GYBRFE: The place that a study is published is relevant, because authors generally wish to have their research published in the most prestigious journal possible. Something published in a journal with lower standards is probably something that either got rejected by a better journal or that the author didn’t think would be published in a better journal. Which journal something is published in is extremely important.
Exy, I understand that, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the affiliations of a journal. You can say, journal X is crappy, therefore this article is most likely crappy, but you can’t say this journal is partly supported by the right-to-lifers therefore this article is mostly right to life propaganda.
bover, have you actually done some critical thinking for yourself? “Because I find it stimulating to solidify my beliefs by critically examing them.” Well it just seems to me like you are asking for other people to do your critical thinking for you. I gave you some links to look at. Did you even look at them? Did you do your own research? You do realise that we only have access to the same things that you do, right?
GQ isn’t about other posters doing the legwork. I’m not sorry I didn’t bother to think for you.
I don’t see why you couldn’t - by the same token that there are “journals” discussing intelligent design. Any group of people could create a scientific “journal” to publish precisely what they wanted to. And in other circumstances, “scientists” operating under a political agenda can publish their stuff in obscure, poorly-edited journals just to claim they have a publication. If your goal is to make it look under casual examination like you’ve published something in a peer-reviewed journal, then using journals supporting your political slant makes perfect sense. If their research isn’t solid, then Big Bubba’s Journal o’ Science ‘n’ Possum-Grillin’ is not going to know, and not going to work too hard to find out.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a somewhat obscure group that is way outside the medical mainstream on a number of issues (not just abortion). For instance, it seemingly endorses the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism and has called for an end to all government-mandated vaccine programs (see here.)
On the subject of abortion and breast cancer it alleges that all sorts of nefarious forces (the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the A.M.A, “media bias”, women’s groups etc. etc.) have “suppressed” the truth.
Its claims are not backed by the weight of scientific evidence.
Share, please. Is her discussion of the different kinds of breast lobules accurate?
Exy, fair enough, makes sense.
Apparently not, at least as it relates to “irrefutable” connections between breast lobule type and cancer risk. More here..
“In conclusion, we did not observe a relationship between lobular architecture and breast cancer susceptibility when using smaller breast samples usually available in epidemiological studies, but these data highlight the need for menstrual phase stratification in future investigations.”
A PubMed scientific literature search turns up no original research performed on abortion and breast cancer risk by Dr. Lanfranchi. There are no research publications listed for her at all, just what appears to be two opinion-style pieces in Issues in Law and Medicine. The executive editor of this journal is an attorney named Barry Bostrom, who is general counsel for Indiana Right to Life.
Dr Lanfranchi says (in the link referred to by irishgirl): “The women with breast cancer in our neighborhoods are getting younger and younger. Every woman who understands her own biology knows why.”
Apparently no scientific data is needed; women “know why”. :rolleyes:
I have frequently read that being childless increases the risk of breast cancer. The inverse of this would seem to be that bearing a child reduces the risk of breast cancer. Therefore, if you compared all childless women, including those who had never been pregnant and those who had aborted all pregnancies, with women who have children, you would expect a higher breast cancer rate in the childless group, right? Depending on on the magnitude of the effects, it seems like you could see that whether abortion had a positive, negative or neutral effect on breast cancer risk. This is assuming the full term pregnancy has a beneficial effect.
From what I have understood of the mechanism of this, the reduction in risk is based on giving the body a break from the normal monthly hormonal cycles. A full-term pregnancy would probably give about a year’s break.
I think I will try healthy diet and exercise first, before I bear a child just to reduce my breast cancer risk.