346
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 379:
Line 379: + + + + + +
Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims (view source)
Revision as of 05:40, May 10, 2008
, 05:40, May 10, 2008→Reversion explained
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.
:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.
:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)