Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal myths

2008-08-03T17:21:26Z

EngelUmpocker: Socialists and Communists do not vote the Democratic ticket

How about the claim that a fetus is not a human? Or is that not quite what we're going for here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I normally try to stay away from discussion on these sorts of pages, but I'm very uncomfortable with the "motivation" part of the first few entries. Personally I'd rather have the motivation removed from this entry and discussed on the relevant article page, but a comprimise would be to give each bullet point it's own section with a full discussion. Thoughts? [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 00:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==I'm ripping this apart one by one==

'The claim of a population explosion (motivation: promote abortion)'

The population went from 3 billion from around the time of the second Vatican Council to over 6 billion now. Is that not an explosion in your eyes?

'The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous Christians look dumb)'

Not smarter, more educated. The whole sum of knowledge a human being will never know is beyond our comprehension, but at least the amount of knowledge we do not know as a whole is decreasing. In other words, we have so much more knowledge in our hands today than we used to have. It was not a matter of intelligence, it was a matter of education. Without universal education and the abilitity to read and write, the people didn't have the opportunities to be what they are today. Its not a Liberal Myth, its a simple fact. People were less educated in the past than they are now.

'The claim that the Apostles were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb)'

As far as I am aware most of them were blue collar guys with no need for a formal education. Actually, the overwhelming majority of people back then could not read or write. So yes, it is most likely they were illiterate.

'The claim of extraterrestrial life (motivation: deny that man was created in God's image)'

You are once again politicising science, which is just stupid. The claim of extraterrestrial life is a bold one; we have no evidence other than a mathematically calculated probability that there isn't.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.'

Bush's tax cuts did decrease revenues. Show me a graph or something. Your deficit is exploding man... Get a grip.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.'

I think its more to do with Bush not being able to help the economy.

'Man-made Global Warming.[1]'

There are three steps to conservatism. 1) Denying the science behind passive smoking. 2) Denying the science behind Climate Change. 3) Promoting Creationism in '''Science classes'''. I'll never be able to persuade you about the lunacy of that point above. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 07:13, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Your definition of conservatism is rather poor, indeed. When one is arguing that there is too much rhetoric in another's argument, one should be careful to keep the rhetoric out of one's own argument, no? [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 09:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I was mainly joking about that. Its a caricature of the extreme right. Denying Climate Change is just one step on the ladder of that infamous caricature... [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Okay, I'm ripping you a new one! ==

Here you go, sport!

''"The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit."''

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]
[[Image:Chart1 lg.gif|thumb|right|300px]]
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1. [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]

:From an conservative economic standpoint, Bush still deserves mediocre or poor grades. It's true that the budget is Congress' department, but has Bush done anything to curb spending and cut down on pork? Did he ever use his veto as Reagan did? while we can start to shift some of the blame to the Democrats now, we can't escape the fact that for six years republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, and it during that time that these deficits emerged. The sad fact is that politicians love to spend other peoples money. even those who rail against it tend to change their tune when its their turn. Clinton was lucky that he had surpluses during his tenure. Bush doesn't have the tech bubble, and Clinton didn't have a war on terror, even though after the World Trade center and embassy bombings he really should have. Bush is in a more difficult situtation, but the inabaility of ALL partys to curb spending is shameful. as for whether or not the bush tax cuts substantially desreased revenue, I guess it depends on what one considers substantial. is 58 billion substantial? I guess in this context it isnt so much, but considering 58 billion an unsubstantial amount of money is one reason why there is so little fiscal responsibility today. as for the point below, yes the tax cuts did help the economy, as they generally do. The deficits are still troubling, though. does no one remember those hopeful days in 1994 when Republicans talked of not just a balanced budget, but a balanced budget amendment? Why does no one even mention the term balanced budget or fiscal responsibility any more? [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]
::Libertarians do ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 10:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

''"The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy..."''

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
[[Image:Table 3 lg.gif|thumb|right|300px]]
* GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
* Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
* The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
* The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
* The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, '''critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted.''' They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Although I would readily agree that sometimes tax cuts can be great for an economy - a budget deficit is most certainly not. Bush's irresponsible 'spending without raising' policies have led to the current deficit, something which is helping fuel the economies of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Japan etc. who are buying your government bonds to help make ends meet! Its a nasty little circle. Your charts were lovely though :-) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*When you are refuted, have the good grace to accept defeat. Don't respond with more ''talking points'' from moveon or daily kos. Most responsible economists would never say all budget deficits are bad. And again, read the Constitution! '''Presidents cannot appropriate money!''' That was, 75% of the time since FDR, a liberal, Democrat-controlled Congress. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

First of all I don't read Move on or Daily Kos. I stick to reading the Irish Times, if anything (The Centre-Right paper in my country) or the Economist when I want a more Liberal perspective on things.

Presidents do not appropriate money - but they can veto. Add to this the fact there was a Republican Congress, the President could have balanced the Budget. The fact that he did not is a testament to his lack of fiscal responsibility. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P-S Going all Keynesian (deficit spending) on me TK!?? I might have expected that from a crusty old Liberal like myself but you... :-O [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P.P.S - I said his tax cuts did decrease revenues... And you continued to show me a chart proving that 10% of the deficit is down to the cuts... What am I supposed to concede!??? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fetus rights ==

'''The claim that a fetus is not a living being with rights.'''

I've been going over our own rights and I have to say, it's tough to give them to a fetus.

:1st: While a good idea, they don't really talk much. And besides, if they have the right to free speech, their host mothers won't have any rest.
:2nd: While I personally am all for gun rights, over here I'll make an exception. The recoil of a gun can harm fetus', besides, the exit wound on the mother would be awful.
:3rd: There really isn't any room in the womb for soldiers, besides, I doubt they would be stationed there.
:4th: What exactly would they be looking for anyway, the charges would be dismissed for a lack of probable cause.
:5th: Like I said they don't talk much. Due process isn't really applicable
:6th: Might apply, without a speedy trial, after birth it's as if their in a new jurisdiction.
:7th: Jury of his peers would be tough, fetuses are always trying to get out of jury duty by saying they're too young to register.
:8th: Bail them out, huh? How do they get transported to prison in the first place, (I agree that the cruel and unusual punishment part applies though).
:9th: Need a joke for this one.
:10th: Here too.

A belated Aprils fool day gift.

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

== Unilateral action ==

As I understand if Jpatt, you are saying that the US should not be restricted from acting unilaterally should the situation demand it. This is not helped by then pointing out a situation that some people think is unilateral was not unilateral (if anything it tends to show the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.
Also it is a liberal myth that the US acted unilaterally in Iraq.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 18:24, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

: go ahead and change to "that the US acted unilaterally in Iraq". It sounds better than what I have up there.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Pruning Needed==

I keep seeing unreferenced items being added to this page, and it's reading more and more like an essay instead of an encyclopedia article. I'm going to remove the following items unless someone can provide sources backing them up:

* The claim that the population has increased by a large amount.
::''Population growth is a documented fact, not a myth. Whether or not it's "over" population is more debatable.''
* The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries.
::''Between 1870 and 1950, the average American’s level of education rose by 0.8 years per decade.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/opinion/29brooks.html?em&ex=1217563200&en=e296ab54d60b33ed&ei=5087%0A] In 1890, the average adult had completed about 8 years of schooling. By 1960, it was nearly 14 years.''
* The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
::''His administration announced on 7/28/2008 that they are leaving a record deficit for the next president.''
* The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
::''We are in a near-recession if not in one already, and at historic levels of national debt and budget deficits''
* The claim to support the rights of women, never mention the oppressed women in Muslim countries.
::''Bush and other conservatives have not taken any Arab allies to task over this, either.''
* The claim that enabling oil drilling will not reduce energy prices.
::''In the near term it doestn't, and this has been verified by conservative economists and backed by the Wall Street Journal''
* The claim that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the love from a mother and a father.
::''No proof provided for this subjective claim''
* The claim that an individuals sexual preference needs to be a protected civil right.
::''This is a political position, not a myth
* The claim that President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq to grab oil.
::''This is an irrational conspiracy theory, not a liberal one.''
* The claim that the 9/11 terrorists attacks were an inside job by the USA.
::''This is an irrational conspiracy theory, not a liberal one.''
* The claim that Foreign Intelligence & Surveillance Act (FISA) is for spying on Americans.
::''The issue is that because of FISA, there is no need for warrantless wiretaps.''
* The claim that bigger government will benefit its' citizens.
::''Bush bloated government spending, and in his first four years never vetoed a big-spending bill sent to him by the Republican-controlled Congress''
* The claim that military recruits are poor and uneducated.
::''This is being retained, but during Bush's administration the number of felony waivers granted to hit recruiting goals shot way up. The military is accepting arsonists, thieves and sexual abusers because it can't meet its quotas otherwise.''
* The claim that going on the offense against terrorists creates more terrorists.
::''The claim is that going after terrorists ''dishonorably'' creates more terrorists.''
* The claim that terrorism should be handled by law enforcement.
::''As opposed to who? No one suggests the military is not right either.''
* The claim that the USA should negotiate with rogue nations and terror groups.
::''Bush has negotiated with Libya and North Korea to achieve progress''
* The claim that socialism is a better than a capitalism.
::''Not a liberal belief, and no source was provided to the contrary''

:: -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:44, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Not all have to be cited and some of these are going back up. Curious to why you feel some need citations yet you didn't remove all without citations. I will go point to point on each of your accusations. When a article has a disclaimer, not enough citations, removing them sort of defeats the purpose. Even though you gave a day for a reply.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

I was trying to be respectful and solicit feedback before the pruning, and I chose that term for a reason. I wasn't looking to wipe the entire page, and left uncited points which were not as clearly out of place as the ones I was removing. I also gave a brief explanation for why I believed each trimmed point should be removed. What I'd ask is that before any are put back, they are cited, or the reason why they don't need to be cited briefly explained.

I know people get sensitive when any edits are made to a ''"Liberal ----"'' article, so when I contemplate changes I keep it fair, and think about how people would want a corresponding ''"Conservative ----"'' article to read. With that in mind, please apply the same consideration to the quality and validation of additions here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

==New Sources Added==

Thanks for adding the new sources, Jpatt. I'm not adding any more edits to this article myself, because I've been reverted twice in the past 24 hours, and the comments on this from ASchlafly left no doubt as to how anything but additional support for the current list would be regarded.

That said, I'll leave with a constructive suggestion. This page is about alleged liberal myths, and in order to establish that something is a myth you generally need to show two things: first, that there's a statement someone believes, and second, that the statement is clearly untrue, or at least in doubt. The problems with the sources you've added are that you're either picking isolated examples (Nancy Pelosi does not represent all liberals, just as Ted Haggard does not represent all conservatives), or they just show a liberal view without showing why that view's a myth. Some specifics:

:*When Bush and McCain supported the rollback on offshore drilling bans, conservative economists and the Wall Street Journal panned this as ineffective gimmickry. How is this a myth, then?

:*How is the idea that liberals support womens' rights but don't speak out against womens' rights in Muslim countries a myth? If it was true it would be hypocrisy, but not a myth. The source cited is for the ACLU Women's Right project, and by definition the ACLU is focused on American rights issues, not global ones, so the plight of women in other nations is not in their official scope. Finally, for this to be a liberal myth it would only apply to liberals, but there's no proof of conservatives, particularly the Bush administration and its concern for relations with Arab allies, making this an issue.

::It is a myth, because feminists in this country always complain they have less rights, when in fact they make up a higher precentage of the colleges than men, feminists always complain about every little thing in the USA, when worldwide women are treated horribly versus in the USA where women are treated as equals, feminists if anything should be complaining about how women are treated by muslims, but they don't, they just get more radical. They try doing stupid things like renaming man hole covers to person hole covers -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 16:39, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Deborah, while you're entitled to your views, speaking out for rights in the USA while not focusing on rights elsewhere still doesn't make this a "myth" - at worst it's either a myopic focus or at the extreme, hypocrisy. To claim it's a myth would be like claiming the civil rights movement in the 1950's was a liberal myth because it focused on issues in the USA while ignoring apartheid in South Africa. As I pointed out, you don't see George Bush using his connections and influence with Arab leaders like the Saudi Royal family to continually pressure them to let women drive, vote or walk alone unescorted - these are not good things in our view, but it's not our country/culture, so our influence is limited. Choosing to focus on domestic issues, where change is more feasible, doesn't make it a myth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:*You've added a cite for why some feel that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the love from a mother and a father, but nothing to show why this is a myth.

:*If "an individuals sexual preference needs to be a protected civil right" is a liberal myth, then why do conservatives like McCain accept the concept of civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, since the purpose of the former is to offer rights and protections to homosexuals under the law without sanctioning gay marriage itself?
::McCain is a right-leaning, he is an environmentalist, remember [[Huckabee]], is a better example of a conservative than [[McCain]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 16:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
::: In October 2004, George W. Bush came out in [http://www.americablog.com/2006/10/breaking-new-jersey-sup-ct-adopts.html support] of civil unions instead of gay marriage, albeit on a state-by-state basis, because he recognized the legitimacy of people needing equal rights under the law:
::::"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
:::-[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:37, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:*You used a socialist reference, not a liberal one, to support the item about WMD in Iraq being about grabbing oil.
::Socialists are liberals by definition, I know socialists and communists they all vote Democrat -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 16:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
:::That's not a valid premise - fascists are a subset of conservatives, and would vote that way too, but I would never use the views of fascists to represent conservatives because it's misleading to use extreme minority views to represent the views of the majority. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:::: Deborah - by definition, any "socialists and communists" you know that vote Democrat are not what they say they are - they're Democrats. No actual Socialist or Communist would vote for a centre-right party - they have their own parties to vote for, after all. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 13:21, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I could go on, but since I've been told these need to stay, any added examples are a waste of time. Good luck with the article, and thanks for trying at least. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:22, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not what you were told. I asked you to make an effort to look for citations, some of which are easy-to-find, rather than simply deleting (censoring) something you disagreed with. Many of the myths are obvious and cannot seriously be denied to be liberal myths. This is not Wikipedia where liberal editors run around quickly deleting truths they don't like by claiming they are unsupported.

: Deborah's analysis about feminists above is superb, and I can add that women in the United States live on average far longer than men, which is hardly a sign of suppression and victimization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:52, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Trustworthy Encyclopedia are not built by filling pages with unsupported statements and then expecting others to do the work of validating them - I'm assuming that this is why Conservapedia Commandments #1 and #2 were created, and place at the top of the list. Also, women living longer than men on average is about biology, not suppression and victimization. Women also live longer in India, Iran and Saudi Arabia, so I'd hardly say that using life expectancy as a measure of the ''quality'' of life is valid. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:50, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Let me first say that I do not expect to have all the answers and I am wrong as much as I am right. With that said, I will try to answer some of your questions.

''"When Bush and McCain supported the rollback on offshore drilling bans, conservative economists and the Wall Street Journal panned this as ineffective gimmickry. How is this a myth, then? "''

Well, it is a liberal myth that we will get pennies on the dollar twenty years from now with offshore drilling. Though Pelosi said it, many in her own party have taken her stand. Also, many of her party feel vulnerable on this issue and support drilling less face the rath of voters. Conservatives say inneffective gimmickry, then somebody will have a list of conservative myths too. The myth is drilling doesn't lower prices. Proof? none. We will only know if it happens. My belief is that as soon as we announce to the world that the USA will use all resources available, the price drops without a pint of oil extracted. Also, 10 years till extraction is another myth. I read that we have hundreds of offshore wells idled by law. One year is all it will take to restart those platforms.
::"Proof? None." Sounds like the idea that permitting drilling will lower prices right away is a myth, too. Seriously, the issue is also one of demand, not just supply. It doesn't matter ''where'' oil is produced from - as long as demand from China, India and elsewhere continues to grow, the oil will go to the highest bidder. We do get more jobs out of it, though. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

''"How is the idea that liberals support womens' rights but don't speak out against womens' rights in Muslim countries a myth?"''

I see your point. It is more hypocrisy then myth. The ACLU is probaly not a good example (American only). If I search through human rights orgs, they list women in other countries. If I was to pick all liberal orgs, they would be focused on American women's rights and not other womens from other countries. I refer you to Deborahs conclusion.

::Please refer to my response to Deborah. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

''"You've added a cite for why some feel that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the love from a mother and a father, but nothing to show why this is a myth."''

The liberal groups will say studies show that same-sex couples are just as capable as heterosexual couples to raise kids. If that is their belief, than they assume that the love they provide is the same as hetero couples. How do you measure love? If you look at the beginning of mankind, it was a mother and a father. That was the ultimate measure. Now it has been refined. It is a myth that two same-sex'ers can replace all that a child needs.

::"How do you measure love? " I think you just made by point for me, because the quality of the love one receives has nothing to do with who they get it from. There's no qualification requirement to be a good parent, and sadly, too many kids in "traditional" families get a rough start in life from poor parenting. Adoptive parents go through screening that biological parents never have to face, so if they pass, and are willing to share their lives and love with kids in need, why stop them over idology and have the kids stay in orphanages and foster homes as a result? Surely ''that's'' not in the child's best interest. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

''"If an individuals sexual preference needs to be a protected civil right" is a liberal myth, then why do conservatives like McCain accept the concept of civil unions as an alternative"''

First, it is forced on them over the years. They were not offering protections until the minority clamored for it. I can't answer for McCain. All I can say is that is my belief that they deserve zero rights. That their sexual preference should not be public knowledge. If not public, than not an issue. Gay activist deliberately push the envelope to stake their high ground so as to feel as normal as their neighbors.

:: See my response to Deborah. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

''"You used a socialist reference, not a liberal one, to support the item about WMD in Iraq "'' I will come up with additional sources. I agree with Deborah that liberal ideals are just socialism; universal health, extensive government mandates, fairness doctrine, etc. You could claim that moderate liberals don't feel that way. That it is all the concept of the far-left. It is sorta unfair but the definition of liberal has been driven by the [[New Democrats]]. I prefer and honor the liberals of the 1950's and earlier, if you could even call them liberal. As of the 21st
century, socialist ideaology mimicks liberal ideaology.

:: See my response to Deborah. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

''"The problems with the sources you've added are that you're either picking isolated examples"''
Further study would prove that it is not isolated but mainstream liberal thinking.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Not based on the sources you chose. Try some more mainstream sources and see if you get the same results. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:American History Lecture Eleven

2008-08-03T03:26:51Z

EngelUmpocker: you're right

It is not true to say that national parks are uniquely American, incidentally. Many, many other countries have national parks. Perhaps not many of them are as beautiful or dramatic as America's, but that's neither here nor there. Just an FYI. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:03, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think the massive American national parks were first. Do have an examples that precede the American parks?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

:: No, you're right on that - the US was the first to dedicate National Parks. Can you update the article to reflect that, it's just a little more accurate? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:26, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:American History Lecture Eleven

2008-08-03T02:03:19Z

EngelUmpocker: not true to say that national parks are uniquely american

Talk:Conservapedia conference

2008-07-27T01:06:18Z

EngelUmpocker: girls and boys

Hey is there any way you could post a transcript of the conservapedia conference? I cant attend but would love to read it!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

==Stem cell research==

I added [[stem cell research]] to the list. While it's debatable whether it's junky science, it's certainly morally corrupt because it effectively aborts an embryo to extract the cells. I personally believe they could probably achieve at least some of the things they say, which is why I hesitate on the "junky" label. But this real possibility of satisfying their goals is part of why stem cell research is so scary. People will be impressed by the results and forget the way they were obtained--an awful application of the ends justifying the means. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:00, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Stem cells are quite the hot topic. What I find striking is that you can get stem cells ''without'' resorting to embryo's however we never hear about it. Its as if some are determined to cheapen human life by any means possible. Anyway, my above transcript request stands.....Oh please please!!!!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 03:33, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

:To say that embryonic stem cell research "effectively aborts an embryo to extract the cells" is untrue. And you do hear about plenty of research regarding cord blood and adult stem cells, although their potential for differentiation is different than that of embryonic stem cells. These guys are trying to cure diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and are not in any way boogeymen "determined to cheapen human life by any means possible." Reasoned arguments against the moral and ethical defensibility of embryonic stem cell research are one thing, but rants consisting of hyperbole, spleen, and general ignorance of the issue are something else entirely. -[[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:33, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Great resource ==

Just found [http://www.junkscience.com JunkScience.com], which has some great articles and facts related to the CP conference idea. Definitely worth checking out in prep for the conference. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:41, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
:Jareddr, I've just checked that site out and it looks fantastic. It's about time someone who's credentials are impeccable started telling the truth about politically motivated science.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 12:06, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

== Gun Control ==

Just added a couple myself. One thing though, is gun control really science? [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:27, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

==War Against Smokers?==

I won't remove it, but some clarification is needed as to why this was added. I'm assuming this is about secondhand smoke and restrictions on smoking in public, because I seriously doubt anyone on CP thinks that smoking itself is not harmful. I know there's debate as to where the line on smoking restrictions versus rights should be drawn (i.e. is it child endangerment to smoke in a car with kids as passengers?), but as to the science of whether smoking is harmful or not? I thought that was settled long ago, and is not considered junk science by anyone including the tobacco companies (who focus on a smoker's informed-right-to-choose instead). --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

I was referring to the Liberal desire to turn those who smoke in public into criminals on the basis of junk science, as Milloy describes on his site. Actually Milloy has a long history of things to say about the tobacco industry. It'd be interesting to see him give a talk. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 11:16, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:I see your point, but is this a topic that CP wants to take a pro-smoker-rights position on? I'm not a scientist, but it seems the verdict is in that smoking itself is harmful. When I breathe in the secondhand smoke of those around me, it burns my eyes and makes me cough, and this still happens outdoors if they're in proximity or the wind blows that way. I'm also not fond of my clothes smelling like an ashtray after visiting the homes of smokers. It may be possible, then, to question the ''specific degree'' of harm caused by secondhand smoke, but given that at a minimum it's irritating and affects bystanders who choose not to smoke, restrictions on smoking in public are well-justified and not a "war against smokers". This isn't a Liberal cause, it's just everyday people who choose not to smoke not wanting to be irritated by those who do. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:03, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Pardon my simplicity: restrictions are the issue. The govt needs turn away from knowing what is in our best interests. The flip side, people telling the government what to do, "We the people..." is the proper course of action.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:13, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: But the idea for the conference is "federally funded junk science" not "restrictions on liberty". If the science itself isn't being questioned, but rather the rights of the people, is it necessarily a good fit for this conference? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:16, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm with Jareddr on this one - unless the topic is a presentation on how the science that shows smoking (or second-hand smoke) to be harmful should be considered "federally-funded junk science", then it doesn't belong in this particular conference by definition. I'll start up a debate page on smoking restrictions here on CP, though. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

== Steve Milloy ==

Before somebody invites Milloy as a speaker, he has stated he believes in evolution. He may be an atheist liberal/libertarian. I believe he also supports the homosexual agenda.
Also, I am confused about DDT "ban", as the article it on DDT actually says it isn't baned. [[User:Zmart|Zmart]] 11:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Lenski Debate?==

Even though there are people here4 on CP who consider his work to be junk science (incorrectly IMHO), any debate over his work is by nature going to be technical, and not well-suited to a layman audience. Objections to his work, and any responses from him or his team, are better handled in written form and posted online. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Girls and boys==
Mr.Schalfly, I'm curious - have you seen a wide disparity in math educational attainment in your own homeschool classes between girls and boys over the years? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 21:06, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-25T01:07:47Z

EngelUmpocker: additional resources

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

I thought that would've been clear enough Andy but I guess you don't think so. I said yes, that's enough cause for concern ''if'' that's the case, if you know that you only have 50 in the population. I also explicitly said that in that case it would be significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

You sampled 2, did you? And which were they? Which didn't appear to be touring? You're still not explaining how you estimated 50, other than saying you estimated it. I didn't include anyone who hadn't performed between 2007 and the present. And it's far from a complete list. You claimed that someone couldn't identify even 50 - that was incorrect. The point is, we have no idea what the denominator is. In your list, there is 1 person who fits the critera that I used, and that would be Anastacia. Minnie Riperton died 30 years ago, and your other under-30 isn't a musician. Even if I accept your math in the paragraph above, we get a total of about 600. Then we can include Minnie Riperton, and it becomes 2/600. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO MURRAY AND ENGEL: Murray, Natasha St-Pier from your list was one of the two I sampled who did not seem to be touring. The other one (whose name escapes me) is touring but canceled a big concert, which could mean anything. Engel, you can start with whatever list you like but the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. We could also start with the New York City phone book, I suppose! (Please don't be offended by that humor.)

An intriguing possibility that I toss out for consideration by Murray and Engel, to which I don't yet know the answer, is whether we could use a ranking of the the most successful female singers and then note the frequency of breast cancer as a function of rank. If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, yes, the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. But you're starting with a valid list of half a million - would you imagine even 1% of that list is valid? That's 5,500 individuals. And starting with the NYC phone book would be better than starting with a list displaying nothing but [[selection bias]], as you have here, since that would be essentially random, unlike your list. The key to understanding all statistical analysis is understanding that one's sample MUST be random, as countless others have pointed out above.

:As to your suggestion, a population size of 20 is not an adequate population upon which to test a theory about a medical condition.

:Finally, I want to return to an earlier point made by others. It seems the vast majority of the women you have listed here have indeed born children. How does this fit into your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, Natasha St Pier was touring in 2007: [http://www.concertandco.com/artiste/natasha-st-pier/billet-concert-27548.htm]. As to your comment about rank, it is a distraction given that the primary issues raised here are not resolved. But nevertheless, it would be easy enough to approximate by categorizing artists based on sales and determining whether the risk differs by category. Though a glance at your list on the "Mystery" page suggests (to me at least) you would find nothing, as only 2 singers got breast cancer under 30 that are listed, and the only place I've heard of either is right here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you plan to answer my question? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Not more than I have. There are more interesting issues to discuss and debate, as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I must therefore assume you do not have the answer. Oh well. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Research Resources==

To assist in the research for this article, I'm providing some links that may be helpful towards assessing the number of young female performers.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_music_performers here's] a list of all Country & Western musicians.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_vocalists Here's a list] of jazz singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actors Here's] a list of American stage actors.

[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics Here's IMDB's overall statistics page], listing total number of actresses.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers List of female rock singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers List of female heavy metal singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors List of Australian Soap Opera actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors List of Australian TV actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers List of Australian Pop singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_musicians List of Canadian musicians].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_pop_musicians_of_the_2000s List of British Pop Musicians of the 2000's].

[http://circusperformers.org/ Here's the website] for circus performers.

Unfortunately many of these are not broken down by gender, but maybe we can ask the various editors to help. Warning - the lists get very, very long. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-25T01:01:16Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Research Resources */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

I thought that would've been clear enough Andy but I guess you don't think so. I said yes, that's enough cause for concern ''if'' that's the case, if you know that you only have 50 in the population. I also explicitly said that in that case it would be significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

You sampled 2, did you? And which were they? Which didn't appear to be touring? You're still not explaining how you estimated 50, other than saying you estimated it. I didn't include anyone who hadn't performed between 2007 and the present. And it's far from a complete list. You claimed that someone couldn't identify even 50 - that was incorrect. The point is, we have no idea what the denominator is. In your list, there is 1 person who fits the critera that I used, and that would be Anastacia. Minnie Riperton died 30 years ago, and your other under-30 isn't a musician. Even if I accept your math in the paragraph above, we get a total of about 600. Then we can include Minnie Riperton, and it becomes 2/600. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO MURRAY AND ENGEL: Murray, Natasha St-Pier from your list was one of the two I sampled who did not seem to be touring. The other one (whose name escapes me) is touring but canceled a big concert, which could mean anything. Engel, you can start with whatever list you like but the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. We could also start with the New York City phone book, I suppose! (Please don't be offended by that humor.)

An intriguing possibility that I toss out for consideration by Murray and Engel, to which I don't yet know the answer, is whether we could use a ranking of the the most successful female singers and then note the frequency of breast cancer as a function of rank. If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, yes, the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. But you're starting with a valid list of half a million - would you imagine even 1% of that list is valid? That's 5,500 individuals. And starting with the NYC phone book would be better than starting with a list displaying nothing but [[selection bias]], as you have here, since that would be essentially random, unlike your list. The key to understanding all statistical analysis is understanding that one's sample MUST be random, as countless others have pointed out above.

:As to your suggestion, a population size of 20 is not an adequate population upon which to test a theory about a medical condition.

:Finally, I want to return to an earlier point made by others. It seems the vast majority of the women you have listed here have indeed born children. How does this fit into your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, Natasha St Pier was touring in 2007: [http://www.concertandco.com/artiste/natasha-st-pier/billet-concert-27548.htm]. As to your comment about rank, it is a distraction given that the primary issues raised here are not resolved. But nevertheless, it would be easy enough to approximate by categorizing artists based on sales and determining whether the risk differs by category. Though a glance at your list on the "Mystery" page suggests (to me at least) you would find nothing, as only 2 singers got breast cancer under 30 that are listed, and the only place I've heard of either is right here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you plan to answer my question? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Not more than I have. There are more interesting issues to discuss and debate, as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I must therefore assume you do not have the answer. Oh well. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Research Resources==

To assist in the research for this article, I'm providing some links that may be helpful towards assessing the number of young female performers.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_music_performers here's] a list of all Country & Western musicians.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_vocalists Here's a list] of jazz singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actors Here's] a list of American stage actors.

[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics Here's IMDB's overall statistics page], listing total number of actresses.

[http://circusperformers.org/ Here's the website] for circus performers.

Unfortunately none of these are broken down by gender, but maybe we can ask the various editors to help. Warning - the lists get very, very long. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-25T00:57:42Z

EngelUmpocker: Research resources

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

I thought that would've been clear enough Andy but I guess you don't think so. I said yes, that's enough cause for concern ''if'' that's the case, if you know that you only have 50 in the population. I also explicitly said that in that case it would be significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

You sampled 2, did you? And which were they? Which didn't appear to be touring? You're still not explaining how you estimated 50, other than saying you estimated it. I didn't include anyone who hadn't performed between 2007 and the present. And it's far from a complete list. You claimed that someone couldn't identify even 50 - that was incorrect. The point is, we have no idea what the denominator is. In your list, there is 1 person who fits the critera that I used, and that would be Anastacia. Minnie Riperton died 30 years ago, and your other under-30 isn't a musician. Even if I accept your math in the paragraph above, we get a total of about 600. Then we can include Minnie Riperton, and it becomes 2/600. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO MURRAY AND ENGEL: Murray, Natasha St-Pier from your list was one of the two I sampled who did not seem to be touring. The other one (whose name escapes me) is touring but canceled a big concert, which could mean anything. Engel, you can start with whatever list you like but the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. We could also start with the New York City phone book, I suppose! (Please don't be offended by that humor.)

An intriguing possibility that I toss out for consideration by Murray and Engel, to which I don't yet know the answer, is whether we could use a ranking of the the most successful female singers and then note the frequency of breast cancer as a function of rank. If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, yes, the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. But you're starting with a valid list of half a million - would you imagine even 1% of that list is valid? That's 5,500 individuals. And starting with the NYC phone book would be better than starting with a list displaying nothing but [[selection bias]], as you have here, since that would be essentially random, unlike your list. The key to understanding all statistical analysis is understanding that one's sample MUST be random, as countless others have pointed out above.

:As to your suggestion, a population size of 20 is not an adequate population upon which to test a theory about a medical condition.

:Finally, I want to return to an earlier point made by others. It seems the vast majority of the women you have listed here have indeed born children. How does this fit into your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, Natasha St Pier was touring in 2007: [http://www.concertandco.com/artiste/natasha-st-pier/billet-concert-27548.htm]. As to your comment about rank, it is a distraction given that the primary issues raised here are not resolved. But nevertheless, it would be easy enough to approximate by categorizing artists based on sales and determining whether the risk differs by category. Though a glance at your list on the "Mystery" page suggests (to me at least) you would find nothing, as only 2 singers got breast cancer under 30 that are listed, and the only place I've heard of either is right here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you plan to answer my question? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Not more than I have. There are more interesting issues to discuss and debate, as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I must therefore assume you do not have the answer. Oh well. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Research Resources==

To assist in the research for this article, I'm providing some links that may be helpful towards assessing the number of young female performers.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_music_performers here's] a list of all Country & Western musicians.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_vocalists Jazz singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actors Here's] a list of American stage actors.

[http://circusperformers.org/ Here's the website] for circus performers.

Unfortunately none of these are broken down by gender, but maybe we can ask the various editors to help. Warning - the lists get very, very long. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-25T00:45:31Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

I thought that would've been clear enough Andy but I guess you don't think so. I said yes, that's enough cause for concern ''if'' that's the case, if you know that you only have 50 in the population. I also explicitly said that in that case it would be significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

You sampled 2, did you? And which were they? Which didn't appear to be touring? You're still not explaining how you estimated 50, other than saying you estimated it. I didn't include anyone who hadn't performed between 2007 and the present. And it's far from a complete list. You claimed that someone couldn't identify even 50 - that was incorrect. The point is, we have no idea what the denominator is. In your list, there is 1 person who fits the critera that I used, and that would be Anastacia. Minnie Riperton died 30 years ago, and your other under-30 isn't a musician. Even if I accept your math in the paragraph above, we get a total of about 600. Then we can include Minnie Riperton, and it becomes 2/600. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO MURRAY AND ENGEL: Murray, Natasha St-Pier from your list was one of the two I sampled who did not seem to be touring. The other one (whose name escapes me) is touring but canceled a big concert, which could mean anything. Engel, you can start with whatever list you like but the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. We could also start with the New York City phone book, I suppose! (Please don't be offended by that humor.)

An intriguing possibility that I toss out for consideration by Murray and Engel, to which I don't yet know the answer, is whether we could use a ranking of the the most successful female singers and then note the frequency of breast cancer as a function of rank. If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, yes, the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. But you're starting with a valid list of half a million - would you imagine even 1% of that list is valid? That's 5,500 individuals. And starting with the NYC phone book would be better than starting with a list displaying nothing but [[selection bias]], as you have here, since that would be essentially random, unlike your list. The key to understanding all statistical analysis is understanding that one's sample MUST be random, as countless others have pointed out above.

:As to your suggestion, a population size of 20 is not an adequate population upon which to test a theory about a medical condition.

:Finally, I want to return to an earlier point made by others. It seems the vast majority of the women you have listed here have indeed born children. How does this fit into your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you plan to answer my question? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Not more than I have. There are more interesting issues to discuss and debate, as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I must therefore assume you do not have the answer. Oh well. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-24T20:57:53Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-24T19:40:14Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-24T19:05:44Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-05-24T17:49:59Z

EngelUmpocker: updated suggested text as per discussion on Pregnancy page

== That's it? ==

You would think that a topic as complex as this would merit a bit more then a quote from Bill Bennett

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Yeah, but doesn't this perpetuate the slander that conservatives are afraid of sex? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

Why is this page locked? And why is the only comment Bible-related? Either erase it and lock it or put something more on it. [The kids find out about it sometime, whether your encyclopedia wants them to or not...] [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely even homeschoolers should know how babies are made. God created our bodies and created sex - what are these dumboes afraid of? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::Because they believe [[God]] made humanity, but He subcontracted out the pink bits to [[Satan]]. Or so they seem to act some times... --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Article needs expansion==
While I understand that the project is desirous of a family-friendly encyclopedia, this article is patently ridiculous. And locked. Please add something benign, perhaps along the lines of:

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[mate]] and produce [[offspring]]. The [[Penis]] enters the [[Vagina]], the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

There can hardly be the slightest objection to something as simple as that, a matter-of-fact description for children of how we all came to be. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why do you suppose we might object, if we "can't" object? Can you figure out our motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

:* Give up, huh? Okay, here's the answer, according to one public school teacher in Los Angeles: "If we talk about sex, I'll have to assign sex for homework" [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclassicbrown.com%2FStacey%2520Brown%2Fstandanddeliver.htm&ei=gww3SLH0OaWuigGLk8i-CA&usg=AFQjCNG2Xp-MhfcATeIXfbINzfOxIOG9qA&sig2=2UHD3sF9-KZjV2yrbxJveQ] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: That's not really a relevant response. Children learn about the nuclear fission reaction in science class, but they don't have to build a bomb for homework. Again, I do understand you want all entries to be family-friendly, but surely question #1 in any youth's mind is "Where did I come from?" It's the first 'big' question every child has, and all arrive at it some time. Education behooves every encyclopedia to say ''something'' about sexual reproduction of human beings. It's not 'dirty', it's not 'wrong', it's simply nature and how we all came to be here. To ignore it is Victorian, and we know where that led. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::One final thought on this. I would encourage you to take the view that if you '''don't''' offer your readership ''some'' kind of answer to 'The Big Question', they will go off-site and Lord knows there's no way you would want them typing 'sexual intercourse' into their browser to Google the info, is there? You can easily imagine where they would end up. Why not offer them correct and 'Conservapedia-appropriate' information that you are comfortable with instead of driving them away to find out about it at more salacious sources? If you provide the information, you control how that is presented. Not providing the information is simply encouraging searches at less 'trustable' sources. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Are you saying that your motivation for expanding the current article is to educate children about where they come from? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, of course. What else could have possibly understood? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Teach the Controversy==
Why is the [[Stork Theory]] not prominently mentioned? I suspect it's the work of [[Liberals]] trying to spread their [[Liberal Depravity]] via [[Sex education]] fnord. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==New Proposed article contents==

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the physical mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[reproduce]] and produce [[offspring]]. During sexual intercourse, the male's [[sperm]] can [[fertilise]] the female's [[egg]], shortly thereafter the mother becomes [[pregnancy|pregnant]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

I suggest the above for the content of this article. I have removed the references to the body parts, in the interest of getting ''anything'' better than what is currently in this article. The article is locked, so perhaps we can discuss this with the intent of putting this os something similar in here? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Pregnancy

2008-05-24T17:18:36Z

EngelUmpocker:

Bugler - no edit wars, OK? Let's resolve this here. What on Earth could POSSIBLY be "gross" about God's Creation? I think this reveals something about you, rather than something about the process of human reproduction. The information here is factually correct, goes into NO details of the process, and explains simply and clearly enough what is happening when "Mommy is pregnant". Do you want readers to look elsewhere on the internet for this information, with no control over the information they uncover? I thought the purpose here was a Trustworthy Encycopledia? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

1. Just as sexual intercourse is a ptrivate matter, so should be the passing on of knowledge from parents to children. This is a family-friendly encyclopaedia, aimed at the homeschooling community, and we should respect the wishes, rights and ability of parents to conver sex education at the appropriate time. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I may be mistaken in this - but in conflicts like this the matter should be for a sysop to decide. And, by reverting Ed Poor's edit, it seemed that you were denying this established means of settling conflict here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::Bugler, this hardly qualifies as 'sex education'. There is no discussion of ANY of the processes, and it simply, correctly and blandly defines the term. Even the most basic dictionary would define it this way. Finally, your opinion that human biology is "disgusting" is very revealing. God's work is not to be derided, but respected, and it is a very bad idea to give out the impression that our bodies are "gross" or "disgusting" as you have suggested. How do you think young women reading this debate would feel about pregnancy if their first impression of it was that it was somehow "disgusting"? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:10, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not supposed to be a how-to guide for how to make your own children, if that's what we're getting at... [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:11, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Where did I ever suggest it should be? If you'd been following the dialog between Ed Poor and I, we were trying to create a family-friendly entry. There is no desire for a 'how-to' guide. 17:13, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::::It seems to be what Engel wishes... and where have I said "huiman biology is disgusting"? ''Some of it'' is - I don't need to spell out which bits; and an emphasis on the mechanics of conception can be grossly coarse and intrusive in a family friendly environment. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: In the rapid back-and-forth here, a comment of mine seems to have got lost between edits. You had asked "where did I say human biology is disgusting?" - you said so in [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pregnancy&curid=66299&diff=459213&oldid=459208 this comment], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pregnancy&curid=66299&diff=459205&oldid=459203 here] you referred to these God-given processes as "gross". [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:24, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

----
The last round of edits started with EngelUmpocker replacing the entire (two-paragraph) article with a new version. The [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pregnancy&oldid=441520 previous version] referred to pregnancy in general, whereas his new version refers almost exclusively to pregnancy in humans. And therein likes part of the problem, and solution, I believe. If you revert to the original version, or at least the first paragraph of that (the second wasn't the best-written paragraph around), and go from there, you might find it a little bit easier to write without getting out of family-friendly mode. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:We need a ruling from the project director about how vividly (and often) this encyclopedia needs to describe sex. My current understanding of policy is that we downplay it as much as possible, because the media (and even school textbooks) are saturated with it.

:Editorially, I hope that we can describe everything in pregnancy from conception to birth. There's another article for [[conception]], and by the way pregnancy does not begin with sexual intercourse despite what Engel said. Until he acknowledges this mistake, he is hereby banned from this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:25, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: I think "pregnancy does not begin with sexual intercourse" is splitting hairs, akin to arguing when a building was begun: When the developer thought of it, got a plan drawn, received building approval, turned the first sod, the builders moved onto the site, the first brick was laid, or when? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Technically pregnancy begins with the implantation of the foetus in the uterus, which occurs well after the intercourse which caused it. That said it does seem ridiculously harsh to ban someone from an article for an apparent unintentional mistake which was removed as soon as it was discovered. I do wonder where Engel got this information in the first place, it certainly wasn't from any school textbook or a proper teacher... [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
::::And it is a fickle point, but Ed with the greatest respect you stated that conception occurs in the womb. This is not true, conception occurs in the Fallopian tubes, the embryo then develops in the uterus. I intend to expand this article further and include information on the development of the baby without mentioning sex [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

A note about process - I ended up writing this article because Ed Poor and I were trying to make the [[sexual intercourse]] article have some useful, family-friendly content, rather than what it has now, which will simply make a young reader perplexed, then leave the site and go elsewhere for their information. And it was in fact Ed who deleted the previous version of this article, and I then wrote this stub, so that the pregnancy link in the SI article actually linked to something. Understand that I was trying to write the simplest, most family-friendly version, and was grossly simplifying and knowingly writing a stub. That said, I oversimplified, and that ended up with misleading information being posted, but please understand that to 'ban' me from this article is incredibly harsh, considering this site is ''littered'' with single sentence stubs that need massive expansion to make sense - for example, a quick Random Article click leads me to... [[Janet Reno]], which only tells me she was involved in the Waco event. Surely lots of information missing there too, eh?

No matter - I '''admit''' it was wrong. But the article needs some explanation of the mechanism of what ''causes'' pregnancy. At present, the article reads as if pregnancy is something that simply 'happens' to women. How does it happen? Mostly, it happens through [[sexual intercourse]]. And that is all I wanted to say on the matter. No 'filth' - though I am appalled that anyone would think God's basic biology 'filthy', 'gross', 'disgusting' or 'coarse'. The attitudes to human reproduction on this site leave me feeling very uneasy about the nature of some of the individuals involved. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 13:18, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Uniquely human? ==

It may be true that "pregnancy" in animals is known as gestation ''in academic circles'', but informally, animals are often said to be pregnant. And I'm fairly sure the word "gestation" is also used (medically) of human pregnancies. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:Correct on both counts, I could have worded my edits better. Is the current edition better? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:02, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Definitely better. I do question, however, the use of "sometimes". If a family pet is "pregnant", is "gestating" ''ever'' used (except perhaps by the vet)? Is anything other than "pregnant" used? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:50, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T21:46:04Z

EngelUmpocker: nicer, more honorific wording

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and creates a new life. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Talk:Pregnancy

2008-05-23T21:33:47Z

EngelUmpocker: moving comment order that got mangled in rapid edit sequence

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-05-23T21:30:58Z

EngelUmpocker: /* New Proposed article contents */

== That's it? ==

You would think that a topic as complex as this would merit a bit more then a quote from Bill Bennett

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Yeah, but doesn't this perpetuate the slander that conservatives are afraid of sex? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

Why is this page locked? And why is the only comment Bible-related? Either erase it and lock it or put something more on it. [The kids find out about it sometime, whether your encyclopedia wants them to or not...] [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely even homeschoolers should know how babies are made. God created our bodies and created sex - what are these dumboes afraid of? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::Because they believe [[God]] made humanity, but He subcontracted out the pink bits to [[Satan]]. Or so they seem to act some times... --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Article needs expansion==
While I understand that the project is desirous of a family-friendly encyclopedia, this article is patently ridiculous. And locked. Please add something benign, perhaps along the lines of:

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[mate]] and produce [[offspring]]. The [[Penis]] enters the [[Vagina]], the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

There can hardly be the slightest objection to something as simple as that, a matter-of-fact description for children of how we all came to be. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why do you suppose we might object, if we "can't" object? Can you figure out our motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

:* Give up, huh? Okay, here's the answer, according to one public school teacher in Los Angeles: "If we talk about sex, I'll have to assign sex for homework" [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclassicbrown.com%2FStacey%2520Brown%2Fstandanddeliver.htm&ei=gww3SLH0OaWuigGLk8i-CA&usg=AFQjCNG2Xp-MhfcATeIXfbINzfOxIOG9qA&sig2=2UHD3sF9-KZjV2yrbxJveQ] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: That's not really a relevant response. Children learn about the nuclear fission reaction in science class, but they don't have to build a bomb for homework. Again, I do understand you want all entries to be family-friendly, but surely question #1 in any youth's mind is "Where did I come from?" It's the first 'big' question every child has, and all arrive at it some time. Education behooves every encyclopedia to say ''something'' about sexual reproduction of human beings. It's not 'dirty', it's not 'wrong', it's simply nature and how we all came to be here. To ignore it is Victorian, and we know where that led. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::One final thought on this. I would encourage you to take the view that if you '''don't''' offer your readership ''some'' kind of answer to 'The Big Question', they will go off-site and Lord knows there's no way you would want them typing 'sexual intercourse' into their browser to Google the info, is there? You can easily imagine where they would end up. Why not offer them correct and 'Conservapedia-appropriate' information that you are comfortable with instead of driving them away to find out about it at more salacious sources? If you provide the information, you control how that is presented. Not providing the information is simply encouraging searches at less 'trustable' sources. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Are you saying that your motivation for expanding the current article is to educate children about where they come from? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, of course. What else could have possibly understood? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Teach the Controversy==
Why is the [[Stork Theory]] not prominently mentioned? I suspect it's the work of [[Liberals]] trying to spread their [[Liberal Depravity]] via [[Sex education]] fnord. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==New Proposed article contents==

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[reproduce]] and produce [[offspring]]. During sexual intercourse, the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], the mother becomes [[pregnancy|pregnant]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

I suggest the above for the content of this article. I have removed the references to the body parts, in the interest of getting ''anything'' better than what is currently in this article. The article is locked, so perhaps we can discuss this with the intent of putting this os something similar in here? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-05-23T21:28:34Z

EngelUmpocker: new proposed article content

== That's it? ==

You would think that a topic as complex as this would merit a bit more then a quote from Bill Bennett

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Yeah, but doesn't this perpetuate the slander that conservatives are afraid of sex? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

Why is this page locked? And why is the only comment Bible-related? Either erase it and lock it or put something more on it. [The kids find out about it sometime, whether your encyclopedia wants them to or not...] [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely even homeschoolers should know how babies are made. God created our bodies and created sex - what are these dumboes afraid of? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::Because they believe [[God]] made humanity, but He subcontracted out the pink bits to [[Satan]]. Or so they seem to act some times... --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Article needs expansion==
While I understand that the project is desirous of a family-friendly encyclopedia, this article is patently ridiculous. And locked. Please add something benign, perhaps along the lines of:

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[mate]] and produce [[offspring]]. The [[Penis]] enters the [[Vagina]], the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

There can hardly be the slightest objection to something as simple as that, a matter-of-fact description for children of how we all came to be. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why do you suppose we might object, if we "can't" object? Can you figure out our motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

:* Give up, huh? Okay, here's the answer, according to one public school teacher in Los Angeles: "If we talk about sex, I'll have to assign sex for homework" [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclassicbrown.com%2FStacey%2520Brown%2Fstandanddeliver.htm&ei=gww3SLH0OaWuigGLk8i-CA&usg=AFQjCNG2Xp-MhfcATeIXfbINzfOxIOG9qA&sig2=2UHD3sF9-KZjV2yrbxJveQ] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: That's not really a relevant response. Children learn about the nuclear fission reaction in science class, but they don't have to build a bomb for homework. Again, I do understand you want all entries to be family-friendly, but surely question #1 in any youth's mind is "Where did I come from?" It's the first 'big' question every child has, and all arrive at it some time. Education behooves every encyclopedia to say ''something'' about sexual reproduction of human beings. It's not 'dirty', it's not 'wrong', it's simply nature and how we all came to be here. To ignore it is Victorian, and we know where that led. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::One final thought on this. I would encourage you to take the view that if you '''don't''' offer your readership ''some'' kind of answer to 'The Big Question', they will go off-site and Lord knows there's no way you would want them typing 'sexual intercourse' into their browser to Google the info, is there? You can easily imagine where they would end up. Why not offer them correct and 'Conservapedia-appropriate' information that you are comfortable with instead of driving them away to find out about it at more salacious sources? If you provide the information, you control how that is presented. Not providing the information is simply encouraging searches at less 'trustable' sources. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Are you saying that your motivation for expanding the current article is to educate children about where they come from? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, of course. What else could have possibly understood? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Teach the Controversy==
Why is the [[Stork Theory]] not prominently mentioned? I suspect it's the work of [[Liberals]] trying to spread their [[Liberal Depravity]] via [[Sex education]] fnord. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==New Proposed article contents==

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[mate]] and produce [[offspring]]. During sexual intercourse, the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], the mother becomes [[pregnancy|pregnant]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

I suggest the above for the content of this article. I have removed the references to the body parts, in the interest of getting ''anything'' better than what is currently in this article. The article is locked, so perhaps we can discuss this with the intent of putting this os something similar in here? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Pregnancy

2008-05-23T21:24:17Z

EngelUmpocker:

Bugler - no edit wars, OK? Let's resolve this here. What on Earth could POSSIBLY be "gross" about God's Creation? I think this reveals something about you, rather than something about the process of human reproduction. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The information here is factually correct, goes into NO details of the process, and explains simply and clearly enough what is happening when "Mommy is pregnant". Do you want readers to look elsewhere on the internet for this information, with no control over the information they uncover? I thought the purpose here was a Trustworthy Encycopledia? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

1. Just as sexual intercourse is a ptrivate matter, so should be the passing on of knowledge from parents to children. This is a family-friendly encyclopaedia, aimed at the homeschooling community, and we should respect the wishes, rights and ability of parents to conver sex education at the appropriate time. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I may be mistaken in this - but in conflicts like this the matter should be for a sysop to decide. And, by reverting Ed Poor's edit, it seemed that you were denying this established means of settling conflict here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::Bugler, this hardly qualifies as 'sex education'. There is no discussion of ANY of the processes, and it simply, correctly and blandly defines the term. Even the most basic dictionary would define it this way. Finally, your opinion that human biology is "disgusting" is very revealing. God's work is not to be derided, but respected, and it is a very bad idea to give out the impression that our bodies are "gross" or "disgusting" as you have suggested. How do you think young women reading this debate would feel about pregnancy if their first impression of it was that it was somehow "disgusting"? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:10, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not supposed to be a how-to guide for how to make your own children, if that's what we're getting at... [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:11, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::::It seems to be what Engel wishes... and where have I said "huiman biology is disgusting"? ''Some of it'' is - I don't need to spell out which bits; and an emphasis on the mechanics of conception can be grossly coarse and intrusive in a family friendly environment. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Where did I ever suggest it should be? If you'd been following the dialog between Ed Poor and I, we were trying to create a family-friendly entry. There is no desire for a 'how-to' guide. 17:13, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: In the rapid back-and-forth here, a comment of mine seems to have got lost between edits. You had asked "where did I say human biology is disgusting?" - you said so in [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pregnancy&curid=66299&diff=459213&oldid=459208 this comment], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pregnancy&curid=66299&diff=459205&oldid=459203 here] you referred to these God-given processes as "gross". [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:24, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Pregnancy

2008-05-23T21:13:42Z

EngelUmpocker:

Bugler - no edit wars, OK? Let's resolve this here. What on Earth could POSSIBLY be "gross" about God's Creation? I think this reveals something about you, rather than something about the process of human reproduction. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The information here is factually correct, goes into NO details of the process, and explains simply and clearly enough what is happening when "Mommy is pregnant". Do you want readers to look elsewhere on the internet for this information, with no control over the information they uncover? I thought the purpose here was a Trustworthy Encycopledia? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

1. Just as sexual intercourse is a ptrivate matter, so should be the passing on of knowledge from parents to children. This is a family-friendly encyclopaedia, aimed at the homeschooling community, and we should respect the wishes, rights and ability of parents to conver sex education at the appropriate time. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I may be mistaken in this - but in conflicts like this the matter should be for a sysop to decide. And, by reverting Ed Poor's edit, it seemed that you were denying this established means of settling conflict here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::Bugler, this hardly qualifies as 'sex education'. There is no discussion of ANY of the processes, and it simply, correctly and blandly defines the term. Even the most basic dictionary would define it this way. Finally, your opinion that human biology is "disgusting" is very revealing. God's work is not to be derided, but respected, and it is a very bad idea to give out the impression that our bodies are "gross" or "disgusting" as you have suggested. How do you think young women reading this debate would feel about pregnancy if their first impression of it was that it was somehow "disgusting"? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:10, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not supposed to be a how-to guide for how to make your own children, if that's what we're getting at... [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:11, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::::It seems to be what Engel wishes... and where have I said "huiman biology is disgusting"? ''Some of it'' is - I don't need to spell out which bits; and an emphasis on the mechanics of conception can be grossly coarse and intrusive in a family friendly environment. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Where did I ever suggest it should be? If you'd been following the dialog between Ed Poor and I, we were trying to create a family-friendly entry. There is no desire for a 'how-to' guide. 17:13, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Pregnancy

2008-05-23T21:10:02Z

EngelUmpocker:

Bugler - no edit wars, OK? Let's resolve this here. What on Earth could POSSIBLY be "gross" about God's Creation? I think this reveals something about you, rather than something about the process of human reproduction. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The information here is factually correct, goes into NO details of the process, and explains simply and clearly enough what is happening when "Mommy is pregnant". Do you want readers to look elsewhere on the internet for this information, with no control over the information they uncover? I thought the purpose here was a Trustworthy Encycopledia? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

1. Just as sexual intercourse is a ptrivate matter, so should be the passing on of knowledge from parents to children. This is a family-friendly encyclopaedia, aimed at the homeschooling community, and we should respect the wishes, rights and ability of parents to conver sex education at the appropriate time. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I may be mistaken in this - but in conflicts like this the matter should be for a sysop to decide. And, by reverting Ed Poor's edit, it seemed that you were denying this established means of settling conflict here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::Bugler, this hardly qualifies as 'sex education'. There is no discussion of ANY of the processes, and it simply, correctly and blandly defines the term. Even the most basic dictionary would define it this way. Finally, your opinion that human biology is "disgusting" is very revealing. God's work is not to be derided, but respected, and it is a very bad idea to give out the impression that our bodies are "gross" or "disgusting" as you have suggested. How do you think young women reading this debate would feel about pregnancy if their first impression of it was that it was somehow "disgusting"? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:10, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T21:03:21Z

EngelUmpocker: Bugler - please discuss on Talk page before another revert

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Talk:Pregnancy

2008-05-23T21:02:42Z

EngelUmpocker: no edit war, please

Bugler - no edit wars, OK? Let's resolve this here. What on Earth could POSSIBLY be "gross" about God's Creation? I think this reveals something about you, rather than something about the process of human reproduction. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The information here is factually correct, goes into NO details of the process, and explains simply and clearly enough what is happening when "Mommy is pregnant". Do you want readers to look elsewhere on the internet for this information, with no control over the information they uncover? I thought the purpose here was a Trustworthy Encycopledia? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 17:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T21:00:20Z

EngelUmpocker: May I ask you - how did you learn the basic Facts of Life?

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Talk:Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:59:03Z

EngelUmpocker:

Talk:Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:57:56Z

EngelUmpocker: New page: Bugler - no edit wars, OK? Let's resolve this here. What on Earth could POSSIBLY be "disgusting" about God's Creation? ~~~~

Bugler - no edit wars, OK? Let's resolve this here. What on Earth could POSSIBLY be "disgusting" about God's Creation? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:56:48Z

EngelUmpocker: What on EARTH could possibly be 'disgusting' about our most fundamental biology?!!!!

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:52:00Z

EngelUmpocker: God created us and the process by which we are conceived. To deny it is ridiculous and imposes your own opinion upon God's work

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:47:01Z

EngelUmpocker: Human biology cannot by definition be "coarse". And this article began by trying to give meaning to the sexual intercourse article.

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:36:51Z

EngelUmpocker: article makes no sense without explaining how the 'condition' arises

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:34:47Z

EngelUmpocker:

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. A man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:32:45Z

EngelUmpocker: it's always good to have the defined term itself upfront

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a woman carrying an unborn child. A man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T19:43:46Z

EngelUmpocker: please, let's keep 'some' of the romance and magic of this process! 'Emerges' - sheesh!

A man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T19:39:38Z

EngelUmpocker:

During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]], fuses with it, and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[vagina|birth canal]].

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T19:38:58Z

EngelUmpocker:

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T19:38:11Z

EngelUmpocker:

During [[sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]] fuse and forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[vagina}birth canal]].

[[category:biology]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T19:37:29Z

EngelUmpocker: A suggested approach - surely this is 'family friendly' enough?

During [[Sexual intercourse]], a man's [[sperm]] fertilizes the woman's [[egg]] fuse and eventually forms a new child. The woman becomes '''pregnant''', and carries the baby in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[vagina}birth canal]].

[[category:biology]]

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-05-23T19:32:10Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Article needs expansion */

== That's it? ==

You would think that a topic as complex as this would merit a bit more then a quote from Bill Bennett

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Yeah, but doesn't this perpetuate the slander that conservatives are afraid of sex? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

Why is this page locked? And why is the only comment Bible-related? Either erase it and lock it or put something more on it. [The kids find out about it sometime, whether your encyclopedia wants them to or not...] [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely even homeschoolers should know how babies are made. God created our bodies and created sex - what are these dumboes afraid of? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Article needs expansion==
While I understand that the project is desirous of a family-friendly encyclopedia, this article is patently ridiculous. And locked. Please add something benign, perhaps along the lines of:

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[mate]] and produce [[offspring]]. The [[Penis]] enters the [[Vagina]], the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

There can hardly be the slightest objection to something as simple as that, a matter-of-fact description for children of how we all came to be. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why do you suppose we might object, if we "can't" object? Can you figure out our motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

:* Give up, huh? Okay, here's the answer, according to one public school teacher in Los Angeles: "If we talk about sex, I'll have to assign sex for homework" [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclassicbrown.com%2FStacey%2520Brown%2Fstandanddeliver.htm&ei=gww3SLH0OaWuigGLk8i-CA&usg=AFQjCNG2Xp-MhfcATeIXfbINzfOxIOG9qA&sig2=2UHD3sF9-KZjV2yrbxJveQ] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: That's not really a relevant response. Children learn about the nuclear fission reaction in science class, but they don't have to build a bomb for homework. Again, I do understand you want all entries to be family-friendly, but surely question #1 in any youth's mind is "Where did I come from?" It's the first 'big' question every child has, and all arrive at it some time. Education behooves every encyclopedia to say ''something'' about sexual reproduction of human beings. It's not 'dirty', it's not 'wrong', it's simply nature and how we all came to be here. To ignore it is Victorian, and we know where that led. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::One final thought on this. I would encourage you to take the view that if you '''don't''' offer your readership ''some'' kind of answer to 'The Big Question', they will go off-site and Lord knows there's no way you would want them typing 'sexual intercourse' into their browser to Google the info, is there? You can easily imagine where they would end up. Why not offer them correct and 'Conservapedia-appropriate' information that you are comfortable with instead of driving them away to find out about it at more salacious sources? If you provide the information, you control how that is presented. Not providing the information is simply encouraging searches at less 'trustable' sources. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Are you saying that your motivation for expanding the current article is to educate children about where they come from? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, of course. What else could have possibly understood? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-05-23T19:25:25Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Article needs expansion */

== That's it? ==

You would think that a topic as complex as this would merit a bit more then a quote from Bill Bennett

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Yeah, but doesn't this perpetuate the slander that conservatives are afraid of sex? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

Why is this page locked? And why is the only comment Bible-related? Either erase it and lock it or put something more on it. [The kids find out about it sometime, whether your encyclopedia wants them to or not...] [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely even homeschoolers should know how babies are made. God created our bodies and created sex - what are these dumboes afraid of? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Article needs expansion==
While I understand that the project is desirous of a family-friendly encyclopedia, this article is patently ridiculous. And locked. Please add something benign, perhaps along the lines of:

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[mate]] and produce [[offspring]]. The [[Penis]] enters the [[Vagina]], the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

There can hardly be the slightest objection to something as simple as that, a matter-of-fact description for children of how we all came to be. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why do you suppose we might object, if we "can't" object? Can you figure out our motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

:* Give up, huh? Okay, here's the answer, according to one public school teacher in Los Angeles: "If we talk about sex, I'll have to assign sex for homework" [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclassicbrown.com%2FStacey%2520Brown%2Fstandanddeliver.htm&ei=gww3SLH0OaWuigGLk8i-CA&usg=AFQjCNG2Xp-MhfcATeIXfbINzfOxIOG9qA&sig2=2UHD3sF9-KZjV2yrbxJveQ] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: That's not really a relevant response. Children learn about the nuclear fission reaction in science class, but they don't have to build a bomb for homework. Again, I do understand you want all entries to be family-friendly, but surely question #1 in any youth's mind is "Where did I come from?" It's the first 'big' question every child has, and all arrive at it some time. Education behooves every encyclopedia to say ''something'' about sexual reproduction of human beings. It's not 'dirty', it's not 'wrong', it's simply nature and how we all came to be here. To ignore it is Victorian, and we know where that led. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::One final thought on this. I would encourage you to take the view that if you '''don't''' offer your readership ''some'' kind of answer to 'The Big Question', they will go off-site and Lord knows there's no way you would want them typing 'sexual intercourse' into their browser to Google the info, is there? You can easily imagine where they would end up. Why not offer them correct and 'Conservapedia-appropriate' information that you are comfortable with instead of driving them away to find out about it at more salacious sources? If you provide the information, you control how that is presented. Not providing the information is simply encouraging searches at less 'trustable' sources. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-05-23T18:39:28Z

EngelUmpocker: actual quote from your source

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-23T18:09:11Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-23T02:05:46Z

EngelUmpocker: "there known unknowns, and there are unknown unknowns", as Rumsfeld said!

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-23T02:01:14Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-23T00:08:04Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-22T23:52:51Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-22T23:52:11Z

EngelUmpocker: I COUNTED!

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains about 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 lised. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-22T23:37:44Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which is so long I can't count it, but it does list 50 just in the A's & B's. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers]. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-22T23:35:32Z

EngelUmpocker: Thousands of rock singers

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which is so long I can't count it, but it does list 50 just in the A's & B's. And that's just rock singers. Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-22T23:09:13Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-22T23:04:24Z

EngelUmpocker: /* Deletion */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is a false example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality. However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-20T03:20:22Z

EngelUmpocker: typos

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

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]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
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)

: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)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Just amazing ==

I thought I saw it all but while perusing the recent changes I can across this article and the "Motivations for the Theory of Evolution" essay. Mr. Schafly is now completely nuts. Responding or even viewing this drivel is painful. Please people, boycott this site! Stay away and maybe it will go away. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 15:38, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:While I don't know yet whether Mr. Schlafly's idea has any validity yet, I think it at least deserves examination rather than mockery. [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 22:24, 19 May 2008 (EDT)