Abortion Wars - BBC One NOW

ubertrad · 18-01-2011 10:44pm #1

Kudos to BBC for showing the reality of abortion!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xlkgh

Zombrex · 19-01-2011 10:55am

Just looking at the sign in the picture. Not sure how old that is but the idea that abortion increases the risk of brest cancer has been widely rejected by the scientific and medical community (who are all obviously immoral atheist thugs :pac:)

So having a sign up outside an abortion clinic saying one of the dangers from abortion is breast cancer is rather disingenuous of these anti-abortion people.

If a group has to misrepresent facts and evidence to support their case I think a bit of time for reflection on what exactly they are trying to achieve.

I mean a woman going for an abortion may look at that sign and go "Oh, didn't know that" and prospone the abortion.

But 5 seconds on the Internet will show that this idea has been studied in depth and rejected and then she is, I would imagine, far less likely to listen to anything this group has to say after that. She will be annoyed at the group for lying to her and when she goes back she will probably not listen to a word they say to her.

Which I imagine is not what this group is trying to achieve.

georgieporgy · 19-01-2011 3:16pm

And the guy standing in the picture is wearing a funny hat. That would probably put a lot of people off too. (just my opinion and not backed up by science. - hope I'm wrong)

ubertrad · 19-01-2011 3:28pm

There is a link between breast cancer and abortion. There have been several studies to prove this. It's to do with hormones and such and the sudden disappearance of the child. The body thinks 'wtf?' and the hormonal chaos can result in cancer. Google it.

I think the programme was quite balanced. The BBC had the courage to show some of the abortion pictures, which I was not expecting.

Zombrex · 19-01-2011 3:50pm

ubertrad wrote: »

There is a link between breast cancer and abortion. There have been several studies to prove this.

There was a proposed link between breast cancer and abortion given the nature of the breast cells as they prepare to develop into feeding a new baby but this process is stopped. The hypothesis was that these cells could become cancerous given that they did not develop as normal.

Studies in mice supported the hypothesis (these are the studies most often quoted by anti-abortion groups, at least as far as I can tell from Google)

Initially some studies seems to support this in humans as well but when scientists and doctors carried out larger scale, better controlled, studies the link was found to be non-existent in humans.

The initial human studies were re-evaluated and several problems were identified with them, such as tendency of the patients in the study experiencing response bias. Later studies that compensated for this found no link between breast cancer and abortion. People still seem to be debating how much these biases actually effect the study.

The current consensus in medical and scientific circles is that abortion does not increase risk of breast cancer.

It is disingenuous of anti-abortion groups to continue to make these claims when the scientific research doesn't back them up. Linking to studies in the 1980s in mice yet ignoring later studies is misrepresenting the science and doing a disservice to both themselves and the women they are claiming to be trying to protect.

ubertrad wrote: »

I think the programme was quite balanced. The BBC had the courage to show some of the abortion pictures, which I was not expecting.

I haven't watched the program, though to be honest I'm always surprised people are shocked by pictures of aborted babies, or that such pictures cause people to change their minds about abortion.

I wonder what the heck they thought an aborted baby looked like?

Fanny Cradock · 19-01-2011 4:28pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I wonder what the heck they thought an aborted baby looked like?

Probably a clump of disorganised cells as opposed to something human looking.

Anyway, I wonder who is actually swayed by the purported links between breast cancer and abortion. If you reject abortion I would imagine it is because of moral reasons, not tenuous health risks. But no doubt the programme addressed these moral concerns.

Shame that iPlayer isn't accessible outside the UK. Must look into proxy-servers.

Zombrex · 19-01-2011 4:56pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, I wonder who is actually swayed by the purported links between breast cancer and abortion. If you reject abortion I would imagine it is because of moral reasons, not tenuous health risks. But no doubt the programme addressed these moral concerns.

I guess these groups think the moral argument isn't working, and are trying other tactics.

Fanny Cradock · 19-01-2011 5:23pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I guess these groups think the moral argument isn't working, and are trying other tactics.

AFAIK, abortions rates have generally been rising over the last 40 years in the UK. Perhaps they see a shift in tactics as necessary.

ubertrad · 19-01-2011 5:43pm

The programme is not available to watch again even for those in NI. I don't know why that is.

As regards the cancer link - it is there, but the medical establishment has a vested interest in the abortion industry. They don't want the truth to come out. Regardless of cancer, abortion is very harmful to women as well as being quite damaging to babies.

Talking about babies, I just saw this story about a nice man in America who killed babies with scissors. Horrific as that is, how is it less horrific if the baby is minced whilst still in the womb? How does the idea of being born and then killed with scissors differ from being cut up whilst still in the womb? I don't see the difference to be honest.

DA: Pa. abortion doc killed 7 babies with scissors
(AP) – 1 hour ago
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A doctor who gave abortions to minorities, immigrants and poor women in a "house of horrors" clinic was charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies who were born alive and then killed with scissors, prosecutors said Wednesday.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, made millions of dollars over 30 years, performing as many illegal, late-term abortions as he could, prosecutors said.

Plowman · 19-01-2011 6:10pm

This post has been deleted.

Jumpy · 19-01-2011 6:15pm

ubertrad wrote: »

Regardless of cancer, abortion is very harmful to women as well as being quite damaging to babies.

Erm. Yes. Well. Thats sort of the point.

Festus · 19-01-2011 6:56pm

Wicknight wrote: »

There was a proposed link between breast cancer and abortion given the nature of the breast cells as they prepare to develop into feeding a new baby but this process is stopped. The hypothesis was that these cells could become cancerous given that they did not develop as normal.

Not quite a fair summary. Perhaps this explanation from Dr. Willke will help.

These studies on the association of abortion with breast cancer are rather convincing. But if they are true, how do you explain the mechanism of the development of this cancer?

This is best understood by looking at the female breast in three different phases of maturity:
Immature Phase: This is the 5 year old girl whose breast, under the microscope, is indistinguishable from that of her 6 year old brother. Her brother’s breast never matures. Her’s will.

Nulliparous Adult Stage: During adolescence there is a flood of female hormone which causes her breast to grow in size and shape. To external appearances her breast is mature but it can not yet produce milk, and the internal structure remains relatively undeveloped.

Parous Breast: This is the third stage, the breast after being pregnant. Most women who have been pregnant remember that their breasts became swollen and tender very soon after missing their period. Also, by about 3 months, they no longer felt this very much. What happened was the last phase of growth and maturation of her breasts. During this phase the internal milk glands completed their development and readied her to produce milk.

So what has this to do with later cancer?
Perhaps a lot. We don’t know all the causes that trigger the growth of cancer but we call such causes carcinogenic agents. We know that the immature breast cells are relatively resistant to such agents. We know that after the first phase of growth the cells are more susceptible and that after a pregnancy and full maturation the cells are again more resistant. In early pregnancy there is a rapid growth and change of these cells. If this is suddenly interrupted, the breast is left with many transitional cells in a state of change, half way between immature and mature, cells in intermediate stages. It is thought that these cells are more unstable and less resistant to carcinogenic insult — to the triggering of cancer.

and to answer questions regarding the veracity of the risk

A major study that refutes your thesis is the Lindeford Harris study from Sweden. What of it?
It is poorly done from a scientific standpoint, and its authors’ conclusions do not accurately reflect some of its actual findings. Dr. Brind, mentioned above, has called it the "Swedish data massage." It compared Swedish women with breast cancer, to the entire Swedish population, which contains all of the same Swedish women who have breast cancer. Therefore, this comparison to the control group is invalid. Even in this study however, there is proof of the very thing its authors deny. In their article’s conclusion, the authors state that there is no overall risk of breast cancer from abortion. However, within the report, a table of results shows that women who aborted after having a live birth had 58% of the average risk of breast cancer, while women who aborted before their first live birth had 109% of the average risk. This is an 88% increase in breast cancer, and it is clearly shown in the heart of this study, a study that is routinely held up as proving exactly the opposite.

But there are many other studies that tend to disprove your claims.
So they claim, but, with few exceptions, these were flawed by: inappropriately crude age matching or adjusting of controls (the main problem); interpreting as statistically insignificant some retrospective case controls with low statistical power; minimizing the actual results obtained in their conclusions; and attributing results to patient’s "recall bias," even though a close exam refutes such a claim. 178 B. M. LindeforsHarris et al., Response Bias. . . . Abortions. . . . Two Swedish Studies, Am. J. Epidemal. 1991, Vol. 134, No. 9, Pg. 1003

But I haven’t seen such criticisms in any public reports.
There has been a true conspiracy of silence by the media and also by many researchers who, like the Swedish study, bury actual findings and conclude otherwise, e.g., editorials in journals, listing exhaustively multiple possible causes of breast cancer and never even listing abortion, e.g., JAMA, July 21, 1993, and New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 1994, as well as Timemagazine on Jan. 14, 1991. Dr. Remennick concluded "an initial attitude of researchers toward abortion usually determines the way they interpret results." 10 Remennick LI (1989) Int. J. Epidemiol.18:498510.

Has anyone compared all the studies?
Yes, happily a comprehensive metaanalysis examined 61 published studies and subjected them to critical comparative analysis. Its conclusion was: "The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy. Although the increase in risk was relatively low, 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." J. Brind et al., "Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis," Hershey Med. Center, J. Epidemol. Community Health, 1996

Reference

georgieporgy · 19-01-2011 7:22pm

Ah, good old honest to God science!

I could mess the thread up a bit more by extending the link between hormonal contraceptives and cancer but I won't.

Festus · 19-01-2011 7:41pm

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ah, good old honest to God science!

I could mess the thread up a bit more by extending the link between hormonal contraceptives and cancer but I won't.

Nah... but it could be fun to discuss the link between increased contraceptive avaliabilty over the last 40 years and increased abortion rates.

Morbert · 19-01-2011 8:03pm

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ah, good old honest to God science!

The National Cancer Institute has not found any scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that abortions increase the risk of breast-cancer. Their study is the most thorough and rigorous I can find.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage

ubertrad · 19-01-2011 8:13pm

Morbert wrote: »

The National Cancer Institute has not found any scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that abortions increase the risk of breast-cancer. Their study is the most thorough and rigorous I can find.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage

The scientific establishment is not interested in exploring the truth if it is inconvenient and if it conflicts with the agenda.

Check this out:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PkMBxnEQ1IMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA277&ots=9CRb0lHGGL&sig=jotVJD0ES5zAfet6-2wJYJWxSPA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The psychiatry profession in America dismissed the results of Spitzer's study into homosexuality as 'beside the point'. They'd already made their decision and that was that, when they decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Spitzer initially supported that agenda-driven decision, but after his research, he changed his mind, but they didn't want to know.

That is just one example of good science being dismissed because it challenges the agenda. Abortion cancer link being another.

Festus · 19-01-2011 8:29pm

Morbert wrote: »

The National Cancer Institute has not found any scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that abortions increase the risk of breast-cancer. Their study is the most thorough and rigorous I can find.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage

How does linking abortion and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) skew the results?

Oh, I'm sorry, is that a biased statement? Okay then - how does mixing results from spontaneous abortion with induced abortion answer any question that is related to induced abortion alone.

The hypothesis is that there is a link between induced abortion and increased cancer risk. Presenting a study that includes data from spontaneous abortion is not scientific or valid when the question is specific to induced abortion.

From my previous source who knows how to do research, properly.

When was abortion first suspected as a cause?

Dr. M. C. Pike, at the University of Southern California in l981, published the first serious scientific study that demonstrated a direct association of induced abortion with later breast cancer. He studied 163 women who developed breast cancer before age 33, and compared them with 272 controls. He showed that if a woman had aborted her first pregnancy, her chance for developing breast cancer was increased by a factor of 2.4 times. Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, Rosario I, Gray CE (1981) Brit. J. Cancer, 43:726.

Give me other definitive studies.

Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7 times increased risk of breast cancer. Those who had gone on to abort their second and/or third pregnancy had a 4.0 times increased risk. Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P (1989) et al., Int. J. Epidemiol. 18:3004.

Another was in Washington State: Few studies on this issue receive media attention. This went worldwide and broke the defacto embargo on reporting the abortionbreast cancer link. Janet Daling did a very professional study that could not be discounted. It found:
- An induced abortion raises a woman’s chance of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. If done before age 18, it increases 150%; if after age 30, it’s up 110%.
- A woman with a family member with breast cancer who had her first abortion after 30 years increased her risk 270%.
- All 12 women in the study with a family history of breast cancer, who aborted before age 18 —all 12 — got breast cancer before age 45. J. Daling, Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women, J. Nat. Ca. Inst., Vol. 86, No. 21, 11/2/94, pg. 1584
Other studies done since then include: Greece: An overall increased risk of 51% was reported in women who had abortions, compared to those who did not. It involved 850 patients in Athens. L. Lipworth, Int. J. of Cancer, April ’95 U.S.A.:

A statistically significant increased risk of 23% of breast cancer was shown to be attributable to induced abortion. For women over 60 years, the risk was 80%. P. Newcomb et al., Preg. Termination & Risk of Breast Cancer, JAMA 1/24/96, Vol. 275, No. 4, pg. 283
For a thorough explanation of the Newcomb study above, see Natl. RTL News, 2/6/96, by J. Brind. Paris: "Having at least two abortions if associated with an increased breast cancer risk" of 2.1 times. N. Andrieu, Role of Genetic & Repro. Factors in Br. Ca., Genetic Spidem. 11 (3): 285, 1994

There are, in addition, many competent studies done in the last 20 years which also confirm this linkage. See: Before You Choose, The Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer; And: Legalized Abortion and the Sudden Increase of Breast Cancer, both by Scott Somerville, P.O. Box 159, Paeonian Springs, VA 22129.
These are comprehensive analyses citing 74 studies.

suggest you look up the references (in small italic print above) and find articles that review each one and refute their findings rather than ONE study from an organisation funded by the worlds largest abortion provider.

Morbert · 19-01-2011 8:42pm

ubertrad wrote: »

The scientific establishment is not interested in exploring the truth if it is inconvenient and if it conflicts with the agenda.

Check this out:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PkMBxnEQ1IMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA277&ots=9CRb0lHGGL&sig=jotVJD0ES5zAfet6-2wJYJWxSPA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The psychiatry profession in America dismissed the results of Spitzer's study into homosexuality as 'beside the point'. They'd already made their decision and that was that, when they decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Spitzer initially supported that agenda-driven decision, but after his research, he changed his mind, but they din't want to know.

That is just one example of good science being dismissed because it challenges the agenda. Abortion cancer link being another.

The study carried out by the National Cancer Institute is very rigorous. Here is some background they provide:

"Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk."

"A meta-analysis of women from 53 studies in 16 countries with liberal abortion laws was performed. Analyses were performed separately on 44,000 women with breast cancer who had information on abortion collected prospectively (i.e., 13 studies) versus 39,000 women with breast cancer from whom information was collected retrospectively (i.e., 40 studies). The RR of breast cancer for women with spontaneous abortion was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92–1.04 for those with prospective data collection and 0.94–1.02 for retrospective data). The RR after induced abortion was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89–0.96; P = .0002) if the information was collected prospectively but was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06–1.16) if it was collected retrospectively. Additional analyses of the number and timing of aborted pregnancies were performed, but none showed a significant association with breast cancer."

So you are accusing the National Cancer Institute of not being interested in the truth about cancer, but have not provided evidence for the claim.

Also, I disagree with your account of the Spitzer paper, but that would need a new thread.

Morbert · 19-01-2011 8:56pm

Festus wrote: »

How does linking abortion and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) skew the results?

Oh, I'm sorry, is that a biased statement? Okay then - how does mixing results from spontaneous abortion with induced abortion answer any question that is related to induced abortion alone.

This makes no sense. Who has said anything about biased statements?

The hypothesis is that there is a link between induced abortion and increased cancer risk. Presenting a study that includes data from spontaneous abortion is not scientific or valid when the question is specific to induced abortion.

The study does not mix the results, and differentiates between induced and spontaneous abortions. Here is the summary report: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ere-workshop-report

From the epidemiologic findings:

"Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

From my previous source who knows how to do research, properly.

<>

I suggest you look up the references (in small italic print above) and find articles that review each one and refute their findings rather than ONE study from an organisation funded by the worlds largest abortion provider.

See my previous post to ubertrad regarding 1990s studies and the reputability of the scientific community.

Festus · 19-01-2011 9:51pm

Morbert wrote: »

See my previous post to ubertrad regarding 1990s studies and the reputability of the scientific community.

Your statement makes no sense.

Their only real argument is that since the 1990's the reports have discounted the patients own memories as unreliable in deference to medical records. Is a medical record that much more reliable than the patients own memory? It is if you want to present a particular result.
Put very simply - how many women want their abortions listed on their medical records?

If you even bothered to review my reference you would have seen the following

There is an ominous relationship between the abortion of your first pregnancy and later development of breast cancer.

Is this proven?

No, but there is a very close correlation that has been demonstrated in a large number of scientific studies. If further studies continue to demonstrate this and no other definitive cause is found, it is highly likely that this will some day be seen as a cause and effect.

You are attemtping to dismiss what you see as a fact being presented by one side of the argument with an argument from a biased provider that is attempting to dismiss a fact when in fact a fact has not been provided.

To prove a correlation you need a cohort of women who have never been pregnant and never taken hormonal contraceptives and a cohort of women who aborted their first pregnancy and then analyse the results.

The link you presented states quite categorically that the cohorts where not of this nature.

Additionally a review of what they identify as clinical gaps clearly indicates that their data cannot be conclusive. I've bolded some of the more important issues that need ot be addressed

Clinical Gaps
What are the levels, determinants, and interactions of pregnancy-related mammotrophic factors, ligands, and receptors?

What is the time course of pregnancy-related hormonal changes?

Are pregnancy-related hormonal changes influenced by genetic polymorphisms?

What is the precise nature of pregnancy-related changes in breast histology?

How is the epithelial/stromal relationship altered in pregnancy?

Can pregnancy-related changes in breast histology be correlated with ductal lavage findings?

Can noninvasive procedures for assessing breast composition (e.g., MRI and other imaging techniques, particularly functional imaging) substitute for histology?

What are the molecular changes in the breast during and after pregnancy?

What are the histologic and molecular characteristics of breast tumors during and after pregnancy?

Are there immune system changes that may be relevant to breast cancer risk following pregnancy?

Are there pregnancy-related, non-hormonal metabolic changes relevant to breast cancer risk?

One thing both links agree on is that delivering full term at a young age reduces lifetime risk of breast cancer.

Your link makes the following statement "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk".

There is a world of difference between association and correlation. To say that something is not associatiated is not the same as saying there is no correlation. What is does say in this context is that the correlation was not examined.

BTW you presented the r^2 value which is of no value in this discussion. What we need to see is the r value. However assuming the square root of rr of the average of (0.93 +1.11) is near enough 1 then a correlation exists but comparing models this way is not really on., What we need is the raw data from Dr. Willkes collection and the NCI cohorts. We also need the patient diaries, or in other words the patients "self reports" to compliment their medical records otherwise the data will be incomplete.

Jumpy · 19-01-2011 10:30pm

ubertrad wrote: »

The scientific establishment is not interested in exploring the truth if it is inconvenient and if it conflicts with the agenda.

Check this out:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PkMBxnEQ1IMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA277&ots=9CRb0lHGGL&sig=jotVJD0ES5zAfet6-2wJYJWxSPA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The psychiatry profession in America dismissed the results of Spitzer's study into homosexuality as 'beside the point'. They'd already made their decision and that was that, when they decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Spitzer initially supported that agenda-driven decision, but after his research, he changed his mind, but they didn't want to know.

That is just one example of good science being dismissed because it challenges the agenda. Abortion cancer link being another.

Sorry, I hadnt realised this thread had been moved to Conspiracy Theories.

Festus · 19-01-2011 11:05pm

It seems clear that Audrey Simpson has not even read any of the Pro-Life literature. Note her comments at 27.15 - 27.30.

But the most remarkable thing she says is at 33.33. It is really unbelievable and ... well, lets see what you make of it.

[Audrey Simpson to the BBC reporter]

"What do you want to do with these women, do you want to lock them up? That's the bottom line. You know, lets be real here, women in Northern Ireland are no different from anywhere else, I know, I've said it so many times it's becoming really boring, but it is the thing is that they are no different.
What will we do with these women? Nobody ever comes out and tells us that. All they just say is that they are not allowed to have abortions but if they don't want to continue with the pregnancy what are we going to do with them?"

and this woman is claiming to be on the side of the women, fighting for their rights...

All she seems to be concerned with is dealing with the "problem" of women who have babies instead of abortions, and what to do with them.

Unbelievable

Well Audrey, I'll tell you what you do with them. You treat them like any other woman anywhere else with a baby.

Morbert · 19-01-2011 11:13pm

Festus wrote: »

Your statement makes no sense.

Their only real argument is that since the 1990's the reports have discounted the patients own memories as unreliable in deference to medical records. Is a medical record that much more reliable than the patients own memory? It is if you want to present a particular result.
Put very simply - how many women want their abortions listed on their medical records?

What doesn't make sense about my statement? I posted a meta-analysis of a large number of studies by experts. Medical records are more reliable for obvious reasons, though they are certainly not the only things that make the studies more rigorous.

If you even bothered to review my reference you would have seen the following.

<>

You are attempting to dismiss what you see as a fact being presented by one side of the argument with an argument from a biased provider that is attempting to dismiss a fact when in fact a fact has not been provided.

If I was dismissive, I would have simply claimed the studies were crap, and designed to fit an agenda. Instead, I posted an exhaustive study by the National Cancer Institute which constantly updates its conclusions based on new evidence.

To prove a correlation you need a cohort of women who have never been pregnant and never taken hormonal contraceptives and a cohort of women who aborted their first pregnancy and then analyse the results.

The link you presented states quite categorically that the cohorts where not of this nature.

Additionally a review of what they identify as clinical gaps clearly indicates that their data cannot be conclusive. I've bolded some of the more important issues that need ot be addressed

How do the highlighted clinical gaps falsify their conclusion? Why are the samples studied invalid?

One thing both links agree on is that delivering full term at a young age reduces lifetime risk of breast cancer.

Your link makes the following statement "nduced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk".

There is a world of difference between association and correlation. To say that something is not associatiated is not the same as saying there is no correlation. What is does say in this context is that the correlation was not examined.

BTW you presented the r^2 value which is of no value in this discussion. What we need to see is the r value. However assuming the square root of rr of the average of (0.93 +1.11) is near enough 1 then a correlation exists but comparing models this way is not really on., What we need is the raw data from Dr. Willkes collection and the NCI cohorts. We also need the patient diaries, or in other words the patients "self reports" to compliment their medical records otherwise the data will be incomplete.

RR is relative risk. >> 1 implies increased risk. << 1 implies reduced risk and 1 implies no effect. It is perfectly valid for epidemiological studies. You are free to trawl through raw data if you like, but you still haven't presented any reason as to why this study is invalid.

Festus · 19-01-2011 11:39pm

Morbert wrote: »

you still haven't presented any reason as to why this study is invalid.

I'll let Dr Brind answer that and a few other questions:

Dr. Joel Brind
of Baruch Medical College
at the Augustine Club
Columbia University
October 29, 1997N.B. These notes have not been reviewed by the speaker.
- The science of epidemiology is very new. It involves the study of populations of people, and tries to approximate controlled experiments. Epidemiologists have found various risk factors for breast cancer, including childlessness, early menstruation, having a first child late in life, family history of the illness, chronic alcohol consumption - and abortion. All of these factors involve increased exposure to the hormone estrogen.
- The first evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer was published in April 1957 in the well-known Japanese Journal of Cancer Research, (vol.48) which is published in English. So the "news" of a link is not new.
- True controlled experiments can be done on animals, with the additional advantage that you can cut them up at any point during the experiment. The possibility of an abortion-breast cancer link was tested on a group of rats. The study involved groups of nine rats. One group was given abortions. Virtually all of the aborted rats got cancer, whereas none of the control group did. 70% of the rats that never became pregnant also got cancer.
- The cells in the breasts that develop for lactation are called TEBs (terminal end buds) and are undifferentiated until the end of a pregnancy. If pregnancy does not occur these cells tend to grow and are susceptible to becoming cancerous. The fully developed cells, called lobules, that result from full-term pregnancy are more or less immune to cancer.
- Carcinogenesis is a two-stage process: 1) exposure to a carcinogen that damages cell DNA and 2) a tumor promotion stimulus that makes cells grow. When TEB cells are exposed to a carcinogen they tend to become cancerous, whereas mature cells likewise exposed can be injured, but will not become cancerous.
- The level of estradiol (ovarian estrogen, the most common form of estrogen) is much higher in conceptive than in non-conceptive women, and it increases dramatically during the course of the pregnancy. By the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy, the estradiol level has already reached a level more that double that of the pre-ovulatory peak. In non-viable pregnancies, however, the level of estradiol is much lower. These pregnancies result in spontaneous abortions, or what are commonly called miscarriages. Spontaneous abortions are quite common; it is estimated that some 30 - 50% of pregnancies end in this manner. In one study, doctors were able to predict 90% of miscarriages based on estradiol levels. Based on this, one would expect to find no link between spontaneous abortion and breast cancer, since over-exposure to estrogen does not occur in these instances.
- In the case of induced abortions, however, the level of estrogen exposure is much higher, for two reasons. One is that, since the fetus is viable, there is the same increase in estrogen levels that is found in healthy pregnancies. The second is that whereas spontaneous abortions usually occur in the first trimester, induced abortions are generally performed in the second or third trimester. Even one interrupted pregnancy means several weeks of exposure to abnormally high levels of estrogen. In a pregancy that is carried to term, on the other hand, other hormones take over in the final stages, negating the effects of the earlier exposure to estrogen by differentiating cells for lactation and killing unneeded cells.
- It is important to realize when examining epidemiological evidence that no risk factor is observed in every study. Also, it's important to establish a plausible mechanism for a risk factor. Over-exposure to estrogen provides a reasonable explanation for an increased cancer risk due to abortion.
- Many studies of the relationship between abortion and breast cancer have been weakened by a failure to distinguish between spontaneous and induced abortions.
- In 1971, Malcolm Pike et al. found a two to four-fold increase in breast cancer risk in women with induced abortions, spontaneous abortions and oral contraceptive use (British Journal of Cancer, vol.43). Since Pike possesses a strong reputation, the public reaction to his study was quite intense. The people at the Oxford Family Planning Center (at Oxford University in England) were particularly upset. In 1981 they produced a very large study, done in Sweden, that showed no link between abortion and breast cancer (British Journal of Cancer, vol. 45). However, when asked how many of the women in the study had had induced abortions, the best answer the researchers could give was "only a handful". Such a vague answer renders the study meaningless.
- Around this time I personally became involved in this field of study because I had become convinced that there was a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that this information was being suppressed.
- The epidemiologist Lynne Rosenberg suggested that the positive correlation between abortion and breast cancer was due to 'reporting bias'. Reporting bias is a factor that must be considered in epidemiological studies. It refers to the possibility that subgroups of the population under study may be more likely to over- or underreport the factor under study, thereby scewing the results. In the case of the abortion studies, Rosenberg reasoned that women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer might, under the stress of a life-threatening disease, be more likely to report past abortions than women who did not have breast cancer. Women without the disease would tend to underreport. This would produce an exaggerated positive correlation.
- A different charge of reporting bias was made against a Swedish study that had found an abortion-breast cancer link, namely, that overreporting had occurred. This meant that women reported having had abortions that they had not, in fact, undergone, which seems unlikely. On closer inspection, the charge of overreporting was reduced to a single case: one woman claimed to have had an abortion of which the computer had no record. On the contrary, the Swedish study found women more likely to underreport abortions (assuming that the computer records were more accurate than the women's reports). Those charging reporting bias subsequently withdrew their claim.
- A similar study of cervical cancer found no overreporting.
- On October 27, 1994, the New York Times printed an article, written by Lawrence K. Altman, on a purported link between abortion and breast cancer, a rare case of the subject being publicized in the mass media. However, the Times article downplayed the link by quoting a well-known epidemiologist, Karin Michels, who attributed the link to "overreporting", citing the Swedish study.
A few months earlier, the results of a study done in Greece had been published in a professional journal. Abortions have long been accepted in Greece and carry no particular social stigma. This study also found a link between abortion and breast cancer and, moreover, found no evidence of reporting bias. One of the researchers who produced this study was the same Karin Michels.
In other words, Michels was, in the Times article, arguing against the validity of her own findings. Given the expense and labor involved in producing an epidemiological study, and also the natural desire of scientists to achieve professional recognition, it is highly unusual for researchers to suppress the results of their own work. Only in the field of breast cancer - abortion research do people seem to bury their own data. I have seen some remarkable turnarounds.
- I and several others did a meta-analysis of all the published studies done since 1957 (30 in all), which was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 50, pp. 481-96. It shows an overwhelming consensus for a link between breast cancer and abortion. The statistical evidence is consistent.
- However, the studies we examined were published studies, and it has been suggested that the results are biased because studies showing positive results are more likely to appear in print that those that show no result.
- My reply to this argument is that, on this issue alone, the bias is more likely to be in the opposite direction because researchers have displayed a bias against their own results. I have no direct evidence to prove this, but the publication of a 1988 Australian study strongly suggests that this may be the case. This study examined the correlation between abortion and a variety of factors including age of menstruation, age of menopause, and age of first child. The study also distinguished between spontaneous and induced abortions. It found a number of positive correlations, but by far the strongest was the relation between induced abortion and breast cancer incidence, showing a 100% increased risk. This was 2.6 times as strong as the second strongest factor. However, when the study was publicized, this particular finding was not reported. It is extremely aberrant that all variables except the strongest one should be publicized.
- The December 1996 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute printed a study on a group of women in Holland and found a 90% increased risk, but attributed the finding to overreporting. The paper could not support that claim.
- In 1997 the New England Journal of Medicine published a Danish study (by Dr. Mads Melbye) that showed that abortion had no overall effect upon the breast cancer rate. This study was the basis of the statement by the National Cancer Institute that it had been conclusively shown abortion does not increase risk of breast cancer. How could they arrive at this conclusion? In epidemiology, a single study is never considered definitive. By contrast, in a group of eleven studies done between 1981 and 1996, ten of those showed that abortion did indeed increase the risk of breast cancer. Most of these studies were funded by the NCI, and eight of them were statistically significant on their own. In a letter I wrote to the Wall Street Journal, which appeared on 4/15/97, I asked why the NCI was wasting taxpayer money on funding these studies if it was convinced that there was no link. It was also revealing that the NCI announced a definitive conclusion to the question of an abortion-breast cancer link, since it had previously denied that there were grounds for raising the question in the first place.
As for the Danish study, it was fatally flawed because it used only computerized records. Computerized records of abortions went back only to 1973, but abortions have been legal in Denmark since 1939; records going back to that year were available but were not used. Thus, 63,401 women were classified as not having had abortions when they had in fact had abortions. Moreover, the women so misclassified were older women, the population more likely to develop breast cancer.
A second flaw was yet more serious. The authors of the study were aware that their study compared younger women (with more abortions and fewer cases of breast cancer) with older women (with fewer abortions and more cases of breast cancer). They corrected this potential source of error by adjusting for a "cohort effect". The problem with doing this was that in this case the cohort effect was the fact that the incidence of breast cancer has been rising for most of this century. The cause of this increase is unknown, but if abortion is indeed one of its factors, the Danish study effectively eliminated the very factor it was attempting to study, thereby virtually guaranteeing the conclusion that there was no increased risk.
When the data are adjusted to eliminate this error, they show an increased risk of 44%. Interestingly, the same study shows a decrease in both abortion and breast cancer rates for women born since 1950 (this result was age-adjusted).
Dr. Brind made these additional comments during the question and answer period following his lecture:
- Janet Daling is a highly regarded researcher with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. She has studied the effect of abortion on various forms of cancer, including cervical and ovarian cancer. She found no link until she studied breast cancer, and discovered an increased risk of 50 %. Daling, who had had no difficulty publishing her earlier studies, was puzzled by her inability to publish her findings concerning breast cancer, and was hurt by the professional and public rejection she encountered in her attempts to do so.
It is sometimes said that studies finding a positive correlation between abortion and breast cancer are done by pro-life researchers who are presumably biased. I myself am pro-life, but it should be noted that Daling has no personal objection to abortion, nor do a number of researchers who have found a link. Daling complimented me on the quality of the study that I did.
- Generally speaking, the public has little awareness of the extent to which medical research is politicized. The mantra "Keep abortion safe and legal," is at this point deeply engrained, to the point where both the profession and the media ignore and suppress evidence of the risks associated with abortion. However, the tide is beginning to turn. Four states now require that women considering abortion be told of the increased cancer risk. Also, the Canadian Cancer Society is studying abortion as a cause of breast cancer.
- There is the possibility of developing hormonal treatments to counteract the effects of excessive estradiol exposure. Currently, Dr. Pike is working on hormonal treatments during puberty that could cause mammary cells to differentiate early, thereby greatly lowering the breast cancer risk. It is to be hoped that these treatments will be developed in the future.
- I have produced a second study, which will appear in the January 1988 issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health.
- There is a need to study subgroups to determine degrees of risk. For example, miscarriages that occur after the first trimester are probably associated with increased risk. Also, breast feeding decreases risk somewhat, because lactation reduces the number of menstrual cycles. The less exposure to estradiol (which increases during each cycle), the less chance of developing breast cancer.
- It should be remembered that all the factors that have been mentioned are risk factors, and do not determine who will get breast cancer. Most women with breast cancer did not have induced abortions. Most women who have had abortions will not get breast cancer.

ref

I've no interest in arguing with you Morbert only in presenting credible evidence. The evidence you present is not credible. See above.

JimiTime · 19-01-2011 11:58pm

Seen the programme. It was ok, but as always with the abortion topic, riddled with dishonesty.

Firstly, I am very much anti-abortion. So let me dissect the programme.

1: The pictures of the 'Vacuum aborted baby, 8 weeks'. It was clearly not an 8 week old baby. So why be dishonest? Abortion is horrific enough, why lie? It completely undermines the mission. It gives pro-abortionists something to pick on to distract from the actual subject matter and introduces doubt about other claims. Drives me mad when this Ends justify the means mentality is used. Present the facts, they do enough!

The anti-abortion woman was going on about how women are not presented with the reality of abortion, which I agree with. Then she presents them with these deceptive pictures! Why oh why would she even feel the need to do it?? Arrggghhhh!

2: Notice the pro abortion woman when talking in the context of abortion, its all cold medical terms, foetus etc. Then, when she is looking to diss the anti abortion woman showing the pictures of aborted 'foetuses'; she goes on about, 'Imagine if you are a woman who has lost her baby, and you see these pictures' etc. Ah yes, cold medical terms when you want people distracted from the reality, but when you want to invoke a human connection, its unborn 'baby'.

I felt the programme was balanced, it just pointed a camera at the two women involved really, so I'll give it that.

Festus · 20-01-2011 12:10am

Morbert wrote: »

The study carried out by the National Cancer Institute is very rigorous. Here is some background they provide:

"Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk."

"A meta-analysis of women from 53 studies in 16 countries with liberal abortion laws was performed. Analyses were performed separately on 44,000 women with breast cancer who had information on abortion collected prospectively (i.e., 13 studies) versus 39,000 women with breast cancer from whom information was collected retrospectively (i.e., 40 studies). The RR of breast cancer for women with spontaneous abortion was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92–1.04 for those with prospective data collection and 0.94–1.02 for retrospective data). The RR after induced abortion was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89–0.96; P = .0002) if the information was collected prospectively but was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06–1.16) if it was collected retrospectively. Additional analyses of the number and timing of aborted pregnancies were performed, but none showed a significant association with breast cancer."

Shame you didn't post a link to the real source here

If you had we could have read this

Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions.

and this

Among women with a prospective record of having had a spontaneous or an induced abortion, the risk of breast cancer did not differ significantly according to the number or timing of either type of abortion

There is more than enough here to argue that as a basis for refuting a possible link between induced abortion and breast cancer this study, and hence any statement by the NCI, is fatally flawed.

As I've already said, if you want to disprove a link between induced abortion and breast cancer a study that includes spontaneous abortion is going to skew the results significantly and as such is not admissable.

Festus · 20-01-2011 12:16am

JimiTime wrote: »

Seen the programme. It was ok, but as always with the abortion topic, riddled with dishonesty.

Firstly, I am very much anti-abortion. So let me dissect the programme.

1: The pictures of the 'Vacuum aborted baby, 8 weeks'. It was clearly not an 8 week old baby. So why be dishonest? Abortion is horrific enough, why lie? It completely undermines the mission. It gives pro-abortionists something to pick on to distract from the actual subject matter and introduces doubt about other claims. Drives me mad when this Ends justify the means mentality is used. Present the facts, they do enough!

Have you a timestamp for the pictures?

I have 2.36 and they look to be 10-12 weeks. Granted presenting it as 8 weeks is over egging the issue but what's 2-4 weeks between abortionists.

I suspect they downloaded the images from the internet without doing the research. If they change the poster to 10-12 weeks, they'll be fine

Morbert · 20-01-2011 12:58am

Festus wrote: »

I'll let Dr Brind answer that and a few other questions:

ref

I've no interest in arguing with you Morbert only in presenting credible evidence. The evidence you present is not credible. See above.

You have neither presented credible evidence nor shown the evidence I presented as not credible. Dr. Brind is criticising a Danish report in 1997. The NCI report I tendered is 2003, and is constantly updated, and was compiled by over 100 experts, and includes both prospective and retrospective studies. Dr. Brind is right in saying no single study should be considered conclusive. Which is why large numbers of studies must themselves be analysed.

Does Dr. Brind have any comments or criticisms of the NCI's report?

Shame you didn't post a link to the real source here

There is more than enough here to argue that as a basis for refuting a possible link between induced abortion and breast cancer this study, and hence any statement by the NCI, is fatally flawed.

If there is more than enough to argue, then argue it. The RR for retrospectively collected data was 1.11, which I quoted, and which the NCI made clear. For comparison, the RR for smokers developing lung cancer is 23. So if you want to argue that 0.11 is a fatal flaw then go ahead and argue it.

I cannot access the full article from where I am now. But will read through it tomorrow and see what they have to say about the retrospective data.

Festus · 20-01-2011 1:18am

Morbert wrote: »

You have neither presented credible evidence nor shown the evidence I presented as not credible.

I cannot access the full article from where I am now. But will read through it tomorrow and see what they have to say about the retrospective data.

Don't bother. This comment from the NCI was enough for me

Abortion
Abortion has been suggested as a cause of subsequent breast cancer. Studies showing an association used recalled information in populations in which induced abortion had a social or religious stigma, differential reporting of prior abortion by breast cancer patients, and controls. Trials conducted in social environments where abortion is accepted, however, have not shown an association with breast cancer.

Festus · 20-01-2011 1:34am

Morbert wrote: »

You have neither presented credible evidence nor shown the evidence I presented as not credible.

This is rather interesting

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716-3450
520-323-3110

"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence of this evidence before making her decision."

Jane Orient, MD
Executive Director
October 27, 2003

source

Two Japanese studies showed a positive association between
induced abortion and breast cancer: a 1957 study reported a
statistically significant relative risk of 2.61, and a 1968 study
found a relative risk of 1.51.

(note: not a 1990s study)

In the influential 2001 report, the disparity in breast cancer
rates between the Roe generation and the older cohort was not
explained. The omission of the effect of abortion is startling: lead
authors Holly Howe and Phyllis Wingo had published earlier
research showing a positive association between abortion and
breast cancer. Moreover,Howewas also lead author of a record-
linkage case-control study in 1989, which reported a statistically
significant 90 percent increased risk among post-abortive New
York residents.Wingo was a CDC researcher in 1986 when she co-
authored a letter to that stated: “Induced abortion before
first termpregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer,” citing two
American studies.

(note: post 1990s report)

A web page of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, on the
other hand, cites a 1998 study byMcCredie et al. and a 1995 study
by Calle et al. in support of its statement that “there is no associa-
tion between abortion and risk of breast cancer.” However, the
former didn't report any data on induced abortion and the latter only
examined the effect of spontaneous abortions. An overwhelming
majority of the studies reporting risk elevations are omitted from
the web pages altogether

A scientist and five doctors have separately accused the NCI of
misleading the public about the research, including former
Representatives Tom Coburn, M.D., and Dave Weldon, M.D.
Nonetheless, some journalists have uncritically accepted erroneous
statements published on the NCI's web page. Women's
organizations, which have made abortion advocacy the centerpiece
of their missions, were silent about the research until the subject
won public attention. They too repeat the misleading statements of
the NCI and the ACS.

Three years ago, a former editor of the Journal of the American
Medical Association, George Lundberg, M.D., told an interviewer
that abortion and tobacco are “sensitive issues” that had been on the
AMA's “don't touch” list for many years. Even last year an AMA
spokesperson told that the organization “doesn't
have a policy at all” with respect to informing women about the
abortion-breast cancer research. This stance is reminiscent of the
AMA's opposition to federal legislation requiring tobacco compa-
nies to provide health warnings on cigarette packages in 1964. The
AMA had accepted $10 million from six tobacco companies to
conduct research on the tobacco-cancer link.

Dr. Lanfranchi offered an explanation by recounting the story of
Ignaz Semmelweis,M.D.:
He was an obstetrician in the 1840s who proved that
hand-washing would reduce mortality rates from childbed
fever from 30 to 2 percent on maternity wards. His reward
for this was ridicule from his professors and loss of his
hospital appointments.Women continued to die needlessly
for another 30 years until the germ theory proved
Semmelweiswas correct. Itmust have been very embarrass-
ing for the greatest medical professors of his time to be told
by a lowly resident that they were responsible for many
women’s deaths.
We are in the same situation now. There is overwhelm-
ing and convincing evidence that abortion and breast cancer
are linked, along with a well-described biologic mecha-
nism. Twenty-eight out of 37 studies have shown this and
women still don't know. Not only embarrassment and
denial, but also fear of malpractice litigation causes doctors
to continue to ignore these data. How can an abortionist not
be held liable for increasing a woman's risk of breast cancer
and not telling her?
It is unfortunate, but it has become my belief that it will
be lawyers who will force the medical community to
address this issue.

and finally

Editor’s note: In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute
held a consensus workshop on the possible link between induced
abortion and increased risk of breast cancer. They produced a
Summary Report, which concluded that “induced abortion is not
associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.” This is now
posted as “fact” on the NCI website
Although the issue was subject to a vote of “over 100 of the
world's leading experts,” the NCI website does not state the result of
the vote itself. And although the Summary Report did not mention
that there was dissent, the NCI’s website did post a “minority
dissenting comment” indicating that one of the participants remains
“convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real,
independent, positive association between induced abortion and
breast cancer risk.”
Sorting out the science and truth of the matter is of the utmost
importance so that relevant informed consent information can be
provided to women considering an abortion. Consensus and
political correctness must not inhibit the open discussion and
evaluation of the scientific data.

With all due respect Morbert I believe that publication in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is credible evidence.

Zombrex · 20-01-2011 9:40am

ubertrad wrote: »

The scientific establishment is not interested in exploring the truth if it is inconvenient and if it conflicts with the agenda.

You appreciate I hope the irony of appealing to scientific evidence (which is what the initial link between breast cancer and abortion was) and then, when further more rigorous scientific evidence emerges that expands and changes the conclusions of the first set of scientific research, dismissing this because it comes from scientists who are apparently, not interested in the truth.

Science is great when it is telling us abortion causes cancer but biased nonsense when it is telling us actually it probably doesn't?

And you are complaining about science being agenda driven ....

Zombrex · 20-01-2011 10:01am

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps this explanation from Dr. Willke will help.

That depends on Dr. Willke is.

If he is this guy, physician, author, lecturer and "TV and radio personality", that probably doesn't help a whole lot.

George W. Bush, not exactly the most liberal person ever, got 100 top scientists to a conference to discuss this very topic in 2003 and they came to the conclusion that based on all the scientific research there was not scientific justification for saying that abortion causes or is likely to cause breast cancer.

Zombrex · 20-01-2011 10:40am

Festus wrote: »

Your statement makes no sense.

Their only real argument is that since the 1990's the reports have discounted the patients own memories as unreliable in deference to medical records. Is a medical record that much more reliable than the patients own memory? It is if you want to present a particular result.

The idea that the 1990 reports are unreliable is not the "only real argument"

It is an explanation for why none of the scientists were replicating the results from these studies.

That is how science works. Someone comes up with an idea and tests it. If they find evidence to support it then a whole lot of other scientists test it and try and test it as rigoursly as they can

This is what happened here. Based on biology theory and studies in mice the hypothesis that abortion can cause breast cancer was proposed. It was tested in humans with statistical surveys. There was basis, from these studies, to suggest that yes a link does exist.

Once that was established then a whole lot of other studies attempted to verify these results, using very robust studies. So far so good, all this is science as usual.

These later results couldn't replicate the results of the first studies. Again that happens all the time in science, some one gets a result that can't be replicated so the scientists try and figure out what happened in the first study to give results that seem to suggest a conclusion that isn't represented in the future ones.

That is where the explanation of report bias was suggested as a possible explanation for why the initial studies were giving results that weren't matching the later studies.

All this is normal science.

Replication is a very crucial factor in science, particularly replication of results when you are designing the studies to try and pin point the exact cause of the results.

Morbert · 27-01-2011 11:31pm

Festus wrote: »

With all due respect Morbert I believe that publication in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is credible evidence.

Yes it is, though you posted it after I had said you had yet to post credible evidence. I don't take issue with valid scientific evidence. I only take issue with people who dismiss scientific evidence.

So we can agree that the majority of the scientific community does not believe there is evidence to support a link between breast cancer and abortion. There is a minority, though not negligible opinion that the evidence is inconclusive, and they point to some studies that show a potential link.

Don't bother. This comment from the NCI was enough for me.

What is wrong with the comment? The paper was very transparent about its data and interpretation. You yourself made a similar argument about the reluctance to admit having an abortion. Why is it suddenly incredulous when they make the same observation?

Abortion Wars - BBC One NOW

Comments