408
edits
Changes
NEJM studies
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.
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)
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)