"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message

Correlation isn't useful. I can correlate cancer and water.

Go for it.
Show us the dosage rate and the correlation coeeficient you get.

Everyone who gets cancer has drunk water.

A real study, crazy. How many glasses of water does it take to induce
cancer
in a human?
I meant a study that is as detailed as the studies in this area such as
the
studies that were performed in the tobacco cases long ago.

See, this is the point I'm making. A REAL study does not confuse
correlation with causation, as you want to do.

So, you want to proclaim a cause where none has been found. Why do you
think it's a good idea to lie like that?

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:13:08 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote in message <T96wg.12716$Ur.5150@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:bg50c21rb5nv1kgfp1dt181mkjelmhpr36@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:10:51 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote in message <y0Uvg.15716$ZH1.3978@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:

"Adam H" <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:6220c2tuljan8ads2omr5qbobduf4apvmi@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:15:44 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote in message <2gTvg.16374$Nt.8390@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:

"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:euSdnSiYb8KQQSLZRVnyrA@bt.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44bf2162$0$34560$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

I am a medical researcher.

And pro-liar apologist.

Where are all those stem cell cures, "it's not a baby" Fischer?

It is hard to get to the truth on the alleged breast cancer /
abortion
link.

There isn't any link.

Got any proof of that contention?
I mean real proof.
Surely, if you think showing that it is not conclusively a
statistical
cause and effect relationship, ala the bygone tobacco industry
stance,
you can prove such rather than merely stating such.
What is it if abortion contributes nothing to the increased
incidence
of
breast cancer?
Where are the extra breast cancer cases coming from?

That was easy.

Do we see your proof?

The theory that abortion causes breast cancer is certainly
biologically
plausible.

Just as plausible as that it is caused by bad karma.

Got some proof for that?
LOL!

We know that childlessness is a risk factor for breast cancer.
Therefore it is quite impossible that induced abortion will not
affect
risk,

Of course it's possible, you raving lunatic. If you'd pull your
head
out of your ***** and used facts instead of wishes you'd know it.

Where are your facts?

It's called wishful thinking on the part of Ray Fisher.

Since nulliparity (childlessness) has an effect on breast cancer
rates,
abortion must also have some effect.

I am relatively certain those two factors could be correlated amongst
the
population under study.

Correlation isn't useful. I can correlate cancer and water.

Go for it.
Show us the dosage rate and the correlation coeeficient you get.

Everyone who gets cancer has drunk water.

A real study, crazy. How many glasses of water does it take to induce
cancer
in a human?
I meant a study that is as detailed as the studies in this area such as
the
studies that were performed in the tobacco cases long ago.

See, this is the point I'm making. A REAL study does not confuse
correlation with causation, as you want to do.

You scatterbrained types don't actually know anything do you or do you
intentionally lie to cause harm to people?

Something tells me that people like you, who deliberately conflate
correlation and causation, are the ones whose lies are causing harm.

*****. While you deny the causese of ailments and effectively serve to
increase the burden upon the public, no one really likes your denial.
People are suffering, but that seems to please you.

But since correlation isn't cause, for you to proclaim it is, is a
lie, and harmful to the public.

Any study which takes correlation and pretends to determine cause from
it is either simply a bad study or the authors are lying.

Yeah, the old cause and effect trick, huh?
Why even say cause when the correlation is so obvious?

Because the two are entirely separate things, you science-illiterate
boob.

Should I ask you again, since you failed to understand the question?
"Why even say cause when the correlation is so obvious?"
Who even wants to argue about cause and effect, you escapist idiot.
Pay your fair share or go elsewhere.

So, you want to proclaim a cause where none has been found.

Why do you
think it's a good idea to lie like that?

---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts

"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8xml2bdd.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodvjq8qr.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

What do you think the term CORRELATION means?

It doesn't mean what you routinely abuse it for. Evidently, you insist
that correlation equals causation,

When?

About as often as you trot that shibboleth out to "prove" one of your
fantasies.

Do you mean as in the study that said something like 454 coca-colas per day
for fifty years induces cancer?

but since your understanding is defective, that's no surprise. Here's
something to ponder: when Roe v. Wade came down in 1973, MLB had 24
teams in two leagues. Today, there are 30. There were 16 teams in the
NHL (and 12 in the WHA), and now there are 30 in the NHL. The NFL had 26
teams, and today has 32. The NBA had 17 teams (along with nine in the
ABA), and has 30 now. So, the question is: did legalized abortion cause
the growth of professional sports in this country?

I would say no.

So would I. (That doesn't prove anything but that even a stopped clock
like you is right at least once a day.)

So, since I did not say that roe v wade caused the growth in professional
sports what is your point?

It is soon going to be time for you the PILL PUSHERS to pay their share.
And, that will be a larger number than you can imagine at this point
because of all the cases in the past which were caused/contributed to by
birth control pills and aboritons. CORRELATED.

Correlation != causation.

Inadequate defense. The damages are still uncovered.

Your inability to understand what you read is noted, again.

You still want to assume that the contributing factors that induce breast
cancer in women are to be ignored?

Check the tobacco wars to see how your SOS correlation!= causation is
passe' when the evidence outweighs your attempt at not paying for the
damages that were 'caused' already by outside agencies.

Check your invariable tactic of trying to change gears when it occurs to
you that you've fucked your argument up yet again.

Change gears?
Outside agencies are already codified in law as outside agencies.

Which part of the law do you want to ignore this time while spewing the side
that cites something that isn't codified in law as a defense?

Eating dinner changes things.

Does it induce breast cancer as often as birth control pills and
abortions do?

You'll have to do your own work on that.

Nah. The answer is required of the person who made the assertion.
Remember?

Well, you're the moron who's making the assertion, so what's keeping you
from doing as you say?

There are two assertions.
Hypothesis testing shows the side that states that hormonals and abortions
contribute to breast cancer as being the statistical choice to rest with.

Are you going to insist that eating dinner causes breast cancer,
pro-liar?

No, seems like you did.
Get ready to pay.

That's because you're too brain-damaged to understand what you read, and
no one owes you a penny, period.

Lies.

It's just a coincidence you invariably support my opinion every time you
start ranting.

Is that why I just refuted it?

"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8xml2bdd.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodvjq8qr.fsf@fnord.io.com...

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

What do you think the term CORRELATION means?

It doesn't mean what you routinely abuse it for. Evidently, you insist
that correlation equals causation,

but since your understanding is defective, that's no surprise. Here's
something to ponder: when Roe v. Wade came down in 1973, MLB had 24
teams
in two leagues. Today, there are 30. There were 16 teams in the NHL
(and
12 in the WHA), and now there are 30 in the NHL. The NFL had 26 teams,
and
today has 32. The NBA had 17 teams (along with nine in the ABA), and
has
30 now. So, the question is: did legalized abortion cause the growth
of
professional sports in this country?

I would say no.

So would I. (That doesn't prove anything but that even a stopped clock
like
you is right at least once a day.)

So, since I did not say that roe v wade caused the growth in professional
sports what is your point?

It is soon going to be time for you the PILL PUSHERS to pay their share.
And, that will be a larger number than you can imagine at this point
because of all the cases in the past which were caused/contributed to by
birth control pills and aboritons. CORRELATED.

Correlation != causation.

Inadequate defense. The damages are still uncovered.

Your inability to understand what you read is noted, again.

You still want to assume that the contributing factors that induce breast
cancer in women are to be ignored?