Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
205 bytes added ,  01:15, March 23, 2008
reorder, reply
Line 10: Line 10:     
::: Part of [[abortion deceit]] is to equate a small study with a large one.  I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed.  Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk.  As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
 
::: Part of [[abortion deceit]] is to equate a small study with a large one.  I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed.  Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk.  As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate.  In general, prospective data are given more weight.  That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other.  It is not clear why.  As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493.  The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies.  There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::Actually I misread the table initially.  The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective.  So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
    
If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
 
If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
   −
:: [[Abortion]] certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
+
:[[Abortion]] certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
−
 
  −
:::It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate.  In general, prospective data are given more weight.  That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other.  It is not clear why.  As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493.  The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies.  There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
     −
:::Actually I misread the table initially.  The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective. So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
+
::The myth doesn't have anything to do with the "in fact" in this case. Perhaps they should be two (or three) different cases? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
    
== #3 ==
 
== #3 ==
5,580

edits

Navigation menu