In response to:

The Dishonorable Liberal Order of Regulatory Scientists

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 7:56 AM
Mr. Ransom, you distrust experts so who provided you with the evidence for a link between abortion and breast cancer? The letter you cite pointed out the problem with the few studies that show a link--you did not choose to mention that in today's remarks. The Susan Komen foundation lists the evidence for and against the link. Their conclusion is "Scientific evidence from the most comprehensive and well-designed studies in the U.S. and around the world does not support the conclusion that induced abortion or miscarriage raises the risk of breast cancer." http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content_Binaries/AbortionandBreastCancer_October2011.pdf You never did provide any evidence for your position and I doubt that you will look at this.
Simplecaveman Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:04 AM
It's all over the Internet. Just google it.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:09 AM
"It's all over the Internet. Just google it."

Yes, truly a good way to get your information.
Simplecaveman Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:19 AM
You do realize that they have sources cited, right?
AZYaateeh Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:22 AM
It beats your method, believing whatever is shoveled out, despite the known biases of the sources.
Simplecaveman Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:34 AM
How about this link?

http://americanrtl.org/abortion-breast-cancer
Simplecaveman Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:37 AM
You do realize that Komen funds PP?
John Ransom, Finance Editor Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 8:46 AM
Thanks again for citing a lobbying organization in support of a public policy outcome.
John Ransom, Finance Editor Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 8:46 AM
Thanks again for citing a lobbying organization in support of a public policy outcome.
AZhot Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 8:28 AM
Uh-oh, there's that word "comprehensive" again. Beware! Just like "comprehensive immigration reforme", a.k.a. amnesty. This is just another over used word that means nothing.
pepnm Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 8:20 AM
M.Hillinger: ''most comprehensive''?----''well-designed''? ....''Scientific ''evidence''?
That's how I would rate mine too.
Earl29 Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 8:16 AM
The Susan Komen foundation? Really. Not exactly known for its steadfast adherence to a position in the face of intimidation.
anderson659 Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 8:14 AM
Should have added that the Susan Komen foundation is part of Planned Parenthood, think that conclusion is objective or a bit biased to the parent master?
anderson659 Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 8:03 AM
You just provided evidence, clearly YOU state there is evidence of a link, but a different conclusion is reached.

You defeated your own post, how funny.


PS: At one time cigarettes were determined not to cause cancer, that was a scientific conclusion too.
pepnm Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:13 AM
There's still no evidence cigarettes proving to cause cancer. We had lung cancer years upon years before cigarettes existed(1860).
It was termed consumption in the old days.
AZYaateeh Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:21 AM
Consumption is tuberculosis, not lung cancer.
Sharon453 Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 11:29 AM
Consumption was another name for Tuberculosis.
pepnm Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 11:30 AM
The word 'consumption' was widely used for many ailments.

I got an email from a reader yesterday that went something like this: "Hey, the American Cancer Society says you're full of it on the link between breast cancer and abortion. Trust me I'm an expert and a scientist, and you're being less than honest. So do us all a favor and shut up and stick to finance."

To which I reply: "Hey, if you're an expert and scientist why are you citing a lobbying orginization like the American Cancer Society? Thanks for proving one of the points in the email/hate mail column."

And the point was: ...