(Prolifer)ations 9-24-10
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN
- Coming Home presents the scientific literature on the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link.
- Ethika Politika discusses “why pro-life is pro-science” to counter the charge that being pro-life is nothing more than a religious belief.
- Life Training Institute shows a 4 minute primer to refute any pro-abortion argument – a must-watch for pro-lifers:
- Judie Brown of American Life League notes concerns over organ transplantation due to the changing definition of when “death” occurs, and informs readers of the lessening need for organ donation thanks to adult stem cell therapy.
- Big Blue Wave comments on the case of the Canadian woman who aborted her 33-week-old child with Down Syndrome under the “care” of troubled abortionist Stephen Brigham. The MSM is focusing on the “mistreatment” of the mother and disregarding the fact that the child could have been placed for adoption in a matter of weeks.
- Lisa Graas responds to a fellow Catholic’s critique of the use of graphic abortion signs and their impact on children.
- ProWomanProLife mentions the new website for Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (which is now added to our Top Sites) and showcases a video of CCBR’s own McKenzie Hahn who her shares her poignant abortion story:
Sep.24, 2010 3:30 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Nick,
Thanks for clearing that up for us. And what are your scientific credentials again? I won’t presume to guess why the Surgeon General didn’t warn women about the ABC link, as I also won’t presume to know Gerard Nadal is lying to the public. Present your facts. If you know more than Dr. Nadal, let’s hear it.
With all due respect to Lisa Graas, her response to Danielle Bean was rather snarky and condescending, which wasn’t called for. Danielle presents a legitimate concern that many parents have regarding their young children and when/how to educate them about the horror and violence of abortion. No two kids are alike, and no two kids are ready to process that information in the same way at the same time. I don’t want my children seeing images of gay men having sex, or violent images of war from Afghanistan right now, either.
When the time comes, I’ll make sure they see abortion for what it really is, in all its bloody cruelty and understand that it’s murder. That said, if they should happen to see a sign or poster sooner than I’d like, we’ll deal with it. I’d just rather it happen on my schedule not someone else’s.
Jennifer, I have supplied relevant links on other threads.
‘I won’t presume to guess why the Surgeon General didn’t warn women about the ABC link,’ – because it doesn’t exist.
‘as I also won’t presume to know Gerard Nadal is lying to the public’ – I wouldn’t say lying, just selecting and presenting information in such a way as to incorrectly indicate that a link exists. He uses old studies which have since been refuted as well as reports which have not included all variables impacting on the outcomes.
I just read Dr. Nadal’s presentation and cannot see how anyone can claim he is “lying”. He presents a study and its findings. The audience is free to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. Other researchers are free to find fault with the study and conduct their own.
Mary, he presents outdated studies which have been refuted and countermanded by more recent and better conducted studies.
It’d be like presenting studies from several centuries back showing that the earth is flat.
Other researchers have found fault and conducted their won, that’s the point. Dr Nadal keeps repeating invalidated reports.
Gee golly willikers, if only people knew that smoking increased cancer risk…
The point is: it took years and years of hard work to get the word out about smoking and its ill effects. The movie industry was against us, the tobacco companies, the government reps, and of course the masses that wanted to enjoy their cigarettes.
Abortion is not so different; it’s taking years of hard work to inform women of abortion’s many ill effects (not to mention it is murder). The entertainment industry is largely against us, the pharmaceutical companies are against us, huge organizations like PP are against us, the government reps are against us, and of course the masses that want to enjoy consequence-free sex…
We will keep pressing on, until abortion is a thing of the past. Go ahead and smugly tell us how it will never come to pass, blah blah yada yada the thing and the thing. And when you’re done commenting, go somewhere like a restaurant or movie theater and light up a smoke. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. :>)
Jennifer,
Nick is a relatively new troll, who made one of his grand appearances on this forum with this “gem” in response to hearing that Jill’s grandson was born with cystic fibrosis:
Wow, you have a grandson with CF? He’s gonna die in his thirties or forties, but first he will bankrupt his parents with fees for lung surgery. […] the parents should have tested the pregnancy for CF and aborted it. That’s the responsible thing to do if you’re a CF carrier. CF is one of the ways the Almighty punishes right-to-lifers.
See here for the link to the comments, and to his progressively bizarre and crass statements.
Don’t waste any breath (or keyboard effort) on him; he’s as inept with logic as he is with morals and manners. He may come around, someday… but a lot of interior “earth-moving” will have to happen in him, first…
Given that the majority of our scientific community these days supports the destruction of human life in the name of medical advances, I am suspect of any major study that “proves” there is no ABC link. Who funds these studies and what is the political pressure? Whose agenda are they serving?
Science that does not respect the sanctity of human life can hardly be trusted to identify a link between abortion and breast cancer. It doesn’t serve the cultural pro-abortion agenda to admit there’s a dangerous side-effect of abortion for women. No one cares about the danger to the baby, obviously, but it makes no sense to deny the danger to women unless your real goal is simply to sell abortion at any cost.
I have no trouble believing that short-circuiting pregnancy artificially might be harmful to women. It simply makes sense. To simply say over and over that all those hormones can’t possibly do any harm is unconvincing.
ninek, you have made an inverted comparison leading to an inaccurate conclusion.
Smoking/health studies went from shoddy, poorly conducted and downright dishonest to being effectively, professionally and honestly conducted.
The transition that took place on the link between smoking and health issues was from smoking being ok to smoking causing many ill-effects.
The transition that took place on the link between abortion and breast cancer has gone from maybe to no there isn’t.
‘Go ahead and smugly tell us how it will never come to pass, blah blah yada yada the thing and the thing.’ – I think you already know.
Oh how convenient Jennifer. You don’t like the scientific outcome so you bag the scientists. Scientists conducting independent studies into breast cancer would be vilified if there was even the slightest hint that they were allowing their personal position to influence their work.
And the science ‘that does not respect the sanctity of human life’ is the same science that detects the causes and remedies for all sorts of conditions and ills. You can’t have it both ways.
‘It simply makes sense’ – how scientific!
I’m sorry, cran, I didn’t get that, would you prefer regular or menthol?
(*sigh*) …and how silly of me, not to introduce New Troll #2, Cranium.
Ninek: (LOL!) Luckily for my keyboard, I wasn’t taking a drink of water when I read that…
ninek and I are familiar with each other Paladin.
‘I’m sorry, cran, I didn’t get that, would you prefer regular or menthol?’ – Is that your answer ninek? It does come across a bit like ‘fingers in ears lalala’.
Did you not get the distinction? Smoking studies went from the dodgy ones saying smoking was safe to the valid ones saying smoking is not safe.
The breast cancer studies went from the dodgy ones saying abortion increases breast cancer to the valid ones saying it does not.
Now do you get it?
Breast cancer studies will go from a few that anti-lifers try to discredit, to so numerous that even anti-lifers won’t be able to deny it.
Killing small humans because they can’t fight back isn’t less of murder even if it didn’t harm the mother. A sniper can shoot someone from quite a safe distance, but it doesn’t make the victim less dead nor the sniper less of a murderer. Abortion is murder, whether we call it feticide, infanticide, or genocide. It’s killing. It’s a sickness that humanity WILL heal from.
Mary:
“Both sides of this debate can point to studies that provide evidence supporting or not supporting an ABC link. The public has a right to know of these studies, do their own research and draw their own conclusions. Neither side can claim anything has been proven and it is irresponsible to say there is no link and give women a false sense of security. I would say it is responsible to stay studies are inconclusive, some support a link, others do not.”
“I just read Dr. Nadal’s presentation and cannot see how anyone can claim he is “lying”. He presents a study and its findings. The audience is free to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. Other researchers are free to find fault with the study and conduct their own.”
As usual your insights are spot on. Your background as a medical professional adds a personal touch to this discussion that few of us have, namely that you have seen first hand the needless suffering some people experience. For example, if they had altered their behavior in many instances the diabetes could have been avoided hence the amputations they are suffering through would not have happened. Other examples might be in the effects of obesity or substance abuse, while in and of themselves may not be shown to have a direct correlation to certain maladies nevertheless are known to contribute to a general lack of healthy living which eventually “catches up” to them and lands them in the hospital.
You know too as a professional who has poured through endless studies over the years that there exists a protocol in establishing with verifiable certainty a particular thesis that the scientific/medical community can finally get on board with. It always takes years, sometimes decades. Nevertheless, while these studies are proceeding it is an act of compassion to inform those who will listen that there is enough scientific and anecdotal evidence that certain actions or behaviors ought to be avoided. In fact at times it would be downright irresponsible to ignore plausible conclusions.
There is an example from my own professional career that has similar overtones to this issue. Each side said there was a strong preponderance of evidence that lead to conclusions supporting their positions.
Asbestos. Though it took many many decades it is now universally accepted that asbestos is a carcinogenic. Professionals and well meaning researchers on both sides presented paper after paper offering conclusive proof they had it right. In the meanwhile those who warned of its possible hazards acted upon their sense that there was just too much evidence of asbestos’ hazards to avoid issuing caution.
Strangely, the controversy has now shifted to the very substance that is used as the main replacement for asbestos, and that is fiberglass. Here again, as with most studies, there are two sides. Primarily in Europe studies have shown a carcinogenic link to exposure to fiberglass. Not so in the U.S.
One of the fascinating things is to watch how the various interest groups line up in support of one side of the debate or the other. It is not unlike that with the ABC studies. But back to this example of how to deal with the question of fiberglass, what if a patient were to ask his/her doctor how they should treat the matter? Though it is inconclusive at this point, does not the doctor have a responsibility to suggest the use of personal protection?
The medical profession is touted as the healing arts profession. Those involved are properly skeptical of voices assuring them that the latest is the only and best advice to follow. This of course cuts two ways–both for and against new revelations and conclusions–so we wait for years until we can say with a great amount of certainty that we have arrived at a consensus. But in the meanwhile we act while weighing the benefit of experience and observation on how best to regard a particular situation.
Conclusion: It is certainly responsible for a doctor to caution a woman on the potential hazards of abortion, including the ABC link, if in his/her professional judgment the compiled research and anecdotal evidence weighs in favor of that conclusion. At the same time it is not irresponsible for another doctor to disregard those studies, the caveat being that it is better to weigh in on the side of caution on matters such as this that have potential life and death consequences.
Thank you to both Mary and Dr. Nadal for your reasoned contributions to this discussion.
Nick isn’t a troll, or a researcher, or scientifically literate, or academically tempered to the manner in which scientific debate is done, or even civil.
Nick is simply ideologically driven (accent on DRIVEN), employing the tools of the pro-abort trade: deny, deny, deny. Attack, attack, attack. It’s the old litigator’s advice:
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side, pound the table.
Okay Nick, you can stop thumping now.
Carnium. 24 Hours ago I posted the following:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/09/24/the-abc-literature-4/
You’ll note the year of publication is 2010. Hardly an outdated article. We’ll also see a trend. Papers dependent on US money from NCI and NIH tend to downplay the link. Foreign papers not dependent on US money tend not to downplay the link.
Back to Nick. The Surgeons General are political appointees who defer to organizations such as the National Cancer Institute, who under Dr. Louise Brinton’s duplicitousness continue to publish ABC links as recently as last year while denying the link to the public. Surgeons General avoid the third rail issue of abortion and conserve their political capital for issues that they have a reasonable chance of getting bipartisan support on moving forward.
You can’t be much of a serious scientist if you appeal to political appointees in response to a Ph.D.’s critique of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You also seem pretty quick in your resorting to calling me a liar, when all I have done is present the data from the papers. I’m doing 1 per day, and there’s over 100 to cover. I posted 4 so far. Relax buddy and save some of your vitriol for the 50 yard line.
Critics like to say that the studies are too small, but so far I’ve reported on studies with subjects ranging from the hundreds to the thousands. As we shall see, the large prospective studies that have been cited by my detractors are fatally flawed methodologically.
I won’t be goaded into a rushed defense of my scientific integrity. I’m not the researcher, and these are not my data. I am presenting one paper or editorial letter per day in a slow, deliberate fashion to allow the reader time to read the posts, get the articles if they so desire, and form their own conclusions. I’m not vested in the reader’s conclusion, but only in my obligation to make the data and the arguments on both sides known in a manner that is accessible to the nonscientist.
None of the hundreds of authors of these studies, or the hundreds of peer scientists who reviewed (AND APPROVED) the papers, or the hundreds of editors who decided to publish them thought their sample size to be so small as to be irrelevant, and therefore not worthy of publication.
Only Nick with his Nobel Prize seems to have the gravitas sufficient to trump the hundreds of scientists, most of whom are their department’s chairpersons, or journal’s editors. Silly me for not seeing this sooner.
It’s called desperation Nick. The only question is why are you so desperate over this issue that you resort to smearing me, presuming on the competence of hundreds of career scientists, peer scientist reviewers, and journal editors (who get those jobs by being the best in their respective fields)? Why are you so desperate that you resort to appealing to the political machinations of Surgeons General (Like Jocelyn Elder who was fired for suggesting that we teach children to masturbate)? What grabs hold of a human heart so tightly that it compels them to such extreme acts of desperation?
Now, if you two would keep your powder dry until I have finished presenting the data you’ll spare yourselves further ignominy. This is a complicated body of literature and I’m presenting all sides of the argument at a slow and steady rate, along with my analysis. That’s hardly dishonest.
Breathe. Breathe.
Mary, Jerry Jennifer,
Thank you!
Nick, I’m suggesting that authors who receive US $$ from organizations with the likes of Brinton seem to be the ones who have invented this recall bias without a shred of empiric evidence for its existence, while authors with the same 30%-40% increased risk of BC who receive their funding from foreign sources tend not to engage in this attempt to explain away the data without any evidence for the assertion.
THAT is the scientific fraud of the ‘recall bias’ crowd. But I’m not going to get ahead of the literature presented.
I’ve laid out the recall bias assertion and its rationale, AS STATED BY THE AUTHORS. I’ve also laid out a refutation. Now as the gentle reader progresses through the papers, the reader will discern for themselves which seems plausible. Having read the literature, I am inclined toward a rejection of the recall bias argument.
If you are truly a scientist, you might wish to come to your senses and abandon your desperation tactics and return to the sort of discourse that characterizes our profession. We weren’t schooled in the Al Capone method of debate at Columbia University or Saint John’s University.
Nick,
As I said. The big studies are seriously flawed and I will get to them when I get to them. I will not get into them until I am ready. There is a plan and I shall proceed apace.
If you wish to rush out now to declare your champions with your unqualified support, be my guest.
Nick, I’ll get to it when I get to it.
Jennifer said:
“When the time comes, I’ll make sure they see abortion for what it really is, in all its bloody cruelty and understand that it’s murder. That said, if they should happen to see a sign or poster sooner than I’d like, we’ll deal with it. I’d just rather it happen on my schedule not someone else’s.”
Jennifer, The first time my three year old daughter saw one of those signs of bloodied babies was cause the pro-life action league had lined the street for blocks with them. When she asked me what the signs were I told her that some babies had gotten hurt and these people are trying to get other people to help them. When I told her that then the signs didn’t seem to bother her and she actually wanted to help hold a sign.
This particual group of protesters did post signs at both ends alerting people who were coming up on those violent signs so they must understand the sensitivity.
Lets not forget that besides ABC there is also a BC/BC Birth Control/Breast Cancer link and this story is going to be getting worse. Birth control is high dose hormones/steroids taken over extended periods of time to disrupt a womens biorhythm. They are pushing these drugs on our youth and Planned Parenthood is pushing them in the high schools. They even had the unmitigated audacity to try and pass laws to legally poison our daughters with this crap in their schools without parental notification. One of the common hormones used is estrogen. In women, estrogen circulates in the bloodstream and binds to estrogen receptors on cells in targeted tissues, affecting not only the breast and uterus, but also the brain, bone, liver, heart and other tissues. What that means is that with Birth Control the cancers will be systemic cause the hormones pass into all tissues of the womens body through her blood.
And Planned Parenthood lobbies for laws that would give them legal authority to use elementary schools and high schools push their drugs on our children without parental notification. Teaching our children to do things behind their parents back. I hope the Republicans are able to keep that Pledge to America and defund Planned Parenthood completely. And while we are at it we need to work with our local school boards to keep Planned Parenthood away from our schools.
I don’t think, nick or cranium have ever gotten pregnant, or ever will. If they did they would know that one of the first changes in the woman’s body is the breast. Breast cancer is fueled by hormone if I remember correctly. Last time I checked there are lots of hormones in a pregnancy and breast feeding.
I do find it very interesting that the official “medical community” will admit a link to breast cancer, with late child bearing or none, estrogen, and no breast feeding. Having an abortion before the age of thirty, puts a woman in the late bearing risk category and thus indirectly increases the risks. At least accept that fact!
Dr Nadal, is there not a study that predicted the rate of breast cancer in a region based on the rate of abortion in a region? I think it was a study done in England.
Gerry wrote:
Nick isn’t a troll[…]
Hm. I think I’ll respectfully dissent, on that one. :) I’m of the camp which thinks that being a troll, and being ideologically driven to the point of obsession, aren’t at all mutually exclusive. Nick’s own penchant for preferring “flame and dodge” (and his capacity for mind-numbing illogic) to reasonable discourse nailed his position in the troll taxonomy, for me. (I really do need to write that troll taxonomy book, someday…)
Nick and cranium,
Check out http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com to find extensive studies, older and recent with EVIDENCE supporting an abortion breast cancer link. The studies are out there and women have a right to be informed they do exist. The ABC link has not been disproven anymore than an ABC has been proven.
Nick 7:43am
Dr. Nadal is guilty of a “lie of omission”? Well Nick, when you claim there is no ABC link and don’t point out studies with evidence supporting an ABC link, you are guilty of…..what??
Good morning Jerry,
Thank you for your kind words. As with vaccinations and autism, people have a right to be informed, do their own research, and draw their own conclusions. This is true concerning an ABC link as well.
I must give credit where it is due. Its my daughter who enlightened me well into my advancing lifespan about the world of research. Like so many, I was inclined to point to a study and say “see, see” so obviously I can’t criticize others for doing the same!
Well it looks like Dr.Nadal and Nick are making my point, or should I say my daughter’s, as they debate the research. Researchers will disagree on various aspects of studies as we see in their posts from the wee hours of this morning. This helps us better understand why no one study ever settles any issue or gives a final answer.
Mary,
In my first post on the topic I explicitly stated that the literature is extensive and that I would be posting one article per day. So Nick comes along and accuses me of lying by omission on day four. Not a hopeful sign of either mental stability or academic integrity.
Mary,
You are absolutely correct about no one study proving anything. The very basis of legitimate scientific inquiry is what we call the falsifiable hypothesis. In other words, the hypothesis (the idea or assumption) must be subjected to scrutiny in such a manner that the method leaves open the possibility of disproving the hypothesis. For the first two weeks the papers presented will be fairly repetitious in design and outcome. What will differ is the interpretation of the data by the authors. During this time it is good to become comfortable and familiar with the terminology and research design.
As we go along, we’ll examine more closely subtle differences (and not so subtle differences) in design and how these influence the discussion and interpretation.
We’ll then get into the larger reviews of the literature and how the reviewers approach the literature. Finally, we’ll deal with Dr. Louise Brinton’s duplicitousness. I’m deliberately going at a slow pace to allow folks time to absorb the material.
Nick isn’t interested in the actual science, as evidenced by his vitriol.
Even if there is a very small abortion-breast cancer link, and a lot of studies have shown there isn’t…who cares? That’s not grounds for it being illegal. Everything you do appears to cause a “small increase” in some type of cancer. Eating red meat, moderate drinking, being overweight even by 15 pounds, living in a polluted area, and drinking bottled water are just a few that come to mind. And I doubt this link is going to stop anyone. If the choice is between aborting an unwanted pregnancy in a horrible situation like an abusive relationship or being 15 years old, or a tiny increase in breast cancer down the road, most women will take the abortion. I don’t know why you threaten women with breast cancer and think it will work. If breast cancer hysteria was so good at changing women’s habits, no women in the country would smoke, let alone be overweight. And something like 60 percent of women are overweight.
And why doesn’t miscarriage cause cancer, then? Most women who miscarry get a D&C, the exact same procedure, before the hCG levels have dropped off and the body miscarries naturally. You’re still disrupting the pregnancy while your body still has a fetus attached, even if the fetus is dead.
Good Morning Gerard,
in your posts you bring out so many of the finer points that each researcher must consider, including who pays for the study, who sponsors the study, flawed samples, researcher bias, interpretaton of data, etc. It helps us better understand why no one study will ever give a final answer.
The discussion you and Nick engaged in early this AM shows that researchers will continue to have honest disagreements on studies. Its not personal and a legitimate researcher expects it. My daughter says she expects her published research to be challenged. She certainly doesn’t become vitriolic about it.
If Nick is a researcher he will not be making statements that an ABC link has been disproven. No responsible researcher makes such claims. As you present research supporting evidence of an ABC link, he can present scientific papers that show no evidence of an ABC link. He can find fault with your studies, you can find fault with his.
I would expect people interested in actual science to conduct themselves this way, not draw final conclusions and become vitriolic with those who disagree.
MLH,
Unless its a traumatic miscarriage, the body prepares naturally for a miscarriage. Hormonal levels will drop over a period of days or weeks. The cervix will naturally dilatate. The D&C is done for a number of reasons, including bleeding, retained placenta, amniotic sac, etc. that for some reason the uterus did not expel.
MLH,
I’ll be presenting papers in the series (and already have) that show no increased risk of BC in miscarriage. I haven’t highlighted those data yet, in keeping with my intent to slowly ease the nonscientist into this very multifaceted area of study.
For now, it is widely understood that the estrogen levels in most miscarried pregnancies never approach the levels of estrogen in normal pregnancies. Even those who support the recall bias invention recognize this. It is believed that there is not the same degree of cell proliferation in the breast lobules in these tragic spontaneous outcomes.
Chantal…thank you for making the point that was on my mind. One of my first symptoms of pregnancy were that my breasts and my armpits HURT. Oh how they ached! They ached for weeks and weeks and grew in size and didn’t hurt like that again till my milk came in. Considering how my breasts REALLY REALLY changed during pregnancy in size AND shape is it any wonder that abortion could cause breast cancer? It just seems like common sense to me. I don’t know all the research or data I just know as a woman who has experienced the affect of pregnancy on the breasts that artificially disrupting that pregnancy could reek havoc on breasts. It just makes sense to me.
MLH my friend had two miscarriages. Well one was a miscarriage and the other was ectopic. In both pregnancies the hormones never rose to a normal level. They knew for weeks just from monitoring her hormones that the pregnancies would not progress. So that could be why BC doesn’t seem to be linked to miscarriage.
And finally, GO DR. NADAL!!!! Preach it brother!
So, what about the fact that even if abortion slightly ups your risk for breast cancer (if it’s even true, and if we’re basing it on studies from people with agendas, I doubt it)…why should that be the basis for it being illegal? A lot of things supposedly increase your risk for breast cancer. Maybe we can make it illegal to serve burgers to women in restaurants, or ban them from living in certain polluted areas. Actually, why not just lock them in the house for their own protection? Of course, giving birth has risks too, a lot more risks than abortion and a much higher death rate. So I guess we can rule that out too.
Women have a right to take risks with their health. Any time you eat fast food, sit in the sun, have a drink–or, yes, have an abortion–that’s technically a “risk.” Some of us don’t want to live in a bubble.
And some of the guys writing studies about how abortion will give you breast cancer are risking THEIR health by being overweight–a lot more risk, in fact.
If we banned everything that might cause cancer, we’d all be walking around in Hazmat suits eating vegetables all day. If I were pregnant and absolutely did not want to be, and someone told me abortion slightly upped my risk of breast cancer, that would make no difference. My three-times-a week fast-food habit causes a “slightly increased risk” too, if not a lot more risk. That won’t stop me.
Hi Gerard,
You mention scientific research journals in your post and I think it should be emphasized that these journals have very strict standards they must adhere to if they are to be taken seriously as scientific journals. Its my understanding that research studies and results are not just randomly published, but rather thoroughly scrutinized by journal editors. Flaws such as questionable methods, samples, biases, conclusions, etc. will result in the study being returned for modifications, maybe several times, and even then still not considered acceptable for publication.
The killing of human beings in the first nine months of life should not be prohibited because it causes breast cancer.
It should be prohibited because it is a crime which kills a human being and deprives him/her of his/her human lifespan.
Thank you Joe. MLH we don’t want abortion to be illegal because it might cause breast cancer. We want women to be given this information and take it into consideration. But we want abortion illegal because it kills a child. Its like saying “If a man rapes a woman he may get cancer in his penis.” We want rape to be illegal because it victimizes and hurts women. But if a man pauses to consider penis cancer and that stops him from raping so be it. Thats a silly analogy of course but it illustrates the point.
ninek – ‘Breast cancer studies will go from a few that anti-lifers try to discredit,’ – it’s not pro-choicers discrediting them, it’s scientists, independent scientists – ‘to so numerous that even anti-lifers won’t be able to deny it.’ – do you make a habit of setting yourself up for disappointment?
jerry – ‘The public has a right to know of these studies, do their own research and draw their own conclusions. Neither side can claim anything has been proven…’ – and unless they have a pre-determined position, they will conclude that the evidence says there is no link.
‘some support a link, others do not’ – some old and discredited ones do and the recent and valid ones don’t.
‘I just read Dr. Nadal’s presentation and cannot see how anyone can claim he is “lying”. He presents a study and its findings’ – yes, and I could probably dig up some saying the earth is flat.
Dr. Nadal – ‘Nick is simply ideologically driven’ – did you read your own bio? Or some of your comments?
‘and being ideologically driven to the point of obsession’ – like this site? And the people who line roadsides with huge ugly signs?
Mary – that is far from being an unbiased site. Yes, there are studies showing an ABC link but they have been discredited and far outweighed by more accurate and inclusive studies showing no link.
Dr. Nadal – ‘Not a hopeful sign of either mental stability or academic integrity.’ – I think it’s more a case of you not being able to prosecute your case.
‘And finally, GO DR. NADAL!!!! Preach it brother!’ – I think that summarizes the situation nicely.
Nick, since the study didn’t give up anything before the testing it is not morally obliged to return any results.
Cranium,
These are valid peer reviewed studies, biased website or not. Are those claiming their is no ABC link totally unbiased? Exactly how have these studies been discredited? You can turn this around and say these studies discredit those claiming there is no evidence of an ABC link.
No study is conclusive, settles an issue or gives a final answer. Live with it cranium, there are studies presenting evidence of an ABC link, there are studies presenting no evidence of an ABC link. Findings are inconclusive and women have a right to be informed of this, do their own research, and draw their own conclusions.
Mary, you need to follow the timelines, the outcomes, the sources, the resources, the trends, accumulation of similar results etc. They all lead to the same conclusion. The weight of evidence indicates that there is no link. The findings are not inconclusive and, as I said, anyone who does their own research and draws a rational conclusion, will conclude that there is no link. Anything else is wishful thinking.
The world according to cranium: “anyone who does their own research and draws a rational conclusion, will conclude that there is no link. Anything else is wishful thinking.”
The world according to Mary: “As with vaccinations and autism, people have a right to be informed, do their own research, and draw their own conclusions. This is true concerning an ABC link as well.”
Of the above only Mary is truly open to the light that further scientific inquiry might shed on the subject. Contrast her statement to cranium who is suggesting: it’s done, open and shut case–no link, never will be, forget about it, it’s all “wishful thinking”.
Actually the only “wishful thinking” here is from the person who pretends nothing more is to be gleaned by further inquiry. My friend, I assure you this is not done, in fact we are just beginning.
Not true Jerry, my statement is in regard to where things are at right now. This is not to preclude further investigation, not at all.
Mary and I both believe that people should do their own research and draw their own conclusion. It’s just that as things stand, that rational conclusion is that there is no link.
‘in fact we are just beginning’ – yes we are Jerry. In so many things!
At the risk of stealing some of Nick’s thunder Dr. Nadal, I really don’t think his name is so unusual as to have to have to have been usurped.
You are also less than academically sound in your crediting of ‘confidence intervals’ in relation to their application within the studies you cite.
You also make accusations regarding his approach which in my opinion you yourself have demonstrated.
Cranium,
1. Nick is not who he says he is.
2. You are simply beyond reason if my citing professional literature is somehow less than academically sound in your eyes. None of the stats reported are mine, but the authors’.
3. You want a definitive outcome, so you will deny, distort, and mutilate anything or anyone in your path.
4. Contrary to popular misperception, I always thought that abortion was wrong, but I never got involved in the pro-life movement because the ones I knew were loons. What turned me around was my reading of the scientific literature, especially the CDC lit. Increasingly I saw how the literature and the pro-abort rhetoric were increasingly at odds. My inability to deny the growing mountain of scientific data forced me to abandon my sympathetic, but deliberate silence.
5. In dealing with Nick I have shown him as much contempt as he deserves, especially for his vicious attack on Carla. I’m a less-than-perfect christian and I respond in kind to people. Nick began by attacking me, appealing to purported statements (not actually furnished) by Republican political appointees, trashing Carla, and demonstrating that he has no grasp of research design, method, data interpretation or statistical analysis. He hides behind the name of a renowned researcher in my field, a man whose gravitas would never allow for such a puerile display. That isn’t how science is done.
Perhaps “Nick” will affirm that this is his name, or tell us who he really is.
Any mods online yet this morning? I’d like to send something to the first one awake. Thanks :)
Hello there Fed Up. You posted a while ago, but I”m up now.
Hi Cranium.
“You are also less than academically sound in your crediting of ‘confidence intervals’ in relation to their application within the studies you cite.”
I am a mathematician. I am not sure what you believe the problem with Dr Nadal’s assessment is, but I would be happy to discuss the use of confidence intervals.
cranium 7:54PM
You need to follow your own advice. Research is ongoing and will remain so, studies will contradict each other, and researchers and methods will continue to be critiqued and found flawed. For these reasons the presence or absense of an ABC link remains inconclusive. If in your opinion the bulk of the evidence suggests, not proves, suggests, there is no link, so be it. Another person may draw a different conclusion after reviewing the research. Remember that studies never “prove” anything.
The point is women especially have a right to be informed that research is inconclusive and ongoing, the link has NOT been disproven, to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, as you obviously have cranium.
MLH, I have had two miscarriages and it is my understanding that most women who miscarry do not need a D&C, just FYI. I never needed a D&C, nor do I know anyone who has had to have one due to an incomplete miscarriage. In fact, it is thought that a large percentage of women who miscarry do so very early in the pregnancy and never knew they were pregnant to begin with – they just believe their period is a little late and heavier than normal. When I miscarried both times, my HcG levels were monitored and the first symptom that all was not well with my baby was an HcG level that was not rising at the rate it should accompanied by vaginal spotting. My HcG level fell gradually and the doctors monitored it until it was at a normal (non-pregnant) level. For me, they did not monitor estrogen.
I do not believe that your assertion that most women who miscarry must have a D&C is correct. Also, sometimes (I don’t know how often) a D&C will be offered to a woman whose child has been found to have died (via ultrasound) when she doesn’t really need one, but does not want to wait for her body to naturally expel the child. If I ever miscarry again and I am offered a D&C, I personally would decline and allow my body sufficient time to complete the miscarriage on its own. The only time anyone needs a D&C for a miscarriage is when the body does not expel everything naturally which appears to be fairly uncommon. Forcible cervical dilation and uterine instrumentation are risky and even if major complications do not occur, I believe that they are still not good for a woman’s body (particularly the cervix) and it is not something I would do unless absolutely necessary. Those are my own personal thoughts on that, take ’em or leave ’em. :-)
Hi Army_wife
Sometimes there isn’t the option of waiting, like when a woman is bleeding or continues to retain products of conception. There is a risk of infection the longer this goes on.
The cervix will be soft and dilatated on a woman who is miscarrying, part of the process of preparing to expel a dead fetus or products of conception, so there should be minimal if any trauma to the cervix.
Watch out cranium, I got my big brother from the math department here now.
‘2. You are simply beyond reason if my citing professional literature is somehow less than academically sound in your eyes. None of the stats reported are mine, but the authors’.’ – that’s not what I said Dr. Nadal. I said that your application of the ‘confidence interval’ was less than convincing because while the population parameters may have been met, other potential impacting factors on the actual outcomes were not defined. So the ‘confidence interval’ did not really represent accuracy to the extent portrayed.
Cranium,
“I said that your application of the ‘confidence interval’ was less than convincing because while the population parameters may have been met, other potential impacting factors on the actual outcomes were not defined. So the ‘confidence interval’ did not really represent accuracy to the extent portrayed.”
So just be clear here, it seems to me that you have a problem with teh methodology of teh study e.g. perhaps the study does not take into account a lurking variable (this is not something I am qualified to comment on since it has more to do with the actual details of teh science rather than general statistics). But that does support a critique of teh confidence interval. Once the study is determined and the results in, the confidence interval is essentially “automatic” in the sense that I could give my students teh study and they could calculate the confidence interval and see the results. So I get what you’re saying, Cranium, that the confidence interval is not compelling because of the lack of “other important factors” but that really is a critique of the methodology of the study (again, not something I am qualified to speak on) and not the confidence interval. Does that make sense? I’m not trying to be a jerk or “call you out” or anything; just trying to help frame exactly where the disagreements lie.
I wonder what the pro-abortionists commenting here have to say about the tiny sample that Guttmacher is now touting as ‘evidence’ that abortion doesn’t contribute to emotional problems. See Jill’s more recent blog entry. Go over and apply all your ‘logic’ and criticism to a study that affirms what you want to believe. Let’s see all the lack of hypocrisy and bias that you are so fond of believing about yourselves.
Thanks Bobby, I think you’re getting my meaning. It’s not exactly clear cut but I pause to ponder and furrow my brow when I see the term used in Dr. Nadal’s articles in the manner that he presents it. It just doesn’t gel.
ninek – I already have.
My pleasure, bro. Again, just to clarify for everyone, the idea is that if the studies that Dr. Nadal is citing have flawed methodology, then it doesn’t matter if the data satisfies a 99.99% confidence interval- it would be a moot point because of the methodological flaws, which again, I know nothing about.
Cranium,
Perhaps you have a gift that the authors, reviewers and editors lack. The methodologies in these studies are sound. None of the authors, reviewers or editors are talking methodology. The CI are sound in the majority of the studies because the methods are sound. What is at issue is that many of the authors don’t like what the data have to say about an ABC link, and so have leaned on the discredited papers that tried to concoct reporting bias.
You opened on this thread by suggesting that I was using old studies on the day I reviewed one from this year, and then suggested that I was intentionally misrepresenting the studies. So I regard you as both a fool and a troll. You approach the subject with a closed mind and a black heart. You haven’t spent the hundreds of hours that I have poring over these papers, yet in your agenda-driven frenzy you are quick to attack.
An empty cranium.
You’re tilting at windmills Gerard, on two levels.
My position is that you are presenting CI as proof of appropriate methodology. I have doubts about the veracity of this due to other factors not being included in the samples. While the CI is certainly valid to an extent, it only underpins the samples to the extent that they are limited to. It’s not the methodology per se that I question, it is the limited parameters within which they are applied.
#6 – 1997
#5 – 1997
#4 – 2010 – about breastfeeding
#3 – 1995
#2 – 1983
#1 – 1997
My point from the start is that these studies have been discredited by more recent studies.
‘fool’, ‘troll’, ‘closed mind’, ‘black heart’, ‘agenda-driven frenzy’, ‘an empty cranium’ – and the summation of all this is that you accuse me of vitriol?
Actually this is a very interesting situation. Have a read of this, particularly his list of three things in the latter half of the article. Let me know your thoughts.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/6273403/lets-hear-it-for-contempt.thtml
Cranium,
Your point is not informed by a comprehensive reading of the literature. You are a troll, and a disgusting one at that. My point is NOT that CI validates the methodology, and a fair reading of my posts points that out.
Rookus and van Leeuwen use CI on a sample of n=12 to try and ram home a mythical invention called recall bias, and I take them to task for it.
My point AGAIN is that the authors, reviewers and editors accept both the validity of the methods and the results of the studies that indicate an ABC link. However, you are so cravenly pro-abortion that you refuse to/can’t see straight.
As for your assertion that recent studies debunk the older ones, again, you are not read up on the literature. I shall be presenting Dr. Louise Brinton’s 2009 paper reiterating the ABC link, and already reviewed another from this year doing the same. So why don’t you cut the crap and stop the lying about what I have said?
This is my last response to you directly because you have proven yourself unwilling or incapable of fundamental honesty. If you act like a troll again on my blog, I’ll have to block you. I have an ardent pro-abort who goes by L. who is a welcome commenter because she’s honest.
You’re a waste of time.
”My point is NOT that CI validates the methodology,’ – then why no mention of the lack of blind and control elements nor the inclusion of other potential causation factors.
‘I shall be presenting Dr. Louise Brinton’s 2009 paper reiterating the ABC link, and already reviewed another from this year doing the same’ – will you also be presenting the larger number of studies which conclude that there is no link?
‘a disgusting one’, ‘cravenly pro-abortion’, ‘cut the crap and stop the lying’, ‘You’re a waste of time’ – you are sounding awfully defensive!
‘so as to keep my word about a paper/editorial per day’ – not quite what’s been happening is it? But I acknowledge it’s a difficult topic and you have a busy life.
I will restrain from commenting on your daily articles Dr. Nadal. But I will challenge some of your comments here, without trying to match the mud-slinging.