Misinformation Campaigns

[sinmantyx]

Wow: just when I thought I might be getting a little bit of a wild conspiracy theory hair up my butt:

Here.

This isn't about blaming Christians or even your average pro-lifer. This is about calling out LIARS.

The fact that information this bogus and wrong is being spread all over is really awful.

-grrrrr-

[phee]

Fuckers.... *sigh*

[BrassFusion]

blatant shit like that should absolutely be illegal, if for no other reason than it's false advertising

[sinmantyx]

Fuckers.... *sigh*

Sorry: I got that linked to my google home page and just need to commiserate.

One just as bad is: "Plan-B causes abortions"

Why do people lie like that? There is no proof what-so-ever and it doesn't make any medical sense. Yet, I have heard about the "possibility of" such a thing on the main-stream news. Why? Maybe they just don't do their own fact checking or are scared to death of being considered "liberally biased" for not giving a nod to some extremist misinformation campaign?

I don't get it. Plan-B gives you a dose of progesterone (the hormone that actually aids in the fertilized egg being implanted) for the purpose of stopping a woman from ovulating. It's just a glorified large dose of oral birth-control. Since sperm can stay alive for a few days. Taking Plan-B reduces the odds of pregnancy that may have occurred if the woman ovulated during those 3 to 4 days after sex.

It's like some people just want women to suffer for having sex...like they see children as a punishment. There are even cases of doctors refusing to give the medication and stores refusing to sell it. Why? -- because of their pro-life stance.

What?

Perhaps they're just frightened of the misinformed masses -- all those people that have no idea that fertilization doesn't necessarily happen during the sex act itself -- so they can't wrap their brain around it?

To be truthful, I was actually a bit surprised that those little-buggers could survive that long. However, isn't it the job of the news to inform - not spread lies and assumptions?

PS: Ironic part: use of plan-B certainly has the potential to decrease the number of abortions. *sigh*

[sinmantyx]

Wow: this is amazing.

I read a little more of the propaganda and I now know how they are justifying themselves:

wait for it...

...this is brilliant!

Having a baby to term when you are young: decreases your risk of breast cancer. That is something well-know and in the literature for a while.

So: if you have an abortion instead of having a child to term when you are young: This result is an increase in breast cancer risk because you didn't have a baby to full term when you were young. (It has nothing to do with the abortion procedure what-so-ever; or the fact that your pregnancy ended early.)

Follow me so far...

...so....

The conclusion: "Having an abortion increases your risk of breast cancer." The horrible commercial could actually be factual (in a way) because the woman mentioned that she had her abortion when she was 17. If she then waited until (say) she was in her 30's or so to have a baby to term; the fact that she didn't have a baby at 17 would (in effect) raise her risks.

SO!

The moral of the story is this:

All those girls on the basketball team in the commercial should: GO OUT AND GET PREGNANT AND HAVE A BABY TO TERM WHEN THEY ARE 17 YEARS OLD TO DECREASE THEIR RISK OF BREAST CANCER.

Don't you LOVE spin. It's not really lying! It's just "misleading"...that's not a sin, is it?

[BrassFusion]

considering that miscarriages fall under the umbrella of the definition of the word "abortion," that the term really is broader than a lot of people think...

oh wait i didn't just say that it's too controversial

[sinmantyx]

considering that miscarriages fall under the umbrella of the definition of the word "abortion," that the term really is broader than a lot of people think...

oh wait i didn't just say that it's too controversial

There is "elective abortion" and "spontaneous abortion" ---

--- both have no link to breast cancer.

I was actually pretty surprised to find out that the term "abortion" does NOT apply to a pregnancy ending post-viability.

Words words words....

[BrassFusion]

if ya can't use the word abortion for that, what should we call it? baby killing, infanticide, stillbirth? or retroactive contraception? i like that one

[sinmantyx]

I just realized something funny:

If the coach in the commercial were to have had a baby when she was 15 years old: what she said would no longer be valid.

HILARIOUS.

[Msterbeau]

You two aughtta have a talk show. I'd watch. :-)

[sinmantyx]

You two aughtta have a talk show. I'd watch. :-)

Brass and I?

hmmmm.........

[BrassFusion]

I just realized something funny:

If the coach in the commercial were to have had a baby when she was 15 years old: what she said would no longer be valid.

HILARIOUS.

i do not understand that, please 'splain.

You two aughtta have a talk show. I'd watch. :-)

totally

Brass and I?

hmmmm.........

let's fucking do it. youtube, totally

[sinmantyx]

i do not understand that, please 'splain.

totally

let's fucking do it. youtube, totally

If you bring a baby to term when you are young: your chances of breast cancer DECREASE. However, a pregnancy ending (either electively or spontaneously) does NOT (in and of itself) effect your breast cancer risk.

So, if the coach had a baby to term BEFORE her abortion - her chances of breast cancer would be decreased. So, if she had brought the baby to term when she was 17, it would not effect her breast cancer risk because it was ALREADY decreased by having a baby to term when she was young.

***

youtube is our destiny!

[BrassFusion]

If you bring a baby to term when you are young: your chances of breast cancer DECREASE. However, a pregnancy ending (either electively or spontaneously) does NOT (in and of itself) effect your breast cancer risk.

So, if the coach had a baby to term BEFORE her abortion - her chances of breast cancer would be decreased. So, if she had brought the baby to term when she was 17, it would not effect her breast cancer risk because it was ALREADY decreased by having a baby to term when she was young.

***

youtube is our destiny!

uh, i never heard that... so i guess what you're saying is their argument for abortions "causing" breast cancer? if you "accidentally" get pregnant you're better off if you carry it to term, if it's your first pregnancy?

that sounds like a dangerous tidbit of trivia in the hands of stupid people

[Marblez]

Here I go again....

I agree that the facts appear to be skewed. However, I will lean toward the benefit of the doubt and think that they honestly believe this to be true. You know, conflicting theories and research.

Hell, I find it amusing that the same people that would say never trust the government on things like Global warming theories and judicial ability... will cite/respect the findings by the National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov).

[BrassFusion]

exactly which findings by the national cancer institute support the idea that having an abortion contributes to the likelihood of breast cancer? the point isn't that they're picking and choosing what science to credit, it's that they're inventing science of their own...

[Marblez]

exactly which findings by the national cancer institute support the idea that having an abortion contributes to the likelihood of breast cancer? the point isn't that they're picking and choosing what science to credit, it's that they're inventing science of their own...

I did not say that the NCI support the idea of abortion contributing to cancer. The reference was more directed to BF and Sinmantyx.

The originally posted article cites the Nat'l Cancer Institute (and the most recent study) as the basis for it's information. they state: "The National Cancer Institute, part of the NIH, has long declared this link bogus."

A question though, if this has been long considered a bogus link and the science is as firm on this as Sinmantyx is presenting... why would the time and resources have been wasted on "a new study out of Harvard"?

[BrassFusion]

I did not say that the NCI support the idea of abortion contributing to cancer. The reference was more directed to BF and Sinmantyx.

The originally posted article cites the Nat'l Cancer Institute (and the most recent study) as the basis for it's information. they state: "The National Cancer Institute, part of the NIH, has long declared this link bogus."

A question though, if this has been long considered a bogus link and the science is as firm on this as Sinmantyx is presenting... why would the time and resources have been wasted on "a new study out of Harvard"?

why are people still trying to prove 6-day creationism?

[Marblez]

why are people still trying to prove 6-day creationism?

Sorry, I must have missed that Harvard study.

Apples and oranges BF. We are talking here about a highly respected institution of science, not faith based initiatives.

[BrassFusion]

Sorry, I must have missed that Harvard study.

Apples and oranges BF. We are talking here about a highly respected institution of science, not faith based initiatives.

i fail to see the difference. it's not that harvard as an institution has a dogmatic bent against abortion, but many of the people who do really want to believe that it can cause breast cancer... and if enough people believe something contrary to studies, new studies WILL be funded. scientists are buyable just like anyone else- it's just that the good ones won't let you purchase the data you want.

[sinmantyx]

i fail to see the difference. it's not that harvard as an institution has a dogmatic bent against abortion, but many of the people who do really want to believe that it can cause breast cancer... and if enough people believe something contrary to studies, new studies WILL be funded. scientists are buyable just like anyone else- it's just that the good ones won't let you purchase the data you want.

It's not just that. What much of the world: that doesn't actually DO science has a difficult time dealing with is that research doesn't just *prove* something and then we move on.

My intuition is that there are so many people that want to believe this, that it creates a conflict. The more studies: the more sure you are. In science, you can't ever be "sure". If you are: your not thinking scientifically, you are thinking dogmatically.

However: there is no compelling evidence that ending a pregnancy is linked to an increase in breast cancer. Therefor, scaring someone into NOT having an abortion through fear of possible DEATH: is highly highly unethical.

What I'm mostly responding to is this quote from the website:

(damn it - can't find it now)

Here is a similiar quote:

"Over half of all abortions are among women between the ages of 20 and 30. It is a known fact that delaying child bearing until after age 30 increases the risk of developing breast cancer substantially."

The one I was looking for accused the "mainstream" of refusing to link abortions to a delay in pregnancy - as if that meant that abortion itself increased the risk of breast cancer.

Not having a kid when you are young: THAT increases the risk of breast cancer. NOT the fact that you had an abortion or miscarriage.

It's not that they can't de-couple the two factors in their heads: it seems that they don't WANT to.

That commercial was extremely alarmist and misleading. Producing a commercial like that is WRONG...regardless of what side of the larger issue one might be on.

[sinmantyx]

exactly which findings by the national cancer institute support the idea that having an abortion contributes to the likelihood of breast cancer? the point isn't that they're picking and choosing what science to credit, it's that they're inventing science of their own...

The more I look at it: the more I would characterize it has a gross distortion.

I just don't understand why people assume that scientists have some sort of agenda. Yeah, scientists have some sort of vested interest in making sure that everyone gets breast cancer and convincing everyone that our world is undergoing climate change.

-sarcasm-

We all get together in secret cabals to form a libral agenda and then simutaneously create bogus research to support our evil Satanic goals to make sure that women who have miscarriages and abortions have a false sense of security and the world reduces carbon emissions.

It's not that there is no such thing as a bias researcher (I mean look at some of the crap creation science out there), that scientists never get ahead of themselves, or that we're always right ---

but holy shit, even when there is no possible conflict of interest, every Tom-Dick-and-Harry flippantly accuses scientists of academic dishonesty (which is fighting words by the way) by assuming that we make shit up to suit our own preconceived opinions en-mass.

What I mostly see is scientists scare to piss off the majority...and I'm NOT talking about the majority of scientists. Why do you think we glossed over evolution - just a tad - this semester? ...and instead stayed safely in the land of basic short-term natural selection and heredity of blood type?

I did go off on a huge tangent about how the theory of evolution does NOT violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics unless, of course, you completely forget about the SUN.

*shakes head*

I'm thoroughly aware that many people have convinced themselves of various indefensible arguments to somehow bolster their own opinions.

I just don't see why they feel the need to twist science to their own ends.

If you think that abortion is wrong: fine. You think it's wrong and people should avoid having abortions: Why do you feel the need to trump up some cancer scare to make your point?

If you think God created man in his own image: fine. You don't need to completely mangle the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Scientists are NOT out to disprove your GOD: and the scientists that happen to be Christians are constantly pissed off that anyone thinks they are.

Wow: there's the heart of the matter: the misconception that somehow *I* as an atheist in science am somehow part of the majority --- NOT EVEN CLOSE.

[BrassFusion]

bless you