Canadian Cynic has a new job that forces him to drive past a certain billboard every day [And now, two troublemakers that need no introduction ...].
CC links to the website of the billboard sponsor [Stop the Cover-up]. Here's what you see if you follow the link.
This is group of people who are opposed abortion. What they're saying is that women who choose abortion are more likely to get breast cancer. Specifically ...
It is a well established fact that abortion can increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer by denying her the protective effect of both a full-term pregnancy as well as breast-feeding. In addition, the abrupt, artificial termination of a healthy pregnancy leaves a woman with an increased number of vulnerable undifferentiated (immature) breast cells which are, in turn, exposed to the massive amounts of estrogen present during early normal pregnancy. Estrogen is a known cancer causing hormone.Now, it doesn't take too much exposure to real science to recognize the problem with such claims. What they're doing is taking a little bit of truth and distorting it into something that's not the truth.
This sort of thing is very common these days. Everyone wants to bask in the glow of science even when they are doing their best to extinguish that glow. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.
I hate to bring up the framing issue again but, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this ad is exactly the sort of thing I fear when Nisbet and Mooney start preaching. There's no question in my mind that this ad is a good example of framing (=spin). I'm not sure how we distinguish between this approach and one were we all agree to use science to support certain policies on climate change, or certain approaches to dealing with creationism.
At what point do we draw the line between truth and lies? Who is going to be the judge of when that line is crossed?
UPDATE: Abortion and Breast Cancer: There Is no Link.
8 comments :
What I find upsetting about all of these things is the tacit 'the ends justify the means' logic that all of these people use.
If you read the wedge document of the ID movement, this kind of stuff is implicitly stated - essentially we'll claim that we know all this stuff until people agree, then we'll be able to actually do the work that will allow us to figure out what we know is true.
It's surprising that all of these people, who generally quote the Bible, chapter and verse, completely ignore that whole 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' thing.
Oh, and that site is run by Life Canada online, for all those who thought it was secular.
Don't married people live longer than single people?
If that's true, then singles-only resorts are guilty of murder!
That is, if the logic of those anti-choice billboards is valid.
Abortion and Breast Cancer: THERE IS NO LINK
Dr. Moran,
What they're doing is not distortion; it's lying. They claim it's "a well established fact that abortion can increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer." In fact, as bayesian bouffant's link shows, not only is that NOT a well established fact, it's almost certainly wrong.
I respectfully suggest the wording of your post is far too forgiving. I think you should replace this:
"Now, it doesn't take too much exposure to real science to recognize the problem with such claims. What they're doing is taking a little bit of truth and distorting it into something that's not the truth."
with something like this:
"Now, it doesn't take too much exposure to real science to recognize the problem with such a claim. It's a lie."
The ad also implies that a woman is very nearly guilty of suicide if she is not constantly pregnant.
Discover magazine had an excellent article on this in 2003. I remember being impressed, because they don't make a habit of venturing into politically hazardous topics.
The scientist who hated abortion
by Barry Yeoman
I can't believe this keeps coming up.
The studies showing a putative link between abortion and breast cancer are ALL (literally ALL) retrospective case-control studies where interviewers asked individuals with or without breast cancer whether they had ever had an induced abortion. Of course, everyone being interviewed was aware that the reason they were being interviewed was to identify putative causes of their breast cancer. Therefore, there is a clear reporting bias; women with breast cancer are FAR more likely to tell you about an induced abortion that those without breast cancer (since induced abortions remain something of a stigma).
ALL (again, literally ALL) of the prospective cohort studies (including one conducted in Denmark using a computer registry with over one million women) show no link, because the reporting bias is eliminated. In fact, the Danish study showed a relative risk of exactly 1.0.
Joel Brind has not published an original piece of data in years; all of his contributions to this issue consist of attacking the validity of the latest meta-analysis showing that there is no link. He produced a single meta-analysis years ago that showed a small but significant increase in risk, but, of course, this relied heavily on retrospective case-control studies, which are not a valid way of assessing risk in this case.
Pure bollocks. This is one instance in which the wackos actually have a plausible biological mechanism to explain the putative effect (pregnancies that are destined to be terminated and those destined to go to term both cause a spike in estrogen in the early stages, but the terminal differentiation of mammary ducts during late pregnancy, which makes these cells resistant to tumourigenesis, does not occur in aborted pregnancies).
The only problem seems to be that this is a mechanism without an effect. There's just no good data to suggest an increase in risk, and plenty to suggest otherwise!
Incidentally, here's what Joel Brind considers a peer-reviewed journal:
http://ncbcenter.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=searcharticlesresults,1,1;
Yup, it's the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.
Who knew. Catholic bioethics!
Post a Comment