Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + + + + + + + +
4 points suggesting to me scientific and/or academic fraud
Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage". <ref>Study, p. 815.</ref> Miscarriages do not increase breast cancer risk, and this deceptive word choice would cause many respondents to mark their prior abortions as "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage. That would reduce any genuine differences between induced abortion and miscarriages in the observed results.
Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage". <ref>Study, p. 815.</ref> Miscarriages do not increase breast cancer risk, and this deceptive word choice would cause many respondents to mark their prior abortions as "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage. That would reduce any genuine differences between induced abortion and miscarriages in the observed results.
== The Evidence of Scientific and/or Academic Fraud ==
Several statements, and omission of statements, in the study appear to some to be fraudulent:
# The study included only relatively few African American and Hispanics. But the researchers conceal this, perhaps knowing that disclosure would detract from the significance of the results for Americans, where a relatively high number of abortions and breast cancers are in these ethnic groups. A close examination of the researchers' statements suggests an artful deception. The researchers disclose merely that the subjects were 92% non-Hispanic white, falsely implying that most of the remaining 8% were African American and Hispanic. The researchers state that the study subjects "may not be representative of the social classes most likely to use abortion services." In fact, the researchers likely know that the term "may" is misleading and that the study subjects "'''are''' not representative of the social classes most likely to use abortion services."
# The researchers say that "99.1%" of the respondents "answered the question on spontaneous and induced abortion."<ref>Study, p. 815</ref> But that statement is false. There was not one question on spontaneous and induced abortion. There were two questions. Later in the report the researchers say that 28,392 respondents did ''not'' answer the question about induced abortion.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# The abstract for the study, and the resultant publicity, concealed how the data showed that abortion was correlated with an increase in the most dangerous type of breast cancer. Instead, the researchers publicize the misleading "conclusion" that induced abortion was not "associated with the incidence of breast cancer."<ref>Study p. 814</ref> Causing a more dangerous type of a disease is "associated with" its incidence and should have been included in the abstract and publicity. It was misleading to state otherwise.
# Other issues remain unresolved and warrant explanation by the researchers. Why did they exclude from their analysis people who had an induced abortion and were newly diagnosed as having breast cancer?<ref>Study p. 815</ref> How would the results change if they were included? Also, how would the results change if those who declined to answer the question about induced abortion were treated as if that were a "yes" answer (i.e., the non-answer wsa due to privacy) rather than a "no" answer? Finally, do the researchers make their data available for independent review?
== References ==
== References ==