Question:

— For more information on breast cancer and abortion, drop by the Ultmiate Pro-Life Resource List, located at http://www.prolife.org/ultimate We have known about those insidious relationships for quite some time, but this site might provide an even deeper insight into those relationships, so I would encourage everyone to visit that web site.

Thanks.  In the interest of critical thought, I WILL visit the site. The artical seemed well thought out, and I concur(sp?) with the media bias. But Kenneth… You shouldn’t try to promote the site because it’s in line with your beliefs.  You should promote it because it’s an intelligent attempt to reason with people.   Your statement   (snip)" We have known about those insidious relationships for quite some time"(snip)   is neither intelligent, nor reasoned. jricht allston, MA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Steven Ertelt wrote:

Investor’s Business Daily, Nov. 18th Media Bias: A Medical Case, by Michael Fumento Media coverage of the recent study linking abortion to breast cancer was egregious – especially set against coverage of similar studies of second-hand smoke. Four authors, led by Dr. Joel Brind in New York’s Baruch College, published their work in in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. They found that abortion appears to increase the chance of developing breast cancer by 30%. The four estimated that 5,000 American women develop breast cancer each year as a result of having had an abortion. For more information on breast cancer and abortion, drop by the Ultmiate Pro-Life Resource List, located at http://www.prolife.org/ultimate

Three words PRO LIFE SCAREMONGERING I’m out Jack "Everything gives you cancer" Joe Jackson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Jack <joh…@mdx.ac.uk

wrote: Steven Ertelt wrote: Investor’s Business Daily, Nov. 18th Media Bias: A Medical Case, by Michael Fumento Media coverage of the recent study linking abortion to breast cancer was egregious – especially set against coverage of similar studies of second-hand smoke. Four authors, led by Dr. Joel Brind in New York’s Baruch College, published their work in in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. They found that abortion appears to increase the chance of developing breast cancer by 30%. The four estimated that 5,000 American women develop breast cancer each year as a result of having had an abortion. For more information on breast cancer and abortion, drop by the Ultmiate Pro-Life Resource List, located at http://www.prolife.org/ultimate Three words PRO LIFE SCAREMONGERING I’m out Jack "Everything gives you cancer" Joe Jackson

Word. As if those fucks could even care about those evil abortion-sluts getting cancer. Remember: The crux of the biscuit… is the Apostrophe

Response:

Investor’s Business Daily, Nov. 18th Media Bias: A Medical Case, by Michael Fumento Media coverage of the recent study linking abortion to breast cancer was egregious – especially set against coverage of similar studies of second-hand smoke. Four authors, led by Dr. Joel Brind in New York’s Baruch College, published their work in in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. They found that abortion appears to increase the chance of developing breast cancer by 30%. The four estimated that 5,000 American women develop breast cancer each year as a result of having had an abortion. The press attacked this study like a piranha on steroids. Some headlines: ”Abortion Foe Accused of Igniting Cancer Scare,” ”Abortion-Cancer Link Called into Question,” ”Disputed Study Links Abortion, Cancer,” ”Bias in Abortion Study Is Charged.” Most attacks singled out Brind’s publicly expressed anti-abortion views – as if these were enough to justify tossing a peer- reviewed study, which appeared in a respected medical journal, right into the fire. Dismissing Brind as biased just won’t wash. One of his co-authors, Vernon Chinchilli, backs abortion rights. And the study has been praised as valid by such pro-choicers as Dr. Janet Daling, a Seattle epidemiologist. She defended it as ”a fair job of compiling the data,” and ”very objective and statistically beyond reproach.” By contrast, consider the media response to a 1991 report linking second- hand cigarette smoke to heart disease. This report also found a 30% increased risk. And its author, Dr. Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco, also had strong views on his subject. Back in the ’70s, he founded the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Well before 1991, he had referred to the tobacco companies as ”the bastards.” Every reporter who’s ever covered tobacco issues knows of Glantz’s activism. Yet his study was widely covered without criticism, with such headlines as ”More Bad News on Passive Smoking” and ”Passive Smoking ‘Is a Mass Killer.’ ” The double standard went on. Report after report pointed out that Brind’s study had found only a 30% increase and then quoted experts saying that, given the inexactness of epidemiology, a 30% increase may not mean anything. That is, indeed, the generally accepted belief among epidemiologists, whether we’re discussing secondhand smoke, abortion and breast cancer, or anything else. Yet this generally accepted belief did not make it into the mass coverage of the Glantz study. More damningly, a preliminary Environmental Protection Agency study on passive smoking and lung cancer found a mere 28% increase, while a later one found a 19% increase. But in both those cases, the media ”ruled” that the increases were so obviously meaningful that it was unnecessary to consult any number of epidemiologists who would have told them otherwise. The abortion and tobacco studies shared one more thing: Each was what’s called a meta- analysis. That is, each was based on a compilation of previous studies. ABC’s Peter Jennings complained that the Brind study ”is not original research, but an analysis of 23 earlier studies” which were ”inconclusive.” Thus, ”Various other scientists say today the report is flawed.” Yet the whole purpose of a meta-analysis is to lump together studies that individually are not conclusive, in hopes that together they may lead to a conclusion. And when the Glantz meta-analysis came out, as well as both of the EPA passive smoking reports, ABC relayed the results to its viewers without once mentioning any problem in meta-analyses or, indeed, criticizing the studies in any way. What makes this all the more bizarre is that the media are normally obsessed with breast cancer. Publish a study showing a correlation between breast cancer and exposure to any man-made chemical and reporters will knock down your door. But the Brind study challenged a bigger sacred cow, and so the media set out to knock his brains in, instead. Michael Fumento is a science correspondent for Reason magazine and the author of ”Science Under Siege.” — For more information on breast cancer and abortion, drop by the Ultmiate Pro-Life Resource List, located at http://www.prolife.org/ultimate

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Steven Ertelt wrote:

Investor’s Business Daily, Nov. 18th Media Bias: A Medical Case, by Michael Fumento Media coverage of the recent study linking abortion to breast cancer was egregious – especially set against coverage of similar studies of second-hand smoke. Four authors, led by Dr. Joel Brind in New York’s Baruch College, published their work in in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. They found that abortion appears to increase the chance of developing breast cancer by 30%. The four estimated that 5,000 American women develop breast cancer each year as a result of having had an abortion. The press attacked this study like a piranha on steroids. Some headlines: ”Abortion Foe Accused of Igniting Cancer Scare,” ”Abortion-Cancer Link Called into Question,” ”Disputed Study Links Abortion, Cancer,” ”Bias in Abortion Study Is Charged.” Most attacks singled out Brind’s publicly expressed anti-abortion views – as if these were enough to justify tossing a peer- reviewed study, which appeared in a respected medical journal, right into the fire. Dismissing Brind as biased just won’t wash. One of his co-authors, Vernon Chinchilli, backs abortion rights. And the study has been praised as valid by such pro-choicers as Dr. Janet Daling, a Seattle epidemiologist. She defended it as ”a fair job of compiling the data,” and ”very objective and statistically beyond reproach.” By contrast, consider the media response to a 1991 report linking second- hand cigarette smoke to heart disease. This report also found a 30% increased risk. And its author, Dr. Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco, also had strong views on his subject. Back in the ’70s, he founded the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Well before 1991, he had referred to the tobacco companies as ”the bastards.” Every reporter who’s ever covered tobacco issues knows of Glantz’s activism. Yet his study was widely covered without criticism, with such headlines as ”More Bad News on Passive Smoking” and ”Passive Smoking ‘Is a Mass Killer.’ ” The double standard went on. Report after report pointed out that Brind’s study had found only a 30% increase and then quoted experts saying that, given the inexactness of epidemiology, a 30% increase may not mean anything. That is, indeed, the generally accepted belief among epidemiologists, whether we’re discussing secondhand smoke, abortion and breast cancer, or anything else. Yet this generally accepted belief did not make it into the mass coverage of the Glantz study. More damningly, a preliminary Environmental Protection Agency study on passive smoking and lung cancer found a mere 28% increase, while a later one found a 19% increase. But in both those cases, the media ”ruled” that the increases were so obviously meaningful that it was unnecessary to consult any number of epidemiologists who would have told them otherwise. The abortion and tobacco studies shared one more thing: Each was what’s called a meta- analysis. That is, each was based on a compilation of previous studies. ABC’s Peter Jennings complained that the Brind study ”is not original research, but an analysis of 23 earlier studies” which were ”inconclusive.” Thus, ”Various other scientists say today the report is flawed.” Yet the whole purpose of a meta-analysis is to lump together studies that individually are not conclusive, in hopes that together they may lead to a conclusion. And when the Glantz meta-analysis came out, as well as both of the EPA passive smoking reports, ABC relayed the results to its viewers without once mentioning any problem in meta-analyses or, indeed, criticizing the studies in any way. What makes this all the more bizarre is that the media are normally obsessed with breast cancer. Publish a study showing a correlation between breast cancer and exposure to any man-made chemical and reporters will knock down your door. But the Brind study challenged a bigger sacred cow, and so the media set out to knock his brains in, instead. Michael Fumento is a science correspondent for Reason magazine and the author of ”Science Under Siege.” — For more information on breast cancer and abortion, drop by the Ultmiate Pro-Life Resource List, located at http://www.prolife.org/ultimate

We have known about those insidious relationships for quite some time, but this site might provide an even deeper insight into those relationships, so I would encourage everyone to visit that web site.

Response:

Steven Ertelt <ert…@indy.net

wrote: Investor’s Business Daily, Nov. 18th Media Bias: A Medical Case, by Michael Fumento Media coverage of the recent study linking abortion to breast cancer was egregious – especially set against coverage of similar studies of second-hand smoke.

Because it didn’t come up with the results the pro-liars wanted.

Four authors, led by Dr. Joel Brind in New York’s Baruch College, published their work in in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. They found that abortion appears to increase the chance of

                                  ^^^^^^^

developing breast cancer by 30%.

Notice also that a 30% increase in risk is near the limit of detectability, and may be merely an artifact of the data. [...]

The double standard went on. Report after report pointed out that Brind’s study had found only a 30% increase and then quoted experts saying that, given the inexactness of epidemiology, a 30% increase may not mean anything.

Except when it applies to abortion? — Ray Fischer r…@netcom.com

Response:

Related Posts