When scientists are so ideologically driven that they are willing to deceive themselves, that’s a tragedy.
When scientists are so ideologically driven that they are willing to deceive the public, that’s criminal.
In our ongoing study of the abortion/breast cancer link we have seen how the epidemiologists reject increased risk (which arises from an actual increase in cases relative to the risk factor in question) of 50-90% as statistically insignificant. So, according to the duplicity, a rise in cases of BC among women who have lost the protective effect of pregnancy through abortion is only considered statistically significant when approaching 200%.
How then do we assess these numbers on the decreasing trend in BC from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
In the United States, incidence of breast cancer has—
Decreased significantly by 2.0% per year from 1999 to 2006 among women.
Decreased significantly by 1.5% per year from 1997 to 2006 among white women.
Decreased significantly by 1.6% per year from 1997 to 2006 among African American women.
Decreased significantly by 0.9% per year from 1997 to 2006 among Hispanic women.
Decreased significantly by 1.5% per year from 1997 to 2006 among American Indian/Alaska Native women.
Remained level from 1997 to 2006 among Asian/Pacific Islander women.
Here CDC stratifies the population of women and reports that even a 0.9% decrease among Hispanic women is significant.
Yet we are told by the Brinton Gang at NCI that among the large population of post-abortive women (~45 Million) a 50-90% increased risk is not significant. Multiplying even small risks across large numbers (such as 45 Million) produces large absolute numbers of increased cases of disease, every one a precious life-a woman who deserved to be fully informed of the risks inherent in the abortion that is intrinsically unsafe for her, even though it’s legal.