Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T14:04:34Z

Palmd001: /* I'm back */

Just to inform the person, which put this study about breast cancer caused by abortion in there. In any study I read about it, there is not a single bit of evidence for that. As Christians we might be free to believe whatever, but we should not believe in something dogmatic, especially when the evidence that this one study by Christian conservative researchers secreted is just faked reality, since this study apperently got tested lately and disproven, in order to support exactly these dogmatism. It is one thing to believe in Jesus and the trinity, but it is blasphemious and just morally incorrect to use the Lord in order to save a personal paradigm. That is one reason why a lot of Christians in the world are pointing to the US and state, Lord, please forgive them, since they do not know how much evil they bring upon us with that behavior.

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm new here, so please forgive if this comment is put in the wrong place on the page. I notice that a lot of "sensitive" articles on Conservapedia are locked - fine, they do that on other wikis as well. But, the reason for locking them should be clearly stated on the top of the article - as it is, they are just presented as "Here it is, take it or leave it.", with no comments or explanations at all, unless you dig around in the discussion pages to find them. In the case of this article on breast cancer, it would seem that the reason for locking it, is that the controversy over whether abortion is a contributory factor to breast cancer incidence, is considered by the person who did the locking, to be too important (perhaps for religious reasons connected to the abortion debate......) to permit both sides of the vigorous debate to be equally represented and detailed within the body of the article itself. At any rate, i do wish that the people who run this site would clearly and candidly explain exactly why each locked article is off-limits - it would be quite useful to the reader.[[User:Elrond|Elrond]] May 11, 2007. 10:47 AST.

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 17:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

:::I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer. ''However, most studies show that they are not.'' That's the bottom line. Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise. We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:How am I wrong about the studies Andy? You've mentioned that there are 16 that show a significant risk. I've listed (on my talk page) 24 that show there isn't. Perhaps you could clarify? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see where Andy has better credentials than anyone else to speak on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just keeps referring to the "essjay" thing which has nothign to do with this discussion. Can we move on and talk about credentials or forget the whole mess? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Read [[abortion]] without any preconceived opinions. Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So it's not about the research then? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" is not a very good answer. sorry. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" suggests that the sun goes round the earth - because after all it looks as if we're standing still and the sun goes round us, doesn't it? But evidence suggests otherwise. At least, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court does. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Looking here [http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/5/481]: "''Although the increase in risk was relatively low,'' (emphasis added) the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." That's in the abstract. I don't have access to the article. I'm a little suspicous, however. Most studies would give some sort of correlation, and not an "odds ratio", whatever that means. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Whoops--that is the article... Hmmm...[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT) OF course, there's this: [http://ebn.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/1/1/21][[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Judging from the NE Journal of Medicine articles at the bottom of the ref 1, it seems that this is unclear. Hence, it would be intellectually dishonest to include it in the article. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967 - I'm not sure when in the US (1972?) so women old enough to have abortions then would now be around sixty or older - a time when age-related factors increase the rate anyway. However, it's not as simple as that. For example, among other things the rate of obesity is now much higher than it was forty years ago, and that is an influencing factor.[[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:36 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but... ==

No time to work on this myself right now, but... I know a man who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and he tells me that when it ''does'' occur in men it is apt to be very dangerous. He's getting regular radiation therapy now, and things seem to be going OK, but it's a very serious business. And men often miss or ignore the symptoms because they don't know it can occur in men. He says he's on a mission to convince ''men'' to perform regular breast self-examination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely correct. Because it's so uncommon in men it doesn't usually get caught until it's fairly advanced, so prognoses are often not as good as they are for women. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Risk factors ==

I just got off the phone with PalMD and am now convinced that he is a real human being. I don't think he's a cancer expert (see [[oncologist]]).

I'm hoping he'll ease off and allow a few links to sources which contradict his view of the abortion-cancer connection to be inserted into the article, and that he will not try to "own" the article. He merely submitted a few edits; he's not the [[author]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

You are correct, I am not an oncologist, and have never claimed to be. I am still, as an internist, the closest thing we have to an expert here. I lecture on these topics regularly. I have no problem at all with injecting the abortion thing in here, however, just like any other info, it must be sourced, and the data should be available for anyone to view.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW, perhaps an interested, intelligent person could post on the talk page the article links on abortion/breast cancer. I find it a little confusing on the abortion page. That way we could more easily and accurately incorporate it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

These are the ones used in the abortion article:
# ↑ http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
# ↑ http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
# ↑ Id.
# ↑ Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).
# ↑ "Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).
# ↑ R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).
# ↑ A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).
# ↑ N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).
# ↑ Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).
# ↑ Joel Brind, "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [1] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).
# ↑ http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm
[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. As a public service, I will parse each one individually, and add comments under each listing, if you dont mind.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor:
#NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
#British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
#Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
#British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
#International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
#European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
#Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
#Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
#International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
#International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
#British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
#International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
#Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
#American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
#British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
#Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
#International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8
[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Your posting above is false and misleading. The Lancet entry, for example, is not a study at all. I doubt many of the others are either. Virtually all statistically significant studies have shown an increase risked, as does logic. The increased risk was shown before abortion became politically controversial and before the abortion industry became so powerful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The Lancet article is indeed a study, though it is regarding ovarian cancer, not breast. My mistake. But you don't understand what statistical significance means. The majority of studies (ie, those in my list) were not statistically significant, meaning they found no effect of abortion on breast cancer. That doesn't mean they don't count. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking ==

I blocked AmesG for a day for making an edit I considered threatening, and for not retracting it or apologizing for it.

When "PalMD" is editing outside his area of expertise, then I suggest he remove his "MD" label (which is not his real user id here anyway). My review of PalMD's past edits show a vast number of unproductive changes, including reverting one of my factual edits within a short period after my making it. I think a review of PalMD's edits does support blocking, but in an abundance of caution I will await his future edits. Any edit that falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion, particularly if made under the misleading moniker "MD", will likely result in a block of PalMD. Conservapedia is not going to allow the spreading of liberal falsehoods here to promote abortion. Go to Wikipedia if you want that. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just plainly listing abortion as a risk factor is false because it suggests that a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk than a woman who was never pregnant. That is simply not true, and it is plain in the research. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Your comparison is badly misleading, and scientific nonsense. A woman who is pregnant is not choosing between an abortion and not being pregnant. She is choosing between an abortion and childbirth, and it is indisputed that choosing abortion is harmful to her health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please would you define your understanding of 'falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion'? As far as I can ascertain, the reverse is the truth. According to [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html]maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions in the developed world are of the order of 0.2-1.2 per 100,000, whereas in the USA maternal deaths associated with giving birth were 17 per 100,000 (12.2 in the UK) [http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/mme.pdf]
[http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/mdeaths.htm#direct deaths]. The conservative view is of opposition to abortion, and conservatives have many reasons to oppose it, but it does this site and your argument no favors if you misrepresent the facts. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The above data are silly and misleading, even if true. The above risks are far too small to be worth considering, and are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of breast cancer and premature birth of future children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You're missing the point entirely Andy. There's a difference between pregancy decreasing the risk and abortion increasing it. If you phrase it that way well and good, but that's not what you're doing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that the majority of studies find no link between abortion and breast cancer. Too much to hope for I suppose. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Support==
''copied from PALMD's [[User_talk:Palmd001|talk]] page''

I'm disappointed I was away from the computer last night ... I find it appalling that Andy is attacking Peter's credentials, when Andy himself does not have any in this field. The hyprocisy is astounding. I've also done my own research into this and see nothing of substance that backs up Andy's claims of a link. Unfortunately this is his site and if he wants to spread false information in an effort to vilify abortions even further that is his agenda. I would think someone who is as religious and allegedy educated as him would be able to tell the difference between facts and trash "research". And the whole calling something you disagree with a liberal agenda, liberal facts, etc only discredits him further.
Peter you have my full support. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== NEJM studies ==

I'll repeat what I said above.

The New England Journal of Medicine has two studies: [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/25/1834] and [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/2/81]. They contradict each other. Given that the NEJM is the most well known medical journal, I think it can be safely said that there is no concrete conclusion here. I then conclude to mention abortion as a risk factor is highly deceptive, unless details about the contraversy are given. Stating that "there is a contraversy" is really not intellectuall satisfyingy, again, unless details are given. If Conservapedia is going to be a "trusted/fair source," then this must be done; otherwise the credibility of the project is undermined. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like to know on what basis the Breast Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Society are deemed to be 'politicized' when they state unequivocally that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. As it stands, this article is dishonest in making the claim that a proven link exists. I note that there is no citation in support of this.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Danger/Boycott==
Well, I'm still keeping my hands off this article, and my edits out. It is obviously so politicized that it is absurd. Breast cancer is one of the most important health problems in this country. Abortion is one of the most important moral discussions in this country. They happen to be '''medically unrelated'''. I certainly hope people who read the current article do not rely on it for accurate information on breast cancer. I mean this not just because of the "abortion issue" but also because, as long as it remains politicized, no real medical expert will put their name to it and help keep the article otherwise accurate. And before you accuse me of one of those ridiculous 90/10 violations, check my recent contributions.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
==Breast Feeding==
According to the source given in the article, returning to preindustrial fertility may reduce risk, not breast feeding alone. The article states that having an average of 6 children and breast feeding them for an average of 2 years reduces risk. Someone should correct it or clarify it, because as it stands it is misleading--"breastfeeding" alone is not enough.[[User:FredRidr|FredRidr]] 13:55, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== I'm back ==

Sorry to pester (OK, not really)...I have no interest in changing CPs anti-abortion position. But if you want to have an article that is truly informative about breast cancer, you may wish to limit the information to that which has been scientifically proven. For instance, the role of breast self-exam is no longer clear, and that of mammograms is complicated. The role of abortion is however well-known, in that there has never been a proven connection between breast cancer risk and abortion. Also, if there were, it would additionally need to be proved that avoiding abortion reduces breast cancer risk. The data aren't there. The fight against abortion is elsewhere and should not be fought by misinforming people about another health topic.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

: "PalMD" (specialty not in breast cancer), you only continue to prove [[liberal denial]]. See its point #14. Cheers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::I forgot that you do specialize in breast cancer...my mistake.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 00:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::Oh, and being an expert in human medicine certainly qualifies me better than anyone else at this site to comment. And inventing a new "liberal" rule every time you realize you are wrong doesn't help make your point. Godspeed. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 00:49, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::::What I saw in the past few edits was Fox unblocking you because it was a simple case of kindness on his part, and you insist on throwing your weight around. PalMD, it is not a right for you to be here; it is a priviledge, and right now you're not doing too well after just three edits. Don't let there be a bad fourth edit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:30, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: "PalMD", your claim of "being an expert in 'human medicine' certainly qualifies [you] better than anyone else at this site to comment" is a comical absurdity. No one is a general expert in "human medicine" and you're not fooling anyone here. I deal with physicians every day, including other physicians on this site, and I have never seen such an unjustified claim of expertise before. Don't pretend to be an expert beyond what you may know, and don't engage in [[liberal denial]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:55, 8 March 2008 (EST)

I have to admit that what I love about this place is that you and Karajou feel free to display your ignorace for all to see. Despite your dealings with [[AAPS]], you are not a medical expert, and obviously know nothing about the field. What is your medical specialty that gives you all the breast cancer knowledge that an internist and medical professor misses? Ever read [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence|Orac]? He is an expert. Good stuff. My knowledge of the law is equally vague. I don't know a writ from a whit. You don't know an internist from an intern. Nothing wrong with that. But it's ok, your [[User:Karajou|enforcer]] will clean up your inconsistencies.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 08:47, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: "PalMD", you're clueless. Try claiming to be an "expert in 'human medicine'" in a court of law sometime. Five minutes later, which is how long it will take for everyone to stop laughing at your claim, maybe you'll wake up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::Let me just clarify for myself. You are an attorney who "talks to doctors". I am a practicing internist (yes, expert in human medicine), a professor of medicine, and an instructor of other physiscians. The "other doctors" here are? Anyway, I don't see how you have any qualifications in this area, and I ''know'' that I do. Patients come to me for just that. Sure, I don't dose chemotherapy, or administer radiation therapy, but believe it or not internists, especially academic internists have to know about this stuff and be able to research it. Anyway, God bless.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:04, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T13:47:42Z

Palmd001: /* I'm back */

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T05:49:51Z

Palmd001: /* I'm back */

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T05:35:08Z

Palmd001: /* I'm back */

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T03:46:02Z

Palmd001: /* I'm back */

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T03:18:20Z

Palmd001: I'm back

Just to inform the person, which put this study about breast cancer caused by abortion in there. In any study I read about it, there is not a single bit of evidence for that. As Christians we might be free to believe whatever, but we should not believe in something dogmatic, especially when the evidence that this one study by Christian conservative researchers secreted is just faked reality, since this study apperently got tested lately and disproven, in order to support exactly these dogmatism. It is one thing to believe in Jesus and the trinity, but it is blasphemious and just morally incorrect to use the Lord in order to save a personal paradigm. That is one reason why a lot of Christians in the world are pointing to the US and state, Lord, please forgive them, since they do not know how much evil they bring upon us with that behavior.

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm new here, so please forgive if this comment is put in the wrong place on the page. I notice that a lot of "sensitive" articles on Conservapedia are locked - fine, they do that on other wikis as well. But, the reason for locking them should be clearly stated on the top of the article - as it is, they are just presented as "Here it is, take it or leave it.", with no comments or explanations at all, unless you dig around in the discussion pages to find them. In the case of this article on breast cancer, it would seem that the reason for locking it, is that the controversy over whether abortion is a contributory factor to breast cancer incidence, is considered by the person who did the locking, to be too important (perhaps for religious reasons connected to the abortion debate......) to permit both sides of the vigorous debate to be equally represented and detailed within the body of the article itself. At any rate, i do wish that the people who run this site would clearly and candidly explain exactly why each locked article is off-limits - it would be quite useful to the reader.[[User:Elrond|Elrond]] May 11, 2007. 10:47 AST.

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 17:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

:::I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer. ''However, most studies show that they are not.'' That's the bottom line. Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise. We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:How am I wrong about the studies Andy? You've mentioned that there are 16 that show a significant risk. I've listed (on my talk page) 24 that show there isn't. Perhaps you could clarify? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see where Andy has better credentials than anyone else to speak on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just keeps referring to the "essjay" thing which has nothign to do with this discussion. Can we move on and talk about credentials or forget the whole mess? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Read [[abortion]] without any preconceived opinions. Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So it's not about the research then? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" is not a very good answer. sorry. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" suggests that the sun goes round the earth - because after all it looks as if we're standing still and the sun goes round us, doesn't it? But evidence suggests otherwise. At least, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court does. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Looking here [http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/5/481]: "''Although the increase in risk was relatively low,'' (emphasis added) the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." That's in the abstract. I don't have access to the article. I'm a little suspicous, however. Most studies would give some sort of correlation, and not an "odds ratio", whatever that means. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Whoops--that is the article... Hmmm...[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT) OF course, there's this: [http://ebn.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/1/1/21][[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Judging from the NE Journal of Medicine articles at the bottom of the ref 1, it seems that this is unclear. Hence, it would be intellectually dishonest to include it in the article. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967 - I'm not sure when in the US (1972?) so women old enough to have abortions then would now be around sixty or older - a time when age-related factors increase the rate anyway. However, it's not as simple as that. For example, among other things the rate of obesity is now much higher than it was forty years ago, and that is an influencing factor.[[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:36 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but... ==

No time to work on this myself right now, but... I know a man who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and he tells me that when it ''does'' occur in men it is apt to be very dangerous. He's getting regular radiation therapy now, and things seem to be going OK, but it's a very serious business. And men often miss or ignore the symptoms because they don't know it can occur in men. He says he's on a mission to convince ''men'' to perform regular breast self-examination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely correct. Because it's so uncommon in men it doesn't usually get caught until it's fairly advanced, so prognoses are often not as good as they are for women. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Risk factors ==

I just got off the phone with PalMD and am now convinced that he is a real human being. I don't think he's a cancer expert (see [[oncologist]]).

I'm hoping he'll ease off and allow a few links to sources which contradict his view of the abortion-cancer connection to be inserted into the article, and that he will not try to "own" the article. He merely submitted a few edits; he's not the [[author]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

You are correct, I am not an oncologist, and have never claimed to be. I am still, as an internist, the closest thing we have to an expert here. I lecture on these topics regularly. I have no problem at all with injecting the abortion thing in here, however, just like any other info, it must be sourced, and the data should be available for anyone to view.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW, perhaps an interested, intelligent person could post on the talk page the article links on abortion/breast cancer. I find it a little confusing on the abortion page. That way we could more easily and accurately incorporate it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

These are the ones used in the abortion article:
# ↑ http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
# ↑ http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
# ↑ Id.
# ↑ Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).
# ↑ "Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).
# ↑ R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).
# ↑ A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).
# ↑ N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).
# ↑ Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).
# ↑ Joel Brind, "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [1] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).
# ↑ http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm
[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. As a public service, I will parse each one individually, and add comments under each listing, if you dont mind.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor:
#NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
#British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
#Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
#British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
#International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
#European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
#Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
#Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
#International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
#International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
#British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
#International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
#Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
#American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
#British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
#Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
#International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8
[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Your posting above is false and misleading. The Lancet entry, for example, is not a study at all. I doubt many of the others are either. Virtually all statistically significant studies have shown an increase risked, as does logic. The increased risk was shown before abortion became politically controversial and before the abortion industry became so powerful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The Lancet article is indeed a study, though it is regarding ovarian cancer, not breast. My mistake. But you don't understand what statistical significance means. The majority of studies (ie, those in my list) were not statistically significant, meaning they found no effect of abortion on breast cancer. That doesn't mean they don't count. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking ==

I blocked AmesG for a day for making an edit I considered threatening, and for not retracting it or apologizing for it.

When "PalMD" is editing outside his area of expertise, then I suggest he remove his "MD" label (which is not his real user id here anyway). My review of PalMD's past edits show a vast number of unproductive changes, including reverting one of my factual edits within a short period after my making it. I think a review of PalMD's edits does support blocking, but in an abundance of caution I will await his future edits. Any edit that falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion, particularly if made under the misleading moniker "MD", will likely result in a block of PalMD. Conservapedia is not going to allow the spreading of liberal falsehoods here to promote abortion. Go to Wikipedia if you want that. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just plainly listing abortion as a risk factor is false because it suggests that a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk than a woman who was never pregnant. That is simply not true, and it is plain in the research. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Your comparison is badly misleading, and scientific nonsense. A woman who is pregnant is not choosing between an abortion and not being pregnant. She is choosing between an abortion and childbirth, and it is indisputed that choosing abortion is harmful to her health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please would you define your understanding of 'falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion'? As far as I can ascertain, the reverse is the truth. According to [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html]maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions in the developed world are of the order of 0.2-1.2 per 100,000, whereas in the USA maternal deaths associated with giving birth were 17 per 100,000 (12.2 in the UK) [http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/mme.pdf]
[http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/mdeaths.htm#direct deaths]. The conservative view is of opposition to abortion, and conservatives have many reasons to oppose it, but it does this site and your argument no favors if you misrepresent the facts. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The above data are silly and misleading, even if true. The above risks are far too small to be worth considering, and are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of breast cancer and premature birth of future children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You're missing the point entirely Andy. There's a difference between pregancy decreasing the risk and abortion increasing it. If you phrase it that way well and good, but that's not what you're doing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that the majority of studies find no link between abortion and breast cancer. Too much to hope for I suppose. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Support==
''copied from PALMD's [[User_talk:Palmd001|talk]] page''

I'm disappointed I was away from the computer last night ... I find it appalling that Andy is attacking Peter's credentials, when Andy himself does not have any in this field. The hyprocisy is astounding. I've also done my own research into this and see nothing of substance that backs up Andy's claims of a link. Unfortunately this is his site and if he wants to spread false information in an effort to vilify abortions even further that is his agenda. I would think someone who is as religious and allegedy educated as him would be able to tell the difference between facts and trash "research". And the whole calling something you disagree with a liberal agenda, liberal facts, etc only discredits him further.
Peter you have my full support. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== NEJM studies ==

I'll repeat what I said above.

The New England Journal of Medicine has two studies: [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/25/1834] and [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/2/81]. They contradict each other. Given that the NEJM is the most well known medical journal, I think it can be safely said that there is no concrete conclusion here. I then conclude to mention abortion as a risk factor is highly deceptive, unless details about the contraversy are given. Stating that "there is a contraversy" is really not intellectuall satisfyingy, again, unless details are given. If Conservapedia is going to be a "trusted/fair source," then this must be done; otherwise the credibility of the project is undermined. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like to know on what basis the Breast Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Society are deemed to be 'politicized' when they state unequivocally that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. As it stands, this article is dishonest in making the claim that a proven link exists. I note that there is no citation in support of this.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Danger/Boycott==
Well, I'm still keeping my hands off this article, and my edits out. It is obviously so politicized that it is absurd. Breast cancer is one of the most important health problems in this country. Abortion is one of the most important moral discussions in this country. They happen to be '''medically unrelated'''. I certainly hope people who read the current article do not rely on it for accurate information on breast cancer. I mean this not just because of the "abortion issue" but also because, as long as it remains politicized, no real medical expert will put their name to it and help keep the article otherwise accurate. And before you accuse me of one of those ridiculous 90/10 violations, check my recent contributions.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
==Breast Feeding==
According to the source given in the article, returning to preindustrial fertility may reduce risk, not breast feeding alone. The article states that having an average of 6 children and breast feeding them for an average of 2 years reduces risk. Someone should correct it or clarify it, because as it stands it is misleading--"breastfeeding" alone is not enough.[[User:FredRidr|FredRidr]] 13:55, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== I'm back ==

Sorry to pester (OK, not really)...I have no interest in changing CPs anti-abortion position. But if you want to have an article that is truly informative about breast cancer, you may wish to limit the information to that which has been scientifically proven. For instance, the role of breast self-exam is no longer clear, and that of mammograms is complicated. The role of abortion is however well-known, in that there has never been a proven connection between breast cancer risk and abortion. Also, if there were, it would additionally need to be proved that avoiding abortion reduces breast cancer risk. The date aren't there. The fight against abortion is elsewhere and should not be fought by misinforming people about another health topic.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Deceit

2007-04-21T02:26:04Z

Palmd001: My 2 cents, again

== The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" ==
The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is ''your blog'', basically, on the [[abortion|issues]] you [[creation|hold dear]]. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the [[Bay of Tonkin]] lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.

:Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Examples ==

Should this be included as an example of deceit?
=== Paul Wolfowitz ===
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676 U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript]</ref> --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can deceit be conservative? ==

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My 2 cents, again ==

What a ''ridiculous'' concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. ''People'' are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD liver

2007-04-20T19:48:32Z

Palmd001: /* Liver */

==[[Liver]]==

The article on livers confused the liver with the kidney. I think we should start over, or get [[User:palmd001]] to write it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

*If [[Liver]] is deleted, then the original article, entitled [[Livers]] should be even more deleted. I see no harm in deleting both of them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:If asked, I'll work on it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:AFD liver

2007-04-20T19:14:26Z

Palmd001: New page: If asked ill do it.--~~~~

If asked ill do it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:14, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

David Brainerd

2007-04-20T19:13:20Z

Palmd001:

David Brainerd (1718-1747) was a missionary to the Indians along the Susquehanna and Delaware Rivers in colonial America. He kept a journal that inclued entries like this:<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-04-20&view=View</ref>

:FORKS OF DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, Lord's day, July 21, 1745.

:Preached to the Indians ... Divine truth seemed to make very considerable impressions and caused the tears to flow freely. Afterwards I baptized my interpreter [Moses Tinda Tautamy] and his wife, who were the first I baptized among the Indians...

:Though before he had been a hard drinker...it is now more than six months since he experienced this change; in which space of time he has been exposed to strong drink in places where it has been moving free as water; yet has never desired after it...

:He discourses feelingly of the conflicts and consolations of a real Christian."

Tragically, David Brainerd contracted [[tuberculosis]], whereupon Princeton president Jonathan Edwards provided care for him at his home. Brainerd died at age 29, but his journal lived on to inspire millions, such as
William Carey, Oswald J. Smith and John Wesley.

David Brainerd also wrote in his journal, "Oh, how precious is time, and how it pains me to see it slide away, while I do so little to any good purpose. Oh,
that God would make me more fruitful."

== References ==

<references/>

Bagel

2007-04-20T18:14:05Z

Palmd001:

==History==
'''Bagels''' are a type of yeast-risen roll originating in Europe. They are most closely associated with European Jewish cuisine. There are many stories regarding the origin of bagels, but they probably originated in the late 17th century in Poland or Austria, and spread to other parts of Eastern Europe. As [[Ashkenazi Jews]] immigrated to the U.S., they brought many food items with them, including the bagel. It has since become a very popular American food item.

==Definition==
A bagel is always round, with a hole in the middle. The dough is risen, then boiled, then baked, giving its unique texture. In New York, bagel stores were originally strictly unionized, and a bagel was very specifically defined as to weight and content. Since that time, the definition of bagel as liberalized significantly.
There are large regional differences in American bagels, despite the proliferation of chain stores.

==Uses==
In the U.S., the bagel is most typically a breakfast food, but is eaten at any time of day. It is classically served with cream cheese, and various types of smoked fish are often added.
Common types of bagel include:
*Plain
*Poppyseed
*Sesame Seed
*Salt
*Raisin

Bagel

2007-04-20T18:11:48Z

Palmd001: /* Definition */

Bagel

2007-04-20T18:08:34Z

Palmd001: /* History */

Bagel

2007-04-20T18:01:28Z

Palmd001:

Ignaz Semmelweis

2007-04-20T15:45:12Z

Palmd001: /* Biography */

==Biography==
[[Image:I_Semmelweis.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Semmelweis pictured on an Austrian postage stamp]]
'''Ignaz Semmelweis''' (1818-1865, ''variant spellings exist'') was a prominent 19th century [[Austro-Hungarian]] physician. He is best remembered for his contributions in combating "childbed fever", using modern [[scientific method]]s and [[statistics]].

==Background==

Until the 17th century, most births took place at home. As so-called "lying-in" hospitals became popular, more and more women came to the hospital for childbirth. These births were usually attended by [[midwife|midwives]] or doctors. With the advent of these hospitals came the increase in the phenomenon of "childbed fever", or "puerperal sepsis". This phenomenon had been described centuries before, but it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that the disease became more widely recognized.
At the time of Semmelweis's career, the [[germ theory of disease]] had not yet been formulated. Several other ideas held sway, such as that of ''miasmas'' (basically "ill winds") and "humoral imbalance". Semmelweis received the classical medical training of the time, including indoctrination into these theories, which had not substantially changed in two thousand years.

==Puerperal Fever==

Puerperal fever is a devastating disease. Today we would simply call it "sepsis". It is caused when bacteria and bacterial toxins cause an overwhelming infection and immune reaction, often killing the patient. Even with modern antibiotics, sepsis carries a high mortality rate.
During childbirth, the mother's blood stream is uniquely exposed to the environment, allowing for the ingress of bacteria. The disease would often kill up to 15-20% of mothers at lying-in hospitals.

==Semmelweis's Breakthrough==
[[Image:antisepsis.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Doctors washing hands before delivering baby (from www.cdc.gov)]]
Dr. Semmelweis was not the only physician to take a special interest in the problem. In the U.S. [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] had noted similar trends, but at the time, the U.S. was far behind Europe in medical science, and communication between American and European scientists was poor.
The unique contribution of Semmelweis was that he not only observed the phenomenon of childbed fever, but he kept detailed tables of how many women were affected, where they gave birth, and who attended the birth. This was in the era that gave birth to modern statistics. At the time, most statistical techniques were primitive by modern standards, but did involve very careful data collection, allowing for modern reinterpretation of the data. What Semmelweis '''observed''' was that a much higher number of women were dying when attended on the physician and medical student ward, versus those attended by midwives.

==Formulation and Testing of Hypotheses==
Semmelwies developed several hypotheses to test, among them:
#Overcrowding on certain wards spread the disease. He tested the hypothesis by comparing sepsis deaths on floors based on crowding. The statistics did not support the hypothesis, so it was abandoned.
#Doctors and medical students some how passed "particles" of disease to patients. A close friend of Semmelweis had died of a disease indistinguishable from childbed fever after cutting his hand during an autopsy. Semmelweis noted that often, doctors and medical students would perform autopsies, then go to the ward to deliver babies, one after the other. Midwives did not. He posited that particles of illness were making mothers ill, and that washing hands might prevent illness. He tested this by instituting a strict regimen of hand washing with a chlorine-lime solution before examining mothers or delivering babies. The death rate from sepsis quickly fell to the level seen in the midwife deliveries. The hypothesis was successfully tested elsewhere, as mentioned above, but communication was poor. The hypothesis had been tested and made correct predictions.

It was immediately and resoundingly rejected.

==Paradigm Shift and Acceptance==
Semmelwies died at 47 of an unknown illness in an asylum for the insane. He did not live to see the success of his methods. Just a few years after his untimely demise, other researchers, such as Billroth (discovery of streptococci in pus), [[Louis Pasteur|Pasteur]] (discovery of strep in the blood of a septic woman), and [[Joseph Lister|Lister]] (pioneer of antisepsis in surgery) helped overturn the old order. The humoral and miasma theories of disease were gone, to be replaced by the germ theory.

==Significance of Statistics==
Ignaz Semmelweis was one of the first scientists to use formal data collection and statistics to test a hypothesis. Statistics was in its infancy as a science, but modern statisticians have evaluated his data and confirmed his conclusions. The use of the scientific method and statistics is the basis of modern medicine.

==References==
#De Costa, C. "The contagiousness of childbed fever: a short history of puerperal sepsis and its treatment." MedJourAustralia, Vol 177, 2/16 December 2002.
#Best M, Neuhauser, D."Ignaz Semmelweis and the birth of infection control." Qual Saf Health Care (BMJ), 2004;13:233-234.
#Broemeling, L.D. "Studies in the history of probability and statistics: Semmelweis and childbed fever. A statistical analysis 147 years later." Dept of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
#Semmelweis, I.P. "The cause, concept and prophylaxis of childbed fever." 1861.
#Nuland, S. "The doctor's plague: germs, childhood fever, and the strange story of Ignac Semmelweis." Williams and Willkins Norton, 2003.

Talk:Mushroom

2007-04-20T00:41:57Z

Palmd001: New page: Interestingly, the mushroom pictured is probably ''A. muscaria'', or the "fly agarac" mushroom, which has it's own storied history.--~~~~

Interestingly, the mushroom pictured is probably ''A. muscaria'', or the "fly agarac" mushroom, which has it's own storied history.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design

2007-04-20T00:30:05Z

Palmd001: /* Legal */

{{essay}}
A number of sysops thought that, while they may question my motives, this should stay.
This is meant to mirror/parody the article on [[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]. I wish to reiterate, this is in '''no way''' meant to mock the ''author'' of the related essay. This is simply a rhetorical exercise to spur discussion. That is why it is an essay, and not an article.
----
There are several unique incentives or motivations for promulgating the hypothesis of [[Intelligent Design]]. These fall into four categories:

1. Financial incentives.
 2. Ideological incentives.
 3. Political incentives.
 4. Historical incentives.

Despite these significant incentives, nearly all scientists believe the hypothesis to be false, except in its most general, deistic sense.

== Financial ==

While judicial interpretations of the [[Establishment Clause]] prohibit any funding of religious arguments, positions or beliefs, the [[Theory of Evolution]] enjoys millions of dollars in annual funding by government, just as physics, chemistry, and computer science do.

This means that millions of persons, from university professors to graduate students to government researchers to public school teachers, receive paychecks funded in whole or in part by continued support for accepted scientific theories. If Congress or the President embraced a view that the theory were false, and cut off that funding, then the paychecks of these thousands of persons would decrease or disappear entirely.

In addition, non-profits groups such as the [[Focus On The Family]] rely on private donors to defend and promote the [[Intelligent Design]]. The salaries of individuals such organizations could decline if the hypothesis were declared to be false. In litigation over Intelligent Design in Dover, Pennsylvania, the court ordered a payment of over $2 million to the lawyers who defended the [[Theory of Evolution]], wasting taxpayers' money that could have been better spent teaching science.

Many graduate students in theology and related fields need topics and funding for doctoral work, and the [[Intelligent Design]] fills that need. If the hypothesis were recognized to be false, then these graduate students would have to find legitimate jobs.

The financial incentives may exceed $1 billion annually, and will cause a greater support for the theory, particularly among academics and government workers benefiting from the money, than would exist in the absence of these incentives.

== Ideological ==

Some true religious believers and a number of disingenous politicians have an ideological need for the [[Intelligent Design]]. No amount of evidence contrary to the theory would convince someone who believes, first and foremost, that God created heaven and Earth. This is an ideological motivation for [[Intelligent Design]]: it ''has'' to be true because the belief system of the person does not permit any other explanation.

The converse is not true for scientists. Scientists are quick to claim that any theory or hypothesis might allow for a Creator. Whether that is actually true is debatable but there is no such freedom of belief for a strict Creationist.

The artificial increase in support for [[Intelligent Design]] out of necessity by the right wing of the political spectrum is directly proportional to the amount of money the wish to siphon from churches that might otherwise use it for good works.

== Political ==

There is a very high correlation between belief in [[Intelligent Design]] and:
: opposition to the Establishment Clause (nearly 100% correlation)

The more a state allows the teaching of science in its schools, the more liberal that state votes on Election Day. Tennessee is an example of a state that kept evolution out of its schools for most of the 20th century, including winning the [[Scopes trial]] to ban the teaching of human evolution. It has consistently been one of the most conservative states on Election Day, and even rejected its own native son Al Gore in 2000, causing him to lose the election.

Indiana is an example of a state that was traditionally conservative, but after embracing the teaching of evolution in its schools became increasingly liberal (or perhaps vice versa). This state elected Dan Quayle, one of the most conservative senators, in 1980 and 1986. But now it has a Democratic senator in his place and in 2006 it lost 3 conservative Republican incumbent congressman, more than almost any other state. Conservative congressman John Hostettler lost by a 61%-39% margin.

== Historical ==

Nearly all Americans are taught accepted scientific theories in school, and religious ideas in Church, before critical thinking is developed. Once accepted for years, it can become difficult for some people to question that as an adult and admit that they were misled by people they trusted, or admit that they were wrong for much of their life.

When a student does well in secular or Sunday school, then it can become even more challenging to look at what he learned objectively and critically. The good school performance becomes an essential part of his self-esteem, and to admit that his self-esteem is based on a falsehood is simply too difficult for many people.

== Legal ==

Since the time of the Scopes "Monkey" trial, the First Amendment has come to be interpreted to prohibit religious instruction in public schools, and creationism has been forced to beat a slow retreat. [[Scientific creationism]] was developed to seek equal time in the schools with evolution, but it only offered criticism of the latest science without putting forth any falsifiable theories of its own. Finally, [[Intelligent design]] was developed, anticipating the legal objections that had been raised over scientific creationism. Proponents of Intelligent Design declined to identify a specific deity or being who established the parameters of our universe, and focused instead on a [[God of the gaps]] approach that examined certain observations that are currently unexplained. However, the Dover School Board decision, justifiably or not, delivered the same legal blow to ID that knocked scientific creationism off its feet.

[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 23:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

'''With special thanks and apologies to [[Andrew Schlafly|User:Aschlafly]]'''

Ignaz Semmelweis

2007-04-19T22:35:29Z

Palmd001:

==Biography==
[[Image:I_Semmelweis.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Semmelweis pictured on an Austrian postage stamp]]
'''Ignaz Semmelweis''' (1818-1865, ''variant spellings exist'') was a prominent 19th century [[Austro-Hungarian]] physician. He is best remembered for his contributions in combating "childbed fever", using modern [[scientific method]] and [[statistics]].

==Background==

Until the 17th century, most births took place at home. As so-called "lying-in" hospitals became popular, more and more women came to the hospital for childbirth. These births were usually attended by [[midwife|midwives]] or doctors. With the advent of these hospitals came the increase in the phenomenon of "childbed fever", or "puerperal sepsis". This phenomenon had been described centuries before, but it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that the disease became more widely recognized.
At the time of Semmelweis's career, the [[germ theory of disease]] had not yet been formulated. Several other ideas held sway, such as that of ''miasmas'' (basically "ill winds") and "humoral imbalance". Semmelweis received the classical medical training of the time, including indoctrination into these theories, which had not substantially changed in two thousand years.

==Puerperal Fever==

Puerperal fever is a devastating disease. Today we would simply call it "sepsis". It is caused when bacteria and bacterial toxins cause an overwhelming infection and immune reaction, often killing the patient. Even with modern antibiotics, sepsis carries a high mortality rate.
During childbirth, the mother's blood stream is uniquely exposed to the environment, allowing for the ingress of bacteria. The disease would often kill up to 15-20% of mothers at lying-in hospitals.

==Semmelweis's Breakthrough==
[[Image:antisepsis.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Doctors washing hands before delivering baby (from www.cdc.gov)]]
Dr. Semmelweis was not the only physician to take a special interest in the problem. In the U.S. [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] had noted similar trends, but at the time, the U.S. was far behind Europe in medical science, and communication between American and European scientists was poor.
The unique contribution of Semmelweis was that he not only observed the phenomenon of childbed fever, but he kept detailed tables of how many women were affected, where they gave birth, and who attended the birth. This was in the era that gave birth to modern statistics. At the time, most statistical techniques were primitive by modern standards, but did involve very careful data collection, allowing for modern reinterpretation of the data. What Semmelweis '''observed''' was that a much higher number of women were dying when attended on the physician and medical student ward, versus those attended by midwives.

==Formulation and Testing of Hypotheses==
Semmelwies developed several hypotheses to test, among them:
#Overcrowding on certain wards spread the disease. He tested the hypothesis by comparing sepsis deaths on floors based on crowding. The statistics did not support the hypothesis, so it was abandoned.
#Doctors and medical students some how passed "particles" of disease to patients. A close friend of Semmelweis had died of a disease indistinguishable from childbed fever after cutting his hand during an autopsy. Semmelweis noted that often, doctors and medical students would perform autopsies, then go to the ward to deliver babies, one after the other. Midwives did not. He posited that particles of illness were making mothers ill, and that washing hands might prevent illness. He tested this by instituting a strict regimen of hand washing with a chlorine-lime solution before examining mothers or delivering babies. The death rate from sepsis quickly fell to the level seen in the midwife deliveries. The hypothesis was successfully tested elsewhere, as mentioned above, but communication was poor. The hypothesis had been tested and made correct predictions.

It was immediately and resoundingly rejected.

==Paradigm Shift and Acceptance==
Semmelwies died at 47 of an unknown illness in an asylum for the insane. He did not live to see the success of his methods. Just a few years after his untimely demise, other researchers, such as Billroth (discovery of streptococci in pus), [[Louis Pasteur|Pasteur]] (discovery of strep in the blood of a septic woman), and [[Joseph Lister|Lister]] (pioneer of antisepsis in surgery) helped overturn the old order. The humoral and miasma theories of disease were gone, to be replaced by the germ theory.

==Significance of Statistics==
Ignaz Semmelweis was one of the first scientists to use formal data collection and statistics to test a hypothesis. Statistics was in its infancy as a science, but modern statisticians have evaluated his data and confirmed his conclusions. The use of the scientific method and statistics is the basis of modern medicine.

==References==
#De Costa, C. "The contagiousness of childbed fever: a short history of puerperal sepsis and its treatment." MedJourAustralia, Vol 177, 2/16 December 2002.
#Best M, Neuhauser, D."Ignaz Semmelweis and the birth of infection control." Qual Saf Health Care (BMJ), 2004;13:233-234.
#Broemeling, L.D. "Studies in the history of probability and statistics: Semmelweis and childbed fever. A statistical analysis 147 years later." Dept of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
#Semmelweis, I.P. "The cause, concept and prophylaxis of childbed fever." 1861.
#Nuland, S. "The doctor's plague: germs, childhood fever, and the strange story of Ignac Semmelweis." Williams and Willkins Norton, 2003.

Ignaz Semmelweis

2007-04-19T22:34:52Z

Palmd001: New page: ==Biography== Semmelweis pictured on an Austrian postage stamp '''Ignaz Semmelweis''' (1818-1865, ''variant spellings exist'') was a prominent...

==Biography==
[[Image:I_Semmelweis.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Semmelweis pictured on an Austrian postage stamp]]
'''Ignaz Semmelweis''' (1818-1865, ''variant spellings exist'') was a prominent 19th century [[Austro-Hungarian]] physician. He is best remembered for his contributions in combating "childbed fever", using modern [[scientific method]] and [[statistics]].

==Background==

Until the 17th century, most births took place at home. As so-called "lying-in" hospitals became popular, more and more women came to the hospital for childbirth. These births were usually attended by [[midwife|midwives]] or doctors. With the advent of these hospitals came the increase in the phenomenon of "childbed fever", or "puerperal sepsis". This phenomenon had been described centuries before, but it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that the disease became more widely recognized.
At the time of Semmelweis's career, the [[germ theory of disease]] had not yet been formulated. Several other ideas held sway, such as that of ''miasmas'' (basically "ill winds") and "humoral imbalance". Semmelweis received the classical medical training of the time, including indoctrination into these theories, which had not substantially changed in two thousand years.

==Puerperal Fever==

Puerperal fever is a devastating disease. Today we would simply call it "sepsis". It is caused when bacteria and bacterial toxins cause an overwhelming infection and immune reaction, often killing the patient. Even with modern antibiotics, sepsis carries a high mortality rate.
During childbirth, the mother's blood stream is uniquely exposed to the environment, allowing for the ingress of bacteria. The disease would often kill up to 15-20% of mothers at lying-in hospitals.

==Semmelweis's Breakthrough==
[[Image:antisepsis.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Doctors washing hands before delivering baby (from www.cdc.gov)]]
Dr. Semmelweis was not the only physician to take a special interest in the problem. In the U.S. [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] had noted similar trends, but at the time, the U.S. was far behind Europe in medical science, and communication between American and European scientists was poor.
The unique contribution of Semmelweis was that he not only observed the phenomenon of childbed fever, but he kept detailed tables of how many women were affected, where they gave birth, and who attended the birth. This was in the era that gave birth to modern statistics. At the time, most statistical techniques were primitive by modern standards, but did involve very careful data collection, allowing for modern reinterpretation of the data. What Semmelweis '''observed''' was that a much higher number of women were dying when attended on the physician and medical student ward, versus those attended by midwives.

==Formulation and Testing of Hypotheses==
Semmelwies developed several hypotheses to test, among them:
#Overcrowding on certain wards spread the disease. He tested the hypothesis by comparing sepsis deaths on floors based on crowding. The statistics did not support the hypothesis, so it was abandoned.
#Doctors and medical students some how passed "particles" of disease to patients. A close friend of Semmelweis had died of a disease indistinguishable from childbed fever after cutting his hand during an autopsy. Semmelweis noted that often, doctors and medical students would perform autopsies, then go to the ward to deliver babies, one after the other. Midwives did not. He posited that particles of illness were making mothers ill, and that washing hands might prevent illness. He tested this by instituting a strict regimen of hand washing with a chlorine-lime solution before examining mothers or delivering babies. The death rate from sepsis quickly fell to the level seen in the midwife deliveries. The hypothesis was successfully tested elsewhere, as mentioned above, but communication was poor. The hypothesis had been tested and made correct predictions.

It was immediately and resoundingly rejected.

==Paradigm Shift and Acceptance==
Semmelwies died at 47 of an unknown illness in an asylum for the insane. He did not live to see the success of his methods. Just a few years after his untimely demise, other researchers, such as Billroth (discovery of streptococci in pus), [[Louis Pasteur|Pasteur]] (discovery of strep in the blood of a septic woman), and [[Joseph Lister|Lister]] (pioneer of antisepsis in surgery) helped overturn the old order. The humoral and miasma theories of disease were gone, to be replaced by the germ theory.

==Significance of Statistics==
Ignaz Semmelweis was one of the first scientists to use formal data collection and statistics to test a hypothesis. Statistics was in its infancy as a science, but modern statisticians have evaluated his data and confirmed his conclusions. The use of the scientific method and statistics is the basis of modern medicine.

==References==
#De Costa, C. "The contagiousness of childbed fever: a short history of puerperal sepsis and its treatment." MedJourAustralia, Vol 177, 2/16 December 2002.
#Best M, Neuhauser, D."Ignaz Semmelweis and the birth of infection control." Qual Saf Health Care (BMJ), 2004;13:233-234.
#Broemeling, L.D. "Studies in the history of probability and statistics: Semmelweis and childbed fever. A statistical analysis 147 years later." Dept of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
#Semmelweis, I.P. "The cause, concept and prophylaxis of childbed fever." 1861.
#Nuland, S. "The doctor's plague: germs, childhood fever, and the strange story of Ignac Semmelweis." Williams and Willkins Norton, 2003.

File:I Semmelweis.jpg

2007-04-19T22:10:20Z

Palmd001:

File:Antisepsis.jpg

2007-04-19T22:03:29Z

Palmd001:

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

2007-04-19T21:15:19Z

Palmd001:

'''Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome''' (usually referred to as '''AIDS''') is a collection of diseases and symptoms caused by long-term infection with the[[HIV| Human Immunodeficiency Virus]].

== Definition ==

According to the CDC's 1993 guidelines, <ref>http://www.cdc.gov</ref><ref>http://www.merckmedicus.com/ppdocs/us/hcp/content/merck/hiv/hivaids/aidsdefi.htmAIDS is defined </ref>as follows:
HIV infection ''plus'' any of the following:
*CD4 count less than 200 or
*CD4 percentage less than 14% of total lymphocytes or
*Any of the following illnesses: pulmonary TB, recurrent pneumonia, invasive cervical cancer.
*Expanded definition including 23 clinical conditions published elsewhere<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm</ref>

The World Health Organization uses a different staging method for HIV disease. <ref>http://www.aids-ed.org/aetc/aetc?page=cm-105_disease</ref>

== History <ref>New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 344:1764-1772 June 7, 2001 Number 23</ref>==

The illness was first recognized in the early 1980s <ref>Pneumocystis pneumonia -- Los Angeles. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1981;30:250-252)</ref> as gay men presented to their doctors with a rare lung disease called ''Pneumocystis carinii'' pneumonia (PCP). Early on, the syndrome took on a variety of names, including "Gay-related immune deficiency (GRID)"[[citation needed]]. The [[CDC|Centers for Disease Control]] noticed an increase in the requests for the drugs needed to treat this illness and launched an epidemiologic investigation. Although the first cases of the disease probably go back to the 1950s, the epidemic was not recognized until the early 1980s. The early epidemic occurred in two main branches; in the US and other developed countries, and in sub-Saharan Africa. In the US, the early epidemic was primarily spread by homosexual sex, intravenous drug use, and blood transfusions. In Africa, transmission was almost exclusively by heterosexual sex. Currently, most new infections worldwide are spread by heterosexual sex.

== Natural History ==

After infection with [[HIV]], the virus quickly replicates in lymphatic tissue and travels through the blood to infect most areas of the body. The largest consequence of this is the "hijacking" of certain immune cells, especially so-called T-Helper, or CD-4, cells. Early in the infection, the immune system holds the infection at bay, often causing "Acute Retroviral Syndrome", a flu-like illness. Patients often have swollen lymph nodes. After approximately 8-10 years of infection, the immune system begins to lose its battle. This is primarily seen in the loss of numbers of CD4 cells, however the changes are somewhat more complex. When the CD4 cell level drops low enough, AIDS becomes apparent.
The first symptoms of the illness are generally night sweats, weight loss, and oral thrush.

== Opportunistic Infections (OIs) ==

The hallmark of AIDS is the appearance of ''opportunistic infections'', meaning infections with organisms that do not usually cause human disease, unless given the right "opportunity". This opportunity is the reduction in cell-mediated immunity, first seen in patients with certain cancers or on anti-rejection drugs for organ transplantation.
These infections include:

*Pneumocystis jiroveci, previously Pneumocystis carinii
*Candida albicans (the cause of thrush and vaginal yeast infections)
*Staphylococcus aureus (primarily causes skin infections)
*Toxoplasma gondii
*Cytomegalovirus
*Streptococcus pneumoniae (the primary cause of pneumonia in AIDS patients)
*Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB)
*Mycobacterium avium complex (atypical mycobacterium)
*Cryptococcus neoformans (a cause of meningitis)
*Epstein Barr virus (leads to a type of lymphoma)
*Human herpesvirus-8 (causes Kaposi's sarcoma)

== Dissent ==
Among the worlds medical professionals and biologists, there is complete agreement that HIV causes AIDS. In this, Koch's postulates have been clearly fulfilled, and basic science research has shown the same. Specific drugs have been developed that treat HIV infection and AIDS, helping show the causal relationship. That being said, there is a vocal minority of people, including some scientists, who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Foremost among these is Dr. Peter Duesberg. Details about these "re-thinkers" and their arguments can be found at several websites, but not in any reliable peer-reviewed journals:

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Main_Page

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Anti-Semitism

2007-04-19T18:23:48Z

Palmd001:

Gotta say, the idea that antisemitism is "the driving force behind the anti-Iraq War movement" is crap, and to promote that idea here is irresponsible.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:The cites on the page say so. And not just the anti-War movement, the 9/11 Truthers, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::The cites may say so but it's still crap. For the vast majority of Americans opposed either to the war in general or to the way it's been conducted, it has nothing to do with Israel. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:17, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Mel Gibson expressed it all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not allowed to engage in discussions, so I won't tell you what I think--unless asked.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Lung cancer

2007-04-19T17:56:46Z

Palmd001: New page: ==Overview== '''Lung cancer''' is the second most common cancer in the United States. About 200,000 Americans will be diagnosed with it every year, and about 160,000 will die yearly of th...

==Overview==
'''Lung cancer''' is the second most common cancer in the United States. About 200,000 Americans will be diagnosed with it every year, and about 160,000 will die yearly of the disease.
The term "lung cancer" actually refers to a number of different cancers that arise in the lung, but for the most part they are divided into two categories: '''small cell lung cancer''' and '''non-small cell lung cancer'''.

==Risk Factors==

Lung cancer is one of the few cancers in which risk factors are so clearly identifiable. Between 80-90% of lung cancer deaths are due to '''[[smoking]]'''. So-called "second-hand smoke" is also a risk factor, however the size of the risk is less clear. Most studies point toward about 3000 deaths per year from cancer acquired via second-hand smoke, but this is still an area of active research.
Other important risk factors for lung cancer include '''[[asbestos]] exposure''' (especially in conjunction with [[cigarette]] smoking), [[radon gas]], and other chemical exposures related to certain occupations.

==Natural History & Detection==
[[Image:Cancerxray.jpg|thumb|400px|top|right|Lung tumor seen as a large white spot on the right lung (blue box)]]
Most lung cancers are detected when a patient has symptoms. About 10-25% are found incidentally when an X-ray is done for other reasons.
Symptoms, when they occur, can include:

*shortness of breath
*chronic cough
*bloody cough
*unexplained weight loss
*chest pain

Lung cancers that are diagnosed early are sometimes curable, but most cancers are detected only after they have grown significantly and spread, making early detection especially important.

==Treatment==

There are many different types of lung cancer, and they are detected at different stages, therefore treatment varies. Treatment may include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or a combination of any of these.
Results of treatment depend on many different factors.

==Prevention==

Prevention of lung cancer is based on avoiding risk factors. Do not start smoking, and if you smoke, stop. Test your house for radon gas. Report any unusual symptoms to your doctor.
There are currently no widely accepted screening guidelines for lung cancer.

==References==

#http://www.cdc.gov
#http://www.dana-farber.org
#U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General (1986).
#National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 10 (1999): Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke.

Talk:Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution

2007-04-18T18:32:22Z

Palmd001:

One question of clarification. Does the "materialistic theory of evolution" specifically refer to atheistic evolution, or does it include theistic evolution? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Materialist evolution is without divine intervention. Materialistic evolution is what is taught in schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. Most Americans also reject theistic evolution, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The more unsourced the better! Mmmm, mmm good!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)1

: Sources will follow. Rome wasn't built in a day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Neither was the Earth built in six.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ha ha ha. We were talking about human achievements. Surely that was within God's power to do so if He liked. Or do you think God is incapable of that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I know that most Americans reject theistic evolution (as do I, although it seems to be dominant among the people I know). I was just curious about the numbers. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think Andy's comment about how "evolution" is only to make money got deleted. It was pretty funny; I wish it had stayed. I guess the government will throw money at any valid scientific project these days, huh.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ames, I hope your entries here are more accurate than your misattribution above of what I wrote. I never said that evolution is *only* to make money. But money is an incentive, and inflates stated beliefs, as people often say things for money that they wouldn't do in the absence of the money. Check out what executives say who run the beer industry, the tobacco industry, the pornography industry, the gambling industry, etc. A decade ago the new Philip Morris CEO was someone who had personally quit smoking. Of course he pretended that was easy and no big deal.

The search for truth is also an incentive.

Yes, financial incentives do make a difference in what people say.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Financial incentives do matter. For example, why are you starting this site? To get money for Eagle Forum, by being as outlandishly right-wing as possible? Is that a reason you censor more moderate perspectives?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:If Andy ''were'' collecting money for the Eagle Forum... how? I see no donation venues or obligatory fees. Maybe we can all tithe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Press coverage.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
== I thought the political section was interesting ==

I thought the political section was interesting. Could you give the footnotes? I would be interested in reading the sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: You would think it was interesting. Did you know that 90% of Young Earth Creationists think separation of church & state is a lie, and wish the First Amendment would go crawl off to die in a corner?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Which would make way for a nice and dandy American [[theocracy]]. I recall another nation trying that... Ah yes, [[Afghanistan]]. It didn't work out too well for them. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Unique incentives? ==

What's unique about them? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=="May become a factual entry" Oh, good Gd, no?==

If anything, there should be a big emboldened line at the top saying: "This essay is written from the perspectives of one person and as such holds opinions held by that person." Also, in the financial section, shouldn't it read that the government supports scientific instituions, many of which research the Theory of Evolution along with many other scientific theories? In fact, that first sentence of that section is a joke! How can you compare "no funding for religious beliefs" with "a lot of financial support for science". The two are entirely different! Would you mind if I had a go at rephraseing it ASchlafly? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==of interest==
See [[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]], also a discussion developing there.

As for financial motives, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Breast_cancer#Who_has_a_financial_horse_in_this_race.3F]

[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Financial incentives==
I am not aware that Darwin had any financial incentive for developing evolution as a theory. I'd like to see a source on that. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 19:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

See my "sister essay" above.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:I wasn't aware that Darwin was opposed to classroom prayer, or in support of abortion or gun control either. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 21:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Public opinion==
How can it possibly be of interest in this context how many Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution or not? Did science suddenly become a question of popular vote while I wasn't looking? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, as with freedom, the price of science is eternal vigilance.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

What does that mean?

It means that in order to avoid deception and tumble into the abyss of tyranny, whether it be political or scientific, people must keep their eyes open, keep themselves educated, and not just believe anything told to them. As you stated, science is not a democracy.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe a theocracy is either.

You learn well, my young friend (sign your posts with 4 ~'s.) A theocracy denies freedom and science in favor of ideology. I direct you to Chris Hedges book "American Fascism" and to [[Fascism_Talk|Umberto Eco's article]].--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:38, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Anyway, I'm apparently about to get blocked, so enjoy your stay here, read more than edit, and be well.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a certain difference there, isn't there, though? While a theocracy in its purest form denies science, fascism is a different beast. It does not so much deny science as it exploits it to fit the ideology. Of course, at some point, science will have become so contaminated by ideology that it is not in fact recognizable as such anymore, so the end result may be the same, but I still think it's worthwhile to make the distinction. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 21:03, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I do agree, however theocracy and fascism share some superficial and deep similarities, and can even completely overlap in the right circumstances. It is theoretically possible for a theocracy to be democratic (but unlikely) but fascism, while it may begin democratically, is inherently undemocratic.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 21:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. Of course, the whole question is made much more difficult by the fact that fascism is a consistent ideology in itself, while theocracies can potentially be more diverse, depending on both the leadership and the ''theos'' in question. That being said, maybe one could say that theocracy and fascism, while coming from different directions, will eventually move towards a common ground? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 21:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design

2007-04-18T18:31:10Z

Palmd001:

If this page gets deleted, than I don't see why [[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]] can't go bye-bye as well. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This is nothing but an array of pot-shots written by a speculative doctor with no citation anywhere. I'm sorry, but it sounds more like the ramblings of someone that doesn't beleive in Intelligent Design more than a legitimate intellectual attack against the belief. You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia - why are you here? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 14:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: There isn't a single citation in the other essay; at least PalmD001 is only sticking to bashing ID, whereas Aschlafly seems to have pulled figures out of his head to snipe at evolution.

'You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia - why are you here?'

It has been expressly stated that ''anyone'' (even liberals! even Hojimachong!) can contribute to CP in order to make it 'fair' and 'balanced'. -- Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Oh, my. If you read what I said earlier, this is not written as FACT, but as an ESSAY. It is inherently opinion, and I do not represent it as anything other than that. It was also written, as stated, as a deliberate parody/mirror of another article cited here, which contains all of the same flaws as my essay. So, this essay is ''meant'' to be flawed; in the exact same way as the root essay it is based on. It uses the rhetorical technique of parody to show the flaws in something else. It is not meant to be taken literally as pro or anti ID.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you don't want to take this site seriously, maybe you should evaluate why you are spending time here. Are you just trying to be a bully? What is your deal? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 14:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

This isn't about a battle between PalMD and Mr. Schlafly - this is about a bogus, unsourced "essay" written by someone that just wants to pick a fight. Clearly, not everybody is allowed to contribute. Vandals and fight-mongers are justifiably banned from participation. Under that framework, this essay should be deleted. The author just wants to attack the beliefs of many users here through shoddy writing and ill-cited arguments. --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 14:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Tim, any argument you stated above must inherently apply to Andy's essay as well, as they are almost identical. However, they are both essays, neither is passed off as fact, so they are just here to spur discussion. Enjoy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I havn't read Mr. Schalfly's essay, but I don't need to for the purposes of your little stunt. I know Mr. Schlafly didn't write anything as a joke, whereas you have been clear that you're just trying to create a scene. This isn't about you, this is about education. --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 14:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Education involves argument, thesis and anti-thesis, back and forth. I make no claim to know the answer to life, the universe, and everything. That is for God and other minds sharper than my own.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try to turn this into a properly cited article, attributing the various speculations about ID advocates' motives to named sources. Otherwise, I might have to delete it just to save you from being, er, cyber-lynched? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:56, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I actually dont mind being cyber-lynched. This article is in NO WAY substantially different from the article it mirrors. Either both remain unadulterated for discussion, or both go. I don't feel it needs citations, as I claim not factual authority, just pure (perhaps irresponsible) speculation--just as does the source article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed he is right, [[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]], has no citations either.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I actually favor leaving both as they are. It is interesting. I have no objection to Andy's essay (unless it were to be turned into an actual article, something I would not do with mine).[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like ask [[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] what does he mean by: "You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia" What exactly is the message of Conservapedia? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, for me, it has been a place to learn more about a certain trend in conservative thought, and engage in discussion people different from myself. It is intellectually stimulating to learn from others, especially those who hold different views from yourself. I have limited my so-called fact-based articles to facts. Opinion essays are listed as such. Discussion on talk pages is actually a good thing for all involved, IMHO. Im happy to see a student like T.Ham using his wits to argue a point.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I guess the discussion is over.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Colon cancer

2007-04-18T18:13:55Z

Palmd001: New page: ==Overview== '''Colon cancer''' is the third most common caner in both men and women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S, with 50,00...

==Overview==

'''Colon cancer''' is the third most common caner in both men and women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S, with 50,000-60,000 people dying of it yearly.

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Colon.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Anatomy of the colon]]
The colon is the final portion of the digestive tract, after the small intestine. The anantomy of the colon is important in understanding cancer. The colon is usually considered to have 5 sections:
* ''ascending colon''
*''transverse colon''
*''descending colon''
*''sigmoid colon''
*''rectum''

Cancers arising in different parts of the colon can cause different symptoms, and can ''metastasize'', or spread, differently. Of special importance, cancers of the rectum have greater potential to spread to several parts of the body at once, while cancers from the rest of the colon tend to spread first to the nearby lymph nodes, and then to the liver.

==Natural History & Prevention==
[[Image:colonpolyp.gif|right|thumb|200px|Progression of colon polyp to cancer]]
Most colon cancer start off as benign '''colon polyps'''. As these polyps grow, the cells in them can become abnormal, and eventually cancerous. At some point after that, they can gain the ability to invade the rest of the body and metastasize to distant organs. The progression from polyp to invasive cancer usually takes about 10 years, making screening for the disease a life-saving procedure.

Most colon cancers arise after the age of 50, at which time '''screening''' is recommended. There are, however, several inherited types of colon cancer, the most important of which are '''hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)''' and '''Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)'''. People with these conditions require earlier and more frequent screening. Also, people with '''Ulcerative Colitis''' are very susceptible to colon cancer and must be screened early and often.

For people without these conditions, and without a family history of colon cancer, screening usually begins at age 50. Your doctor will usually test your stool for hidden blood that may indicate a cancer or polyp, and most patients will be offered colonoscopy, where a long, thin tube with a camera on the end is used to examine the entire colon, and remove polyps if necessary.

==Symptoms & Diagnosis==
Many people with colon cancer have no symptoms at all. In people who do have symptoms, the most common ones are:
# Abdominal pain — 44 percent
# Change in bowel habit — 43 percent
# Bleeding from the rectum — 40 percent
# Weakness — 20 percent
# Anemia without other gastrointestinal symptoms — 11 percent
# Weight loss — 6 percent

Often, the only signs are blood detected in the stool by your doctor or a low blood count discovered on routine laboratory testing.

==Treatment & Prognosis==

Prevention is the most important factor in the prognosis and treatment of colon cancer. Most early tumors can be removed surgically and cured. Tumors that have spread require more aggressive therapy. Chemotherapy options are always changing, and cancer specialists keep up to date on the latest information.

==References==
#Jemal, A, Siegel, R, Ward, E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106.
#Speights, VO, Johnson, MW, Stoltenberg, PH, et al. Colorectal cancer: Current trends in initial clinical manifestations. South Med J 1991; 84:575.
#http://www.dana-farber.org/pat/cancer/gastrointestinal/gi-colorectal.asp

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T18:12:52Z

Palmd001: /* Treatment & Prognosis */

Sandbox

==Overview==

'''Colon cancer''' is the third most common caner in both men and women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S, with 50,000-60,000 people dying of it yearly.

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Colon.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Anatomy of the colon]]
The colon is the final portion of the digestive tract, after the small intestine. The anantomy of the colon is important in understanding cancer. The colon is usually considered to have 5 sections:
* ''ascending colon''
*''transverse colon''
*''descending colon''
*''sigmoid colon''
*''rectum''

Cancers arising in different parts of the colon can cause different symptoms, and can ''metastasize'', or spread, differently. Of special importance, cancers of the rectum have greater potential to spread to several parts of the body at once, while cancers from the rest of the colon tend to spread first to the nearby lymph nodes, and then to the liver.

==Natural History & Prevention==
[[Image:colonpolyp.gif|right|thumb|200px|Progression of colon polyp to cancer]]
Most colon cancer start off as benign '''colon polyps'''. As these polyps grow, the cells in them can become abnormal, and eventually cancerous. At some point after that, they can gain the ability to invade the rest of the body and metastasize to distant organs. The progression from polyp to invasive cancer usually takes about 10 years, making screening for the disease a life-saving procedure.

Most colon cancers arise after the age of 50, at which time '''screening''' is recommended. There are, however, several inherited types of colon cancer, the most important of which are '''hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)''' and '''Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)'''. People with these conditions require earlier and more frequent screening. Also, people with '''Ulcerative Colitis''' are very susceptible to colon cancer and must be screened early and often.

For people without these conditions, and without a family history of colon cancer, screening usually begins at age 50. Your doctor will usually test your stool for hidden blood that may indicate a cancer or polyp, and most patients will be offered colonoscopy, where a long, thin tube with a camera on the end is used to examine the entire colon, and remove polyps if necessary.

==Symptoms & Diagnosis==
Many people with colon cancer have no symptoms at all. In people who do have symptoms, the most common ones are:
# Abdominal pain — 44 percent
# Change in bowel habit — 43 percent
# Bleeding from the rectum — 40 percent
# Weakness — 20 percent
# Anemia without other gastrointestinal symptoms — 11 percent
# Weight loss — 6 percent

Often, the only signs are blood detected in the stool by your doctor or a low blood count discovered on routine laboratory testing.

==Treatment & Prognosis==

Prevention is the most important factor in the prognosis and treatment of colon cancer. Most early tumors can be removed surgically and cured. Tumors that have spread require more aggressive therapy. Chemotherapy options are always changing, and cancer specialists keep up to date on the latest information.

==References==
#Jemal, A, Siegel, R, Ward, E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106.
#Speights, VO, Johnson, MW, Stoltenberg, PH, et al. Colorectal cancer: Current trends in initial clinical manifestations. South Med J 1991; 84:575.
#http://www.dana-farber.org/pat/cancer/gastrointestinal/gi-colorectal.asp

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T18:11:20Z

Palmd001: /* Symptoms & Diagnosis */

Sandbox

==Overview==

'''Colon cancer''' is the third most common caner in both men and women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S, with 50,000-60,000 people dying of it yearly.

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Colon.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Anatomy of the colon]]
The colon is the final portion of the digestive tract, after the small intestine. The anantomy of the colon is important in understanding cancer. The colon is usually considered to have 5 sections:
* ''ascending colon''
*''transverse colon''
*''descending colon''
*''sigmoid colon''
*''rectum''

Cancers arising in different parts of the colon can cause different symptoms, and can ''metastasize'', or spread, differently. Of special importance, cancers of the rectum have greater potential to spread to several parts of the body at once, while cancers from the rest of the colon tend to spread first to the nearby lymph nodes, and then to the liver.

==Natural History & Prevention==
[[Image:colonpolyp.gif|right|thumb|200px|Progression of colon polyp to cancer]]
Most colon cancer start off as benign '''colon polyps'''. As these polyps grow, the cells in them can become abnormal, and eventually cancerous. At some point after that, they can gain the ability to invade the rest of the body and metastasize to distant organs. The progression from polyp to invasive cancer usually takes about 10 years, making screening for the disease a life-saving procedure.

Most colon cancers arise after the age of 50, at which time '''screening''' is recommended. There are, however, several inherited types of colon cancer, the most important of which are '''hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)''' and '''Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)'''. People with these conditions require earlier and more frequent screening. Also, people with '''Ulcerative Colitis''' are very susceptible to colon cancer and must be screened early and often.

For people without these conditions, and without a family history of colon cancer, screening usually begins at age 50. Your doctor will usually test your stool for hidden blood that may indicate a cancer or polyp, and most patients will be offered colonoscopy, where a long, thin tube with a camera on the end is used to examine the entire colon, and remove polyps if necessary.

==Symptoms & Diagnosis==
Many people with colon cancer have no symptoms at all. In people who do have symptoms, the most common ones are:
# Abdominal pain — 44 percent
# Change in bowel habit — 43 percent
# Bleeding from the rectum — 40 percent
# Weakness — 20 percent
# Anemia without other gastrointestinal symptoms — 11 percent
# Weight loss — 6 percent

Often, the only signs are blood detected in the stool by your doctor or a low blood count discovered on routine laboratory testing.

==Treatment & Prognosis==

==References==
#Jemal, A, Siegel, R, Ward, E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106.
#Speights, VO, Johnson, MW, Stoltenberg, PH, et al. Colorectal cancer: Current trends in initial clinical manifestations. South Med J 1991; 84:575.
#http://www.dana-farber.org/pat/cancer/gastrointestinal/gi-colorectal.asp

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T18:09:33Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History & Prevention */

Sandbox

==Overview==

'''Colon cancer''' is the third most common caner in both men and women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S, with 50,000-60,000 people dying of it yearly.

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Colon.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Anatomy of the colon]]
The colon is the final portion of the digestive tract, after the small intestine. The anantomy of the colon is important in understanding cancer. The colon is usually considered to have 5 sections:
* ''ascending colon''
*''transverse colon''
*''descending colon''
*''sigmoid colon''
*''rectum''

Cancers arising in different parts of the colon can cause different symptoms, and can ''metastasize'', or spread, differently. Of special importance, cancers of the rectum have greater potential to spread to several parts of the body at once, while cancers from the rest of the colon tend to spread first to the nearby lymph nodes, and then to the liver.

==Natural History & Prevention==
[[Image:colonpolyp.gif|right|thumb|200px|Progression of colon polyp to cancer]]
Most colon cancer start off as benign '''colon polyps'''. As these polyps grow, the cells in them can become abnormal, and eventually cancerous. At some point after that, they can gain the ability to invade the rest of the body and metastasize to distant organs. The progression from polyp to invasive cancer usually takes about 10 years, making screening for the disease a life-saving procedure.

Most colon cancers arise after the age of 50, at which time '''screening''' is recommended. There are, however, several inherited types of colon cancer, the most important of which are '''hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)''' and '''Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)'''. People with these conditions require earlier and more frequent screening. Also, people with '''Ulcerative Colitis''' are very susceptible to colon cancer and must be screened early and often.

For people without these conditions, and without a family history of colon cancer, screening usually begins at age 50. Your doctor will usually test your stool for hidden blood that may indicate a cancer or polyp, and most patients will be offered colonoscopy, where a long, thin tube with a camera on the end is used to examine the entire colon, and remove polyps if necessary.

==Symptoms & Diagnosis==
Many people with colon cancer have no symptoms at all. In people who do have symptoms, the most common ones are:
# Abdominal pain — 44 percent
# Change in bowel habit — 43 percent
# Hematochezia or melena — 40 percent
# Weakness — 20 percent
# Anemia without other gastrointestinal symptoms — 11 percent
# Weight loss — 6 percent

==Treatment & Prognosis==

==References==
#Jemal, A, Siegel, R, Ward, E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106.
#Speights, VO, Johnson, MW, Stoltenberg, PH, et al. Colorectal cancer: Current trends in initial clinical manifestations. South Med J 1991; 84:575.
#http://www.dana-farber.org/pat/cancer/gastrointestinal/gi-colorectal.asp

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T18:05:06Z

Palmd001: /* Anatomy */

Sandbox

==Overview==

'''Colon cancer''' is the third most common caner in both men and women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S, with 50,000-60,000 people dying of it yearly.

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Colon.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Anatomy of the colon]]
The colon is the final portion of the digestive tract, after the small intestine. The anantomy of the colon is important in understanding cancer. The colon is usually considered to have 5 sections:
* ''ascending colon''
*''transverse colon''
*''descending colon''
*''sigmoid colon''
*''rectum''

Cancers arising in different parts of the colon can cause different symptoms, and can ''metastasize'', or spread, differently. Of special importance, cancers of the rectum have greater potential to spread to several parts of the body at once, while cancers from the rest of the colon tend to spread first to the nearby lymph nodes, and then to the liver.

==Natural History & Prevention==
[[Image:colonpolyp.gif|right|thumb|200px|Progression of colon polyp to cancer]]
Most colon cancer start off as benign '''colon polyps'''. As these polyps grow, the cells in them can become abnormal, and eventually cancerous. At some point after that, they can gain the ability to invade the rest of the body and spread (or ''metastasize'') to distant organs. The progression from polyp to invasive cancer usually takes about 10 years, making screening for the disease a life-saving procedure.

Most colon cancers arise after the age of 50, at which time '''screening''' is recommended. There are, however, several inherited types of colon cancer, the most important of which are '''hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)''' and '''Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)'''. People with these conditions require earlier and more frequent screening. Also, people with '''Ulcerative Colitis''' are very susceptible to colon cancer and must be screened early and often.

For people without these conditions, and without a family history of colon cancer, screening usually begins at age 50. Your doctor will usually test your stool for hidden blood that may indicate a cancer or polyp, and most patients will be offered colonoscopy, where a long, thin tube with a camera on the end is used to examine the entire colon, and remove polyps if necessary.

==Symptoms & Diagnosis==
Many people with colon cancer have no symptoms at all. In people who do have symptoms, the most common ones are:
# Abdominal pain — 44 percent
# Change in bowel habit — 43 percent
# Hematochezia or melena — 40 percent
# Weakness — 20 percent
# Anemia without other gastrointestinal symptoms — 11 percent
# Weight loss — 6 percent

==Treatment & Prognosis==

==References==
#Jemal, A, Siegel, R, Ward, E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106.
#Speights, VO, Johnson, MW, Stoltenberg, PH, et al. Colorectal cancer: Current trends in initial clinical manifestations. South Med J 1991; 84:575.
#http://www.dana-farber.org/pat/cancer/gastrointestinal/gi-colorectal.asp

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T18:04:32Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History & Prevention */

Sandbox

==Overview==

'''Colon cancer''' is the third most common caner in both men and women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S, with 50,000-60,000 people dying of it yearly.

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Colon.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Anatomy of the colon]]
The anantomy of the colon is important in understanding cancer. The colon is usually considered to have 5 sections:
* ''ascending colon''
*''transverse colon''
*''descending colon''
*''sigmoid colon''
*''rectum''

Cancers arising in different parts of the colon can cause different symptoms, and can ''metastasize'', or spread, differently. Of special importance, cancers of the rectum have greater potential to spread to several parts of the body at once, while cancers from the rest of the colon tend to spread first to the nearby lymph nodes, and then to the liver.

==Natural History & Prevention==
[[Image:colonpolyp.gif|right|thumb|200px|Progression of colon polyp to cancer]]
Most colon cancer start off as benign '''colon polyps'''. As these polyps grow, the cells in them can become abnormal, and eventually cancerous. At some point after that, they can gain the ability to invade the rest of the body and spread (or ''metastasize'') to distant organs. The progression from polyp to invasive cancer usually takes about 10 years, making screening for the disease a life-saving procedure.

Most colon cancers arise after the age of 50, at which time '''screening''' is recommended. There are, however, several inherited types of colon cancer, the most important of which are '''hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)''' and '''Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)'''. People with these conditions require earlier and more frequent screening. Also, people with '''Ulcerative Colitis''' are very susceptible to colon cancer and must be screened early and often.

For people without these conditions, and without a family history of colon cancer, screening usually begins at age 50. Your doctor will usually test your stool for hidden blood that may indicate a cancer or polyp, and most patients will be offered colonoscopy, where a long, thin tube with a camera on the end is used to examine the entire colon, and remove polyps if necessary.

==Symptoms & Diagnosis==
Many people with colon cancer have no symptoms at all. In people who do have symptoms, the most common ones are:
# Abdominal pain — 44 percent
# Change in bowel habit — 43 percent
# Hematochezia or melena — 40 percent
# Weakness — 20 percent
# Anemia without other gastrointestinal symptoms — 11 percent
# Weight loss — 6 percent

==Treatment & Prognosis==

==References==
#Jemal, A, Siegel, R, Ward, E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106.
#Speights, VO, Johnson, MW, Stoltenberg, PH, et al. Colorectal cancer: Current trends in initial clinical manifestations. South Med J 1991; 84:575.
#http://www.dana-farber.org/pat/cancer/gastrointestinal/gi-colorectal.asp

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T18:02:47Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History & Prevention */

Sandbox

==Overview==

'''Colon cancer''' is the third most common caner in both men and women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S, with 50,000-60,000 people dying of it yearly.

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Colon.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Anatomy of the colon]]
The anantomy of the colon is important in understanding cancer. The colon is usually considered to have 5 sections:
* ''ascending colon''
*''transverse colon''
*''descending colon''
*''sigmoid colon''
*''rectum''

Cancers arising in different parts of the colon can cause different symptoms, and can ''metastasize'', or spread, differently. Of special importance, cancers of the rectum have greater potential to spread to several parts of the body at once, while cancers from the rest of the colon tend to spread first to the nearby lymph nodes, and then to the liver.

==Natural History & Prevention==
[[Image:colonpolyp.gif|right|thumb|200px|Progression of colon polyp to cancer]]
Most colon cancer start off as benign '''colon polyps'''. As these polyps grow, the cells in them can become abnormal, and eventually cancerous. At some point after that, they can gain the ability to invade the rest of the body and spread (or ''metastasize'') to distant organs. The progression from polyp to invasive cancer usually takes about 10 years, making screening for the disease a life-saving procedure.

Most colon cancers arise after the age of 50, at which time '''screening''' is recommended. There are, however, several inherited types of colon cancer, the most important of which are '''hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)''' and '''Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)'''. People with these conditions require earlier and more frequent screening. Also, people with '''Ulcerative Colitis''' are very susceptible to colon cancer and must be screened early and often.

==Symptoms & Diagnosis==
Many people with colon cancer have no symptoms at all. In people who do have symptoms, the most common ones are:
# Abdominal pain — 44 percent
# Change in bowel habit — 43 percent
# Hematochezia or melena — 40 percent
# Weakness — 20 percent
# Anemia without other gastrointestinal symptoms — 11 percent
# Weight loss — 6 percent

==Treatment & Prognosis==

==References==
#Jemal, A, Siegel, R, Ward, E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106.
#Speights, VO, Johnson, MW, Stoltenberg, PH, et al. Colorectal cancer: Current trends in initial clinical manifestations. South Med J 1991; 84:575.
#http://www.dana-farber.org/pat/cancer/gastrointestinal/gi-colorectal.asp

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:59:54Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History & Prevention */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:59:19Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History & Prevention */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:58:21Z

Palmd001: /* Anatomy */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:58:10Z

Palmd001: /* Anatomy */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:56:08Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History & Prevention */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:55:36Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:55:03Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:53:04Z

Palmd001: /* References */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:52:18Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:51:41Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:51:30Z

Palmd001: /* Natural History */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:51:22Z

Palmd001: /* Symptoms & Diagnosis */

File:Colonpolyp.gif

2007-04-18T17:50:49Z

Palmd001:

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:49:19Z

Palmd001:

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-18T17:48:50Z

Palmd001: /* Symptoms & Diagnosis */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-17T21:03:48Z

Palmd001: /* Anatomy */

User:Palmd/colonca

2007-04-17T21:02:38Z

Palmd001: