Mainstream media are mostly ignoring the latest investigation into the increasing incidence of breast cancer. The insurance industry, on the other hand, is not. The November issue of The Actuary, a British magazine published for the actuarial profession, includes a summary article by statistician and actuary Patrick Carroll, who concludes that abortion is the best predictor of breast cancer.
The incidence of breast cancer has increased since the 1970s by an average of about 80% across all ages in Great Britain.
Mr Carroll lists seven factors that appear to be driving the upward trend in breast cancer:
- Abortion: Most British abortions (53%) are nulliparous and the subsequent breast cancer risk is greater here.
- Age at first birth: A low age is protective, as made known by British epidemiologists.
- Childlessness increases the risk: Nuns have long been known to have a higher risk of breast cancer.
- Fertility: More children increase protection.
- Breast-feeding: This gives additional protection, now estimated by British epidemiologists.
- Hormonal contraceptives: These contain oestrogen and progestin, and are conducive to breast cancer.
- Hormone replacement therapy (HRT): This contains female hormones and is likewise conducive to breast cancer.
Another suggestive observation is that, unlike other cancers, the incidence of breast cancer is highest among upper-class women.
h/t: LifeSite
Previous related posts:
- Abortion report shaped by ideological and financial interests: British MP
- Anti-abortion judge sworn in; liberals apoplectic
- Abortion in the UK: Safe, legal, and common
UPDATE (17 Nov.): After reading criticism of this study and giving it more thought, I have to backtrack. I have removed the chart and some text. I think the study raises important questions and points to avenues for further research, but problems with data quality and methodology render it inconclusive on its own.









Posts

The graph suggests a possible link but the evidence isn’t conclusive. Correlation coefficients greater than 0.9 are not unusual with time series data that contain trends.
I suspect that both these series have a unit root (even after allowing for the trend). Given this, it is necessary to test if they cointegrate before any conclusion can be drawn as to whether there is a long term relationship between them.
Why do you suspect that both series have a unit root?
This kind of problem is very common when working with time series data. I think the safest procedure is to begin with the null that each series contains a unit root. This can be tested against the alternative that they are stationary around a linear trend.
Abortion Strongly Linked to Breast Cancer…
Sure, it’s correlational data?but with a .98 correlation coefficient! … Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association is still updating its fact sheet on abortion and mental health….
My wife has breast cancer and they are among the first questions they ask.
Beat you by 3 days, unfortunately,
dinosaur, I am very sorry to hear about your wife.
[...] http://magicstatistics.com/2007/11/13/insurance-industry-reports-abortion-breast-cancer-link/ [...]