| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Jan 2005 06:27:05 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
Spartakus wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote...
Ray Fischer wrote:
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a
workshop of over 100 of the world=D5s 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 woman=D5s
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
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report .
So it wasn't your mother,
but rather another authority figure. :')
Three things, this is a summary... not statistics.
So?
Hey Spartakus; glad to hear from you.
Although I forgot to address this point with Ray
I'll give it a whirl with you. Well since it is
a summary I don't know how/who/what they analyzed,
and who steered the analysis.
That workshop was a response to the Bush administration
manipulating their website. So good for the NCI for
reasserting their authority on the matter, but at
the same time it doesn't fill me with confidence they
were objective in their reaction.
Why do you say that?
Action, reaction... a common phenomenon in politics,
one side pushes the other pushes back and before you
know it the subject is polarized and meaningful
examination is all but lost.
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
Now it happens to be primarily (but not exclusively)
based on interview case-control studies. However, I will
NOT be foolish or partisan enough to assume...
and the only people who assert such a link used shoddy
research techniques that invalidated their results.
..=2E. that because recall bias exists it somehow automatically
accounts for ALL positive results within interview studies;
but there are positive results from cohort studies such as
Howe and Melbye; which are void of recall bias.
And of course you recognize that the *minority* of
studies which indicate no link aren't necessarily
well done.
Question:
Which study was "invalidated" from shoddy techniques?
Thirdly Dr. Brind attended that conference...
and it wasn't exactly Kosher.
Dr. Brind is a past president of an anti-choice organization,
which "doesn't fill me with confidence [he was] objective in
[his] reaction".
Absolutely. The scary thing is, since he provides names
and instances that can be corroborated your confidence
in Dr. Brind isn't required. Then again his politics may
dissuade well intentioned people from actually examining
his account. :'|
"The connection between pre-term births and breast
cancer was listed as an "epidemiological gap-not
even level 2, 3, or 4 evidence-despite the fact that,
as pointed out by Dr Brind at the final session,
Dr. Melbye's own group has provided excellent evidence
of the risk-increasing effect of early pre-term births
(before 32 weeks) using the same population database
and the same statistical methodology (without the flaws
in the abortion study), in agreement with the work of
others. The discrepancy in the conclusions by the
workshop vis-=E0-vis these two variables is glaring,
especially since the workshop relied heavily on Melbye's
data to conclude there is no ABC link."
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/abc_nci.htm
Melbye pre-term study: http://tinyurl.com/3jczt
BTW this doesn't contradict my above statement of
positive ABC findings from Melbye. Those results are
*within* the study, not in the abstract summary that
lays out the *statistically adjusted* conclusion. Just
another reason why summaries aren't all they are
cracked up to be.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
04 Jan 2005 10:22:18 PM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
That's misleading to the point of being a lie. The best studies show
no link. The small, cheap, and poorly done studies have sometimes
should a positive correlation and sometimes a negative correlation.
Counting a poorly done study equally as the best studies shows a
willingness to lie to further an agenda.
Now it happens to be primarily (but not exclusively)
based on interview case-control studies. However, I will
NOT be foolish or partisan enough to assume...
and the only people who assert such a link used shoddy
research techniques that invalidated their results.
.=2E. that because recall bias exists it somehow automatically
accounts for ALL positive results within interview studies;
but there are positive results from cohort studies such as
Howe and Melbye; which are void of recall bias.
And which show no correlation.
Now then, the interesting question is why are you so determined to
find a link when the world's experts have concluded that there isn't
any?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
05 Jan 2005 08:08:14 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
That's misleading to the point of being a lie. The best studies show
no link. The small, cheap, and poorly done studies have sometimes
should a positive correlation and sometimes a negative correlation.
Well for once you've done a better job than Spartacus.
He went so far as to think it an outright lie.
Small, cheap and poorly done studies seem to make
the grade if they indicate no link, or show evidence
for recall bias. I find this hypocrisy, and if I may
borrow the term from you, narrow mindedness, appalling.
Counting a poorly done study equally as the best studies
shows a willingness to lie to further an agenda.
Saying they were poorly done based recall bias won't
cut it with me. Yes, recall bias certainly exists...
but how much of the positive results does it effect?
Without numbers from those very same populations
your assertion isn't much.
Now it happens to be primarily (but not exclusively)
based on interview case-control studies. However, I will
NOT be foolish or partisan enough to assume...
and the only people who assert such a link used shoddy
research techniques that invalidated their results.
.=2E. that because recall bias exists it somehow automatically
accounts for ALL positive results within interview studies;
but there are positive results from cohort studies such as
Howe and Melbye; which are void of recall bias.
And which show no correlation.
Now then, the interesting question is why are you so
determined to find a link when the world's experts have
concluded that there isn't any?
Seeing as the world's experts have not done so;
I'll add that to your list of simplifications;
hence I fail to see a need to answer that question.
But I will anyway; I like the science.
I dislike it being subverted by politics.
Be it liberal or conservative.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
05 Jan 2005 08:29:19 PM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
That's misleading to the point of being a lie. The best studies show
no link. The small, cheap, and poorly done studies have sometimes
should a positive correlation and sometimes a negative correlation.
Well for once you've done a better job than Spartacus.
He went so far as to think it an outright lie.
Small, cheap and poorly done studies seem to make
the grade if they indicate no link, or show evidence
for recall bias.
The usual disinformation.
I find this hypocrisy,
I find you dishonest.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
05 Jan 2005 10:23:47 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
That's misleading to the point of being a lie. The best studies
show
no link. The small, cheap, and poorly done studies have sometimes
should a positive correlation and sometimes a negative
correlation.
Well for once you've done a better job than Spartacus.
He went so far as to think it an outright lie.
Small, cheap and poorly done studies seem to make
the grade if they indicate no link, or show evidence
for recall bias.
The usual disinformation.
Your temerity is awe inspiring.
Examine the Lindefors-Harris study on recall bias:
http://tinyurl.com/6pj2t
Then research this correspondence between Brind
and Rookus, an author of the other major recall
bias study... I promise you'll be disappointed:')
http://tinyurl.com/6xyzo
You might actually have to go to a library to
read that correspondence. But doing real research
might do you some good, and the walk will get some
more oxygen to the brain.
I find this hypocrisy,
I find you dishonest.
Ditto.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
06 Jan 2005 02:06:53 AM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
That's misleading to the point of being a lie. The best studies
show
no link. The small, cheap, and poorly done studies have sometimes
should a positive correlation and sometimes a negative
correlation.
Well for once you've done a better job than Spartacus.
He went so far as to think it an outright lie.
Small, cheap and poorly done studies seem to make
the grade if they indicate no link, or show evidence
for recall bias.
The usual disinformation.
Your temerity is awe inspiring.
Your lies and narrow-minded fanaticism are typical of the anti-abortion
terrorist.
Examine the Lindefors-Harris study on recall bias:
http://tinyurl.com/6pj2t
"Probably because of the sensitive nature of abortion, and the
seriousness of malignant disease, reporting of abortion was more
accurate among breast cancer cases, suggesting underreporting by
healthy controls. "
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
06 Jan 2005 10:39:44 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
That's misleading to the point of being a lie. The best
studies
show
no link. The small, cheap, and poorly done studies have
sometimes
should a positive correlation and sometimes a negative
correlation.
Well for once you've done a better job than Spartacus.
He went so far as to think it an outright lie.
Small, cheap and poorly done studies seem to make
the grade if they indicate no link, or show evidence
for recall bias.
The usual disinformation.
Your temerity is awe inspiring.
Your lies and narrow-minded fanaticism are typical of
the anti-abortion terrorist.
I'm sure you would like it to be.
Which lies?
Examine the Lindefors-Harris study on recall bias:
http://tinyurl.com/6pj2t
"Probably because of the sensitive nature of abortion,
and the seriousness of malignant disease, reporting of
abortion was more accurate among breast cancer cases,
suggesting underreporting by healthy controls. "
There was a second part to that point,
why did you snip it Ray? Yet again you
seem to miss/ignore the point. I agree with the
above quotation, but there is a bit of a
gap between how much underreporting they
conclude; and how much there actually was.
Certainly you would be unaware of this if you
simply insist on quoting from their abstract
and not doing further research.
Louis:
******
Then research this correspondence between Brind
and Rookus, an author of the other major recall
bias study... I promise you'll be disappointed:')
http://tinyurl.com/6xyzo
******
Stop snipping my points...
or are YOU too fanatical, lazy and
narrow-minded to actually learn something?
You of course recognize this constant snipping
isn't good netiquette, and undermines your
credibility. If you feel it is crap, do not
snip it... expose it as crap.
That would be more effective.
Have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
06 Jan 2005 11:21:28 PM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
That's misleading to the point of being a lie. The best
studies
show
no link. The small, cheap, and poorly done studies have
sometimes
should a positive correlation and sometimes a negative
correlation.
Well for once you've done a better job than Spartacus.
He went so far as to think it an outright lie.
Small, cheap and poorly done studies seem to make
the grade if they indicate no link, or show evidence
for recall bias.
The usual disinformation.
Your temerity is awe inspiring.
Your lies and narrow-minded fanaticism are typical of
the anti-abortion terrorist.
I'm sure you would like it to be.
Which lies?
Pretending that the number of studies is more important than the
quality of the studies.
Examine the Lindefors-Harris study on recall bias:
http://tinyurl.com/6pj2t
"Probably because of the sensitive nature of abortion,
and the seriousness of malignant disease, reporting of
abortion was more accurate among breast cancer cases,
suggesting underreporting by healthy controls. "
There was a second part to that point,
why did you snip it Ray?
Why do you ignore the part quoted?
Yet again you
seem to miss/ignore the point. I agree with the
above quotation, but there is a bit of a
gap between how much underreporting they
conclude; and how much there actually was.
Are you saying that there _might_ be some link between
abortion and breast cancer?
Sure. The evidence indicates otherwise.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
09 Jan 2005 08:51:26 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
That's misleading to the point of being a lie. The best
studies
show
no link. The small, cheap, and poorly done studies have
sometimes
should a positive correlation and sometimes a negative
correlation.
Well for once you've done a better job than Spartacus.
He went so far as to think it an outright lie.
Small, cheap and poorly done studies seem to make
the grade if they indicate no link, or show evidence
for recall bias.
The usual disinformation.
Your temerity is awe inspiring.
Your lies and narrow-minded fanaticism are
typical of the anti-abortion terrorist.
I'm sure you would like it to be.
Which lies?
Pretending that the number of studies is more
important than the quality of the studies.
So you've shown those studies to be of low
quality? Do tell! I'll repeat something I
noted to Spartakus...
"The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
didn't think Brind was lying in March 2000.
http://tinyurl.com/69vq9"
Not sure if this qualifies as an "ally",
but I think it is certainly sufficient
to undercut your assertions that Brind
is "lying" or being "deceptive" in his
characterization of studies.
Although I didn't note it before your use
of the word terrorist is insulting. I urge
you to stop using it lest you become an
idealogue like Bush Jr.
You say Brind is being misleading by noting
the number of studies indicating a link,
because those studies are or low quality...
but when it comes to demonstrating that you
fail. Please seperate your opinions from fact,
because I seem to be more aware of where the
facts stop and your own opinions start.
Examine the Lindefors-Harris study on recall bias:
http://tinyurl.com/6pj2t
"Probably because of the sensitive nature of abortion,
and the seriousness of malignant disease, reporting of
abortion was more accurate among breast cancer cases,
suggesting underreporting by healthy controls. "
There was a second part to that point,
why did you snip it Ray?
Why do you ignore the part quoted?
Why ask that question when I state plainly
below I agree with what you quoted. What I
DISAGREE with is your tendency to snip my
posts as I try to explain my position,
and why you are wrong, again.
Yet again you
seem to miss/ignore the point. I agree with the
above quotation, but there is a bit of a
gap between how much underreporting they
conclude; and how much there actually was.
Are you saying that there _might_ be some link
between abortion and breast cancer?
Sure. The evidence indicates otherwise.
Not if you do the research. You have not.
Hardly a surprise.
I will repost the follow up to the study
Ray quoted http://tinyurl.com/6pj2t
Since science, unlike Ray, does
not remain stubborn and static.
http://tinyurl.com/6xyzo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
05 Jan 2005 09:23:22 AM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote...
Spartakus wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote...
Ray Fischer wrote:
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
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report .
[...]
Although I forgot to address this point with Ray
I'll give it a whirl with you. Well since it is
a summary I don't know how/who/what they analyzed,
and who steered the analysis.
Fair enough. But I'll bet you'd still be poo-pooing this summary even if it
was footnoted and the authors identified.
That workshop was a response to the Bush administration
manipulating their website. So good for the NCI for
reasserting their authority on the matter, but at
the same time it doesn't fill me with confidence they
were objective in their reaction.
Why do you say that?
Action, reaction... a common phenomenon in politics,
one side pushes the other pushes back and before you
know it the subject is polarized and meaningful
examination is all but lost.
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
Brind is lying. From a 1996 review of the literature:
"To evaluate the relationship between breast cancer risk and spontaneous and
induced abortion, we conducted a detailed descriptive review of 32
epidemiologic studies that provided data by type of abortion and by various
measures of exposure to abortion--number of abortions, timing of abortion in
relation to first full-term pregnancy, length of gestation, and age at first
abortion. Breast cancer risk did not appear to be associated with an
increasing number of spontaneous or induced abortions."
(Cancer Causes Control 1997 Jan;8(1):93-108
Since that review, several other studies, including the famous Melbye study,
have corroborated this finding.
Now it happens to be primarily (but not exclusively)
based on interview case-control studies. However, I will
NOT be foolish or partisan enough to assume...
That is not the only issue. Brind merely performed meta-analyses of previous
studies. Meta-analysis of clinical research is questionable, since it is
subject to bad study design and researcher bias in deciding which studies to
look at and how to weight the data in each study. Combining the results of
several bad studies doesn't magically improve the results. In short, garbage
in => garbage out.
and the only people who assert such a link used shoddy
research techniques that invalidated their results.
... that because recall bias exists it somehow automatically
accounts for ALL positive results within interview studies;
but there are positive results from cohort studies such as
Howe and Melbye; which are void of recall bias.
Are you crazy? Melbye's conclusions are the exact opposite.
Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K,
Andersen PK
Department of Epidemiology Research, Danish Epidemiology Science Center,
Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
"BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that an interrupted pregnancy might
increase a woman's risk of breast cancer because breast cells could
proliferate without the later protective effect of differentiation. METHODS:
We established a population-based cohort with information on parity and vital
status consisting of all Danish women born from April 1, 1935, through March
31, 1978. Through linkage with the National Registry of Induced Abortions,
information on the number and dates of induced abortions among those women
was combined with information on the gestational age of each aborted fetus.
All new cases of breast cancer were identified through linkage with the
Danish Cancer Registry. RESULTS: In the cohort of 1.5 million women (28.5
million person-years), we identified 370,715 induced abortions among 280,965
women (2.7 million person-years) and 10,246 women with breast cancer. After
adjustment for known risk factors, induced abortion was not associated with
an increased risk of breast cancer (relative risk, 1.00; 95 percent
confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.06). No increases in risk were found in
subgroups defined according to age at abortion, parity, time since abortion,
or age at diagnosis
of breast cancer. The relative risk of breast cancer increased with
increasing gestational age of the fetus at the time of the most
recent induced abortion: <7 weeks, 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.58
to 1.13); 7 to 8 weeks, 1.01 (0.89 to 1.14); 9 to 10 weeks, 1.00 >12 weeks,
1.38 (1.00 to 1.90) (reference category, 9 to 10 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Induced
abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer."
Just to put the second to last statement into perspective, the stated
increase in *relative risk* for late-term abortions is statistically
insignificant.
Thirdly Dr. Brind attended that conference...
and it wasn't exactly Kosher.
Dr. Brind is a past president of an anti-choice organization,
which "doesn't fill me with confidence [he was] objective in
[his] reaction".
Absolutely. The scary thing is, since he provides names
and instances that can be corroborated your confidence
in Dr. Brind isn't required. Then again his politics may
dissuade well intentioned people from actually examining
his account.
Look, Brind isn't even an M.D. He is a Ph.D. who specializes in sex hormone
research. He has done no original research on abortion and breast cancer
himself. Furthermore, after all his massagings of the data, Brind could only
eke out a statistically insignificant increase in the risk of breast cancer.
Women are still far more likely to die from other causes before the risk of
breast cancer comes into play.
"Abortion causes breast cancer," or even "Abortion increases your risk of
breast cancer," is an easy way to get people's attention. It's also dirty
pool, because it isn't true, and it plays on women's unrealistic, inflated
fears of developing the disease.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
05 Jan 2005 09:37:23 PM |
|
|
Spartakus wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote...
Spartakus wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote...
Ray Fischer wrote:
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
convened a
workshop of over 100 of the world=D5s 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
woman=D5s
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
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report .
[...]
Although I forgot to address this point with Ray
I'll give it a whirl with you. Well since it is
a summary I don't know how/who/what they analyzed,
and who steered the analysis.
Fair enough.
Whew... after reading the rest of this post,
I'm glad you provided me at least this much credit. :)
But I'll bet you'd still be poo-pooing this summary even
if it was footnoted and the authors identified.
What would you have me do? Please appreciate my situation
here Spartakus. The NCI workshop was NOT a transparent
process and I have only the summary to go by from them;
and that does not tell me much. (I'm use to reading full
reports, findings, discussions, etc.)
So I turn to Dr. Brind, an anti-abortionist, but an
anti-abortionist who happened to be there. Am I to
ignore his account? And when I bring it up people like
Ray, he focuses on Brind and not the points... and I'm
left between a rock and a hard place. I WANT to know
what actually happened at the NCI workshop... but my
best attempts to do so are met... not with skepticism,
but CHEAP skepticism and ad-homs coupled with
indifference.
You said it was fair enough to know...
well is it fair to reject a first person account
out of hand!?
And as I reinserted below is it not reasonable to assume
the NCI workshop did indeed rely heavily on Melbye's
cohort study? If that is the case I wouldn't be poo-pooing
anything, I would be incisively critiquing the Melbye study.
But I don't know... so poo on you sir, poo on you. :'|
[snip...]
Virtually all the research shows there is no link
between abortion and breast cancer
When Dr. Brind mentions in his meta-analysis the majority
of the research indicates an ABC link, it is a fact.
Brind is lying. From a 1996 review of the literature:
"To evaluate the relationship between breast cancer risk and
spontaneous and
induced abortion, we conducted a detailed descriptive review of 32
epidemiologic studies that provided data by type of abortion and by
various
measures of exposure to abortion--number of abortions, timing of
abortion in
relation to first full-term pregnancy, length of gestation, and age
at first
abortion. Breast cancer risk did not appear to be associated with an
increasing number of spontaneous or induced abortions."
(Cancer Causes Control 1997 Jan;8(1):93-108
He is not lying, it is a difference of opinion.
Big difference... and Dr. Brind's perspective does
better match the actual results of those studies.
The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
didn't think Brind was lying in March 2000.
http://tinyurl.com/69vq9
And since you are quoting the abstract...
I'll post the rest of it:
"Our review also suggested that breast cancer
risk probably was not related to the other
measures of exposure to abortion, and probably
did not differ by age or a family history of
breast cancer. Finally, the data appeared to
suggest a slightly increased risk among
nulliparous women, but this tendency was based
primarily on studies with a small number of
nulliparous women who had had spontaneous or
induced abortions. Definitive conclusions about
an association between breast cancer risk and
spontaneous or induced abortion are not possible
at present because of inconsistent findings across
studies. Future investigations should consider
prospective designs, separate analyses of spontaneous
and induced abortions, appropriate referent groups,
and adequate adjustment for confounding and effect
modification. Future investigations also should
attempt to determine whether any increased risks
reflect the transient increase in breast cancer risk
hypothesized for full-term pregnancy or a causal
relationship specific to spontaneous or induced
abortion."
http://tinyurl.com/4eulc
I see nothing which indicates Dr. Brind was lying.
I find it humorous that you and they insist on
calling it a "review" when it is a meta-analysis
just like Dr. Brind's. And based on the dates it
could have been a response to Brind's paper.
Since that review, several other studies,
including the famous Melbye study,
have corroborated this finding.
Yup, and raised new questions.
Now it happens to be primarily (but not exclusively)
based on interview case-control studies. However, I will
NOT be foolish or partisan enough to assume...
That is not the only issue. Brind merely performed meta-analyses of
previous
studies. Meta-analysis of clinical research is questionable, since
it is
subject to bad study design and researcher bias in deciding which
studies to
look at and how to weight the data in each study. Combining the
results of
several bad studies doesn't magically improve the results. In short,
garbage
in =3D> garbage out.
And what the hell do you think your "review" was doing?
If one assumes certain studies are garbage without evidence
to show for it; and one focuses rejections on studies
which show a link because OBVIOUSLY they are flawed;
you get assumptions in =3D> assumptions out. >:'}=3D
and the only people who assert such a link used shoddy
research techniques that invalidated their results.
... that because recall bias exists it somehow automatically
accounts for ALL positive results within interview studies;
but there are positive results from cohort studies such as
Howe and Melbye; which are void of recall bias.
Are you crazy? Melbye's conclusions are the exact opposite.
May I ask what happened to the following,
which I had further down the post?
"BTW this doesn't contradict my above statement of
positive ABC findings from Melbye. Those results are
*within* the study, not in the abstract summary that
lays out the *statistically adjusted* conclusion. Just
another reason why summaries aren't all they are
cracked up to be."
You then go on to quote me the abstract;
I acknowledge the conclusion; which I disagree with
because of their unrestrained use of statistical
adjustment.
Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T,
Helweg-Larsen K,
Andersen PK
Department of Epidemiology Research, Danish Epidemiology Science
Center,
Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
"BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that an interrupted pregnancy
might
increase a woman's risk of breast cancer because breast cells could
proliferate without the later protective effect of differentiation.
METHODS:
We established a population-based cohort with information on parity
and vital
status consisting of all Danish women born from April 1, 1935,
through March
31, 1978. Through linkage with the National Registry of Induced
Abortions,
information on the number and dates of induced abortions among those
women
was combined with information on the gestational age of each aborted
fetus.
All new cases of breast cancer were identified through linkage with
the
Danish Cancer Registry. RESULTS: In the cohort of 1.5 million women
(28.5
million person-years), we identified 370,715 induced abortions among
280,965
women (2.7 million person-years) and 10,246 women with breast cancer.
After
adjustment for known risk factors, induced abortion was not
associated with
an increased risk of breast cancer (relative risk, 1.00; 95 percent
confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.06). No increases in risk were found
in
subgroups defined according to age at abortion, parity, time since
abortion,
or age at diagnosis
of breast cancer. The relative risk of breast cancer increased with
increasing gestational age of the fetus at the time of the most
recent induced abortion: <7 weeks, 0.81 (95 percent confidence
interval, 0.58
to 1.13); 7 to 8 weeks, 1.01 (0.89 to 1.14); 9 to 10 weeks, 1.00 >12
weeks,
1.38 (1.00 to 1.90) (reference category, 9 to 10 weeks). CONCLUSIONS:
Induced
abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer."
Just to put the second to last statement into perspective,
the stated increase in *relative risk* for late-term
abortions is statistically insignificant.
Thanks for your perspective Spartakus, which is well
intentioned and true regarding statistical significance,
but fails to fully note what is actually going on.
Why are you emphasizing relative risk (RR)?
Why not emphasize the reference group of that RR?
And the finding that risk continues to increase
as gestation increases?
But then again that finding is *within* the study.
As previously noted.
Thirdly Dr. Brind attended that conference...
and it wasn't exactly Kosher.
Dr. Brind is a past president of an anti-choice organization,
which "doesn't fill me with confidence [he was] objective in
[his] reaction".
Absolutely. The scary thing is, since he provides names
and instances that can be corroborated your confidence
in Dr. Brind isn't required. Then again his politics may
dissuade well intentioned people from actually examining
his account.
I expect redirection from Ray, but not you Spartakus.
I will not respond to below until you address
the POINT, not the person(s) of this:
"The connection between pre-term births and breast
cancer was listed as an "epidemiological gap-not
even level 2, 3, or 4 evidence-despite the fact that,
as pointed out by Dr Brind at the final session,
Dr. Melbye's own group has provided excellent evidence
of the risk-increasing effect of early pre-term births
(before 32 weeks) using the same population database
and the same statistical methodology (without the flaws
in the abortion study), in agreement with the work of
others. The discrepancy in the conclusions by the
workshop vis-=E0-vis these two variables is glaring,
especially since the workshop relied heavily on Melbye's
data to conclude there is no ABC link."
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/abc_nci.htm
Melbye pre-term study: http://tinyurl.com/3jczt
Look, Brind isn't even an M.D. He is a Ph.D. who specializes in sex
hormone
research. He has done no original research on abortion and breast
cancer
himself. Furthermore, after all his massagings of the data, Brind
could only
eke out a statistically insignificant increase in the risk of breast
cancer.
Women are still far more likely to die from other causes before the
risk of
breast cancer comes into play.
"Abortion causes breast cancer," or even "Abortion increases your
risk of
breast cancer," is an easy way to get people's attention. It's also
dirty
pool, because it isn't true, and it plays on women's unrealistic,
inflated
fears of developing the disease.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
