Loren Pechtel

You seem to be arguing with yourself!

Bumble Bee Tuna

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dk
To say, “We wouldn’t lie about this”, implies we would lie about something else.
[QUOTE]

You can't be serious with this, can you?

They are saying "We wouldn't lie about anything, period. But, we also have evidence we can give you, if you don't trust us, that shows why we have good reasons not to lie so you can trust us".

I could tell you I am not lying about anything, and it relaly wouldn't be able to change your opinion on whether I was telling the truth in the slightest. If I could conclusively demonstrate, however, that I was hooked up to a polygraph machine and if I failed the polygraph test, my arms would automatically be chopped off, you'd have better reason to believe me, right? This is what the ACS is saying: If we lied about this, we would lose our reputation. If we lost our reputation, our organization would be significantly weakened. Therefore, we wouldn't lie about this."

It is ridiculous to draw the conclusion that this is admitting they would lie about other things.

-B

dk

dk: To say, “We wouldn’t lie about this”, implies we would lie about something else.
Bumble Bee Tuna: You can't be serious with this, can you?
dk: I think there's always a great temptation to spin results to align with personal goals and commitments. The more politically charged the issue the greater the temptation.

Bumble Bee Tuna: They are saying "We wouldn't lie about anything, period. But, we also have evidence we can give you, if you don't trust us, that shows why we have good reasons not to lie so you can trust us".
dk: That’s not what they said, but what you heard. Everyone agrees the rate of breast cancer in women has risen sharply from 1973-1992 then leveled off. Obviously until an underlying cause can be identified caution should be the rule. This was an imprudent statement in my opinion.

Bumble Bee Tuna: I could tell you I am not lying about anything, and it really wouldn't be able to change your opinion on whether I was telling the truth in the slightest. If I could conclusively demonstrate, however, that I was hooked up to a polygraph machine and if I failed the polygraph test, my arms would automatically be chopped off, you'd have better reason to believe me, right? This is what the ACS is saying: If we lied about this, we would lose our reputation. If we lost our reputation, our organization would be significantly weakened. Therefore, we wouldn't lie about this."
It is ridiculous to draw the conclusion that this is admitting they would lie about other things.
dk: Richard Nixon said, “I am not a crook” in the Checker speech. Clinton’s said, “"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me ... I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,". Bush Sr. said, “Read my lips, I will not raise taxes.” Jesse Jackson said, “"There is no evidence that there is any inconsistency or impropriety." to refute the alleged illegal payments to the mother of his baby. When somebody publically announces “I’m not lying”, “I’m not a crook”, “I did not have xxxx…”,,, etc… I start to laugh.

Dr Rick

The reported incidence of colorectal, prostate, esophogeal, liver, lung (especially for women: "you've come a long way, baby"- [ad line for cigarrettes]) esophageal and other cancers also increased over the same time period worldwide; your argument implying that there must be a conspiracy by the NIH or ACS just isn't convincing. I don't believe the data allows us to attribute the rise in any of these cancers to them, hormone manipulation, the liberal-left, homosexuals, or whatever other group you may feel like blaming.

If your looking for a villian, consider the Republicans and big businesses who have impeded regulation of toxic wastes and carcinogens for years.

I don't see the point in getting off-topic about this other than to draw attention away from the desperate lies of the pro-life movement. Abortion does not cause breast cancer, but they want you to think it does.

dk

Dr Rick: The reported incidence of colorectal, prostate, esophogeal, liver, lung (especially for women: "you've come a long way, baby"- [ad line for cigarrettes]) esophageal and other cancers also increased over the same time period worldwide; your argument implying that there must be a conspiracy by the NIH or ACS just isn't convincing. I don't believe the data allows us to attribute the rise in any of these cancers to them, hormone manipulation, the liberal-left, homosexuals, or whatever other group you may feel like blaming.
dk: That’s great Rick, but smoking, chewing and sniffing tobacco was popularized in the Roaring 20s, and peaked in the 1950s. For the last 30 years tobacco use in all its forms has declined. Breast Cancer increased dramatically during the last 30 years while the general cancer rates declined, says the ACS. So tobacco may be a fact of Breast Cancer, but an unlikely factor in the dramatic rise of Breast Cancer incidence.

Dr Rick: If your looking for a villain, consider the Republicans and big businesses who have impeded regulation of toxic wastes and carcinogens for years.
dk: Huh? I’ve heard he EPA says they’ve reduced pollution over the last 30 years. Again this may be a fact of Breast Cancer, but an unlikely factor in the dramatic rise of Breast Cancer incidence.

Dr Rick: I don't see the point in getting off-topic about this other than to draw attention away from the desperate lies of the pro-life movement. Abortion does not cause breast cancer, but they don't want you to know it.
dk: You wouldn’t lie about this would you Rick? Just kidding. The right answer for the ACS would be, “We have found insufficient evidence to link breast cancer with abortion” then publish the science for peer review. The problem is that the appropriate scientific journals resist publishing anything about a possible link because of the political ramifications. Hey Rick, we’ve been arguing for a while, one more question… What happens when science and politics collide?

dk

That's right, I do examine myself. Why?... because I try to be honest.

Dr Rick

That depends; those with a twisted political agenda who care more about their cherished causes than people will distort the science rather than reassess their politics. As one example, they will falsely claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer

You claim that the ACS is concealing the link between hormonal manipulation and breast cancer even though in its 2002 fact sheet it clearly and explicitly reports that recent use of oral-contraceptives, as well as obesity and a family history are risk factors.

They also report that those same hormones decrease the risk of ovarian cancer; we've known that for a long time, but weren't able to establish the link with breast cancer until recently because the relative risk is so low and also because the protective effect that they have upon the cardiovascular system skewed the mortality data.

Quote:

Breast Cancer increased dramatically during the last 30 years while the general cancer rates declined, says the ACS.

The ACS reports that:

Rates of non-Hodgkins lymphoma have nearly doubled since the 70s

Skin cancers have dramatically increased over the same period.

Rates of lung cancer among women increased from the 70's to late 90's, and have finally plateaued over the past 5 years, following the lagging curve in the increasing number or women that smoke even as the percentage of male smokers has been consistently decreasing.

Prostate cancer peaked in the early 1990's after many years of rising.

Colorectal carcinoma incidence peaked in 1985 for both men and women, and has decreased because of improved screening techniques.

The incidence of esophageal and gastric cancers has been steadily increasing; esophageal cancer incidence has increased more than any other cancer in the past decade.

and so on...

These other cancers, whose increases may be due to different reporting methods and an aging population as well as environmental influences, are not linked to either abortion or hormonal manipulation.

Another tactic that those more interested in politics than science will do is try to change the subject when the science doesn't suit their agenda, like changing the topic from the lies about abortion and cancer risk to one about hormone therapy and cancer.

Then the ACS would be lying; the extensive studies and meta-analysis's have been published in the peer-reviewed literature, and they have conclusively shown no link between abortion and breast cancer.

Yeah, another conspiracy theory; what a surprise. The facts don't fit your political agenda, so first you try to distort them, and when that doesn't work, you have to come up with this nonsense.

You have no more evidence of that than of a conspiracy to hide the link between Christianity and imbecility. No such link exists in the literature, so do you suppose there must be some resistance to publishing it due to it's political ramifications?

Rick

dk

• Dr Rick: That depends; those with a twisted political agenda who care more about their cherished causes than people will distort the science rather than reassess their politics. As one example, they will falsely claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer
  dk: The problem with this recount is nobody claims abortion causes other cancers, only breast cancer. When the incidence rate of any particular cancer increases it’s a big deal.
• Dr Rick: You claim that the ACS is concealing the link between hormonal manipulation and breast cancer even though in its 2002 fact sheet it clearly and explicitly reports that recent use of oral-contraceptives, as well as obesity and a family history are risk factors.
  dk: Concealed, you must have me confused with someone else. I implied savvy fund raisers, opinion makers and bureaucrats shy away from politically charged issues to avoid scrutiny. It is called the bleeding edge of science.
• Dr Rick: They also report that those same hormones decrease the risk of ovarian cancer; we've known that for a long time, but weren't able to establish the link with breast cancer until recently because the relative risk is so low and also because the protective effect that they have upon the cardiovascular system skewed the mortality data.
  dk: These bureaucrats recommended HRT treatments to healthy women, so the bar gets raised. It’s obvious the medical sciences don’t fully understand how progesterone and estrogen hormones affect women. These are clearly powerful drugs that shouldn’t be prescribed lightly, or only snake oil salesmen prescribe drugs as a cure all. This isn’t a problem confined to one branch of medicine, obviously the worst abusers routinely prescribing antibodies to treat a non-bacterial infections.

The ACS reports that:

• Dr Rick: Rates of non-Hodgkins lymphoma have nearly doubled since the 70s
  dk: And Tulane Lab says, “Human AIDS patients often suffer from a number of malignancies, including a rapidly fatal type of non-Hodgkins lymphoma which is very difficult to treat. "In fact, AIDS patients have about a 100-fold higher risk of developing this type of lymphoma," said Dr. Levy. "What we've found through our research is that the SIV-infected monkeys develop lymphoma as well."” - Tulane Lab is Making Progress
• Dr Rick: Skin cancers have dramatically increased over the same period.
  dk: And they believe the rise of skin cancer is ultra violet light. The incidence was aggravated by fashionable tans, AIDs, and cosmetic sun blockers. This is pretty common knowledge so I’m not going to provide a link.
• Dr Rick: Rates of lung cancer among women increased from the 70's to late 90's, and have finally plateaued over the past 5 years, following the lagging curve in the increasing number or women that smoke even as the percentage of male smokers has been consistently decreasing.
  dk: Not just lung cancer but asthma incidence have risen dramatically. I agree, the rise in lung cancer and asthma doesn’t correlate with the reductions in smokers, second hand smoke restrictions, or the reductions in industrial and auto emissions. I smell a rat.
  ,
  (snip)
  ,
• Dr Rick: These other cancers, whose increases may be due to different reporting methods and an aging population as well as environmental influences, are not linked to either abortion or hormonal manipulation.
  dk: yada, yada, yada… other cancer rates have generally declined.
• Dr Rick: Another tactic that those more interested in politics than science will do is try to change the subject when the science doesn't suit their agenda, like changing the topic from the lies about abortion and cancer risk to one about hormone therapy and cancer.
  dk: hmmm… hormones regulate pregnancy, nursing, menopause, and PMS. What makes you believe a woman’s reproductive system is unaffected by hormone therapies?

Dr Rick: Then the ACS would be lying; the extensive studies and meta-analysis's have been published in the peer-reviewed literature, and they have conclusively shown no link between abortion and breast cancer.
dk: You astound me Dr. Rick, my point stands… when science and politics collide they both suffer. Abortion places science in a bad position because the sciences are dependent (vested) in the status quo.
Dr Rick: Yeah, another conspiracy theory; what a surprise. The facts don't fit your political agenda, so first you try to distort them, and when that doesn't work, you have to come up with this nonsense.
You have no more evidence of that than of a conspiracy to hide the link between Christianity and imbecility. No such link exists in the literature, so do you suppose there must be some resistance to publishing it due to it's political ramifications?
dk: The moment you turned ad hominem, you lost the argument. Abortion is obviously one of the most politicized issues in America, and has been since Roe (1972). A fair hearing in medical journals would bring the wrath of radical feminists, gay rights, Malthusians, social engineers, Democratic Party,,, etc… down upon their heads, and heads would roll. Buyer beware.

alek0

That's really interesting

Dk, could you elaborate on your conspiracy theory on why studies "proving" the link between breast cancer and abortion don't get published in medical journals? You are of course aware that there are medical journals which are not american. If a journal is published by a country where there is no abortion controversy, then why can't those studies published there? Maybe because decision to publish or not is based not on politics but on quality of the science instead? I have never seen any questions on politics on reviewer's forms

dk

Lets change the issue from abortion to alcohol. The temperance movement has long (1880s) demonized the evil brew, government was happy to collect a sin tax, and science by and large went along for the ride. It wasn’t until the 1990s that medical science acknowledged that people who drank alcohol saw sufficient health benefits. It’s not a conspiracy, its what happens when science and politics collide. Lets look at 3 of histories most famous collisions.
First: Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). These two astronomers lived at the same time, and Kepler was the superior astronomer. Galileo actually slandered Kepler’s laws and Keplar in political and scientific circles. Yet, because of politics history calls Galileo the Father of Modern Astronomy and Modern Science, and Kepler has been demoted to a benefactor. In fact Newton worked from Kepler’s equations and observations because Galileo got it wrong, and Kepler got it right. Galileo did invent the telescope.
Second: Darwin(1809-1882) and Mendel(1822-1884). They lived at the same time, worked independently, and published their findings within a decade (1856 -1866) of one another. Some historians report Darwin actually read and discarded Mendel’s work as errant. Mendel went on to become the Father of Genetics, and his work led directly to the science of DNA. Darwin was quickly acclaimed by the scientific community the father of a new science while Mendel was dead and buried a score of years before somebody happened upon his work, (buried in the horticultural archives of the Royal Society.) It wasn’t until the 1920s that the Darwinians bought into Mendel’s genetics, and only after a fierce scientific battle. Even today most people believe Darwin led Mendel to find the Laws of Genetics, Why?... Darwin appealed to the politics of racists, fascists, Imperialists, Robber Barons and industrialists while Mendel didn't.
Third: In the 1760s an obscure clock maker, John Harrison, invented a timepiece that solved the problem of longitude, but was refused recognition for almost 20 years by the “Board of Longitude” (1773) because Harrison and his timepiece wasn’t what they expected. Finally he appealed to King George III, who said Harrison had been gravely wronged, and the Board of Longitude accepted his timepiece. I throw the last example in to show it has not always been Politicians that serve a political agenda.

The science was compelling in all the above cases, but politics won the day. Truth stranger than fiction.