brighid

Moderator Hat On

I would like to extend a friendly reminder to please stay on topic. This is a discussion about the abortion and cancer, not alcoholism, etc. If you have something to add about the OP please do (within the guidelines) or else start a new thread.

Modertor Hat Off

Brighid

dk

dk: I’m sure the ASC regrets the imprudent recommendation.
Dr Rick: : What recommendation is that? When did the ACS ever recommend post-menopausal women to take HRT?
dk: For example, today I found on the ACS web page… Cancer Organization that says, “Female hormones: Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in post-menopausal women may slightly reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. HRT lowers the risk of developing osteoporosis in post-menopausal women but may increase breast and uterine cancer risk. The overall health effect of HRT is a positive one for most women but the decision to take estrogen should be based on discussion of benefits and risks with a physician.”

Meanwhile in the real world… “IT’S ANOTHER NAIL in the coffin” for the use of hormones during and after menopause, said St. Louis gynecologist Dr. Robert Blaskiewicz, a Saint Louis University professor.
….The study appears in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Medical Association.
….The findings in women 65 and older challenge the long-held notion that estrogen-progestin supplements can help women keep their minds sharp — a belief that was based on smaller, less rigorous studies.” - MSNBC News .

(snip)

dk: This raises three essential questions, First: What wrong minded assumptions lead the ACS to make the imprudent recommendation in the first place?… Second: Why did the ACS stand by the recommendation for so long?… Third: What other recommendations has the ACS made that need to be re-evaluated.
Dr Rick: What recommendations have got you in such a lather? Is it the ones about breast cancer screening or the ones about prostate cancer?
dk: Conclusions the ACS has published for the last 20 years on the effects of estrogen on cancer have been found errant. Say it ain’t so Joe.

dk: (snip) Dr. Rick enters into the debate to defend the moral rectitude of the ACS. (snip)
Dr Rick: Actually, I was just trying to address this nonsense about a link between abortion and breast cancer, then you came along with some wild accusations against the ACS, and started going on about all sorts of stuff like conspiracies and hrt.
dk: I was reporting a long history of malfeasance by health agencies like the ASC on female health issues. They may or may not find a link between breast cancer and abortion, but some researchers claim to have found a link. In light of recent revelations I wouldn’t take their claims lightly. The medical community for some wrong minded reason has pushed female hormones as a snake oil cure for everything from pimples and PMS to cancer, heart attacks and dementia. Its clear the science has overstated the findings. But that’s what happens when science and politics collide.

Bumble Bee Tuna

No. My entire argument, which you keenly ignore every time, is simply that your methodology for deciding that the ACS is lying is illogical. That's all. I know nothing about eh ACS's history of possible mistakes, nor do I need to for my argument. I'm just saying that:

1. The ACS is publicly denying lying about something.
2. Every time someone publicly denies lying, it means they did in fact lie.
3. The ACS is therefore lying.

is not a valid argument, namely because premise #2 is faulty (as I showed with an argument from absurdity).

That is all I was doing here, and it appears I was successful as you have now given up on trying to make that argument.

-B

EDIT: Sorry, now I see the warning about off-topic posts. This will be my last, then.

brighid

Well, now that you are done reporting what you feel your arguments will either stand, or fall on their own. Either continue on topic, or start another thread.

Brighid
Moderator

dk

Since the post started on a political note with ... Sorry Brighid but I'm the only one that's on topic. Obviously the people of Texas don't trust the ACS, or they wouldn't have passed a law to override the findings of the ACS. We have a crisis of confidence because people have lost trust in the health system. This is a laugher, and you're not a moderator but an advocate.

eldar1011

Do the people of Texas trust any of these people?

"...federal government researchers..."

"...the National Cancer Institute — the federal government's cancer research organization ..."

"...most large health-care organizations..."

I ask because I don't know why you are so focused on the ACS. I genuinely don't know what kind of power or influence the ACS has in these matters. Is it so pervasive that the Texas legislature needs to pass a law to counter the ACS?

Dr Rick

Everyone of those statements is correct; there is no attempt to hide information from anyone, and there is nothing misleading about it.

In other words, there never was a recommendation on the subject from the ACS, just a summary of the available data at the time which indicated that the benefits outweigh the risks. Medicine, like all of the applied sciences, changes as new information is obtained, and now the preponderance of evidence shows that the benefits of hrt do not outweigh the risks, though someday that may change once again as we learn more.

This is science, not politics or religion. The scientific information we have has shown that abortion is not linked to breast cancer, and no amount of legislation from Texas or rants about the ACS is going to change that; only scientific evidence can.

There are some studies that once suggested that blunt trauma to the chest might increase the risk of breast cancer, but those were subsequently disproven by later, better designed studies. There were some early studies that showed a possible connection between abortion and breast cancer, but subsequent, better designed studies have refuted those, too.

The religious and political attempts to scare women into worrying about breast cancer if they exercise their right to choose is not based upon science, and claims that "we might find" a link can be applied to almost anything that we do.

I'm sure you believe that you must have a point, but whatever it is, it's probably off-topic, too.

A not so subtle shift from the word recommendations to conclusions isn't gonna' validate your off-topic nonsense, either, because you are still wrong. The link between estrogen and breast cancer has been known since 1896, and the ACS never challenged it.

The only imprudence we've seen on this thread is the making of false claims about non-existent recommendations influenced by fantasy political agendas.

In order: a false dichotomy, a strawman, and another demonstration of imprudence.

You've been making stuff up and getting called on it, but that’s what happens when ignorance and religion combine.

dk

Texas passed a law that requires abortion providers disseminate information about a possible link between breast cancer and abortion. The ACS responded in the article that began the thread, and that's why the focus on the ACS. Its nothing personal.

The Other Michael

dk,

Let me refresh your memory about one of the rules at IIDB:

If a moderator asks you to do something, you need to cooperate with the request. If you have a problem with it, you still need to cooperate with the request, and then you can take it to the BPC forum or you can take it up with the Administrators via email.

brighid does an excellent job of moderating this forum, and she enjoys the full confidence of the Administrators here at IIDB in her abilities to discharge her moderator duties in an evenhanded manner.

Michael
Administrator
MF&P Moderator

Loren Pechtel

Who says anything about the *PEOPLE* of Texas? This is the act of some fundies in power.