Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Abortion Strongly Linked to Breast Cancer
The "scientists" who control the information are really political activists behind a curtain. I am amazed at how absurd it sounds that people want to make abortion "safe". It's like designing a wood chipper that is "safe" to put your hand in. Thus the breast cancer link doesn't surprise and the depression link can be easily observed.
This study isn't evidence for anything. The Pension and Population Research Institute appears to be a one man, with no apparent scientific credentials. The publications cited are not recognized as peer reviewed journals in the accepted sense.
You really should do some fact checking before you publish Tom.
Do you suppose the insurance industry is indifferent to scientific accuracy? And where do you find this information that this researcher has no credentials?
Ever hear of Google Tom?
Yes... umm... why do you ask?
My first thought when I read this post was that Mr. Carroll's paper was one of those paradigm shifting discoveries that could have a major impact on public health policy. My second thought was,"why was this published in an obscure insurance journal"? Why wasn't it published in the Lancet or JAMA? The obvious answer is, peer review. Mr. Carroll knew that his paper could not stand up to scientific verification.
A little digging on my part, found that Mr. Carroll is a one man "institute" without any scientific or medical credentials. In 2001 he published a similar paper attempting to link abortions to breast cancer. That study was funded by a British pro-life organization which made the results of that study suspect. In the current study, Carroll acknowledges two British pro-life groups for funding the research. This is a red flag, no interest group is going to pay for something, the results of which, may disagree with their worldview.
Carroll's paper was also published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which is conservative group that is notorious for placing its politics ahead of sound research. Follow this link for an example of their sloppy scholarship;
Conservative Medicine
You appear to be sincere in your beliefs, but you make the same mistake that many faith based blogs make. You repeat everything that agrees with your worldview without question. There are other valid opinions on all subjects. Limiting yourself and your readers to only those heard in the Christian echo chamber doesn't promote anything except ignorance.
Paul, I've followed your link. You are of course pronouncing Carroll guilty by association, clearly a logical fallacy. (There's some genetic fallacy in there as well.)
The funding source of the study is of course a concern, and a legitimate one. I'd like more information on that, if you don't mind. My own googling on the topic was unproductive. Maybe I used the wrong search terms. Remember that not every study funded by an interested party is invalid, of course; and there are hardly any disinterested parties in this debate. (The insurance industry, though, would be a great candidate for such a thing.)
I have reason to trust the source from which I first heard of this--Scott Gilbreath--because he does sound analysis. In your comments on his post you didn't provide anything--except "this happens sometimes"--as an explanation for your suggestion of a unit root in the study. (I'm assuming that you are the Paul who commented there. If not I apologize for the misidentification.)
So there's nothing substantive so far in your objections to the study. I'm not saying there couldn't be, but so far it's empty innuendo and suggestion.
Also--hang around here a bit, and you'll find that the stereotype you've presented in your last paragraph is far from the truth. I recommend you watch out for the errors of fact and analysis you could lead yourself into with that kind of lazy thinking (which is what stereotyping amounts to).
Unless Paul T. has evidence that Mr Carroll has falsified the data or the analysis, it seem that his complaints amount to ad hominem arguments. If you can’t prove the man wrong, attack him personally.
The suggestion that this was “one of those paradigm-shifting discoveries” is also puzzling. Many earlier studies have found links between abortion and breast cancer.
Mr. Carroll's study identifies seven risk factors for breast cancer. There are actually sixteen risk factors identified by the American Cancer Association;
Risk Factors
So, right off the bat, Carroll is cherry picking data to suit his thesis. I've found two additional critiques of this study that point out clearly the methodological flaws.
Respectful Insolence
Good Math, Bad Math
So, I stand by my earlier assessment that there was an odor about this study that offended my skeptical sensibilities.
Thank you for the invitation to come back and observe your open mindedness Tom, I think I will.
After looking at the two ScienceBlogs posts that Paul T. linked to, I have to backtrack. Some of the criticisms are overstated, but they do raise important issues about data quality and methodology that persuade me that Carroll’s study has serious problems.
Paul, you're certainly welcome here. Your correction on this information is noted, with appreciation for keeping us straight.
Tom & Scott,
You are both men of honor and intellectual integrity. I salute your honesty and retract and apologize for any misconceptions I had.
Paul T.
Nah, you didn't have to go and say that now... but thanks anyway. Hope I've learned my lesson.
Commenting by HaloScan
