It is factual.
The link today was something I stumbled on while looking for something else and surprised me.
Yes, it's seven years old and one of the main researchers has since disputed it.
Those bullet points that you want me to verify are off of Komen’s literature. You are the one saying that that Komen is lying so it is upon you to provide documentation to support your claim. I have no obligation to step in on Komen’s behalf to support their claims.
You've been supporting Komen throughout this thread.
You have NEVER addressed the reality that the typical woman going to Planned Parenthood is at least a decade away from needing a mammogram.
The truth is that your battle isn’t with me it is with Komen. The problem you have is that Komen denies your claims.
Yes, that's why I posted this thread in the first place. NOBODY pinged you to come to their defense.
You are challenging their claims but you are only doing it based on theory, not any evidence that proves anything.
Actually, that's not true. YOU seem to want to ignore the facts that have been posted. Here is the evidence that I already posted:
Based on their figures, on average they grant about $3300 per clinic of breast health screening and education. That looks like about what one would expect to pay for a part time nurse and clinic space and equipment.
So, this is just a guess on your part?
So you don’t agree with what they do? You still haven’t proven your claims.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The link between abortion and breast cancer is established.
The link between PP and abortion is established
The link between Komen and PP is established.
Another excellent post, wagglebee.
I seriously doubt you or most of your ping list bothers to read your articles or supporting documents, seemingly just rely on sensational headlines and opening paragraphs. The articles you post certainly don't give strong arguments to your case, and you've been told this before!
One of your main cases shows a 17% increase in a certain subtype of breast cancer...triple negative whatever that is, and there are greater risk factors across the board than induced abortions, or say the studies. The articles and studies are not saying that induced abortion is linked to all forms of breast cancer or that it is even the greatest risk factor.
Mild associations between abortion and breast cancer are thus easy to find, but no unbiased, empirically valid study has ever found a causative relationship, or even more than a very mild associative relationship.
government shrinker
One of the greatest fallacies in reading these articles is the notion that a positive correlation aka "link" even implies causation. Correlation never even implies causation. Never. Not in breast cancer, not in brain cancer, not in strep throat. A link to a risk factor does not indicate in anyway causation.
Now if you stay true to form, you'll accuse me of something, like being pro abortion because I don't see the studies as saying what you claim...You'll be like the MADD mother who triumphantly proclaiming that something like 32% of traffic fatalities were alcohol related, then I responded that sober drivers seem to be a greater threat than do those with alcohol!
Does that observation make me pro-drunk driving? Of course not. And my statement that your links to studies don't really say what you want them to say (they are mostly propaganda searching for something that may be marginally present) will undoubtedly be misinterpreted as well.
But that seems to be the nature of your posts, propaganda and misinterpretation.