Top posting for message(s) to show up.

louis_friend@email.com (Louis Friend) wrote in message news:<54fde2f0.0404201033.5fffed87@posting.google.com>...

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Louis Friend <louis_friend@email.com> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Google is a search engine. You can use it to search for
scientific facts/studies,

Or you can use it to search for fiction.

I suppose so... you still think breast cell proliferation
and differentiation during pregnancy is fiction?

I see that you're now reduced to lying about what I write.

This is your statement I'm
still trying to get you to address:

RoyBoy:

However the coincidence is difficult to explain
away, and the trends in both studies are
unmistakable. Climbing in the abortion study
(early pregnancy), descending in the preterm
birth (late pregnancy). Just as one would expect
for the proliferation and then differentiation of
the breast cells for breast feeding.

Ray:

Even though there is no evidence for such changes
in the breast tissue and no evidence that such a
change would lead to cancer.

You are right, I was inaccurate in characterizing
your position. Apologies. But that happens when you
avoid the issue being discussed and it eventually
gets snipped and I forget what we said, and when
we said it.

Although I didn't initially say it (I didn't think it was
necessary), I have subsequently made it clear that
breast cell proliferation and differentiation during
pregnancy are scientific facts. Hence if your position
of 'no evidence' is correct, then I wrote fiction. Right?

What is your position on this...
and what did you mean in the above statement
'no evidence for such changes'?

Seriously Ray, do you just read the beginning of my
paragraphs then skip the rest... like for example the
scientific stuff I find for you to read, so that you can
learn a thing or two you didn't know before; and in
this case recognize your blatantly wrong.

You seem to blindly accept any "study" which supports your
preconceived notions and you reject any which doesn't say
what you want to hear.

That is because your not listening to me, or choose not to.
I endeavor not to blindly accept anything my dear fellow.

Yes you do.

We disagree on that.
However you have the burden of substantiating it
by actually discussing the studies, instead of
focusing on me.

[...]

I've researched, and read many studies...

But you've already admitted that you do not have the
knowledge or experience to determine the quality of
any of the studies.

When did I say that? I may have to clarify in that case.

Beside others do, and they do so. :') Also some of the
stuff is quite easy to comprehend, and can be verified
by simply researching standards of evidence in one
case and going over the logic in another. (response bias
studies)

most disagree with me,

"I endeavor not to blindly accept anything"

Do you have a point worth consideration here?

but I have done my homework and know them quite well.

Even if you do not understand them.

Another assertion without substance.
Stop transposing your weaknesses on me...
on the other hand if you do understand them, then
discuss them rather than trying to talk about me,
or Dr. Melbye, or Google, or 'stupid *****'.

Besides I do not need to be know chapter and
verse of a study in order to criticize/discuss it,
and reject it's conclusions if the answers to the criticism
are not satisfactory. To do otherwise would indeed to
be blinded by their 'authority/expertise', and/or by the
popularity of their opinion.

You have not.

I don't need to. I can use the experience and training
of those who are _very_ qualified to assess the quality
of studies.

You don't *use* it as far as I can tell; you acquiesce to it.
Even _very_ qualified people can be wrong, are limited
by "Current Knowledge", and by political considerations
given their status. Innumerable examples abound, and they
are most clear during paradigm shifts.

Given those truisms, what is the point of emphasizing
their qualifications? Yes, they are qualified... so are some
that disagree. Then the responsibility falls to you to try
and sort it out using your own big brain, instead of going
with the flow.

Epidemiological evidence indicates that a woman's lifetime risk
for developing breast cancer is decreased by a full-term
pregnancy at a young age.

Absolutely.
Do you think that corroborates
or contradicts the ABC link?

Neither. It doesn't have anything to do with abortion.

In case you missed it, I'm talking about the 'ABC link',
or 'ABC theory' if you prefer, not just abortion...

Then you're left with nothing but the fact that women
get breast cancer.

You've lost me... I thought we were talking about the
lower risk as a result of a *full-term* pregnancy at
a young age, and how that fact correlates on the ABC
theory. Just to kill the suspense, that fact corroborates
the ABC theory... and you're left with factoid.

Hint: I know the answer to that already.

Where'd you get your medical degree?

I do not need a PhD to Read, Research and Comprehend,
things written by people who do have medical degrees...

And yet you ignore the conclusion of those who
have medical degrees.

The word I would use is *disagree* with their informed
opinions (not conclusion)... which I think is allowed,
and indeed encouraged in the scientific process, I
reiterate people with medical degrees also disagree...
and I learn from both sides. So your statement is useless.

Additionally, I've taken these words to heart...
Richard P. Feynman:
"I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions.
Of course, you only live one life, and you make all your mistakes,
and learn what not to do, and that's the end of you."

You should read the story of what forced this realization,
its not earth shattering, but it does illustrate the point nicely.
Its in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"

And of course I recognize that scientific opinions are only as
good as the current evidence and political environment.

Sure looks like you have an agenda you're pushing.

I do, so does everyone else. But I try not to push, its
impolite. What those agendas are is the important part.

Even though I made no reference to any popular appeal.

Actually you did. You said it would be 'easy', which
can indeed be interpreted to mean it is 'easy' because

In short, you made up a strawman to battle against.

Battle? What battle? As you so eloquently snipped out,
I was making fun of your argumentative style,

So you lie about what I write in order to amuse yourself?

No, as you continue to snip out my responses...
why should I re-explain it? I'll tell you why,
because I'm a nice guy!

I didn't lie, I simply pointed out that if I wished,
I could take a pessimistic nit picky interpretation of
your posts, as you were doing to me... and focus on
strawmen rather than addressing the pertinent science
and debating points. But in general I do post to amuse
myself and learn/teach new things, which is fun!

Don't treat me like an illiterate please, its aggravating.

You _are_ a scientific illiterate.
A fact which you do not yet recognize.

That would be devastating point, if it were true.

Of course it's true.

I neglect to see how that could be the case,
since I have an active interest in the sciences
and have obviously done more scientific research
than you... at least in regards to the ABC issue,
and apparently evolution.

On the contrary. I already know that the National Cancer Institute
has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of any link.

Well I meant in general of picking scientists out of the
population. Anyway the National Cancer Institute concluded
that?

Yes.

I have yet to see it in your reference.

That's a rather stupid lie given that the cite is just below.

You will have to forgive me, for I am scientifically illiterate
and stupid, I need you to point it out for me please;
where does it say: "no evidence of any link",
or something akin to that meaning. It does clearly state
that the "Current Knowledge" in epidemiology is that
"Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in
breast cancer risk," but that isn't the same as what you
implied.

So if I'm "lying", or rather mistaken... point it out.

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a
workshop of over 100 of the worldÕs leading experts who study
pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed
existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the
relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including
studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that
having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a womanÕs
subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their
findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and
Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at

Who wrote the above?

Stupid *****.

A 'stupid *****' wrote it? I find that hard to believe
since it is better than what you wrote, and I don't
consider you stupid.

But you did forget to indicate snippage.
Try and be more diligent in the future. Thanks.