Talk:Harvard abortion study

(baseless attack deleted)

Assuming you mean the original article reporting the study, I agree completely. Rarely have a seen a more blatant example of junk science. You can't exclude people who die of breast cancer, from a study on breast cancer! --Ed Poor 13:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry but wait just one cotton-picking horn-swaggling carn-sarnint (civility filter on) minute here, it doesnt say that the people who were excluded from followup as a result from death had died of breast cancer. I have a hard time believing they'd just ignore those deaths if they did occur, where on earth did you get tie impression that they did? Further, where the entry reads that it excludes women who got cancer afterwards, its excluding women who did and who didnt have abortions who got cancer afterwards because in those circumstances they're outside of the control of the experiment. You're misreporting out of context factoids that otherwise would show how stirctly they adhered to the scientific method in a pathetic attempt to show how the study ignored the most relevant data it was examining, as though the entire scientific community wouldnt have jumped on their necks already. No wonder why the CPedia front page gloats that "Only on Conservapedia" will use of the scientific method be deemed a sin.--RexMundane 13:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

1. It doesn't say that. It says Only on Conservapedia: this study debunked.
2. Thanks for turning on your civility filter: I read you loud and clear.

--Ed Poor 13:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems that footnote 6 to the article argues that there is not a link between cancer and abortion.--1048247 13:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)1048247

How about a link to the actual study so we can draw our own conclusions instead of reading Andy's slanted opinions? Jrssr5 13:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's the NY Times's spin on it: [1] --Ed Poor 13:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

And here's an older NY Times story: [2] --Ed Poor 13:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I point out, that although I think I have a scientific background, that I have no idea what:

"Among parous women [the overwhelming majority of the study], the [hazard ratios] HRs were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.13-2.20) for PR- breast cancer and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05) for PR+ breast cancer (P for heterogeneity = 0.002) among women with induced a.."

actually means in real terms for women. If this is meant to be an informative article, than it fails because it makes the mistake of in attempting to be scientifically accurate, it actually presents scientific gobbledegook. The HR is presumably a hazard ratio. Does that mean that the increased risk represents a 1.58%, or 58% increase, and an increase on what? If the chance of developing breast cancer is 50%, then is the increase to 51.8% (hardly a significant increase) or to 76% (a pretty devastating significant). On the other hand if the risk is 0.05%, then and increase to 1.63% would be pretty significant, whereas one to 0.076% would not really be significant at all.

Please consider your audience. --CatWatcher 13:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

That part should probably be rewritten. Basically it means that the women in the study who had children (parous) were 58% more likely to get progesterone negative breast cancer if they ever had an abortion, and the same women were somewhat less likely to get progesterone positive breast cancer. If I did the math right there were 442 breast cancer cases among women who ever had an abortion. 59 (13%) were progresterone negative and 92 (21%) were progesterone positive. Murray 13:57, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

And according to [3] the prevalence among US women of breast cancer in general is about 1 in 8. Though to extrapolate the risk for PR- from the study (ie, what % of women who had abortions will get it by these figures) we'd need to know the rate of PR- breast cancer. Murray 13:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

That makes more sense. However, the point still remains (and it's not just here, it's generally in reporting of medical research). Whenever anyone says there is an incresed risk of X, if X is very low probability, then the incresed risk is negligible. It only matters if the original risk is significant, and the increase is significant. --CatWatcher 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Murray, your comments are enlightening. Catwatcher, realize that I'm quoting from the study and it is the fault of the authors for downplaying that fact and not explaining it better. But as Murray shows, these are significant percentages, not the unimportant ones that you suggest might be the case.--Aschlafly 14:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Opinions in article

this age disparity is analogous to an attempt to draw conclusions about heart disease by studying teenagers.

This statement is not a fact, however, it leads readers to believe it is. So I changed the sentenced and attributed the sentence to the person that first stated the sentence to make it a fact.

The analogy is factual. Don't make your change a third time. It's inappropriate to insert someone's user id. into an entry anyway. The page history has that info.--Aschlafly 14:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Would like to start by pointing out one clear error for starters. At the start of the study, the women where between ages of 29-46 [4] So, how can one get the avrage age of the womens in the study to be 42 now 14 years later when the yongest women in the study should be atleast 43? Timppeli 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)