fatality rates. The NCI has something like 14 active research trials for breast cancer, and only 3 for prostate cancer. Government research funding is something like ~70% for breast cancer and ~30% for prostate cancer. Private funding is even more lopsided.

It is time for some “equality”!

LOL
I can almost hear the feminists ranting that Grossman should be fired, censured, and forced to renounce her own PHD, in that order.

Ending Aging will reduce breast cancer
Studies show that the risk of getting breast cancer increases as a woman gets older. Interfering with the aging process will reduce the risk substantially. After all, how often do you hear of 20-year old women getting breast cancer? Unfortunately, Ending Aging is anathema to the "breed and die" conservative philosophy.

So amperro
How do you propose "ending ageing". Are you going to outlaw entropy?

You can go around all you want squawking that you've outlawed gravity, but you still aren't going to be able to walk out a 20th-floor window without going "splat" below.

Thanks so much
Sure glad I had such a choice in the matter in my twenties! I totally am childless because I'm a careerist feminist who was avoiding the mommy track. Nothing to do with not wanting to raise a child alone and not having a handy man. Guess I should've just gone down to the local sperm bank. Oh, wait, couldn't afford that--no health insurance in my twenties.

I agree that we'd be a whole lot better off if the world was arranged so we could have our children when it's healthier for us and them. But the kind of reforms that would take are, shall we say, far from conservative.

svpallava
You obviously don't get it.

Nobody would age if it weren't for the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton cabal that caused Hurricane Katrina by dumping Kyoto.

Now these same evil conservatives are going to keep us in the stone age by refusing to let Mrs. Bill Clinton enact legislation that will establish a Federal anti-aging department. Such a department would effectively stop aging the same way the Department of Energy has solved all of our energy problems.

Mrs. Bill Clinton would like to fund this new department by taxing the "rich" (rich Republicans, that is), but the mean, hateful conservatives are going to force everyone to grow old and die of natural causes just so they can keep their fortunes.

Libs like amperro are priceless. They are funnier than Letterman and I don't have to stay up late to see them.

miss_w
I for one am glad you never had kids, infact I support all liberal woman to have abortions, the reason is Miss_w you think the health care reform should pay for your sperm donor? Then I bet you think the government should pay you in place of a husband? It's called welfare honey, and the rest of us well pay our way. you pay your way, how's that sound.

Miss_W
Not much of a career girl if you could not afford to buy some sperm.

Two points
1) Men get breast cancer, too.

2) It's just too bad for us women who are infertile. I guess I'll stick to that diet and exercise and non-smoking after all.

Noelegy
Ref: Men get breast cancer too

Yes... I do not have the numbers at my fingertips, but I think the rates are exceedingly small.

Depopulation
If the feminists had their way then the human race would shrink every generation until we were gone. That sounds more like the environmentalists agenda than NOW's.

Response to svpallava and wiseone
How do you propose "ending aging". Are you going to outlaw entropy?

No, I am NOT going to "outlaw entropy". It has been proposed that aging might be suspended indefinitely with periodic repair of biological damage at the cellular and molecular levels. Hardly my idea, actually. If you are truly interested in learning how, check http://www.SENS.org


"Libs like amperro are priceless."

I am NO LIBERAL! I oppose the liberal agenda in its entirety! There is nothing the the liberals believe in that I support! However, I am not a BioLuddite, either.

amperro
On the subject of ending aging have you seen the Sean Connery film 'Zardoz'? Nice take there on forcing evolution. I figure global warming will do the trick. That may be why the Libs are so scared of it. They see mankind being forced into a higher plane of existence in order to survive and they are left with no voters.:)

Boobalicous!
I think its wonderful that you can reduce your risk of breast cancer by having children but it
doesn't offer much hope in convincing anybody that the real cost of raising children is a financial nightmare. You can google a projected cost to raise a child by area. In my area, its $190,0000.00 not including the cost of a college education. Also while raising children and not working, my retirement savings is not supplemented and that causes further hardship.
American society also wants to reduce costs by taking away entitlement programs like medicare and social security which necessitates more conscientious thought and pragmatism to expense.
Its a conundrum that likely will lead to something that this country has yet to witness including the test of extreme capialism which is the road we are headed for.

PS. Besides, now that the medical community has a shared responsiblilty in the development of the Superbug its just a matter of time before a good portion of the human race will cease to exist due to mutant bacteria!

how do I shape up?
"You won’t find it highlighted in women’s magazines or health websites, but it’s the mommy track that provides the greatest protection against breast cancer: giving birth before thirty, having a bunch of kids, and breastfeeding them—for a long time"

Let's see:
giving birth before age 30 (29 yrs 10 monthes): check
having a bunch of kids: check
breastfeeding them for a long time: (1 year each): check

My risk is low :0)

I'm surprised by Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D.'s comments that this isn't widely known. I knew about it in my teenaged years, and I hear about it on a semi-regular basis ever since. Almost every article regarding breast cancer mentions these "lifestyle choices" as a way of lowering the risk of breast cancer. That, and avoiding hormone-replacement therapies.

Who would have thought
that God's plan for families was best after all-

Abortion/Breast Cancer link
There is also a connection between Breast cancer and medical abortion (as opposed to a miscarriage) because of the unnatural interruption of the massive hormones in the body as soon as a woman becomes pregnant. Now PLEASE, I am not saying that every woman who has breast cancer had an abortion by any stretch, but especially when teens have abortions and repeated abortions, the rate of breast cancer increases. http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
I know the abortion industry & feminists will deny this but it makes logical sense. This is why I encourage people to give money to other Breast Cancer research foundations than Komen. Komen gives money to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the USA. Seems like a pretty cushy relationship if you ask me.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpeci alReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050222a.html

Ending Aging
There is a quick and easy way of ending aging. It's called "death". I'm sure liberals have a plan about which of us will be required to "end aging". Probably based on our voter registration.

Need the total picture
Grossman's statements are significant and worthy of comment. However, I think we need a broader overview on the subject of breast cancer.

"Unopposed estrogen" has long been suspected as a causative agent for breast cancer, according to my OB/GYN. One way to reduce lifetime exposure to estrogen is indeed to have several children, preferably beginning at a younger age. This also reduces the total number of lifetime menstrual cycles, which is also good.

One can get some of the same preventive benefits if one is lucky enough to have started menstruation at a later age. For instance, my cycles started at age 16. My mother, on the other hand, experienced menarche at age 10, had 3 children (one of them before age 30), but developed breast cancer at age 50.

Me? I'm 55, never had children, and haven't had breast cancer (fingers crossed and hoping I don't). I believe I fall into the "moderate" risk category.

I would think that female athletes who train very hard, and cease menstruating for certain periods of time would also have a preventive effect, but I have no evidence to back up my idea. There are at least some studies that show a direct link between exercise and reduced risk of breast cancer.

Yeah, right amperro
And the only thing stopping this marvelous new medical discovery is "breed and die" conservative philosophy.

Like I said. It makes as much sense as "Bush caused Katrina".

Take a reality check.

If you don't want me to think you're a lib take your tin foil hat off before you post.

I Am Surprized to Read this Article
Having been a lay consultant on breastfeeding for 15 years - I must say I am surprized to see this information being printed.

There is no single cause nor single step to prevention. However, breastfeeding (72 weeks, which is 18 months- consecutive best, cumulative ok) does lower all risk factors for breast cancer except family history. What Dr. Grossman was presenting is that these particular lifestyle choices which can eliminate so many risk factors are not being mentioned to the degree that they need to be, or in some cases not at all.

This is not a new 'finding' it has been studied (and re-proven) again and again.

And so it does become, why is the very information to lessen such a devestating disease being supressed? And by whom?

For ceejay
Yeah, that plan was also presented in a film--original 1976 "Logan's Run" with Michael York and Jenny Agutter ("life ends at 30 unless you're reborn in the fiery 'Carousel' ritual").

I guess you are safe if you are fertile
"Of course, not every woman has the option or the opportunity to become mothers. Many prefer to spend their twenties and thirties in pursuit of other vocations, and others happily choose childlessness. But that’s beside the point."

No mention of women who are physically unable to have children? I guess they will all get breast cancer. Then again there is hope since all the unwed teenage mothers are safe.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.