REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

if you want to look up original scientific papers: http://scholar.google.com

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Thursday, April 6, 2017 20:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 506
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, March 13, 2017 12:11 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


This linky might not have a liberal bias.

The following results are non-PC:

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/86/21/1569/1062011/Induced-Abort
ion-and-Breast-Cancer-More-Scientific


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2010485/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201#t=article

Libtards have subsequently engaged in numerous "studies" with the specific intent to disprove that Uncompleted First Pregnancies, or Oral Contraceptives, create the highest correlation to breast cancer. Yes, with intensive effort, they were able to finally claim victory, burying the facts.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/86/21/1569/1062011/Induced-Abort
ion-and-Breast-Cancer-More-Scientific

Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer: More Scientific Data Are Needed
Lynn Rosenberg
J Natl Cancer Inst (1994)
The first link only states that there's not enough data to decide either way, AND it's from (1994). Do you think if you searched under google scholar you might come up with something newer than a 23 year old single article?
What you're doing is anything but scientific, btw. You're cherry picking one thing from a plethora of information. And just because you linked a single, out of date, equivocal paper, doesn't mean you've made a valid point.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2010485/
Br J Cancer. 1981 Jan; 43(1): 72–76.
PMCID: PMC2010485
Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women.
Meanwhile THIS ONE is even older! AND it confounds two items - oral contraceptives and early abortion.
If you THINK you're making a point - you aren't. Except that you're not even close to looking at all the data to found an unbiased opinion.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201#t=article
Mads Melbye, M.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Jørgen H. Olsen, M.D., Morten Frisch, M.D., Tine Westergaard, M.D., Karin Helweg-Larsen, M.D., and Per Kragh Andersen, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 1997; 336:81-85January 9, 1997DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199701093360201
Now this one is the newest of the bunch, at a full 20 years old. That still mkes it far too old to be meaningful. But I guess you dodged a bullet with this moldy oldie, since it concluded abortion DECREASES the chance of breast cancer


I hate to say this, but your extremely bad attempt at cherry picking facts has hoisted you on your own 'tard'.




Originally posted by G:
I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/86/21/1569/1062011/Induced-Abort
ion-and-Breast-Cancer-More-Scientific

Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer: More Scientific Data Are Needed
Lynn Rosenberg
J Natl Cancer Inst (1994)
The first link only states that there's not enough data to decide either way, AND it's from (1994). Do you think if you searched under google scholar you might come up with something newer than a 23 year old single article?
What you're doing is anything but scientific, btw. You're cherry picking one thing from a plethora of information. And just because you linked a single, out of date, equivocal paper, doesn't mean you've made a valid point.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2010485/
Br J Cancer. 1981 Jan; 43(1): 72–76.
PMCID: PMC2010485
Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women.
Meanwhile THIS ONE is even older! AND it confounds two items - oral contraceptives and early abortion.
If you THINK you're making a point - you aren't. Except that you're not even close to looking at all the data to found an unbiased opinion.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201#t=article
Mads Melbye, M.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Jørgen H. Olsen, M.D., Morten Frisch, M.D., Tine Westergaard, M.D., Karin Helweg-Larsen, M.D., and Per Kragh Andersen, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 1997; 336:81-85January 9, 1997DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199701093360201
Now this one is the newest of the bunch, at a full 20 years old. That still mkes it far too old to be meaningful. But I guess you dodged a bullet with this moldy oldie, since it concluded abortion DECREASES the chance of breast cancer


I hate to say this, but your extremely bad attempt at cherry picking facts has hoisted you on your own 'tard'.



I may have skimmed that last one, with the references I was looking for being present, but perhaps not in the context I was working towards.
If you had read my post, you may understand that the ones from around 1994 had shown the correlation, and I may have not gotten the correct ones, but the Names of the Dr.s seemed correct. The ones AFTER that (meaning "newer") were the valiant efforts to disprove the linkys.
The point I was making was that this site, the linky you provided, did it's job well, without bias - previously trying to find that info on Libtard search engines like google were fruitless.

Translation: Thank You.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 11:12 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

were the valiant efforts to disprove the linkys
which have been, in fact, disproved. That you couldn't find those facts with a great search engine is your problem.

I don't know why you're thanking me for you making yourself look like an idiot.

since 2010

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=breast+cancer+abortion+statistics&
amp;hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=2010&as_yhi
=

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=breast+cancer+abortion+link&bt
nG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=2010


does not support a link ... allegations of later sequelae—breast cancer and mental illness—were refuted ... Inaccurate medical information included mention of a link between breast cancer and abortion ...




Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:26 PM

SOCKPUPPET


Aw, get a room, you two.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 6, 2017 8:44 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:

were the valiant efforts to disprove the linkys
which have been, in fact, disproved. That you couldn't find those facts with a great search engine is your problem.

I don't know why you're thanking me for you making yourself look like an idiot.

since 2010

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=breast+cancer+abortion+statistics&
amp;hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=2010&as_yhi
=

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=breast+cancer+abortion+link&bt
nG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=2010


does not support a link ... allegations of later sequelae—breast cancer and mental illness—were refuted ... Inaccurate medical information included mention of a link between breast cancer and abortion ...




I am only quoting this, as your most recent post.
You may have become confused.
I recalled the studies done prior to 1998, I thought by a few years. Most of them have been buried by other search engines.
At that point, circa 1994/5, the Libtard Army declared they would conduct (re-education studies) research for the purpose of disproving the un-PC results of the existing studies. By default, these are self-defined as invalid when the results are stated before the study is commenced.
Therefore, the 1994/5 study was the pertinent, fact-based one, those which followed were the fake ones, and should be ignored - but by sheer volume most of these studies obliterate the valid studies in most search engines. That is why I used this to test the vaidity of the search engine you posted about, and it passed fabulously.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
Wed, November 22, 2017 07:55 - 103 posts
Shout out to Second - hope you are doing well
Wed, November 22, 2017 07:52 - 183 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Wed, November 22, 2017 07:50 - 40 posts
Is this really "the lowest point in our nation’s history that they can remember"?
Wed, November 22, 2017 07:45 - 188 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, November 21, 2017 23:58 - 187 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Tue, November 21, 2017 23:14 - 635 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Tue, November 21, 2017 21:25 - 239 posts
Evidence: So where are we now(II) ?
Tue, November 21, 2017 20:29 - 90 posts
Is Trump Nuts?
Tue, November 21, 2017 13:26 - 854 posts
More lies :)
Tue, November 21, 2017 11:41 - 15 posts
Democrats eyeing 2018 say it's time to start talking Russia
Tue, November 21, 2017 10:53 - 60 posts
The Scumbag from Alabama - 5th Accusser Surfaces
Tue, November 21, 2017 10:46 - 26 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL