Chicken Soup Isn't Just Good for the Soul!

Mainstream medicine is provided by doctors who are nervous about malpractice suits and is funded by the government or insurance companies. That means most doctors have a good reason to suggest more tests while most patient have no good reason to say "no." Third-party payment of medical bills is not the only reason medical costs keep rising, but it is certainly part of the problem.

Self-pay patients (including those who participate in healthcare sharing ministries) are different. They want good health, but it comes out of their pockets--initially, at least--not some big company's. This should lead self-pay patients to work a little harder at staying healthy. They ought to eat chicken soup a little more often and Big Macs a little less.

Of course, eating chicken soup is just a metaphor for old-fashioned approaches to staying healthy. Nobody really believes chicken soup heals colds--or do they?

As it turns out, chicken soup really does help people get over colds. Chicken soup contains high levels of collagen, which is the richest source of glycine in the body, as collagen is 22% glycine by weight. Health-conscious people have so relied on lean, skinless, boneless meats lately that the average American diet is now lower in collagen than it used to be. Dr. Joel Brind writes in Chicken Soup, the Common Cold, and Proglyta,

...a research team at the Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha found that chicken soup actively inhibits inflammation. Specifically, they tested a standard laboratory model of neutrophils... in vitro, and found that a soluble substance in chicken soup ” significantly inhibited neutrophil migration and did so in a concentration-dependent manner.” And it is inflammation that is responsible for most of the symptoms of cold and flu.

 If you hate chicken soup, try Jello. It has the very same proteins. (Is this why Jello always seems to be on the hospital menu?) There's also "Sweetamine," a glycine-based supplement you can use like a sweetener.  It''s healthy choices that set self-pay patients apart!

Debate the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

What scientific paper could possibly open up a subject as controversial as "death panels" or "global warming"? How about the latest Chinese research that finds a statistically significant 44% increase in breast cancer risk after induced abortions. For those who are new to the debate, here are the arguments for and against the Abortion/Breast Cancer link.

The Argument

• Estrogen is to breast cancer what carbon dioxide is to global warming--with a twist.




• CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" that traps heat, so anthropogenic global-warming ("AGW") theorists argue that the rise in temperatures around the world is the result of humans burning fossil fuels.


• Steroidal estrogen is a recognized carcinogen. Pregnancy loads a woman's body with estrogen, but abortion interrupts the process before other hormones can mature breast tissues. Abortion/breast cancer ("ABC") theorists argue that this can explain the global epidemic of breast cancer since oral contraceptives and abortions became common.


• The twist: people who question the AGW hypothesis are called "deniers" and are told "the science is settled." People who articulate the ABC hypothesis are called "fanatics" and are also told "the science is settled."

Research on Rats

• Pro: Rat breast tissue is more susceptible to mutations in early pregnancy, which raises the risk of cancer. Fortunately, breast tissue becomes specialized in later pregnancy, which reduces the lifetime risk of cancer. Rats that give birth have a lower incidence of cancer, but research shows that interrupted pregnancies confer no protective effect. Although the A/BC link was first hypothesized in 1957, nobody has done a study on rats that is specifically designed to find out whether induced abortions raises the risk of cancer.


• Con: Rats aren't people. The science is settled. We don't need more research.

Research on Pregnancy

• Pro: The age at first live birth is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer. Earlier is better--the sooner a woman has a baby, the lower is her lifetime risk of breast cancer. This is true despite the fact that child-birth itself
  raises a woman's risk of breast cancer in the 15 years after birth. This transient risk is due to the impact of estrogen on breast tissue. Abortion leaves a woman with the worst of both worlds--all the elevated risks of pregnancy without the protective effects of birth.


• Con: Women don't care about raising their risk of cancer when
  they're considering terminating their pregnancy, and doctors shouldn't
  tell them about it. It would only confuse and distress them.

Research on Estrogen

• Pro: The suspected link between abortion and breast cancer is based on the high levels of estrogen during pregnancy. Estrogen has been tied to breast cancer time after time.  Hormone replacement therapy is a recognized breast cancer risk. Steroidal estrogen is a recognized carcinogen.  Injectable contraceptives appear to raise breast cancer risk. Studies on oral contraceptives have been more controversial, but the World Health Organization identifies estrogen-containing oral contraceptives as a "Class 1 carcinogen."


• Con: Only Catholics object to oral contraceptives. This is just another case of religion hiding behind the mask of "science."

Research on Populations

• Pro: Breast cancer is rising around the world, especially in
  populations that have begun to use oral contraceptives or induced
  abortion. Breast cancer incidence is elevated in every group that tends
  to choose abortion: (i.e., young black women, more educated women,
  higher status women, etc) and lower in most groups that tend to avoid
  abortion (older black women, more religious women, Hispanic women in
  Hispanic neighborhoods, etc.).


• Con: Claims of a "global epidemic" of breast cancer have been
  overblown. Most of the alleged increase in breast cancer in the United
  States is simply the result of better publicity and longer lifespans.

Breast Cancer Studies:

Case-Control Studies: Matching women with breast cancer to otherwise-identical women 

• Pro: Study after study finds a modest increase in breast cancer risk. The studies that distinguish women who had abortions from women who took the Pill are consistent with an increase in risk of 3% per week of terminated pregnancy. Studies designed to correct for the possibility of "recall bias" fail to find any.


• Con: Any apparent increase can be explained by "recall bias," which holds that women who get sick tell the truth while women who are healthy tend to maintain their privacy.

Cohort Studies: Following large groups of previously-identified women over time

• Pro: Cohort studies, which track large groups of women over
  time, necessarily fail to address the multiple variables that affect
  breast cancer risk. Studies funded by big drug companies should be
  scrutinized as carefully as studies by tobacco companies.


• Con: Cohort studies are the most reliable because they are the largest and are not subject to recall bias.

Recall Bias: Do Healthy Women Conceal Abortions?

• Pro: Janet Daling, of Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, is personally pro-choice but is even more anti-cancer. Her research on the abortion/breast cancer link was elegantly designed to detect any evidence of recall bias. She included three groups of women in her study: some with breast cancer, some with cervical cancer, and some who were healthy. The recall bias theory suggests that women with cancer (whether breast cancer or cervical cancer) would tell the truth, while healthy women might be shy. She found no evidence of an increase in risk among women with cervical cancer, but a statistically significant increase among women who chose abortion.


• Con: Recall bias explains all the apparent increase in risk.

Hypothesis Or Theory?

• Pro: Before the National Institute of Health convened its panel to discuss this issue in 2003, almost every paper on the topic concluded with "more research is needed." The research done since then is consistent with a modest, transient increase in breast cancer risk after induced abortion as long as one recognizes the confounding effect of oral contraceptives. With the latest meta-analysis from China, it's time to stop calling this the "abortion/breast cancer hypothesis" and recognize it as a valid scientific theory.


• Con: The hypothesis has been disproved. The science is settled. The continuing obsession about this is just more right-wing, anti-choice obfuscation.

Conclusion

The link between abortion and breast cancer has been so vigorously and officially denied that many people have decided it simply must be false. Talking about abortion and breast cancer these days is like insisting that Obamacare will create "death panels" or denying global warming.



That's why the new Chinese research matters. It's time for open-minded people to review the arguments and make up their own minds. This page is a place to begin the discussion.

Chinese Abortions and American Health

In 1981, Dr. Malcolm Pike studied 163 Los Angeles breast cancer patients under the age of 33 and found that women who had used oral contraceptives were significantly more likely to get breast cancer than women who did not. The "relative risk" for women who had taken the Pill for six years of more was 2.2--which means they were twice as likely to get breast cancer as were women who did not take the Pill... with one exception. Women who had abortions (instead of relying on oral contraceptives) were even more likely to get breast cancer.

Pike did not zero in on abortions and the Pill because he disapproved of them on religious grounds, but because both of them expose a woman to estrogen. Estrogen has a well-documented impact on breast cancer risk. The Pill artificially adds estrogen to a woman from the outside, while pregnancy adds estrogen from the inside. Estrogen raises the risk of breast cancer in the 15 years after a normal birth, but the final stages of pregnancy mature the breast tissue so much that the overall effect of childbirth is to lower a woman's lifetime risk. Abortion leaves women with all the elevated risks of early pregnancy and none of the protective effects of third-trimester maturation.

The women in Pike's study were all under 32 when they got cancer. That's how many years have passed since Pike first published his findings. What has happened since then? Wikipedia lists 113 references on its "abortion/breast cancer hypothesis" page, and many of them show an elevated risk after abortion. The elevated risk is small, as these things go--a transient increase in risk of about 3% per week of terminated pregnancy. It takes a big study to turn something that small into a significant finding, and most of the big studies have been funded by big organizations, such as governments  and/or pharmaceutical companies.

To date, none of the studies funded by drug companies separate women who take oral contraceptives from women who have abortions. Imagine a tobacco company comparing lung cancer risks among pipe smokers to non-pipe-smokers without ever asking about cigarettes. That's what you get when a drug company simplistically compares women who terminated their pregnancy to women who avoided pregnancy... somehow. You have to ask about the Pill!

Not all studies have been funded by big drug companies, however, resulting in a steady drip of studies with elevated breast cancer risks after abortion. How can scientists ignore this? The answer is something called "recall bias." Abortion is such a private matter that healthy woman don't usually want to disclose it. All that changes when a woman gets cancer, however. If all the healthy women "forget" their abortions and all the sick women remember them, it would look like sick women had had more abortions even if they didn't really.

Between small numbers, recall bias, oral contraceptives, and the red-hot politics of abortion, all this can be confusing. Reasonable scientists have been able to disagree about the abortion/cancer link, and, as a result, American women have been choosing abortion for the last 32 years without finding out about this issue. But the latest research from China clears away the confusion.

Time Magazine reports that only 1.2% of Chinese women take the Pill, resulting in a lot of pregnancies. With China's "one-child per couple" policy, that has led to 13 million abortions every year. Unlike America, where these abortions are a "private matter between a woman and her doctor," Chinese data on abortions are kept by the same government agencies that conduct the procedures. With such huge numbers, official government data, and virtually no oral contraceptives, Chinese research on the abortion/breast cancer link should be as solid as research on living human beings can ever ethically be.

And the latest research devastates the claim that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. The newest study from China perfectly matches the evidence from earlier studies suggesting that each week of a terminated pregnancy raises a woman's transient risk by approximately 3%. For a single abortion at 15-weeks, one would expect a 45% increase in risk. The meta-analysis reports a 44% rise. A second abortion would add more exposure, adding more risk. Two abortions in China leads to a 76% increase in risk. A third abortion would raise the risk even more--and Chinese women with three abortion had an average increased risk of 89%. This kind of "dose-response relationship" is very persuasive to open-minded researchers... especially when the "dose" is something with such a clear-cut relationship to breast cancer as estrogen.

Do you think this is going to change any medical minds? It will--but not in America any time soon. But that no longer matters. China has too many women and too many scientists to wait around for American "researchers" any longer.

Why Some Secularists Hate Christian Healthshares

One self-proclaimed "secularist" discovered Christian healthshares some years ago--and hates them. This article is a now dated (the author predicted that Catholics would jump on the healthshare bandwagon if Obama got reelected, and they haven't--yet), and it includes some information about legal challenges that are now ancient history, but it you can stand the snarkiness, it's well worth reading. Here's a sample:

What an incredibly sweet deal for these three outfits. There’s only one way in the whole law for right-wingers to evade Obama’s Commie individual insurance mandate, and they own it — without any fear of competition! All three just happen to be evangelical Christian — equal protection of the laws is such an outdated notion. 

People fear what they don't understand. Or, in this case, people who oppose Christianity fear what they do understand. Now we just need to make sure more Christians understand the power of healthshares.

Health and Wealth

James 2:5 says, "Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"

I have been to Rome three times, and vividly remember my first visit. I was on a bus tour that took us to the Vatican in the morning and the catacombs in the afternoon. I was overwhelmed by the magnificence of St. Peter's--an awe-inspiring display that was designed (around the time of the Reformation) to remind faithful Catholics of the magnificence of the One True Church. As a Protestant, I was duly impressed--but not converted (even though I did catch a glimpse of the Pope and even though some of my faithful Catholic friends were praying God would use that trip to bring me home to Rome).

What moved me, that day, was my visit to the catacombs. There, in those ancient corridors carved out of living rock, I saw hand-painted symbols of my faith. I visited the tombs of some of the very first bishops of Rome--the earliest popes--and I did feel "at home." These were my brothers. This was my church.

This is not to say that rich Christians aren't Christians and poor Christians are. It's just that what Christians need isn't more money, but more of Christ. That's true even when we're talking about really expensive propositions like healing the sick or feeding the hungry.

Let's talk about feeding the hungry first. Mark 6 tells how five thousand men (not counting women and children) got so hungry that Christ's disciples begged Him to send them home. Jesus answered them, “You give them something to eat.” 

Some theologians think the "miracle of the loaves and fishes" wasn't a "violation of the laws of physics." They suggest that people started sharing the little they had hoarded for themselves and it turned out there was more than enough for all. Without taking any theological position on how the loaves and fishes worked, it's clear that healthcare needs might be met if many Christians shared the little they have with others in need.

Jesus didn't need a billion dollars or a government program to feed the hungry. He doesn't need a corporation or federal agency to heal the sick. He does need followers who actually follow Him, however--and that means us.

The Hobby Lobby Case

The government's contempt for Catholics is on display in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., which pits America's most prominent supporter of partial birth abortion,  Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, against devout Roman Catholic business owners.

 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") explicitly safeguards religious freedom from Acts of Congress. My old boss, Mike Farris, co-chaired the group that drafted RFRA , and he knew what he was doing. Having fought for religiously motivated homeschoolers in courts all over the country, Mike crafted the strongest protections Congress would consider--and got it passed.

Unfortunately, the government now insists that religious liberty does not apply to corporations--even if those corporations are closely held by people who share the same beliefs.  That's hard on Catholics, who have used the corporate form of ownership to accomplish a vast variety of enterprises, from building not-for-profit hospitals to growing business like Hobby Lobby, Inc. According to Kathleen Sebelius, Catholic business owners now have the choice of selling their companies or denying their faith. Instead, they have gone to court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, some corporations will be exempt from some of Obamacare's most objectionable mandates. But coerced contraceptives today (and abortions tomorrow?) are just the tip of the iceberg. Healthcare sharing ministries ("healthshares") are a legal, affordable, Christian alternative to the kind of insurance Hobby Lobby objects to. Healthshares are a better mousetrap. This blog exists to beat a path to their door so that individuals, churches, and, corporations don't have to compromise their convictions.

Oral Contraceptives and Cancer

The National Cancer Institute admits there is some evidence that women who use oral contraceptives face an increased risk of breast cancer for several years. That is no surprise, since the Pill delivers estrogen to a woman's body, and increased exposure to estrogen is associated with elevated breast cancer risk. The mystery is not that oral contraceptives raise breast cancer risk, but that they don't appear to raise the risk anywhere near enough to account for the global epidemic of breast cancer since they became widely available in the 1960s.

What the National Cancer Institute won't tell you is that oral contraceptives are just one way a woman can get an abnormal exposure to estrogen. Pregnancy also delivers "sudden and dramatic increases in estrogen." There's nothing abnormal about pregnancy, of course, but doctors are well aware of a "transient" increase in breast cancer risk after birth. A full-term pregnancy matures and specializes breast tissue, reducing a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer--but only after an elevated risk for the fifteen years after birth.

If a full-term pregnancy raises risk in the short term but lowers risk overall, what about an interrupted pregnancy? Miscarriages, which are often associated with insufficient estrogen levels, don't seem to have a measurable effect on breast cancer risk, but interrupting a viable pregnancy seems to produce the worst of both worlds--elevated short-term risk (due to estrogen) without the long-term benefit of mature, milk-producing tissue. In other words, it would seem that abortion must increase the risk of breast cancer in young women.

How come you don't hear that from the National Cancer Institute? The reason may disturb you. Study after study has been published on the abortion/breast cancer link, with varying results. Some, such as the most recent meta-analyis from China, find an elevated risk of cancer after abortion.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 Chinese studies by Dr. Yubei Huang and his colleagues in the prestigious journal, Cancer Causes Control, last week reported a significant 44% increased breast cancer risk among women with at least one induced abortion...

Others find no increase in risk--but those studies simply compare women who have abortions to women who don't have abortions. That's like comparing pipe smokers to non-pipe-smokers instead of comparing pipe smokers to cigarette smokers to non-smokers. If estrogen is what elevates the risk of breast cancer, it makes no sense to compare one group of women with elevated estrogen levels (pill takers) to another group of women with elevated estrogen levels (whose pregnancies were terminated by induced abortions).

Once you include all sources of elevated estrogen, the "global epidemic" of breast cancer suddenly makes sense. Breast cancer is on the rise among all groups that routinely use oral contraceptives or choose abortion, while it tends to remain at normal levels among women without an artificially high exposure to estrogen.

If this is true, why isn't everybody talking about it? First of all, in our ultra-politicized world, anybody who mentions the abortion/breast cancer link is instantly marginalized--just like Sarah Palin was when she claimed Obamacare would lead to death panels. (If you haven't noticed, the mainstream media finally admits that death panels are real.)  Second, many of the biggest (and most questionable) studies on abortion and breast cancer have been funded by the same drug companies that produce the Pill. And finally, the political and legal implications of an abortion/breast cancer link are overwhelming. At a minimum, Planned Parenthood would be bankrupted by malpractice suits, and Roe v. Wade itself would have to be reconsidered in light of a genuine medical danger. The stakes in America are too high to let science be science.

But that can't be all there is to it! Science is science, and even the tobacco industry had to hide the evidence that smoking led to cancer. How can drug companies hide the evidence of an abortion/breast cancer link? The answer is, they don't. They just attribute it to "recall bias," arguing that women who choose abortion tend to be ashamed of their choice, and so don't tell the truth about their own medical history until they get cancer--at which point, life trumps privacy. With this approach, study after study that shows an elevated risk can be ignored every time. Without direct experiments on living human beings (which violates every principle of medical ethics), indirect evidence of increased risk gets ignored time after time.

Except in China. Abortion there has none of the personal stigma that it has in the United States, and medical records on abortions are easily available. With nearly a billion people and a state-mandated one-child per couple policy, China is the next best thing to a laboratory for conducting direct experimentation on living human beings. This makes it especially significant that Chinese researchers are pointing out the consistent elevated risk after abortion.

Convinced?  Then tell a friend--or ten. Forward this link to folks who need to know.

Skeptical? I haven't scratched the surface of the evidence for this link. Post your questions or critiques in the comment section below and I'll respond to them as time permits.

Angry?  That's what the comments are for--but please keep it clean, or I'll delete it, whether you're roasting me or toasting me. This blog is intended for the whole family, with a zero tolerance policy on profanity.