How's this for taking things out of context?
-
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=245[^] http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp[^] The largest, and probably the most reliable study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In that study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. So all information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries, was very complete, and was not influenced by recall bias. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provides good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003. Again, because they were asked about childbirths and abortions at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer. The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. Researchers asked the women in 1995 about past induced and spontaneous abortions. While the women were being followed in the study, more than 3,300 developed invasive breast cancer. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion.
What do you personally believe?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
-
What do you personally believe?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
Personally I don't beleive the link exists, mostly because the largest and in my opion the most accurate studies into it from Denmark (1.5 Million) and Sweden (49,000) do not show any link. Also the study in Denmark showed that, women who had abortions prior to seven weeks of pregnancy actually showed a slightly decreased risk of developing breast cancer. But, the actual number of women in this category is very small, so statistically it could be considered an anomally. Not to mention the Januaray 1997 study by the Netherlands Cancer Institute documented the existence of "recall bias" and concluded it was a significant factor affecting early studies on the link between abortion and breast cancer. Lastly I believe the whole debate has been hijacked by anti-abortion groups pushing their own agenda.
-
Personally I don't beleive the link exists, mostly because the largest and in my opion the most accurate studies into it from Denmark (1.5 Million) and Sweden (49,000) do not show any link. Also the study in Denmark showed that, women who had abortions prior to seven weeks of pregnancy actually showed a slightly decreased risk of developing breast cancer. But, the actual number of women in this category is very small, so statistically it could be considered an anomally. Not to mention the Januaray 1997 study by the Netherlands Cancer Institute documented the existence of "recall bias" and concluded it was a significant factor affecting early studies on the link between abortion and breast cancer. Lastly I believe the whole debate has been hijacked by anti-abortion groups pushing their own agenda.
I'm inclined to believe that there is a link because of the abundant number of professional studies that make a lot of sense. I see overwhelmingly obvious bias in government studies given the worldwide push to promote "family planning", the history of eugenics, and the massive amount of government funding promoting policies relating to eugenics, it is in your face bias. There is also the worldwide push to promote population reduction, and right now abortion is the number one mechanism of population control. No dissenting science identifying the link between breast cancer and abortion is going to withstand the massive amount of money being pumped into "pro-choice" propaganda campaigns and fraudulent science.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
-
I'm inclined to believe that there is a link because of the abundant number of professional studies that make a lot of sense. I see overwhelmingly obvious bias in government studies given the worldwide push to promote "family planning", the history of eugenics, and the massive amount of government funding promoting policies relating to eugenics, it is in your face bias. There is also the worldwide push to promote population reduction, and right now abortion is the number one mechanism of population control. No dissenting science identifying the link between breast cancer and abortion is going to withstand the massive amount of money being pumped into "pro-choice" propaganda campaigns and fraudulent science.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
The only problem with the studies is that there really hasn't been any new data since about the mid 90s and for me the only acurate ones are those that take out "recall bias". Also from one of your previous post about the "NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor."" I'm assuming this is in relation to Dr. Louise Brinton and the April 2009 study, "Risk Factors for Triple Negative Breast Cancer In Women Under the Age of 45 Years". If this is the case then there is a problem as this paper simply took older information (1983-1990) in order to determine whether or not the relationships between breast cancer and other factors (family history, early menarche, induced abortion, etc.) held firm when women were stratified according to those with triple negative breast cancer and those without. What did this new study confirm in relation to abortion and breast cancer? The study confirms that there is no variation in risk related to abortion and breast cancer stratified by those with and those without triple negative breast cancer because that's all the study was meant to undertake in regards to these particular conditions. Also according to one of the researchers and authors of the report, Kathi Malone, "There are no new findings related to induced abortion in this paper because the results of these women were published previously." Unitll all special interest groups (pro-life, pro-choice) get their noses out of scientific research there are always going to be skewed results.
-
The only problem with the studies is that there really hasn't been any new data since about the mid 90s and for me the only acurate ones are those that take out "recall bias". Also from one of your previous post about the "NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor."" I'm assuming this is in relation to Dr. Louise Brinton and the April 2009 study, "Risk Factors for Triple Negative Breast Cancer In Women Under the Age of 45 Years". If this is the case then there is a problem as this paper simply took older information (1983-1990) in order to determine whether or not the relationships between breast cancer and other factors (family history, early menarche, induced abortion, etc.) held firm when women were stratified according to those with triple negative breast cancer and those without. What did this new study confirm in relation to abortion and breast cancer? The study confirms that there is no variation in risk related to abortion and breast cancer stratified by those with and those without triple negative breast cancer because that's all the study was meant to undertake in regards to these particular conditions. Also according to one of the researchers and authors of the report, Kathi Malone, "There are no new findings related to induced abortion in this paper because the results of these women were published previously." Unitll all special interest groups (pro-life, pro-choice) get their noses out of scientific research there are always going to be skewed results.
Follow the money, that is all I have to say.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
-
Follow the money, that is all I have to say.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
-
I don't believe it. It goes against common-sense for one, and the many other studies out there. The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer. Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html[^] In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436) As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm[^] Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It goes against common-sense for one
Something woefully absent in you. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
For him common sense is what ever he believes to be true. :laugh:
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It goes against common-sense for one
Something woefully absent in you. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
I don't believe it. It goes against common-sense for one, and the many other studies out there. The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer. Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html[^] In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436) As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm[^] Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- All 12 women in the study with a family history of breast cancer, who aborted before age 18 — all 12 — got breast cancer before age 45. J. Daling, Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women, J. Nat. Ca. Inst., Vol. 86, No. 21, 11/2/94, pg. 1584
Funny thing here, that number is to low to even qualify as statistical significant, even by the surprisingly low number that I choked on in stats class. But apparently the fact that the families had a history of breast cancer is lost on you, I'd have titled this one "Women likely to get breast cancer, get breast cancer. Local idiot surprized".
-
Which for US based studies will most likely go back to both pro-life and pro-choice groups, happens to be why I prefer the studies done in Denmark and Sweden, not just for the quantity of women involved but the methodology used.
There is more funding overall from pro-abortion groups.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
-
There is more funding overall from pro-abortion groups.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
A government run study to get to the bottom of something from a government with an financial interest in getting the truth (public health care, if the abortions cause cancer, then they are more expensive than other methods and the policies would be adjusted to try and rein in costs) is not likely going to be pro-anything. Anti-choice groups are well enough funded that I doubt they are in the minority, regardless.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- All 12 women in the study with a family history of breast cancer, who aborted before age 18 — all 12 — got breast cancer before age 45. J. Daling, Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women, J. Nat. Ca. Inst., Vol. 86, No. 21, 11/2/94, pg. 1584
Funny thing here, that number is to low to even qualify as statistical significant, even by the surprisingly low number that I choked on in stats class. But apparently the fact that the families had a history of breast cancer is lost on you, I'd have titled this one "Women likely to get breast cancer, get breast cancer. Local idiot surprized".
Distind wrote:
But apparently the fact that the families had a history of breast cancer is lost on you, I'd have titled this one "Women likely to get breast cancer, get breast cancer. Local idiot surprized".
Sounds like an Onion article. You know, in retrospect, we could put him in almost any Onion article like that and it would work...
-
I don't believe it. It goes against common-sense for one, and the many other studies out there. The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer. Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html[^] In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436) As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm[^] Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It goes against common-sense for one
Wait...what? Common-sense would state that an abortion would cause cancer? Wow...don't know what you think common-sense is, but that's about the craziest thing I think I've heard.
-
-
I'm inclined to believe that there is a link because of the abundant number of professional studies that make a lot of sense. I see overwhelmingly obvious bias in government studies given the worldwide push to promote "family planning", the history of eugenics, and the massive amount of government funding promoting policies relating to eugenics, it is in your face bias. There is also the worldwide push to promote population reduction, and right now abortion is the number one mechanism of population control. No dissenting science identifying the link between breast cancer and abortion is going to withstand the massive amount of money being pumped into "pro-choice" propaganda campaigns and fraudulent science.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm inclined to believe that there is a link because of the abundant number of professional studies that make a lot of sense.
This is the same as 'I'm inclined to believe what I want to be true, and to only accept evidence that supports my worldview'. I am not a fan of abortion at all, despite the lies you've told about me in that regard. That doesn't mean I would invent reasons to oppose it, the reasons I do oppose it are enough for me, and I can live with holding my views in a world where I accept valid scientific studies, regardless of if they are useful in supporting my bias.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.