This week’s news of a possible correlation between antibiotic use and breast cancer was disturbing.  No, not because of the implication that women have unknowingly increased their chances of getting breast cancer, but because of the narrowness of the media’s presentation of the findings.

 

Note the titles on all these news articles:

 

Study links heavy antibiotic use, breast cancer
IAfrica South African News, South Africa - Feb 19, 2004

 

Antibiotic Use is Linked to Increased Breast Cancer Risk
Newswise (press release) - Feb 17, 2004

 

Study finds link between antibiotics and breast cancer
ABC Online, Australia - Feb 18, 2004

 

Study Links Antibiotics and Breast Cancer
Chicago Tribune (subscription), IL - Feb 18, 2004

 

Study finds antibiotics may increase breast cancer risk
New Zealand Herald, New Zealand - Feb 18, 2004

 

Report links breast cancer to antibiotic use
Reuters, India - Feb 17, 2004

 

Antibiotics linked to risk of breast cancer
Independent, UK - Feb 17, 2004

 

Study finds antibiotics might increase breast cancer risk
The Scotsman, UK - Feb 17, 2004

 

LINK DISCOVERED BETWEEN ANTIBIOTICS AND BREAST CANCER
KFMB, CA - Feb 17, 2004

 

Were women to take these titles and the first paragraph or two of several of these articles to heart, they’d be stopping antibiotic therapies willy-nilly.  Worse, this news has been blasted around the world, as indicated by the sources of these articles.  The average news consumer isn’t getting but a small picture of this breast cancer finding.

 

The truth is closer to this:

 

“They say that although the study does show a link between antibiotic use and breast cancer, additional studies need to be done to rule out any other possible causes for the increased cancer risk. The study also did not rule out the possibility that women who take antibiotics more often have other risk factors for the disease, such as a family history of breast cancer or hormonal imbalances. "We need to follow up and find out if this is a real association," Stephen H. Taplin, a senior scientist at the National Cancer Institute, told the Post. However, the researchers say the study does provide another reason for doctors to prescribe antibiotics sparingly, and avoid prescribing them in situations where other treatments are available.” [Advocate.com, 18-FEB-04]

 

Is it at all possible that women who have an increased need for antibiotics have immune system problems that put them at increased risk of breast cancer anyhow?  Cancer is an indication of some immune-failure, after all.

 

Is it not possible as well that women who are either postponing childbearing or taking the Pill not manipulating their immune systems as well as their hormones and reproductive systems?

 

And is it possible that increased environmental exposure to antibiotics may be as much a factor as is taking antibiotics?  With much of our commercial meat in the U.S. treated with antibiotics at one point or another in the food chain, women are increasingly exposed to antibiotics without their awareness.  Do these further exacerbate immune systems already genetically predisposed to breast cancer?

 

An article that is as important as any on the antibiotic-breast cancer link is this one:

 

Singapore's breast cancer rate tripled in last 3 decades
Channel News Asia, Singapore - 12 hours ago [21-FEB-04]

 

Singapore’s population is much smaller and more likely to have a homogenous set of behaviors than that of women in the U.S.; for this reason, Singapore may provide a better assessment of the antibiotic-breast cancer risk.  Has the prescription and usage of antibiotics in treating women or livestock tripled in Singapore in the last three decades?  What about the other risk factors identified – fat consumption, weight gain, smoking, etc.?  Have they also changed correspondingly across the female population or no?

 

I hope someone in research makes these same queries.  More importantly, I hope women don’t jump to conclusions about antibiotics to their detriment.  The antibiotic-breast cancer correlation should only serve as a prompting for women to be more careful about regular breast cancer screenings as well as funding research into the big picture.

 

  2:19:09 PM    comment []

 

Yeah.  She’s a c*nt.  Joe’s awfully nice to outline the case for me in detail.

 

This isn’t just bad form about which I’m truly angry, like Nedra Pickler-ing a story.  Pickler-ing is simply annoying unprofessional behavior.  It’s pure maliciousness, malevolence to attack a man simply because of his disability.  It is completely indefensible to rip another human based on physical handicap.  It’s why I reserve the label that I do not generally use in day-to-day language.  This is beyond the pale.

 

In this case, if the shoe fits, shove it.

 

One more thing: this is my blog.  I’ve paid for the space, the software; it’s my time and my speech.  I do not write what other people want of me; they can get their own blog and do it themselves.  It’s so much more efficient.  If you want another voice, look for it elsewhere.  You want to say something different, knock yourself out on your own blog.  They can be had for free, like speech. 

 

Or like speech used to be in this country.

 

  1:32:12 PM    comment []