4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 239:
Line 239: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Breast cancer (view source)
Revision as of 14:59, September 24, 2009
, 14:59, September 24, 2009→The Truth: new section
: Reference Two has a broken link, could some one fix this or find another source that has the same Harvard research --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 22:39, 1 March 2009 (EST)
: Reference Two has a broken link, could some one fix this or find another source that has the same Harvard research --[[User:IScott|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.
--[[User:Hawkian|Hawkian]] 10:59, 24 September 2009 (EDT)