Posted on 06/03/2005 7:33:40 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel
I read the bulk of it and it sure seemed it to me... nonsensical nonsense.
I'm glad to admit it if I'm wrong though..
Ping to me for later pingout.
There is a certain parallel here. Many mainstream medical journals refuse to print politically incorrect articles. Ask any conservative who does any kind of controversial research. "Science" has a rigidly enforced notion of orthodoxy, and anyone who strays from some doctrine or dogma of that orthodoxy is ostracised.
In medicine, abortions rights are orthodoxy. That abortion is a "good" thing is orthodoxy.
Anything questioning this politically correct orthodoxy is suppressed and even rejected out of hand in main stream media's spin of the medical literature, and often in the medical journals themselves.
However, as the graphic I posted proves, there is a causal link between abortion and breast cancer, despite the medical establishment and the main stream media trying to deny it or suppress it.
That Baptist college, Baylor University did studies showing no link between breast cancer and abortion.
There is something unseemly about 'Christians' rooting for breast cancer.
The JAPS is a publication of the right wing ideology-based Ass'n of American Physicians and Surgeons, so I wouldn't give much credence to anything they publish that relates to their ideology, without some strong corroboration from an unbiased or opposing party (and I would also apply that principle to positions of theirs that I agree with, such as the need to vigorously fight the socialization of medicine). The AAPS is explicitly anti-abortion, and anti- any post-fertilization contraceptive method. I might as well be reading "research" by the Brady Bunch on "gun violence". I don't know anything about the other two journals. But I'd suggest going to these cited articles yourself, if you're really interested, and seeing what they really say. Joel Brind has made his joke of a career out of "citing" other people's research, and claiming that it shows things that it doesn't show, and that its authors have repeatedly said it doesn't show. And I suspect the author of this article is largely following the same path.
There may be a thousand articles out there showing a small correlation between abortion and breast cancer, but the fact is that exhaustive reviews of the literature by serious unbiased researchers have not found a single solid piece of research that shows a causative effect of abortion on breast cancer. And for the reasons I cited, the assertion that the increase in breast cancer during the time period since abortion became legal indicates that abortion is the cause, is an absolute joke.
There's also something unseemly about "Christians" (or anyone else) promoting the practice of lying to women to try to scare them into doing what the liars want them to do. If anti-abortion activists can't win their argument without resorting to junk science and outright lies, they should go back to the drawing board and try to formulate some new arguments.
You're not wrong. Check out the credentials of the people promoting this nonsense. And the loud protestations of virtually every researcher they "cite" in their so-called studies.
Inquiring minds would like to know....what can you cite to support your allegations of "right-wing ideology-based" as a valid criticism of the integrity of the data presented here?
A wide spectrum of highly qualified researchers, including those at the Southern Baptist-affiliated Baylor University, have de-bunked this abortion-causes-breast-cancer nonsense. I just pointed out that the Ass'n of American Physicians and Surgeons is an ideologically, not scientifically, based group. Visit their website if you want to know more about them. I happen to agree with them on some things (and I highly respect their aggressive stance against the forced socialization of the medical profession), but that doesn't make them an unbiased organization, and I'm sure they cherry pick what they publish in order to advance their ideology. I'm sure they'd take a pass on a study showing that socialized medicine had improved health care in some area or other, even if the methodology of the study was just as sound as that of other studies they publish. And they are naturally quite eager to publish papers which appear to support their ideological positions. And this doesn't necessarily mean that their standards are lower than "mainstream" medical journals, many of which publish a lot of garbage, including left-leaning garbage (like the infamous piece in the Lancet that claimed -- using even more preposterous "statistics" than the abortion-causes-breast-cancer article -- to show some huge increase in the civilian death rate "caused" by the U.S. military action in Iraq). It is always important to consider the source.
I haven't looked at the specific article, but I don't need to, as I've already read plenty about the latest real research in this area. Either it's a rehash of stuff that's already been thoroughly de-bunked, or it doesn't say what the author of this article claims it says -- i.e. it may show a correlation, while this article's author jumps to the conclusion that this supports the causation theory.
Ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.