Well here is the article. I apologize for all the references, but I felt it necessary given the subject matter to have the first draft contain them. Then as time passes I, or others can remove them. I hope it isn't a total disaster. --RoyBoy 18:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Context of the Devra Davis quote
The quote from When Smoke Ran Like Water is talking about pollution, not abortion. The context of this quote makes it sound like Davis is critical of abortion, and I have no information to suggest that she is. There is certainly no moral equivalency between polluting the environment and elective abortion. NTK 13:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Roy you said you were moving the Lancets meta-analysys here off the main abortion page because it fit you page better and was more on topic. Yet its not HERE. I can look it up again although it shouldn't be hard for you to find by going through drafts on the abortion page (if you don't know how to look through the different edits i can explain it). I still think there is a LOT of bias on this page. Since it is a debate posting articles that are generally only in support of your view/position is inappropriate. As a debate (and it is a debated topic) there should be more links to the other side and a better explanation of them when they occur (ie to the same level as the original studies are explained.)--Marcie 10:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Lancet etc
It isn't just the Lancet study. This entry has serious POV problems. The problem is not so much with the facts presented as the tone, which seems to give equal weight to both proposition (which is not neutrality). I'm inserting a npov notice and I'll be back to elaborate. --] 20:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do you know me? Public sentiment isn't an issue. The appropriate weight to give to the sides of a debate is determined primarily by commonsense. Let me know what you think of my changes. --] 00:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Brind
Sometimes it happens that a maverick champions a particular idea. Sometimes he's right, sometimes wrong. An article about an issue shouldn't give him the special rights to the issue that he might want. There are points in which statements are characterised as refutations of Brind's position (if he was the only person who held them, they wouldn't be worth of refutation) and others where critiques of a given study are represented as Doctor Brind's. Is he the only person with opinions on these studies? If not, why are his opinions considered so important? --] 01:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm moving my relevant comments here for the moment. Although they fit in different spots i wanted them to be visible not just part of the back...
Context of the Devra Davis quote
I agree the quote is innapropriate. If you want to put in an explanation of when and how she said it it could be appropriate. Otherwise you are going to need to find another quote (there are lots of differences between pro choice feminists in the first place or just plain feminist without the quoting of people getting messed up. Perhaps a quote by a feminist on the topic in discussion or vaguely related to it would be more appropriate-- Why didn't i just add it myself. Well certain pages i do more writing, others i do more talking...research and some writing. As for the main abortion page i thought i'd ask you to see how you could word it...maybe we'll end up arguing over it or maybe you'll refuse (in which case i will get involved) but since this is your baby in many ways i thought i'd see if you wanted to do it first--Marcie 18:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re Brind: "very" little support
Saying he has "very little support" isn't accurate given Drs. Russo & Russo, Dr. Daling and the RCOG... all mainstream scientists (and organizations) support directly or indirectly Dr. Brind's theory and findings. Furthermore, Melbye acknowledge some of their research is in agreement with the Russo and Russo hypothesis. Hence Dr. Brind's interpretation of mainstream science is not baseless. And Tony if you do read this, please reiterate/clarify what is disputed for NPOV. I think that having the article renamed "hypothesis" allows for Brind to put forward his ideas, criticisms without a NPOV flag being pulled at a moments notice.
(PS: I know I'm unlikely to win this, and even if I did with you given your unconventional reading ;' P, someone else would just come along and find something else "wrong" with the article... but at least I want to go through the motions. Because the NPOV notice seems to put a lot of good work and research in doubt unnecessarily. Thanks.) - RoyBoy 07:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Removed text
I've removed the following text: "Furthermore how Dr. Brind is mischaracterized by pro-choice advocates and publications illustrates the lack of scientific rigor on both sides of the public ABC debate." This has been done because a) it's someone's POV (hardly neutral) and b) it is unsubstantiated exactly how Dr. Brind is mischaracterized and how this illustrates the lack of scientific rigour on both sides of the debate! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Copyedit needed
There are many areas of this article that are unclear because of poor grammar and writing style (no offense to the original author). I can see that the original author has made a valiant attempt at being neutral, however this has made the article worse. As such I've added the Template:cleanup-copyedit tag to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
May edits
Pro-choice advocates have routinely stated that spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) consistently show no ABC correlation. (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/abclink.html) How about presenting the medline evidence for the lack of association between miscarriage and breast cancer - the way you have it makes it look like an opinion, rather than an opinion supported by more than a little medical research.
They argue that this is compelling evidence of no ABC link because miscarriages usually are not caused by low hormone levels. Huh? How does this follow? At best, this sentence is a poor explanation of their position.
Opponents claim that while this is true it is also disingenuous, since miscarriages are characterized by low hormone levels. The difference being that low hormones levels predominantly do not initiate the abortion; they are lower as a result of a miscarriage in progress. The last part isn't even a sentence. The first part goes right into a counterargument without even making it clear what the argument is about.
Just my two cents. If you would like some constructive criticism I'd be happy to continue to try to edit the article with you. So far, it doesn't seem to me like you'll permit too much changing of your work, even the parts that are fairly poorly written. Kaisershatner 13:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Spontaneous editing
Here is the section, lets rework it; i've done a little already.
Pro-choice advocates have routinely stated that spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) consistently show no ABC correlation. They argue that this is compelling evidence of no ABC link because miscarriages should increase breast cancer risk since they are not caused by low hormone levels, while this is true it neglects the fact that miscarriages are characterized by low hormone levels. The difference being that low hormones levels predominantly do not initiate the abortion; they are lower as a result of a miscarriage in progress.
One of the first studies on hormone levels and spontaneous abortion by Kunz & Keller (1976) showed that when progesterone is abnormally low a miscarriage occurs 89% percent of the time. This is also reflected in studies published by Hertz et al. (1979) and in more detail by Stewart et al. (1993) conducted at a fertility clinic, which focuses the ABC debate on induced abortion.
The proposed mechanism of the ABC Hypothesis rests on the hormonal effects of a terminated early pregnancy on breast tissue development. Investigators have sought to establish whether such an effect exists in women who have had spontaneous abortions (ie miscarriages) as opposed to elective abortions. Several research studies have showed no link between miscarriage and breast cancer risk: Brewster et al. in 2005 found no elevated risk in a series of over 20,000 patients , Robertson et al. in 2001 observed no increased risk of breast cancer after spontaneous abortion (although there was a statistically insignificant increased risk after elective abortion under certain conditions), and Paoletti and Clavel-Chappelon in 2003 observed no increased risk associated with a low number of miscarriages, but noted a "suggestion of increased risk" after 3 or more pregnancy losses, (an odds ratio of 1.2 and a confidence interval of 0.92 to 1.56).
Pro-choice advocates have argued that this evidence shows early pregna
South Dakota Mesothelioma Lawyer - Helping Mesothelioma Victims ...
South Dakota Mesothelioma Lawyer | South Dakota Mesothelioma Attorney. By hiring a mesothelioma ... North Dakota
Finding a North Dakota Mesothelioma Attorney
Finding Qualified Mesothelioma North Dakota Attorneys and Lawyers Who Will Fight For Your Rights! Attorney Directory
North Dakota Mesothelioma Lawyer - Helping Mesothelioma Victims ...
Latest North Dakota Asbestos and Mesothelioma News Local News Coming Soon.
Mesothelioma And Asbestos Information And Lawyers In North Dakota ...
Online guide to Mesothelioma And Asbestos in North Dakota with the ability to contact a qualified North Dakota Mesothelioma And Asbestos Lawyer.
North Dakota Asbestos & Mesothelioma Attorneys, Lawyers, Law Firm, ND
Find North Dakota Mesothelioma & Asbestos Attorneys, Lawyers, Law Firms in ND
North Dakota Mesothelioma Lawyer and Legal Information
North Dakota Mesothelioma Lawyer and Legal Information. In the years between 1980 and 2000, North Dakota had the fewest asbestos-related deaths of any of the 50 states, so it ...
North Dakota Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawyer, Attorney, Lawyers ...
Find null at FindLaw ... Please select a city, county, or metro to find local North Dakota Asbestos Mesothelioma lawyers.
Mesothelioma Lawyer - North Dakota Mesothelioma Lawyer | North Dakota ...
Mesothelioma Lawyer, North Dakota Mesothelioma Lawyer - Hot Line: 800.291.0963 - We connect you with experienced North Dakota Mesothelioma lawyers who have successfully tried ...
North Dakota Mesothelioma Attorneys / Lawyers, Mesothelioma Treatment ...
North Dakota: Find Mesothelioma Info: Treatments, Clinical Trials, News, Asbestos Exposure in North Dakota ND
South Dakota Asbestos & Mesothelioma Attorneys, Lawyers, Law Firm, SD
South Dakota Asbestos & Mesothelioma. Find South Dakota Mesothelioma & Asbestos Attorneys, Lawyers and Law Firms. ... New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio ...