Talk:Breast cancer

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Just to inform the person, which put this study about breast cancer caused by abortion in there. In any study I read about it, there is not a single bit of evidence for that. As Christians we might be free to believe whatever, but we should not believe in something dogmatic, especially when the evidence that this one study by Christian conservative researchers secreted is just faked reality, since this study apperently got tested lately and disproven, in order to support exactly these dogmatism. It is one thing to believe in Jesus and the trinity, but it is blasphemious and just morally incorrect to use the Lord in order to save a personal paradigm. That is one reason why a lot of Christians in the world are pointing to the US and state, Lord, please forgive them, since they do not know how much evil they bring upon us with that behavior.

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in abortion.

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--Aschlafly 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm new here, so please forgive if this comment is put in the wrong place on the page. I notice that a lot of "sensitive" articles on Conservapedia are locked - fine, they do that on other wikis as well. But, the reason for locking them should be clearly stated on the top of the article - as it is, they are just presented as "Here it is, take it or leave it.", with no comments or explanations at all, unless you dig around in the discussion pages to find them. In the case of this article on breast cancer, it would seem that the reason for locking it, is that the controversy over whether abortion is a contributory factor to breast cancer incidence, is considered by the person who did the locking, to be too important (perhaps for religious reasons connected to the abortion debate......) to permit both sides of the vigorous debate to be equally represented and detailed within the body of the article itself. At any rate, i do wish that the people who run this site would clearly and candidly explain exactly why each locked article is off-limits - it would be quite useful to the reader.Elrond May 11, 2007. 10:47 AST.

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. Britinme 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --PalMDtalk 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no credible sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are many good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--PalMDtalk 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--Aschlafly 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-AmesGyo! 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--PalMDtalk 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. Murray 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


Andy, if you can give me an actual NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--PalMDtalk 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See Bias - Original work

Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --Elamdri 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Haven't finished yet...--PalMDtalk 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--Elamdri 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--Elamdri 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The conversation illustrates the attitude of CP/Andy vis-a-vis science, evidence, ideology, and personal attack.

Andy:PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in abortion.

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.

BritinmeAndrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed.

PalMD:Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no credible sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are many good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.

Andy:PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.

AmesG:Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?

PalMD:Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.

Murray:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page.

PalMD:Andy, if you can give me an actual NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing. See Essay: On Bias.

Elamdri:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? PalMD:Haven't finished yet Elamdri:Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.

Elamdri:Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.

Contents [hide] 1 Who has a financial horse in this race? 2 Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but... 3 Risk factors 4 Blocking 5 Support 6 NEJM studies 7 Danger/Boycott 8 See Also


[edit] Who has a financial horse in this race? PalMD:Quote: I'm not going to allow concealment here... Aschlafly, above.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!

Jrssr5:Awesome.

Britinme:Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?!

Cgday:Blimey!

MyaR:Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.)

Andy:Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

I think PalMD is overusing his "MD"User:PalMD/Credentials to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.

Britinme:If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court.

MyaR:And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.)

Cgday:em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same?

Andy:I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.

Flippin:wow, I've seen people blocked for less. (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

EdPoor:I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point.

TimS:Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true.

Cgday:If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not?

Murray:I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer. However, most studies show that they are not. That's the bottom line. Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading.

Andy:Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise. We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.User:PalMD/Credentials

Cgday:To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this.

Murray:How am I wrong about the studies Andy? You've mentioned that there are 16 that show a significant risk. I've listed (on my talk page) 24 that show there isn't. Perhaps you could clarify?

Flippin:I don't see where Andy has better credentials than anyone else to speak on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just keeps referring to the "essjay" thing which has nothign to do with this discussion. Can we move on and talk about credentials or forget the whole mess?

Cgday:Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer?

Andy:Read abortion without any preconceived opinions. Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk.

Murray:So it's not about the research then?

Flippin:"logic alone" is not a very good answer. sorry.

Britinme:"logic alone" suggests that the sun goes round the earth - because after all it looks as if we're standing still and the sun goes round us, doesn't it? But evidence suggests otherwise. At least, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court does.

Sterile:Looking here [1]: "Although the increase in risk was relatively low, (emphasis added) the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." That's in the abstract. I don't have access to the article. I'm a little suspicous, however. Most studies would give some sort of correlation, and not an "odds ratio", whatever that means. Whoops--that is the article... Hmmm OF course, there's this: [http://ebn.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/1/1/21 Judging from the NE Journal of Medicine articles at the bottom of the ref 1, it seems that this is unclear. Hence, it would be intellectually dishonest to include it in the article.

Britinme:Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967 - I'm not sure when in the US (1972?) so women old enough to have abortions then would now be around sixty or older - a time when age-related factors increase the rate anyway. However, it's not as simple as that. For example, among other things the rate of obesity is now much higher than it was forty years ago, and that is an influencing factor.

[edit] Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but... Dpbsmith:No time to work on this myself right now, but... I know a man who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and he tells me that when it does occur in men it is apt to be very dangerous. He's getting regular radiation therapy now, and things seem to be going OK, but it's a very serious business. And men often miss or ignore the symptoms because they don't know it can occur in men. He says he's on a mission to convince men to perform regular breast self-examination.

Murray:Absolutely correct. Because it's so uncommon in men it doesn't usually get caught until it's fairly advanced, so prognoses are often not as good as they are for women.

[edit] Risk factors EdPoor:I just got off the phone with PalMD and am now convinced that he is a real human being. I don't think he's a cancer expert (see oncologist).

I'm hoping he'll ease off and allow a few links to sources which contradict his view of the abortion-cancer connection to be inserted into the article, and that he will not try to "own" the article. He merely submitted a few edits; he's not the author.

PalMD:You are correct, I am not an oncologist, and have never claimed to be. I am still, as an internist, the closest thing we have to an expert here. I lecture on these topics regularly. I have no problem at all with injecting the abortion thing in here, however, just like any other info, it must be sourced, and the data should be available for anyone to view.

PalMD:BTW, perhaps an interested, intelligent person could post on the talk page the article links on abortion/breast cancer. I find it a little confusing on the abortion page. That way we could more easily and accurately incorporate it.

Britinme:These are the ones used in the abortion article:

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdfhttp://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm ↑ Id. ↑ Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added). ↑ "Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002). ↑ R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998). ↑ A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998). ↑ N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004). ↑ Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997). ↑ Joel Brind, "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [1] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512). ↑ http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm PalMD:Thank you. As a public service, I will parse each one individually, and add comments under each listing, if you dont mind.

Murray:Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor:

NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5 British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2 Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108 Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16 American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9 British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31 American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41 International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20 European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7 Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7 Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14 American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45 Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80 International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905 Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9 International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5 British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6 International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9 Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82 American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7 British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8 Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80 Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81 International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8

Andy:Your posting above is false and misleading. The Lancet entry, for example, is not a study at all. I doubt many of the others are either. Virtually all statistically significant studies have shown an increase risked, as does logic. The increased risk was shown before abortion became politically controversial and before the abortion industry became so powerful.

Murray:The Lancet article is indeed a study, though it is regarding ovarian cancer, not breast. My mistake. But you don't understand what statistical significance means. The majority of studies (ie, those in my list) were not statistically significant, meaning they found no effect of abortion on breast cancer. That doesn't mean they don't count.

[edit] Blocking Andy:I blocked AmesG for a day for making an edit I considered threatening, and for not retracting it or apologizing for it.

When "PalMD" is editing outside his area of expertise, then I suggest he remove his "MD" label (which is not his real user id here anyway). My review of PalMD's past edits show a vast number of unproductive changes, including reverting one of my factual edits within a short period after my making it. I think a review of PalMD's edits does support blocking, but in an abundance of caution I will await his future edits. Any edit that falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion, particularly if made under the misleading moniker "MD", will likely result in a block of PalMD. Conservapedia is not going to allow the spreading of liberal falsehoods here to promote abortion. Go to Wikipedia if you want that. Thanks.

Murray:Just plainly listing abortion as a risk factor is false because it suggests that a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk than a woman who was never pregnant. That is simply not true, and it is plain in the research.

Andy:Your comparison is badly misleading, and scientific nonsense. A woman who is pregnant is not choosing between an abortion and not being pregnant. She is choosing between an abortion and childbirth, and it is indisputed that choosing abortion is harmful to her health.


Britinme:Please would you define your understanding of 'falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion'? As far as I can ascertain, the reverse is the truth. According to [2]maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions in the developed world are of the order of 0.2-1.2 per 100,000, whereas in the USA maternal deaths associated with giving birth were 17 per 100,000 (12.2 in the UK) [3] deaths. The conservative view is of opposition to abortion, and conservatives have many reasons to oppose it, but it does this site and your argument no favors if you misrepresent the facts.

Andy:The above data are silly and misleading, even if true. The above risks are far too small to be worth considering, and are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of breast cancer and premature birth of future children.

Murray:You're missing the point entirely Andy. There's a difference between pregancy decreasing the risk and abortion increasing it. If you phrase it that way well and good, but that's not what you're doing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that the majority of studies find no link between abortion and breast cancer. Too much to hope for I suppose.

[edit] Support Jrssr5:copied from PALMD's talk page

I'm disappointed I was away from the computer last night ... I find it appalling that Andy is attacking Peter's credentials, when Andy himself does not have any in this field. The hyprocisy is astounding. I've also done my own research into this and see nothing of substance that backs up Andy's claims of a link. Unfortunately this is his site and if he wants to spread false information in an effort to vilify abortions even further that is his agenda. I would think someone who is as religious and allegedy educated as him would be able to tell the difference between facts and trash "research". And the whole calling something you disagree with a liberal agenda, liberal facts, etc only discredits him further. Peter you have my full support.

[edit] NEJM studies Sterile:I'll repeat what I said above.

The New England Journal of Medicine has two studies: [4] and [5]. They contradict each other. Given that the NEJM is the most well known medical journal, I think it can be safely said that there is no concrete conclusion here. I then conclude to mention abortion as a risk factor is highly deceptive, unless details about the contraversy are given. Stating that "there is a contraversy" is really not intellectuall satisfyingy, again, unless details are given. If Conservapedia is going to be a "trusted/fair source," then this must be done; otherwise the credibility of the project is undermined.

Britinme:I would like to know on what basis the Breast Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Society are deemed to be 'politicized' when they state unequivocally that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. As it stands, this article is dishonest in making the claim that a proven link exists. I note that there is no citation in support of this.

[edit] Danger/Boycott PalMD:Well, I'm still keeping my hands off this article, and my edits out. It is obviously so politicized that it is absurd. Breast cancer is one of the most important health problems in this country. Abortion is one of the most important moral discussions in this country. They happen to be medically unrelated. I certainly hope people who read the current article do not rely on it for accurate information on breast cancer. I mean this not just because of the "abortion issue" but also because, as long as it remains politicized, no real medical expert will put their name to it and help keep the article otherwise accurate. And before you accuse me of one of those ridiculous 90/10 violations, check my recent contributions.


Contents

Who has a financial horse in this race?

Quote: I'm not going to allow concealment here... Aschlafly, above.

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--PalMDtalk 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome. Jrssr5 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! Britinme 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --Cgday 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) MyaR 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.
I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--Aschlafly 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court. Britinme 17:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) MyaR 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --Cgday 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--Aschlafly 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
wow, I've seen people blocked for less. Flippin 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)
I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --Ed Poor 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true--TimS 17:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --Cgday 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer. However, most studies show that they are not. That's the bottom line. Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading. Murray 17:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise. We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.--Aschlafly 18:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this. --Cgday 18:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

How am I wrong about the studies Andy? You've mentioned that there are 16 that show a significant risk. I've listed (on my talk page) 24 that show there isn't. Perhaps you could clarify? Murray 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't see where Andy has better credentials than anyone else to speak on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just keeps referring to the "essjay" thing which has nothign to do with this discussion. Can we move on and talk about credentials or forget the whole mess? Flippin 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --Cgday 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Read abortion without any preconceived opinions. Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk.--Aschlafly 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
So it's not about the research then? Murray 19:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" is not a very good answer. sorry. Flippin 18:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" suggests that the sun goes round the earth - because after all it looks as if we're standing still and the sun goes round us, doesn't it? But evidence suggests otherwise. At least, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court does. Britinme 18:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Looking here [1]: "Although the increase in risk was relatively low, (emphasis added) the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." That's in the abstract. I don't have access to the article. I'm a little suspicous, however. Most studies would give some sort of correlation, and not an "odds ratio", whatever that means. Sterile 18:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Whoops--that is the article... Hmmm...Sterile 18:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT) OF course, there's this: [2]Sterile 18:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Judging from the NE Journal of Medicine articles at the bottom of the ref 1, it seems that this is unclear. Hence, it would be intellectually dishonest to include it in the article. Sterile 18:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967 - I'm not sure when in the US (1972?) so women old enough to have abortions then would now be around sixty or older - a time when age-related factors increase the rate anyway. However, it's not as simple as that. For example, among other things the rate of obesity is now much higher than it was forty years ago, and that is an influencing factor.Britinme 18:36 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but...

No time to work on this myself right now, but... I know a man who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and he tells me that when it does occur in men it is apt to be very dangerous. He's getting regular radiation therapy now, and things seem to be going OK, but it's a very serious business. And men often miss or ignore the symptoms because they don't know it can occur in men. He says he's on a mission to convince men to perform regular breast self-examination. Dpbsmith 18:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely correct. Because it's so uncommon in men it doesn't usually get caught until it's fairly advanced, so prognoses are often not as good as they are for women. Murray 19:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Risk factors

I just got off the phone with PalMD and am now convinced that he is a real human being. I don't think he's a cancer expert (see oncologist).

I'm hoping he'll ease off and allow a few links to sources which contradict his view of the abortion-cancer connection to be inserted into the article, and that he will not try to "own" the article. He merely submitted a few edits; he's not the author. --Ed Poor 18:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


You are correct, I am not an oncologist, and have never claimed to be. I am still, as an internist, the closest thing we have to an expert here. I lecture on these topics regularly. I have no problem at all with injecting the abortion thing in here, however, just like any other info, it must be sourced, and the data should be available for anyone to view.--PalMDtalk 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


BTW, perhaps an interested, intelligent person could post on the talk page the article links on abortion/breast cancer. I find it a little confusing on the abortion page. That way we could more easily and accurately incorporate it.--PalMDtalk 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

These are the ones used in the abortion article:

  1. http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
  2. http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
  3. ↑ Id.
  4. ↑ Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).
  5. ↑ "Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).
  6. ↑ R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).
  7. ↑ A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).
  8. ↑ N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).
  9. ↑ Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).
  10. ↑ Joel Brind, "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [1] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).
  11. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm

Britinme 20:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)


Thank you. As a public service, I will parse each one individually, and add comments under each listing, if you dont mind.--PalMDtalk 20:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor:

  1. NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
  2. British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
  3. Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
  4. Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
  5. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
  6. British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
  7. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
  8. International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
  9. European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
  10. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
  11. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
  12. American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
  13. Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
  14. International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
  15. Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
  16. International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
  17. British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
  18. International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
  19. Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
  20. American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
  21. British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
  22. Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
  23. Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
  24. International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8

Murray 21:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Your posting above is false and misleading. The Lancet entry, for example, is not a study at all. I doubt many of the others are either. Virtually all statistically significant studies have shown an increase risked, as does logic. The increased risk was shown before abortion became politically controversial and before the abortion industry became so powerful.--Aschlafly 23:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The Lancet article is indeed a study, though it is regarding ovarian cancer, not breast. My mistake. But you don't understand what statistical significance means. The majority of studies (ie, those in my list) were not statistically significant, meaning they found no effect of abortion on breast cancer. That doesn't mean they don't count. Murray 02:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocking

I blocked AmesG for a day for making an edit I considered threatening, and for not retracting it or apologizing for it.

When "PalMD" is editing outside his area of expertise, then I suggest he remove his "MD" label (which is not his real user id here anyway). My review of PalMD's past edits show a vast number of unproductive changes, including reverting one of my factual edits within a short period after my making it. I think a review of PalMD's edits does support blocking, but in an abundance of caution I will await his future edits. Any edit that falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion, particularly if made under the misleading moniker "MD", will likely result in a block of PalMD. Conservapedia is not going to allow the spreading of liberal falsehoods here to promote abortion. Go to Wikipedia if you want that. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Just plainly listing abortion as a risk factor is false because it suggests that a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk than a woman who was never pregnant. That is simply not true, and it is plain in the research. Murray 21:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Your comparison is badly misleading, and scientific nonsense. A woman who is pregnant is not choosing between an abortion and not being pregnant. She is choosing between an abortion and childbirth, and it is indisputed that choosing abortion is harmful to her health.--Aschlafly 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


Please would you define your understanding of 'falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion'? As far as I can ascertain, the reverse is the truth. According to [3]maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions in the developed world are of the order of 0.2-1.2 per 100,000, whereas in the USA maternal deaths associated with giving birth were 17 per 100,000 (12.2 in the UK) [4]

deaths. The conservative view is of opposition to abortion, and conservatives have many reasons to oppose it, but it does this site and your argument no favors if you misrepresent the facts. Britinme 21:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The above data are silly and misleading, even if true. The above risks are far too small to be worth considering, and are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of breast cancer and premature birth of future children.--Aschlafly 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
You're missing the point entirely Andy. There's a difference between pregancy decreasing the risk and abortion increasing it. If you phrase it that way well and good, but that's not what you're doing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that the majority of studies find no link between abortion and breast cancer. Too much to hope for I suppose. Murray 02:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Support

copied from PALMD's talk page

I'm disappointed I was away from the computer last night ... I find it appalling that Andy is attacking Peter's credentials, when Andy himself does not have any in this field. The hyprocisy is astounding. I've also done my own research into this and see nothing of substance that backs up Andy's claims of a link. Unfortunately this is his site and if he wants to spread false information in an effort to vilify abortions even further that is his agenda. I would think someone who is as religious and allegedy educated as him would be able to tell the difference between facts and trash "research". And the whole calling something you disagree with a liberal agenda, liberal facts, etc only discredits him further. Peter you have my full support. Jrssr5 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

NEJM studies

I'll repeat what I said above.

The New England Journal of Medicine has two studies: [5] and [6]. They contradict each other. Given that the NEJM is the most well known medical journal, I think it can be safely said that there is no concrete conclusion here. I then conclude to mention abortion as a risk factor is highly deceptive, unless details about the contraversy are given. Stating that "there is a contraversy" is really not intellectuall satisfyingy, again, unless details are given. If Conservapedia is going to be a "trusted/fair source," then this must be done; otherwise the credibility of the project is undermined. Sterile 09:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like to know on what basis the Breast Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Society are deemed to be 'politicized' when they state unequivocally that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. As it stands, this article is dishonest in making the claim that a proven link exists. I note that there is no citation in support of this.--Britinme 17:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Danger/Boycott

Well, I'm still keeping my hands off this article, and my edits out. It is obviously so politicized that it is absurd. Breast cancer is one of the most important health problems in this country. Abortion is one of the most important moral discussions in this country. They happen to be medically unrelated. I certainly hope people who read the current article do not rely on it for accurate information on breast cancer. I mean this not just because of the "abortion issue" but also because, as long as it remains politicized, no real medical expert will put their name to it and help keep the article otherwise accurate. And before you accuse me of one of those ridiculous 90/10 violations, check my recent contributions.PalMDtalk 20:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Breast Feeding

According to the source given in the article, returning to preindustrial fertility may reduce risk, not breast feeding alone. The article states that having an average of 6 children and breast feeding them for an average of 2 years reduces risk. Someone should correct it or clarify it, because as it stands it is misleading--"breastfeeding" alone is not enough.FredRidr 13:55, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm back

Sorry to pester (OK, not really)...I have no interest in changing CPs anti-abortion position. But if you want to have an article that is truly informative about breast cancer, you may wish to limit the information to that which has been scientifically proven. For instance, the role of breast self-exam is no longer clear, and that of mammograms is complicated. The role of abortion is however well-known, in that there has never been a proven connection between breast cancer risk and abortion. Also, if there were, it would additionally need to be proved that avoiding abortion reduces breast cancer risk. The data aren't there. The fight against abortion is elsewhere and should not be fought by misinforming people about another health topic.PalMDtalk 22:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

"PalMD" (specialty not in breast cancer), you only continue to prove liberal denial. See its point #14. Cheers.--Aschlafly 23:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
I forgot that you do specialize in breast cancer...my mistake.PalMDtalk 00:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Oh, and being an expert in human medicine certainly qualifies me better than anyone else at this site to comment. And inventing a new "liberal" rule every time you realize you are wrong doesn't help make your point. Godspeed. PalMDtalk 00:49, 8 March 2008 (EST)
What I saw in the past few edits was Fox unblocking you because it was a simple case of kindness on his part, and you insist on throwing your weight around. PalMD, it is not a right for you to be here; it is a priviledge, and right now you're not doing too well after just three edits. Don't let there be a bad fourth edit. Karajou 03:30, 8 March 2008 (EST)
When one has studied medicine for decades as Palmd001 has, I think he's entitled to "throw his weight around," and your assertion that he's not is mere pejorative, because you don't have a legitimate, logical, non-ad hominem rejoinder :-). Plus, it strikes me that threats like this are inimical to the search for truth. See marketplace of ideas.-αmεσ (advocate) 11:42, 8 March 2008 (EST)
"PalMD", your claim of "being an expert in 'human medicine' certainly qualifies [you] better than anyone else at this site to comment" is a comical absurdity. No one is a general expert in "human medicine" and you're not fooling anyone here. I deal with physicians every day, including other physicians on this site, and I have never seen such an unjustified claim of expertise before. Don't pretend to be an expert beyond what you may know, and don't engage in liberal denial here.--Aschlafly 07:55, 8 March 2008 (EST)

I have to admit that what I love about this place is that you and Karajou feel free to display your ignorace for all to see. Despite your dealings with AAPS, you are not a medical expert, and obviously know nothing about the field. What is your medical specialty that gives you all the breast cancer knowledge that an internist and medical professor misses? Ever read [7]? He is an expert. Good stuff. My knowledge of the law is equally vague. I don't know a writ from a whit. You don't know an internist from an intern. Nothing wrong with that. But it's ok, your enforcer will clean up your inconsistencies.PalMDtalk 08:47, 8 March 2008 (EST)

"PalMD", you're clueless. Try claiming to be an "expert in 'human medicine'" in a court of law sometime. Five minutes later, which is how long it will take for everyone to stop laughing at your claim, maybe you'll wake up.--Aschlafly 08:53, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Let me just clarify for myself. You are an attorney who "talks to doctors". I am a practicing internist (yes, expert in human medicine), a professor of medicine, and an instructor of other physiscians. The "other doctors" here are? Anyway, I don't see how you have any qualifications in this area, and I know that I do. Patients come to me for just that. Sure, I don't dose chemotherapy, or administer radiation therapy, but believe it or not internists, especially academic internists have to know about this stuff and be able to research it. Anyway, God bless.PalMDtalk 09:04, 8 March 2008 (EST)
May I add that it's insulting to a doctor to claim that he has no experience in the area, when you know very little other than anecdotal evidence of the same.-αmεσ (advocate) 10:58, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Interesting list of risk factors...

I note that all the risk factors listed have a source quoted, except one. If it is indeed the case that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" surely owes its readers a reliable source for this. Without a source I'm afraid I am driven to agree with the experts and the available medical evidence, and to continue in my mistaken (and apparently "liberal") belief that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Please enlighten me and show me how I am wrong. Humblpi 12:07, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Well, it has been demonstrated (an example here) that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, so... if you are pregnant, technically speaking an abortion does in fact raise your relative risk. Feebasfactor 13:21, 8 March 2008 (EST)
I guess what we're looking at then is placement bias: it's not actually a risk of abortion, it's a risk of not having children! How odd that someone would deliberately confound the two, though.-αmεσ (advocate) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Correct me if I'm wrong, does that not mean, then, by the same reasoning, abstinence also increases your risk of breast cancer? Does this mean that, following this reasoning logically, if you're female, you should be as promiscuous as possible, never use contraception, never have an abortion and try not to have a miscarriage in order to reduce your risk of breast cancer by the maximum degree? Urushnor 15:17, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
This is, indeed, the logical extrapolation of the misleading "advice" implied by the listed risk factors on this page.--Hawkian 11:02, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Roe vs. Wade

"the number of cases has significantly increased since the 1970s when abortion was legalized". This is a Logical Fallacy. yes, the rates of breast cancer have risen since the 70s, but so has vitually every form of cancer, due to a variety of causes, such as pollution, longer life expectancy, etc. you can't blame the increase of a single type of cancer on one medical procedure that you afre morally against just because there has been vague evidence-never proven, and shown to be highly unlikely by a study done at harvard-that abortion may be linked to breast cancer.

i don't know why this was gotten rid of, but that seems like blatant censorship to me.


Even though all cancers have increased since 1970's, more money has been thrown at mammography than all other cancers. It is not a fallacy but a fact that abortion and breast cancer are linked. -- 50 star flag.png jp 17:20, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say that that was a fallcy, i said that writing that breast cancer has risen since Roe vs wade is one, because it ignores all other factors.

Small, but...

Shouldn't the term be bolded at the start of the article?-- JArneal 22:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)


Sources

Reference Two has a broken link, could some one fix this or find another source that has the same Harvard research --IScott 22:39, 1 March 2009 (EST)

The Truth

I was not aware of any controversy surrounding this page before simply stumbling onto it today, but I needed to make an account in order to comment on this.

On this talk page, I have seen rational humans attempt to inject some sense of veracity into the content of this article, some of them Christian, some not, some that have offered no insight into their religious beliefs but simply wished to see some of its horrific inaccuracies rectified.

I will not touch the "abortion causes breast cancer" link- while there is no correlation established anywhere for it, let alone causation, the editors of this encyclopedia obviously want this "fact" included and there is nothing anyone else can do about it.

But there are numerous other problems than anything calling itself an encyclopedia, let alone "the trustworthy encyclopedia," needs to address before its creators deserve anything more than derision and shame.

  • There is no discussion of the genetic factors at play, some of the most powerful clinical features of a diagnosis. An oblique reference to "family history" is not good enough. There should be a medical reference to the specific genetic factors involved.
  • Speaking of which, there are no medical references on this page. There is an implication in this discussion that sources such as the American Medical Association and World Health Organization are liberal organizations that are not to be trusted. This is exceedingly dangerous. If scientific organizations like these are ruled out, the only sources left to turn to ARE ones with an inherent bias or agenda.
  • The article states, "If a woman breastfeeds her babies she greatly reduces her risk of breast cancer." This is not fact. It's not even consensus. The citations offered are not medical and both cite a single study. This would not hold up to any reasonable scientific metrics anywhere in the world. If you must include this information, say "Studies show (or better, 'a study shows') that breastfeeding may be correlated with a lower incidence of breast cancer."

As it stands, this article contains a lot of misinformation and lacks a ton of key information. A woman with breast cancer who came to this page would be ill-served by its contents. A woman who came to this page looking to lower her risk of getting breast cancer would be given illegitimate advice.

If anyone who is actually able to edit this page has any decency in them left, please include some of the changes I describe.

I wonder how long it'll take for this account to get blocked. --Hawkian 10:59, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

I entirely agree with the above user. I appreciate you're all christians and that lovely, but when did religion become an acceptable reason for lying? Believe what you want, but don't post rubbish about stuff you evidently have no understanding about, or stuff that you do have understanding about, but wish to edit for your own personal gain. Kwilky 11:31, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Hawkian, I have been quite busy as of late and I have not examined the abortion and breast cancer issue. However, you do claim you are very concerned about the issue of bias and what medical studies show. Accordingly, if you could comment on the Conservapedia homosexuality article which has abundant medical studies cited, I would be interested in any commentary you might wish to make. conservative 11:02, 3 February 2010 (EST)

Mammography

Without wanting to comment at all about the postulated link between breast cancer and abortion. Should it not at least be mentioned that modern mammography was introduced in 1969, and screening programmes in 1976 - and so would likely explain the rise in diagnosed cases? JonT 07:19, 4 February 2010 (EST)

The advent of such technology doubtless explains some of the rise of reported cases since those years, but cannot explain the correlation of number of abortions with breast cancer risk.JacobB 09:06, 4 February 2010 (EST)
As I say, although medically qualified, I cannot claim any expertise in oncology/radiology/obgyn and haven't examined the evidence in detail so won't offer uninformed comment on any correlation. However I do feel that mammography must be responsible for at least part of the rise JonT 09:29, 4 February 2010 (EST)
Personal tools