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?
Incidence Trends
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.
Coming Home 
It is sometimes (unnecessarily) difficult to distinguish “clinically significant” from “statistically significant” when some of these epidemiologists talk or write — it can be confusing. For example, if a “new” but relatively ineffective treatment for high blood pressure is tested in 1,000,000 people it may be shown to reduce SBP by, say, 1 point mm/Hg, a clinically insignificant result that may be statistically significant. In contrast, a doubling of risk can be based on data that, because of size and how variables are arranged in that group, can be statistically insignificant, but clinically meaningful. (An increased breast cancer risk of 40% is always clinically meaningful.) Another issue is how consistent that increased risk is across study populations and study types, as well as over time. Some issues are very difficult to sort out, but Dr. Nadal you are doing a good job of bringing important issues to light. I humbly and eagerly look forward to future posts.
Thank you Dr. Terry. Coming from a Columbia-educated epidemiologist, that’s quite the encouragement! Denino’s soon?
G,
Denino’s or bust!!! My small education has led to an even smaller paycheck, but we’re determined. If I were president, kids would fly planes at no charge, and there would be a complimentary daycare in the cargo hold. So, we’re saving our pennies to fly up to NY to eat a real bagel, to go to Dylan’s Candy Shop, and to meet you and your lovely Gov’t “R” and kids at Denino’s. p