Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jlogajan
What is the "clear agenda" of the American Cancer Society, other than the prevention of or treatement of cancer in its various forms?

This organization presently represses research that contradicts it's own findings or would change it's course of action. In Brain Cancer alone the American Cancer Society has lambasted doctors who do research outside the organizations "approved" approach to cancer. Even though these "quacks" have stop the growth of Cancer in a large portion of their patience. Many significant changes in the treatment of or view of Cancer come from outside this organization; usually by researchers that it has minimized in the past. This is mostly due to arrogance and partnerships with pharmaceutical companies. I "believe" that many in leadership positions of this organization are at minimum satisfied with the status quo and at worst have clear political agendas. This is not unlike the mis-information given by the various AIDS organizations.

Do mention them. Be specific. Cite the facts.

"....in which a population of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then followed for the occurrence of new cancer. In this type of study, there is no opportunity for the disease process itself to influence one’s memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions." Why, might you ask would they leave out the very ones who may show the most evidence in the here and now? "...women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are literally searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease." Because they will be accurate??? Instead of studying only Beast Cancer Patients they study only Cancer Free Patients. This affects the Age grouping, study time table and removes all know cases of Cancer. They just wait to see if Cancer Free Women who may have had an abortion get Cancer later on. This kind of study might work if it lasted at a minimum of 40 years to allow for complete life cycles of Women who have had abortions. However, You cannot cite this type of study after 5 or 10 years as cancer has been shown not to appear for up to 40 + years after the cause.

As far as I can tell, the only basis you have for claiming them to be "biased" is because they disagree with your expected outcome.

Again you have provide two studies; one from a Socialist state that left out sections of population and one from......where? You have been provided with 30+ studies that you have yet to refute. I am against Abortion because it Kills Innocent Humans not just because it may cause cancer or other health problems with women. Why are you FOR Abortion?

Spare us your faux concern

Are you so arrogant that you feel you have the right to judge my level of concern? I would never presume to know how you "feel". If this is how you approach situations and dealings in life how are we to judge any of your statements?

is only a particular religious belief that a single (fertilized) cell is a human being in any meaningful sense.

Abortion does not end a Fertilized cells life. The Fetus stop being a "Fertilized cell" in the first few hours. It is a fact that most abortions happen long after the Brain, Spinal Cord and heart have developed and started working. Brain Waves can be Measured and the Baby can feel pain after as few as three to four weeks. This is Before most women even know they are pregnant, let alone make and act on the decision to abort.

148 posted on 04/26/2002 9:52:02 AM PDT by CyberCowboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]


To: CyberCowboy777
"....in which a population of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then followed for the occurrence of new cancer. In this type of study, there is no opportunity for the disease process itself to influence one’s memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions."

Why, might you ask would they leave out the very ones who may show the most evidence in the here and now? "...women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are literally searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease." Because they will be accurate??? Instead of studying only Beast Cancer Patients they study only Cancer Free Patients.

Umm, you have completely misunderstood what they were saying. They were explaining "recall bias." Nowhere did they say they left out of the statistics woman who actually did have breast cancer (that would be silly anyhow.)

What they are saying is that they STARTED studying cancer-free women and then followed up on them for years and measured NEW cancers against their previous answers.

Then if a breast cancer victim suddenly changed her story and admitted an abortion, they could compare it to her previous answers when she was cancer free.

Of course they didn't eliminate women with breast cancer, they just eliminated the possibility of recall bias by pre-screening future breast cancer women.

Is there something about that you don't understand???

149 posted on 04/26/2002 10:03:42 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson