852
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Harvard abortion study (view source)
Revision as of 18:05, April 25, 2007
, 18:05, April 25, 2007→Full study text
::Hi Andy. I've read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions. I'm not sure what your issue with the Lancet article is. It is essentially a meta-analysis, which is a useful and novel contribution even if no new data were collected. For the sake of discussion I will post more details on each study when I have time - have already done some of that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hi Andy. I've read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions. I'm not sure what your issue with the Lancet article is. It is essentially a meta-analysis, which is a useful and novel contribution even if no new data were collected. For the sake of discussion I will post more details on each study when I have time - have already done some of that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I read the study and have a few comments the study article ...
# ''"The research study excluded women who had abortions and then died from breast cancer!"'' This quote is misleading. The researchers censored women who had forms of carcinoma, which is cancer that can originate and spread elsewhere through the lymphnodes and is not breast specific. This makes sense because you wouldn't want to include cancer that originated in the lung in a breast cancer study.
# ''"The research study treated women who left the specific question about past induced abortions blank, perhaps due to embarrassment, as though they did not have an abortion"'' They addressed this and said they also tried ommitting those who missed questions and did not see a change in results.
# ''"The research report concealed how almost none of the subjects of the study were African American or Hispanic"'' while not covered specifically in the article, my assumption would be that with so many other variables included (age, body mass index, family history, birth control usage, etc) you would want to limit the study to a more similiar group of people. Keeping them of the same/similar race would keep potential conditions that vary by race out.
# ''"Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage"."'' I don't see the point here, how could there be a difference between inducing and miscarriage? In both cases the fetus is lost prematurely. Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't see where you got that 25% from.
And I also want to point out that of the 105,716 participants: 2916 got breast cancer, and only 535 of them reported having abortions. If abortions did contribute to the risk of breast cancer you would expect that number to be way higher. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
== Comment ==
== Comment ==
Why discuss this at all? The Conservapedia editors have made it clear that any attempt to clarify, un-bias, or balance this article will be reversed, and that repeated attempts will merely make them close it off for revision. The whole POINT of Conservapedia is to present a one-sided (non-liberal) viewpoint. If a reader were interested in scientific accuracy, he or she would look elsewhere; the Conservapedia reader wants a validation of the viewpoints he or she already holds (or, in the case of liberals with too much time on their hands, a cheap laugh).
Why discuss this at all? The Conservapedia editors have made it clear that any attempt to clarify, un-bias, or balance this article will be reversed, and that repeated attempts will merely make them close it off for revision. The whole POINT of Conservapedia is to present a one-sided (non-liberal) viewpoint. If a reader were interested in scientific accuracy, he or she would look elsewhere; the Conservapedia reader wants a validation of the viewpoints he or she already holds (or, in the case of liberals with too much time on their hands, a cheap laugh).