dk

dk: Almost sounds like a tacit admission the American Cancer Society's misleads people.
Dr Rick: Huh?! It sure looks to me more like an explicit denial that they don't.
dk: To say, “We wouldn’t lie about this”, implies we would lie about something else.

dk: I wonder how much of that $100mil rides on a faltering reputation. Recent revelations about HRT treatments didn't do the ACS's vaunted reputation much good. NIH clipped the ACS's wings.
Dr Rick: I just know that I'm going to regret asking this, but would you please explain what you're going-on about here? Are your referring to the same NIH as the one that you claimed on another thread was cajoled or conspired into fixing information for the "homosexual community"?
dk: HRT stands for hormone replacement therapy. For about a decade they’ve used hormone blockers to treat and prevent breast cancer, and dispensed the same hormones to treat PMS, fertility and menopause. hmmmm

dk: One has to wonder how HRT treatments and breast cancer slipped by right under the noses of these people.
Dr Rick: Probably the same way it slipped under yours and mine and everyone else's: we didn't know that it could be harmful in part because the relative risk is so small that it took the largest studies ever done to address this issue after several smaller ones had revealed contradictory data and after the benefits of preventing osteoporosis with HRT had been established. HRT's are just one of many medications that were "standard therapies " based upon early data later found to have problems and subsequently withdrawn or curtailed including some anti-arrhythmics, antibiotics, and chemotherapies.
dk: Do you mean erroneous data, incomplete data, manipulated data or misinterpreted data. Its one thing to treat a deadly cancer with a dangerous therapy, and quit another to treat a healthy person with a carcinogen.

Dr Rick: Do you similarly "wonder how these slipped under the noses of these people?" Is this all part of that same "conspiracy" you cited on another thread against the "nuclear family"?
dk: I’m not sure why you appear to conclude human frailties personify a conspiracy theory.

dk: Seems to me the ACS fund raisers profit from breast cancer. Could it be that the pill, abortion and the rise in breast cancer don't pass the smell test? I'd say the ASC may have a more serious problem than they can afford to let on.
Dr Rick: Spurious accusations without any supportive data are easy to post on the internet; it's also an easy way to lose any credibility one might have left. If you can't or won't support a diatribe, don't make one, or at least save it for some fundie site were it will be appreciated.
dk: There’s nothing spurious about the money the ACS collects to study breast cancer. The incidence of breast cancer from 1973 to 1990 rose rapidly (34% white women, 46% black women http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00043942.htm). Why should the ACS look for an underlying cause?

Dr Rick

The only lies are coming from the pro-lifers, and they are quite explicit. The goals aren't about women or babies; their's is an agenda against freedom, and they have repeatedly shown how low they will go to promote it, even going so far as to murder.

Now the pro-lifers are deliberately lying with their claims that abortion might lead to breast cancer; it doesn't.

It's not the ACS or the NIH that's lying and bombing; it's the pro-lifers.

Rick

openeyes

There's so much going on during pregnancy, delivery, recovery, nursing, raising baby, that it is virtually impossible to be forewarned about everything that may happen. Suffice to say that it's a lot more complicated giving birth then having a first trimester abortion. Somehow, I don't think that's emphasized.

pug846

Loren, I’ve given up trying to explain medical malpractice to you since no matter what the law is or what studies show, you have your opinion, which are usually formed because you knew someone who knew someone who met a guy in a bar once that thinks your position is supportable.

Texas requires a doctor to do what a “reasonably prudent member of the profession” would do. If a malpractice case were to actually arise, and I can’t imagine that it would, the doctor would win on summary judgment since a reasonably prudent member of the profession would comply with a state safety statue. The judge, particularly the incompetent set of conservative justices in this state, would never allow the case to reach a jury. (The few liberal judges, unless they’re incompetent, wouldn’t allow the case to reach the jury either.) You would be much more likely to get a malpractice case when a doctor failed to comply with the statue. Although, I would assume that telling a patient knowingly false information about a medical procedure would violate some sort of rules of professional conduct for doctors, but I doubt that gives rise to a cause of action.

Besides, this is all entirely relevant now anyways since the same legislature is about to pass a horrendous tort reform bill that makes it incredibly difficult to litigate a medical malpractice case. Of course, even with the new restrictions, which are patently irrational, insurance rates will not decrease and those damn evil plaintiffs’ lawyers will be blamed.

--
DK, does the ‘D’ stand for denial?! What are you talking about?

dk

I'm just a network analyst, but the rapid rise of the incidence of breast cancer between 1973 and 1992 rather suggests the introduction of something new into the envirnment. What do you think Rick?

dk

Dr. Brind explains...

Loren Pechtel

Where's this idiot getting his data??

Most abortions are first trimester!

openeyes

I wondered the same thing. Of course most abortions are first-trimester.

My point is that for most women, a difference in the risk of breast cancer, if there is one, is such a miniscule consideration in the whole scheme of a pregnancy, wanted or otherwise.
What does that say about the level of their argument when they have to pass on such obvious mis-information? It's so obvious what's going on and frightening that sort of mindset can be translated into law.

dk

The comments pertain to the Danish Study, but this should clear up any confusion...

The Melbye [Danish] study actually found a statistically significant trend of a 3% risk increase for each week of gestation before abortion, even within the first trimester: Women who had an abortion of an 11-12 week fetus showed a 12% higher breast cancer risk, with the risk increase rising to 89% for abortions after 18 weeks (but it wasn't in the study's "Conclusions"). - Talking points re: the Danish abortion study by Melbye et al., : published in the 1/9/97 "New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM)

Link from previous post,
Breast Cancer and Abortion:

dk

Odd, I thought pro-choice people preached tolerance and were not-judgmental, yet you seem to be in a rush to judgment. Alas, judgment is often the first casualty when science and politics collide.