Coulter: Abortion and breast cancer link and oil
By Ann Coulter, June 25:
Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are “anti-choice.”
For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats’ “energy” policies.
Democrats couldn’t care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles….
[C]onsumers now pay about 46¢ per gallon in gasoline taxes…. [I]n the past 25 years oil companies have paid more than 3 times in taxes what they have made in profits….
In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.”
What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, “You can’t eat your way out of being hungry!” “You can’t water your way out of drought!” “You can’t sleep your way out of tiredness!” “You can’t drink yourself out of dehydration!”
Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn’t going to increase the supply of oil?…
Liberals complain that – as B. Hussein Obama put it – there’s “no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at 5 years or more down the road.”…
Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers would pay them salaries so they wouldn’t have to worry about making a living and could just sit around anticipating crises.
If only we had had such a group – let’s call them “elected representatives” — they could have proposed drilling 5 years ago!
But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them – we’ll call them Republicans – did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions….
Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska’s barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill!…
The other party – plus John McCain – ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!
They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices.
BTW, to Coulter’s premise, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer responded:
Never mind that most of the researchers who conducted those studies call themselves “pro-choice,” such as Dr. Janet Daling of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of those studies report risk increases for women who have abortions. Never mind that even critics of the abortion and breast cancer link within the scientific community admit that the biological reasons for such a link are sound.
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.
Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are “anti-choice.”
That’s not why we dismiss those studies. We dismiss them because over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk have concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.
Reality, are you suggesting the opinions of the National Cancer Institute should carry more weight than the assertions of an obnoxious nutball like Ann Coulter?
Consumers now pay about 46
Never mind that most of the researchers who conducted those studies call themselves “pro-choice,” such as Dr. Janet Daling of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of those studies report risk increases for women who have abortions. Never mind that even critics of the abortion-breast cancer link within the scientific community admit that the biological reasons for such a link are sound.
Janet Daling is a vociferour proabort who set out to prove that abortion was safe and found exactly the opposite was true.
However I not hopeful Doug will accept her research – I’m sure with his numerous and expert epidemiology credentials, she’s not scientifically rigorous enough for him.
P, I didn’t say a thing about Daling nor about the breast cancer issue.
@reality:
National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet Analysis
The Abortion
P, I didn’t say a thing about Daling nor about the breast cancer issue.
Posted by: Doug at June 27, 2008 5:21 PM
So I noticed.
Janet Daling is a vociferour proabort who set out to prove that abortion was safe and found exactly the opposite was true.
However I not hopeful Doug will accept her research – I’m sure with his numerous and expert epidemiology credentials, she’s not scientifically rigorous enough for him.
Posted by: Patricia at June 27, 2008 5:16 PM
……………………………..
Link please. I cannot find any such conclusion presented by Dr Daling. The only place I find such an assertion is in the opinion pieces of others about studies she has participated in. Her studies have indicated that women that have never been pregnant are at greater risk for breast cancer due to higher life long exposure to their own estrogen. Also women that have had children but have not breast fed are at higher risk for the same reason. Increased life long exposure to estrogen. Obesity is also a high risk factor.
The obvious conclusion is that having breasts causes breast cancer. What ‘moral revenge’ causes men to develop breast cancer?
Bye the way Patricia, every gestation increases your chances for cervical cancer.
AUTHORS: Daling JR; Malone KE; Voigt LF; White E; Weiss NS
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98104.
SOURCE: J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1584-92
CITATION IDS: PMID: 7932822 UI: 95018337
COMMENT: Comment in: J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1569-70
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND: Certain events of reproductive life, especially completed pregnancies, have been found to influence a woman’s risk of breast cancer. Prior studies of the relationship between breast cancer and a history of incomplete pregnancies have provided inconsistent results. Most of these studies included women beyond the early part of their reproductive years at the time induced abortion became legal in the United States. PURPOSE: We conducted a case-control study of breast cancer in young women born recently enough so that some or most of their reproductive years were after the legalization of induced abortion to determine if certain aspects of a woman’s experience with abortion might be associated with risk of breast cancer.
METHODS: Female residents of three counties in western Washington State, who were diagnosed with breast cancer (n = 845) from January 1983 through April 1990, and who were born after 1944, were interviewed in detail about their reproductive histories, including the occurrence of induced abortion. Case patients were obtained through our population-based tumor registry (part of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute). Similar information was obtained from 961 control women identified through random digit dialing within these same counties. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios and confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women (95% CI = 1.2-1.9). While this increased risk did not vary by the number of induced abortions or by the history of a completed pregnancy, it did vary according to the age at which the abortion occurred and the duration of that pregnancy. Highest risks were observed when the abortion was done at ages younger than 18 years–particularly if it took place after 8 weeks’ gestation–or at 30 years of age or older. No increased risk of breast cancer was associated with a spontaneous abortion (read miscarriage- my addition) (RR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.7-1.2).
BTW Sally, the American Cancer Society indicates that the greatest risk for developing cervical cancer comes from HPV (which I’m sure you know you are more likely to get if you have had multiple partners). Other high risk factors are smoking, repetitive chlamydia infections and OC’s.
Eat your heart out honey.
Thank you Patricia. Clearly you understand that the longer a woman is pregnant, the longer she is less effected by her own estrogen and therefore less likely to develop breast cancer. With that you also understand that factors other than gestational experience can be causative factors. Mostly a family history of breast cancer. Obesity.
If you care in the least bit about breast cancer, you might wish to pay real attention to the research and it’s conclusions.
BTW Sally, the American Cancer Society indicates that the greatest risk for developing cervical cancer comes from HPV (which I’m sure you know you are more likely to get if you have had multiple partners). Other high risk factors are smoking, repetitive chlamydia infections and OC’s.
Eat your heart out honey.
Posted by: Patricia at June 27, 2008 6:51 PM
…………………………..
Eat my heart out over what Patty?
This Ann Coulter article is not good.
Why does she have to try to compare oil to the supposed abortion breast cancer link.
Truly, I don’t understand Ann Coulter. She makes absolutely no argument to support her position that abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer. She simply uses that as an excuse to exclaim “let’s drill for oil in the US” which is kind of pathetic.
Anyways, I’m not so sure about the Abortion Breast Cancer link but the truth is I wouldn’t be surprised. And it makes logical sense that an induced abortion, especially past the first trimester where even spontaneous abortions (i.e. miscarriages) are uncommon, would not be good for a woman’s health. I do believe that your risk of health being adversely affected by abortion probably increases with repeated induced abortions.
BTW Sally, the American Cancer Society indicates that the greatest risk for developing cervical cancer comes from HPV (which I’m sure you know you are more likely to get if you have had multiple partners). Other high risk factors are smoking, repetitive chlamydia infections and OC’s.
Eat your heart out honey.
Posted by: Patricia at June 27, 2008 6:51 PM
…………………………..
Eat my heart out over what Patty?
Posted by: Sally at June 27, 2008 8:07 PM
EWWWW. Somebody’s touchy over the ABC link aren’t we.
Sometimes the truth hurts Sally.
I am hopeful you can read bolded text.
EWWWW. Somebody’s touchy over the ABC link aren’t we.
Sometimes the truth hurts Sally.
I am hopeful you can read bolded text.
Posted by: Patricia at June 27, 2008 9:10 PM
…………………
You aren’t making any sense Patty. Are you OK?
The problem with Daling’s study is that it is small.
Didn’t we discuss this before? Daling’s work would have to be repeated–I don’t remember the exact number we calculated but it was on the order of a thousand times–in order to acquire the persuasive power of the Melbye study.
The problem with the studies that show an abc link is not that they are conducted by RTLs. Some RTLs are capable of honest research and honest reporting (for example former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop). The problem is that they are small and matched by other small studies that show the opposite effect–that abortion PROTECTS you from breast cancer.
This pattern– big studies showing no link and small studies showing either a weak link, no link, or a weak anti-link, depending on chance (statistical noise)–is exactly what epidemiologists expect to see in cases where there is no link. The rtl trick is, they list the small studies which because of statistical noise show a weak link, and they leave out the studies (big and small) that show no link or an anti-link, and then they say “See, there IS a link, all these studies show it.” This trick is known in the epidemiology biz as one-sided amplification of statistical noise.
Patricia, you wrote: “Sally, the American Cancer Society indicates that the greatest risk for developing cervical cancer comes from HPV (which I’m sure you know you are more likely to get if you have had multiple partners). ”
This is why condoms are the best bc–they protect you from STIs.
Anne Coulter is not usually worth responding to. She lies and openly takes pleasure in lying. So much so that it’s a question whether her falsehoods can really be called “lies”–she doesn’t expect her audience to believe what she says, just to laugh at it. Is it really a lie if you know that everyone will recognize it as false?
But sometimes she provides a good starting point. She wrote: “In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.” What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, “You can’t eat your way out of being hungry!” “You can’t water your way out of drought!” “You can’t sleep your way out of tiredness!” “You can’t drink yourself out of dehydration!”
Drilling increases the supply of oil IN THE FUTURE. If we start drilling now we might have more oil SEVEN YEARS OR SO FROM NOW. For the next seven years the effect of drilling on the oil supply would be nil. That’s what Democrats are referring to when they say we can’t drill our way out of this crisis.
I’m quite sure Ann Coulter understands this. She’s not stupid. She went to law school, didn’t she?
I have seen first hand how effectively steroids like prednisone counter the negative effects of chemotherapy. I have some painful joints but I discontinued the cortizone injections after two treatments cause one of the known side effects is brittling of the bone in the area treated. But I see this generation of girls exposed to continuos regimen of BC just so they can reduce the chances of pregnancy when they have sex. I can understand somebody like Jess taking BC to treat other debilitating conditions, but I would always at least consider that lower doses (less)are always safer. And I see this generation of young girls is being blitzkreiged by the drug companies are by drug distributors like PP. Pushing their drugs on our childfren in the elementary schools and passing laws to enable it all without parental consent. When putting hormones into your body less is more and NONE is best. So keep the F*!King drug pushers like PP out of our schools and away from our kids.
For the next seven years the effect of drilling on the oil supply would be nil.
Posted by: SoMG at June 27, 2008 10:52 PM
7 years is not a long time from today. and i bet knowing it was coming would drop the price of gas today.
Everyone does understand that she does want to take away a woman’s right to VOTE, right?
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it
Patricia, did you actually read the Hutchinson study you posted? I guess you probably did because you put some of it in boldface, but I wonder how much you thought about what you read. If you had, you might have realized the following three things:
1. n=845 breast cancer patients. The Melbye study included more than ten thousand breast cancer patients. I was wrong, the thousand times was something else. That makes it more than an order of magnitude more persuasive.
2. The subjects of the Hutchinson study you posted were all at most 46 years old when diagnosed. That’s a special, atypical subgroup of breast cancer patients, whose median age at diagnosis is 61. Approximately 77% of breast cancers occur in women over 50. The results of the study may not mean anything at all for the large majority of breast cancers.
3. The Results section begins: “Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women. ” The phrase “Among women who had been pregnant at least once” indicates that all or nearly all the controls (“other women”) were women with at least one kid (since they had all been pregnant at least once and had had no induced abortions and reported spontaneous abortions are not very common although unreported ones probably are); however, the test group probably included childless women who had aborted their only pregnancy or all their pregnancies. It is well known that having children provides some protection against breast cancer because pregnancy lowers estrogen and estrogen increases breast cancer. The controls had the unfair advantage of (almost) every member having at least one kid. That means that as long as you already have a kid or plan to have one later the results of the study may not apply to you at all, depending on how many members of the test group (women with abortions) were also childless.
http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
and one more:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/breast/Patient/page3
“truthseeker”, you wrote: “When putting hormones into your body less is more and NONE is best. ”
I’m sorry but that is a prejudice, at least as often wrong as it is right.
Jess:
There is a reason that many conservatives do not like Ann Coulter in addition to liberals and it’s because she says stupidity like “women shouldn’t vote so we will never get a Democrat President”.
A. Women don’t always vote Democrat
B. Women are just as much people as men are, why should they be denied the right to vote.
C. The first-wave of feminism is why Ann Coulter is where she is. Had it not been for the 19th Ammendment and the fight for women to be treated as equal to men, Ann Coulter would be nowhere.
I’m serious, I really don’t get what this woman says. She makes her fellow Republicans look bad.
This is why condoms are the best bc–they protect you from STIs.
Posted by: SoMG at June 27, 2008 10:40 PM
YOu KNOW this is wrong. But, hey, keep promoting condoms eh, it just gives you more work. They do not protect a person from any STI in particular, HPV and herpes – both of which have infected many millions of condom users worldwide.
SoMG: I am not willing to discuss this topic with you as you repeatedly will not accept any study unless it promotes your mantra of abortion as a healthy choice. ABortion as preventative medicine? Really? It’s truly amazing the lengths you go to to rationalize your work.
BTW, you know that most abortion research is in fact, not conducted by RTLer since they are not the ones doing the abortions. It is the abortion providers themselves who do the research. However, when their results demonstrate the negative consequences of abortion on women’s health, the conclusions are almost always written up to demonstrate a benefit. The American Cancer Society has admitted privately to several researchers that it cannot accept the ABC link because it is too political to do so. And women continue to allow themselves to abused in this manner all for the sake of choice. I guess you could say that women deserve what we get.
militarywifey,
I disagree with everything you said.
Ann Coulter is great writer and makes alot of sense.
“truthseeker”, you wrote: “When putting hormones into your body less is more and NONE is best. ”
I’m sorry but that is a prejudice, at least as often wrong as it is right.
Posted by: SoMG at June 28, 2008 3:52 AM
Somg, only a quack would tell a patient that a higher dose regimen of hormone therapy is as safe as a lower doses of hormone therapy.
The “reality” entity will never provide: The names of three ‘experts’ and a factual list of their funding sources.
It’s not common to get a person funded by Pill manufacturers to admit that the drugs are a hazard. That would require an active conscience on the part of the researcher.
Before FDA was funded by the applicants, it had required such admissions, because they were true. Now that information is entirely discounted, with the continuing push to put the hormones over the counter.
Much more important than the health of women is their sexual availability. The most crucial SoMG ‘value’ is to make girls who are younger than socially accepted reproductive age available for sex.
If miscarraige is a risk for breast cancer, then that justifies all abortions for the pro-aborts, since that would mean that breast cancer is ‘natural’ for women. It’s OK for them to purposely induce more of an event which could risk the health and life of a woman.
Women have naturally borne the greatest risks associated with continuation of the species, and for the misogynist pro-aborts, that justifies additional abuse.
As patients, women have always been the garbage of medicine research and practice. The overall quality of Ob-Gyn practitioners is dropping like a rock because participation in abortion is expected.
Still waiting for the “acceptable” male contraceptive.
For Military wifey who doesn’t get it.
Ann Coulter recognizes two preventable problems caused by liberal democrat policies.
A repeating theme is that liberals cause a problem, then blame conservatives for it. There are myriad examples but they are not the topic here.
Liberals tout abortion for women since their primary social value is to make younger women and girls (not yet ready for reproduction) more available for sex. Untimely end of a pregnancy is associated with changes in breast tissue which can lead to cancer. There is then liberal whining that conservatives don’t give enough $ to solve the health problems exacerbated by liberal policies.
Conservatives requested more oil drilling and steps for U.S. energy independence years ago. Liberals denied these requests. Now they blame conservatives for the high price of oil. They pretend to care about the high price of oil in order to get elected this year.
The liberal Obamanator solution for the high price of oil is to tax the oil companies, which will pass even higher prices to consumers. He is an idiot.
Ann Coulter recognizes and highlights liberal stupidity and dishonesty. Her very direct address of these issues, and lack of concern for the “feeeeeeeelings” of liberals mirrors my own, and so I find her approach to be scintillating, erudite, and hilarious.
Still waiting for the “acceptable” male contraceptive.
Posted by: kb at June 28, 2008 12:47 PM
So am I kb, and I’m a man who hates to see this generation of girls being “educated” to pollute their bodies with steroids.
Militarywifey: I’m serious, I really don’t get what this woman says. She makes her fellow Republicans look bad.
Coulter tries to be outrageous, to get more TV time, etc. It works for her….
kb
Didn’t Obama express regret that gasoline prices rose so quickly, not that they rose?
Truthseeker: 7 years is not a long time from today. and I bet knowing it was coming would drop the price of gas today.
Indeed, it might. Not for long and not much, but there could be some effect.
I wonder how much America’s usage of petroleum products will grow in those 7 years. Would we even “break even”?
Ann Coulter is great writer and makes alot of sense.
Jasper, you have heard some of the truly nutty things she’s said, though, right?
@Doug: It’s not nutty if you agree with it.
Kind of like people’s opinion of the judicial system. If it’s a ruling they disagree with, it’s “judicial activism”, but if it’s a ruling they agree with, it’s “upholding the constitution”.
Patricia, you wrote: “I am not willing to discuss this topic with you as you repeatedly will not accept any study unless it promotes your mantra of abortion as a healthy choice.”
Wrong. I criticize every study according to its merits without regard to what its conclusions are. You just keep posting studies which are open to criticism on the merits as well as supporting right-to-lifism. I can’t help that. You need to find some better rtl studies to post.
You wrote: “ABortion as preventative medicine? ”
Yes, of course. Isn’t it obvious?
You wrote: ” The American Cancer Society has admitted privately to several researchers that it cannot accept the ABC link because it is too political to do so. ”
Document this please. I would be very interested to see evidence for this.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: only a quack would tell a patient that a higher dose regimen of hormone therapy is as safe as a lower doses of hormone therapy. ”
Really? The diabeticians who prescribe insulin, are they quacks? The docs who prescribe thyroid hormones to patients with hypothyroidism?
Ya, Mary. Any excuse to tax us some more. Obama knows best what do do with our money.
Everyone go to you tube and search for “obama man can”. The song is hilarious.
There’s never gonna be an “acceptible” male contraceptive, Truthseeker. And you’re right to suggest that we shouldn’t pump a person, who is well, full of hormones.
The statement about quackery is also correct. A larger dose is riskier, and is not appropriate for treating illness if a lower dose would work. Apparently the SoMG did not comprehend what you actually wrote there.
Didn’t Obama express regret that gasoline prices rose so quickly, not that they rose?
Gas prices, along with every other purchasable item, go up. There will never be a time when we will again be able to buy candy at the store for a half-penny, or think that earning $5 a day is a decent wage.
Naturally, over time gas prices will go up because of inflation, as do other costs. The problem with it going up very quickly is that people’s wages have not adjusted accordingly, making the gas a costly amenity that is not affordable for many people.
“no one should believe the Democrats’ “energy” policies.”
What have the other parties done for you, there, lately?
The Republicans have played into the hands of big oil companies for years. Those companies have not wanted alternative energy sources developed, and are not afraid of high energy prices (naturally).
You wrote: ” The American Cancer Society has admitted privately to several researchers that it cannot accept the ABC link because it is too political to do so. ”
Document this please. I would be very interested to see evidence for this.
Posted by: SoMG at June 28, 2008 9:13 PM
You should be quite capable of finding this for yourself considering your internet prowress. I’m not doing your work for you – you want to know find it out sweetie.
I note you ignored this part of my post:
BTW, you know that most abortion research is in fact, not conducted by RTLer since they are not the ones doing the abortions. It is the abortion providers themselves who do the research. However, when their results demonstrate the negative consequences of abortion on women’s health, the conclusions are almost always written up to demonstrate a benefit.
I wonder why SoMG. Could it be that it’s true? I’m sure you’ll come up with something.
Seeing as your moniker is splashed all over the internet.
kp and Jasper:
I am pro-life, a conservative on many social issues (not all) and I think Ann Coulter is more damaging to the Republican party than helpful.
Is she an entertaining writer? In a strange way, yes. But she constantly makes money off of pitting liberals against conservatives and vice-versa. She seems like the type of person that thrives off of controversy and being disliked.
The truth is we will never get anything done anywhere if all the Republicans and Democrats do is fight each other out. Ann Coulter thinks otherwise and she is free to write and believe what she wants.
But I have to say some of the things she says are incredibly stupid and I believe she says them only to get a rise out of people. There is no possible way she can actually believe that “women shouldn’t have the right to vote”, she just says it so it’ll get news coverage and she gets to argue with every talk show host.
You must admit, she’s said some strange things i.e. “Jews need to be perfected” . “I’ve never seen women enjoy their husbands’ death so much (in reference to the 9-11 widows)”
On Ann Coulter, to Military Wifey:
‘Women shouldn’t have the right to vote’ — this is a hyberbolic means to take women to task for voting in an emotional rather than analytical manner, for people who make them feel good with words. From the voting statistics, in order to have conservatives running the government, removing suffrage from females would immediately bring the desired result. Hyperbole is a common and legitimate literary device used for humor and to get attention.
“Jews need to be perfected”. If a person has a religion and does not believe in it wholeheartedly, then claiming the religion is hypocritical. Christians regard the coming of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promise to the Jews. In the Christian view, the Jews who are still waiting for the Messiah have not caught up.
Also reference the statements by Jesus concerning his own mission. From this comes the statement that Jews need to be perfected – regarding their belief system. If Ann Coulter found the Jews to be perfect in their belief system, then she would be a Jew.
In addition, any sincere Jew believes, and should feel free to state that Christians are incorrect about the Messiah.
Any sincere religious adherent believes his own religion to be the most perfect. Otherwise there’s no reason to subscribe and adhere to the beliefs. I admire a person’s courage to sincerely state his/her religious beliefs.
Yes, there were approximately four women who milked the deaths of their spouses in the 911 incident in a most obnoxious manner, and Ann Coulter legitimately pointed this out by specifying these particular individuals (not all 911 widows as implied in your post).
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: only a quack would tell a patient that a higher dose regimen of hormone therapy is as safe as a lower doses of hormone therapy. ”
Really? The diabeticians who prescribe insulin, are they quacks? The docs who prescribe thyroid hormones to patients with hypothyroidism?
Posted by: SoMG at June 28, 2008 9:15 PM
Gny god “doctors” make efforts to prescribe their patients the minimal effective amount of any drug, wether the drug is to treat diabetes, blood pressure, or anything else.
correction:
Ggod “doctors” make efforts to prescribe their patients the MINIMAL effective amount of any drug, wether the drug is to treat diabetes, blood pressure, or anything else.
Posted by: truthseeker at June 29, 2008 5:36 AM
one more try and then I turn the lights on:
Good “doctors” make efforts to prescribe their patients the MINIMAL effective amount of any drug, wether the drug is to treat diabetes, blood pressure, or anything else. IMO, especially important when prescribimg hormones.
I wonder how much America’s usage of petroleum products will grow in those 7 years. Would we even “break even”?
Posted by: Doug at June 28, 2008 8:27 PM
As a country we might break even Doug, but it would probably be a drop in the bucket against growth in world demand.
Patricia, you wrote: “You should be quite capable of finding this for yourself considering your internet prowress. I’m not doing your work for you – you want to know find it out sweetie.”
What you mean by this is, you know there is no documentation to be found, because you made it up. [“The American Cancer Society has admitted privately to several researchers that it cannot accept the ABC link because it is too political to do so. “]
Why not just admit it?
“truthseeker”, you wrote: “Good “doctors” make efforts to prescribe their patients the MINIMAL effective amount of any drug, …”
Of course. But you said less was always better. (The phrase you used was “less is more and none is best.”) That’s not true.
You wrote: “… especially important when prescribimg hormones.”
Why do you say that? Do you think hormones are more dangerous than non-hormone drugs? They’re not.
Patricia, you wrote: “BTW, you know that most abortion research is in fact, not conducted by RTLer since they are not the ones doing the abortions. It is the abortion providers themselves who do the research. However, when their results demonstrate the negative consequences of abortion on women’s health, the conclusions are almost always written up to demonstrate a benefit.”
The abortion providers report how many abortions they do and how many serious complications they experience. Relatively few of them do research or draw conclusions from their own numbers.
Patricia, you wrote: “You should be quite capable of finding this for yourself considering your internet prowress. I’m not doing your work for you – you want to know find it out sweetie.”
What you mean by this is, you know there is no documentation to be found, because you made it up. [“The American Cancer Society has admitted privately to several researchers that it cannot accept the ABC link because it is too political to do so. “]
Why not just admit it?
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 6:39 AM
Nope. In fact it’s on several ABC cancer sites. Since you are all over the internet yourself SoMG, you should have no problems finding it.
“truthseeker”, you wrote: “Good “doctors” make efforts to prescribe their patients the MINIMAL effective amount of any drug, …”
Of course. But you said less was always better. (The phrase you used was “less is more and none is best.”) That’s not true.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 6:46 AM
It was said in the context of the negative side effects of the drugs. Which makes it TRUE that
“less is more and none is best.”
Why do you say that? Do you think hormones are more dangerous than non-hormone drugs? They’re not.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 6:46 AM
For example, I quit getting cortisone shots and went back to braces and occasioinal Vicodin because the cortisone was making the area of bone being treated more brittle.
Question for you. Why do they make such a big deal about HGH?
Of course Somg the negative side effects depend upon the hormone being used and what kind of changes it makes to your biorythm. Do you think it would be dangerous for a person to take HGH over an extended period of time? I hear Sylvester Stallone used it often but I also hear that it could have negative side effects.
Sorry, I don’t know anything about HGH. Not my field.
The abortion providers report how many abortions they do and how many serious complications they experience. Relatively few of them do research or draw conclusions from their own numbers.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 6:57 AM
That is NOT what I wrote. I did not write that all abortion providers do research I wrote that MOST abortion research is done by abortion providers. (Thus your claim that I am quoting RTL research is erroneous.)
Therefore, as a consequence of abortionist/researchers there is a bias in the reporting research. Any negative results are therefore, often ignored or played down, or deliberately omitted in the conclusions. This is why RTL researchers have cautioned that when doing lit searches, the entire paper must be read and not just the conclusions. However, the fact that you deliberately twisted my meaning demonstrates to me that you know all this of course.
Sorry, anon was me Patricia. I just did my routine spyware/virus scans this morning and it always wipes everything out.
“I wonder how much America’s usage of petroleum products will grow in those 7 years. Would we even “break even”?”
Truthseeker: As a country we might break even Doug, but it would probably be a drop in the bucket against growth in world demand.
Yeah, no doubt about that. I’d just say that trying to “talk down” energy prices isn’t going to get it. We’re having real rationing by price now, and while the cost of oil is likely to plunge at some point – it’s truly gone parabolic, and the way that ends is with a fast and hard fall – the days of cheap energy are over.
Of course. But you said less was always better. (The phrase you used was “less is more and none is best.”) That’s not true.
In the case of the patient who has no illness, none is best.
You wrote: “… especially important when prescribimg hormones.”
Yes, especially true when prescribing steroid sex hormones.
There are people who feign medical associations and a knowledge of pharmacology, but they become painfully obvious to a trained and practicing health care professional by such statements as below in response to the bolded one above.
Why do you say that? Do you think hormones are more dangerous than non-hormone drugs? They’re not.
Never take medical information uncritically from the internet, even from me ;-) because my identity isn’t given. One of the more energetic moderators might like to check my claims with a good, basic text such as Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. It’s an easy read.
However, all information from SoMG is tainted by the willingness to give such sweeping and inaccurate information, without any knowledge of the mechanisms and far reaching effects of the steroid sex hormones (affecting genetic expression). It doesn’t know where the receptors are to be found, how the drugs reach the receptors, the myriad effects on all body systems, and the feed back mechanisms effecting the output of the pituitary and hypothalamus. It would neither acquire nor admit to such information, and it will continue to lie about the drugs.
For the pill manufacturers which it represents, it is fine for women to be adversely affected by drugs sold over the counter, and used in absolute ignorance of the facts, because the sexual availability of women is considered paramount to their health and lives.
A question of conscience for the moderators is if such obviously incorrect and dangerous advertising should be available in all places, where it may not always be counteracted adequately.
Already there are sufficient forums for the lies and omissions about steroid sex hormones to be carried to women. Should this be one of them?
Not as long as you get to every blog on the Internet and speak the truth about it kb.
Edyt 10:12PM
So Obama is only sorry the gas prices rose so quickly and not that they rose?
Patricia, you wrote: “MOST abortion research is done by abortion providers. ”
Nope.
Patricia, you wrote: “MOST abortion research is done by abortion providers. ”
Nope.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 6:21 PM
You are incorrect on this. You would absolutely LOVE everyone to believe that this is not the case, because then you can spread misinformation around about abortion research. Abortionists are the ones who have access to the women having abortions. They are the ones reporting the abortion statistics. Most research is done by abortion providers. It is your own colleagues who are providing the research proving that abortion is not the safe and “rare” procedure you’d like us all to believe it is. Much, I dare say, to their chagrin too.
anon is me, Patricia
Patricia, you wrote: “Abortionists are the ones who have access to the women having abortions. They are the ones reporting the abortion statistics. ”
Reporting one’s own clinical experiences to government agencies is not the same as doing research or “reporting the abortion statistics”. The people who read the abortion providers’ reports and assemble them into one big report, and the people who interpret the meaning of the numbers in the big report–THEY are the ones doing research and reporting abortion statistics. And very few of them are abortion providers.
You wrote: “Most [abortion] research is done by abortion providers.”
If you can prove this, I’ll quit doing abortions and never do another one again. Think how many babies you could save!
Most abortion research is done by epidemiologists and people with degrees in public health.
Most abortion research is done by epidemiologists and people with degrees in public health.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 9:50 PM
Who are their employers and how many of these employers are there in the US?
Yllas,
With Jill’s authorization, you are asked to discontinue posting for the next two weeks.
Take a break. Go to the beach. Do some gardening.
When you’re ready to compose coherent posts minus the insults, we’ll be glad to have you back.
Yours Truly.
Why would pro-aborts want to skew any data that would show a link between induced abortion and breast cancer? What’s the payoff for them?
Reality,
You ought to have pointed out that the National Cancer Institute is not without its critics. From the link you provided, tracing the trail through the actual report, one can find a “minority report.” It is here
.
The text:
Legal abortion.
Let me explain. :) Roe v. Wade was premised, in part, on the “fact” that abortion is safer than childbirth. (I can explain the flaws in the analysis for anyone who would want it, but it’s somewhat long and it’s also late at night now. :) ) Once the Supreme Court made the medical determination that abortion is safer than childbirth, it classified abortion as a medical procedure, then drew up a constitutional right to privacy to go along with that medical procedure.
If abortion raises the risk of breast cancer, then abortion will be a less “healthy” choice, and, therefore, undermines the very foundation of Roe.
Janet, you wrote: “Who are their [people who research abortion] employers and how many of these employers are there in the US?”
Their employers are mostly in the end the taxpayers (“mostly” because there are some private funding agencies too.) Some are employed directly by the US Government or a state government, some are employed by universities to get grants which can be from federal, state, or private granting agencies. I guess there’s a question: who’s really your employer, the granting agency that funds your work or the university that siphons off as much of the money as it can get away with and sends you your meagre paycheck?
I’m sorry I don’t know how many there are.
theobromophile, I think it was a sarcastic question.
Also, in order to contradict the hypothesis that abortion is safer than childbirth it would have to be a significantly strong link, at least strong enough to matter to a woman deciding what to do with a pregnancy. This is a very different question from, say, how many small studies report a weak or very weak link. The NCI and ACS may have their critics sure but I don’t think they would fail to detect a correlation significantly strong to matter to a woman deciding what to do with a pregnancy. (The idea that they would try to conceal it for political or ideological reasons is only for people who enjoyed the movie COMA.)
One other thing: there is at least a reasonable probability that Roe/Wade will cease to matter soon.
HisMan 12:07am
I think its obvious. Abortion is a sacred cow.
Abortion advocates have long assured women abortion was “safe”. How much money has the abortion industry hauled in?
Can you just imagine the lawsuits?
I would think the abortion industry and leadership were out of their minds if they didn’t want the data skewed.
SOMG, 1:24am
You don’t think the NCI and ACS would fail to detect a correlation or you know for a fact they wouldn’t?
“They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices.”
Who exactly is Coulter referring to? Does she actually believe she represents the pro-life movement?
This article doesn’t even have anything to do with the abortion/breast cancer link.
Coulter just mentions it to open up her right wing rant on oil…
Why must we further politicize the abortion issue, Jill? Why can’t we work for solutions instead of treating this like a game?
“Why must we further politicize the abortion issue, Jill? Why can’t we work for solutions instead of treating this like a game?”
So true StudentFL, this is absolutely ridiculous! Stick to the issue Jill, not all PRO-LIFERS want to hear your ultra-conservative rants.
Mary, it would surprise me very much.
This is why condoms are the best bc–they protect you from STIs.
Posted by: SoMG at June 27, 2008 10:40 PM
HIV transmission rate for couples using condoms where one partner is infected is 50%.
Unintended pregnancy rate is 25%.
So much for effective birth control.
On topic.
I think the unspoken rule of the US energy policy is to buy from the rest of the world till the supplies are all gone, then we will still have all of ours left.
If you think about it, that is not such a bad idea.
Gasoline is a low margin product which means that the price is inflexible to market pressure. No matter how much you conserve gasoline, the price will not weaken.
However crude oil is currently high margin and virtually all of the price increase is market driven.
Unfortunately it is driven by world demand and fears and we are only one player in that game. Reducing dependence on oil (not just foreign oil) is the best strategy. Personally, I favor wind. Simply compare your monthly utility bill to your gasoline bill and you will see that most of our energy use and pollution is not motor vehicles but homes and businesses. Switching to a green electric provider is even more effective than buying a hybrid and certainly cheaper if you can’t afford a new car soon. I would still recommend the hybrid. They will likely become the new standard in passenger vehicles.
Hippie, I don’t mind that, either – buying the world’s oil then still having ours left, but our production peaked way back in the 1970s (I think) and has been declining since.
Have to disagree on gasoline – it’s very sensitive to market pressure. Diesel fuel has recently been like $1.00 more than gasoline, despite gasoline coming off higher in the cracking tower and being “more refined” than diesel. The demand for gas has leveled off and even declined a little in the US, and it’s a straight supply/demand deal – it’s not bid up like diesel has been.
You’re certainly right that we are only one player in the game, and it’s not like it used to be, where a US economic contraction could be counted on to bring commodity prices down. Now, there are ten times as many people as the US has in China, India, Russia, Brasil, etc., just getting into the middle class and beginning to consume like we do.
I’m all for wind power, and solar and hydroelectric, but it’s a drop in the bucket. It’s been supplying about .1% of our energy. If we really go hog wild and increase alternative energy production a hundredfold, that’d be roughly 10% of our current usage, and in the time it would take to achieve that our total consumption may rise more than that added amount, leaving us as dependent or moreso on fossil fuels and nuclear plants.
Bottom line = we’re going to be burning a lot of coal for a long time.
So Obama is only sorry the gas prices rose so quickly and not that they rose?
Mary, yes, and that’s a very accurate statement. Would you be upset over higher prices of strawberries if the national income rose at the same rate?
No, and no one would really even notice. As long as typical costs remain at the same percent increase as incomes, people do not mind paying higher prices.
This is a naturally occurring phenomenon. If gas prices had risen to $4 over the course of 50 years, no one would really care. But I can recall gas prices were between $1 and $1.50… that was probably about 10 years ago.
Here’s a nice graph showing the spike in gas prices. It also shows that (adjusted for inflation) we are paying more than we ever have before for gas.
If for some reason, that chart doesn’t post, you can also view it here: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
Hippie, you wrote: “HIV transmission rate for couples using condoms where one partner is infected is 50%.”
Document please. Sounds like BS.
Edyt,
Tell that to people who claim gas prices are posing a hardship and to people who will pay higher heating fuel costs. Not everyone’s income rose in proportion to the gas prices and this country doesn’t run on strawberries.
Why would Obama be happy about the increasing gas prices? Because they don’t affect him? That’s right, his income is in the 7 figures. Who better to understand the hardships of gas prices on low income people?
People don’t mind paying higher prices? Edyt, what planet have you been residing on?
I favor going after our own reserves, of which we have plenty and nuclear energy. I’ve read that while other countries are using nuclear energy, we’re still talking windmills. What an embarassment.
Edyt,
You may want to google “US oil reserves”. The first article is very interesting and debunks any notion that we can’t be energy independent with our own reserves.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we sit on our own reserves, twiddle our thumbs and talk about windmills.
I understand the Brazilians made a huge oil discovery off their shores and are going for it. Unlike us, they have some silly notion about using their own resources to better the lives of their citizens and for their own profit.
Mary, oil companies are drilling in the “Bakken” – that area in ND and parts of SD, MT and Canada – the Williston Basin.
“Devonian Shale,” and “millidarcies,” anybody? I like the way they sound.
The oil is deep and hard to get, and most of it likely will not be brought to the surface, so it’s not all the “pie in the sky” stuff we sometimes hear.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868
True also on the Brazilians. Anybody want to play along?
PBR on the NYSE. No, it’s not Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Doug,
What interesting news. Thank you for the thumbs up. You gotta strart somewhere. Have you seen the area they want to drill in ANWAR? Good grief its samll and desolate. Nothing like preserving desolation. Even the animals won’t live there. I saw a picture of a drill in an area nearby, Prudhoe Bay, and the caribou were all around it. Also a bear was walking on the pipeline.
If the oil is there they will get it out come you know what or high water.
Aren’t the Chinese and Cubans going after offshore oil near us as well? I trust our rigs more so than theirs in a hurricane!
:: laughing ::
Yeah, Mary, I hear that – don’t know that I’d want to be on a Chinese oil rig, period.
ANWR’s drilling areas would be small, yes, and I think it’ll happen in the long run.
Have been to the Alaska Pipeline, and indeed the area has come back from construction just fine (although changed from what it used to be) and the wildlife is fine too. I got up on top of that bad boy of a pipeline and walked a good ways.
I like the idea of really “preserved” areas but feel they will gradually be used, come heck or high water, due to the increasing planetary population and increased per-capita consumption of resources.
I think what you are referring to is what Cheney said – that the Chinese had been requested by Cuba to drill in US waters and that they were doing so – 60 miles off the coast of Florida.
That was not true.
Doug,
Its like the old growth forests and spotted owls. The owls were found nesting in K-Mart signs! Like with Alaska, people forget wildlife has been adapting to changes in their environment time and again since time began.
I heard quite a few versions concerning the rigs and who would run them. As for your answer to that question I have only one word. Whew!
Mary I don’t think you read what I wrote, since your response was really bizarre.
High gas prices are a hardship for a lot of reasons right now – some of those being that unemployment is going up and oil prices have SKYROCKETED and are now (adjusted for inflation) the highest they have ever been.
The fact of the matter is, with inflation, prices go UP. So do incomes. For the most part, when prices rise slowly and steadily, people don’t care too much. Sure, some people will complain and say they remember when such-and-such used to be only so much, but the thing is, most people are able to keep up with rising costs because their dollar is worth more.
Why would Obama be happy about the increasing gas prices?
He’s not. Why do you say he is? I agree with him that if gas rose slowly and steadily, it wouldn’t have been such a big deal. But it didn’t do that. It went up and it went up fast — at a time when a lot of people need to use cars just to get to work. (And of course, food/merchandise go up as well because of increased shipping costs, which also upset people)
Because they don’t affect him? That’s right, his income is in the 7 figures. Who better to understand the hardships of gas prices on low income people?
You know what? That was just ignorant. You make it sound like a person cannot ever understand or emphasize with what another person is going through if they’re not in the same situation at the exact same time. I get paid four times as much as I did a year ago, but I haven’t stopped emphasizing with other people who were in my situation.
People don’t mind paying higher prices? Edyt, what planet have you been residing on?
Please please please, Mary. Try to understand what I’m writing before you say things like this. People don’t mind paying higher prices as long as they can keep up with the prices. When prices skyrocket in a short amount of time, their wages, the value of the dollar, etc. do not keep up. People pay higher prices for luxuries all the time without blinking an eye — how much did the iPhone cost when it just came out?
The problem is, these are not luxuries that are going up. They’re basic needs — food, transportation, gas, etc. If those basic needs cannot be paid for without dipping into the savings account, people are angry. I don’t disagree. But if the value of the dollar stays at approximately the same rate as the increase in prices, people will not even notice.
And I’m actually a little bit interested in hydro energy, though I haven’t read too much about it. It just seems like a cool method.
Edyt,
I questioned if Obama is indeed happy gas prices rose so quickly and not that they rose and you said and I quote, “Mary, yes, and that’s a very accurate statement”.
I could only draw one conclusion from that.
I also made the comment about his lack of empathy since you agreed he was happy gas prices went up.
I mentioned strawberries since you used that as an example and I pointed out we can live without strawberries. Gas is quite another matter.
Gas prices and also heating prices will be a hardship to truckers, people on fixed incomes, low income people, and all of us. Some people may be able to keep up with the prices, but they won’t be happy. I just saw an article in our paper about a poll that stated 9 out of
The whole point Edyt is that this is so totally unnecessary.
We could have been drilling in ANWAR 10 years ago. I understand Clinton put the cabosh to that and Bush the First would not allow offshore drilling. Correct me if I am wrong.
We are sitting on reserves that could make us independent and keep prices down. Just the fact we are going to drill could bring prices down as it takes away the control the Middle East enjoys over us.
I am for alternative methods but I cannot support sitting on what we have while prices go up. With oil going up food prices, heating prices, travel, etc. skyrockets as well and effects jobs and the economy, promoting inflation and putting people out of work
I find it ironic but typical Edyt that people like the Kennedys will promote “alternative” energy but oppose windmills blocking their scenic view.
Edyt,
I must correct myself. I asked if Obama was only sorry gas prices rose so quickly, not that they rose. Not he was happy they rose so quickly.
We could have been drilling in ANWAR 10 years ago. I understand Clinton put the cabosh to that and Bush the First would not allow offshore drilling. Correct me if I am wrong.
Mary, it wasn’t just Slick Willie – ANWR has been as issue since Carter’s time.
(Kibosh)
……
We are sitting on reserves that could make us independent and keep prices down.
Only in theory, and not for very long at that production rate. We import over 13 million barrels of oil and petroleum products per day.
We produce about 5 million per day.
…..
I find it ironic but typical Edyt that people like the Kennedys will promote “alternative” energy but oppose windmills blocking their scenic view.
Sounds like the case with nuclear plants, oil refineries, etc. “Not In My BackYard.”
Doug,
I know, but I understand Clinton signed the legislation that banned drilling in that lovely oasis.
Only in theory but we won’t know until we go for it. So let the oil companies at it. If the fools on the hill have their way they’ll tax the oil companies instead. That’ll solve everything.
NIMBY. Exactly :)
Doug,
Its obvious that NOT drilling has done nothing to enhance the beauty and wildlife of ANWAR. Does anything live there, other than insects?
Edyt,
First things first. My apologies.
I’m afraid I wrote to you on the run, bad thing to do, and was called back to work while writing.
While you certainly never suggested Obama was happy prices went up the fact he’s not sorry they did, and only that they rose so quickly would suggest he is either indifferent to or happy they rose. I should not have assumed “not sorry” would mean “happy”.
Apparently that poll I mentioned, and stopped in midsentence, showed that most Americans are indeed very sorry they rose and are none too happy about it. I didn’t finish my sentence but the poll showed 9 out of 10 Americans say gas prices are causing them a great deal of hardship.
Me, I AM sorry(that’s why I find it strange Obama is not) they rose and will keep rising.
This hurts the economy as well as people on fixed and low incomes and perpetuates even more economic hardship.
In my opinion this is totally unnecessary and why we have sat around on what we have for so long is beyond my comprehension.
Doug,
I should specify that I’m referring to the spot where they want to drill. The rest of ANWAR is breathtaking.
Its obvious that NOT drilling has done nothing to enhance the beauty and wildlife of ANWAR. Does anything live there, other than insects?
:: laughing ::
Good grief, Mary, yes.
On Clinton – maybe he did sign for not drilling there. I’m no great defender of Clinton. He promised $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes and what we got was $12 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.
It wasn’t his doing that we had less of a deficit in his terms, he just happened to be in office then. There wasn’t any true surplus – if added in, the “off-budget” items meant the federal gov’t was still spending hundreds of billions of Dollars more per year than it took in.
This energy business that is now affecting so many of us is a BIG DEAL, and it’s not going to go away. “Interesting times,” and all that.
Doug (heavily invested in energy since 2000/2001)
Doug, 1:31PM
AMEN!!
I find it ironic but typical Edyt that people like the Kennedys will promote “alternative” energy but oppose windmills blocking their scenic view.
Hahahaha. I live in Chicago. I’d rather see windmills out my window than the brick wall of another building.