Posted on 08/20/2012 1:19:56 PM PDT by NYer
Ping!
google search --> abortion, breast cancer
American Medical Association has known about this for years
That's why the Suzy Sunshine Foundation wanted to dump Planned Parenthood last year...
Now, tell me again ... Is it liberal Democrats or Republicans who are against women
I can't think of anything worse than a woman having her breasts chopped off...
Waiting eagerly for ABC/NBC/CBS and the New York Times to run huge headline stories about this study, which is far from the first one to indicate a possible link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.....
waiting.....
waiting.....
waiting.....
Look - squirrel!
How about being drawn and quartered?
Nothing new about this! I heard statistics to back this up in the 70’s.
As a male, I can....
Being shredded while in mommy's tummy and sucked out? Being burned to death with chemicals (same locale)? Being allowed to almost make it and having your brains sucked out?
Yeah, I can think of worse.
I just wish women would think of both themselves and their child and maybe all of that could be avoided.
Oh, I’m sure this isn’t possible. Just like it is not possible for severe stress (as in rape) to interfere with the female body’s ability to conceive.
But a 19% increased risk for lung cancer is enough to shut down businesses across the country because they want to allow tobacco smoking.
For statistical significance an increased increased risk (a/k/a relative risk) needs to be over 200% and preferably over 300%.
Induced abortion also increases the risk of fetal death in subsequent pregnancies. It is as bad as smoking during pregnancy.
Induced abortion also causes infertility.
Each additional abortion increases the risk of future adverse outcomes.
Not that I have any sympathy for a woman who chooses to use abortion as birth control, but I think the risks should be explained, preferably before she ever engages in sexual activity.
As a professional statistician, I know your comment is nonsense. Statistical significance has to do with how sure you are that an effect exists, not how large the effect is. With a large sample, small effects can be identified and found significant.
The sample sizes in the studies described in the article are easily large enough for effects of the size described to be statistically significant; therefore there is high confidence the effect is real, assuming the researchers did their jobs competently and honestly.
My comment is not nonsense insofar as this study is going to be ignored but the statistically manipulated “study” about second hand smoke is considered gospel and has actually put people out of work and out of business.
It is all about political correctness and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the study.
God looks after his own. Meanwhile all the women who had abortions an now have breast cancer are all sporting pink ribbons next to their, “I am Pro Choice” bumper stickers.
If you don’t murder your kids you probably won’t get breast cancer.
For statistical significance an increased increased risk (a/k/a relative risk) needs to be over 200% and preferably over 300%.
There is no relationship between your numbers of 200% and 300% and the concept of "statistical significance" which has a specific technical meaning.
Then tell me at what percentage an increased risk reaches statistical significance in epidemiology.
I’m not looking to argue with you - I truly am interested in knowing
I’m a woman undergoing chemo for breast cancer right now and I’ve never had an abortion.
Abortion increases risk, it is not the sole cause of breast cancer. Similarly millions of people who have never smoked have died of lung cancer.
That depends on how large your sample is.
A 200% factor (twice as many incidences) will already show significance when there are less than 10 expected occurences. For example, if the incidence increases from 7% to 14%, a sample of 100 will show statistical significance (you get 14, you expect 7, probability of getting 14 by chance alone is under 1% so it’s a significant effect).
If you want to detect a relative risk factor of 150% (half again as many incidences) you need a larger sample size. For example, if the incidence increases from 7% to 10.5%, and you have a sample size of 400, you get 42 when you expect 28 and that also has a less than 1% probability of occurring by chance alone so you call it statistically significant.
There is a formula giving the relationship betweem the following variables
expected frequency
observed frequency
sample size
significance level.
The percentage you are working with is the ratio of expected frequency to observed frequency. In my examples, I used a 1% significance level (meaning the result is declared significant if it has less than a 1% probability of occurring by chance alone if there were really no systematic difference).
That depends on how large your sample is.
A 200% factor (twice as many incidences) will already show significance when there are less than 10 expected occurences. For example, if the incidence increases from 7% to 14%, a sample of 100 will show statistical significance (you get 14, you expect 7, probability of getting 14 by chance alone is under 1% so it’s a significant effect).
If you want to detect a relative risk factor of 150% (half again as many incidences) you need a larger sample size. For example, if the incidence increases from 7% to 10.5%, and you have a sample size of 400, you get 42 when you expect 28 and that also has a less than 1% probability of occurring by chance alone so you call it statistically significant.
There is a formula giving the relationship betweem the following variables
expected frequency
observed frequency
sample size
significance level.
The percentage you are working with is the ratio of expected frequency to observed frequency. In my examples, I used a 1% significance level (meaning the result is declared significant if it has less than a 1% probability of occurring by chance alone if there were really no systematic difference).
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.