Conservapedia talk:Schlafly Statistics

Getting started
Just getting started, I have to dig out some more of assfly's statistical boners human be in 18:29, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Did you have to make a reference to Assfly's boners? I'm gonna have to bleach my brain now. --Kels 18:40, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

These are only lightly scanned; they should be looked at in context to see if any sourcing is given before using them as real examples. There are also duplicates with what's already in the article. There's also multiple cites for similar statements -- I left them in because it might be interesting to see if the made-up numbers differ from one to another.

--jtl talk 19:11, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * 
 * 
 * Not a 'schlafly statistic', the "%" refers to the carbon decay.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * "The correlation between liberal Justices and less regulation of porn is nearly 100%."
 * 
 * "Also, I might add, nearly 99% of Christian homeschoolers start early" on why to exclude infamous homeschoolers
 * 
 * "and by how it is dependent on search engines for 70% of its traffic" on Wikipedia's traffic
 * 
 * "The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers." on defining "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in the abortion article
 * 
 * " Wikipedia gives a 100% pro-evolution perspective for the world to access, so it seems reasonable to allow the evolution page here to give the other side."
 * 
 * "We don't block editors for political views. 99% of our blocks are limited to vandals and posters of obscenity"
 * 
 * "The human anatomy you're referencing consumes less than 1% of a medical student's training. It's 0% of our training here"
 * 
 * "As an aside, I am curious about Murray's claim that "one can be a conservative and still believe that the theory of evolution is correct." Do you have some specific examples to support that claim? I have found nearly a 100% correlation between belief in evolution and opposition to classroom prayer, for example."
 * 
 * "But my best guess is that he's a vandal. I'm not always right, I admit. But my error rare is probably only about 1% on this"
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Holy shit, jtl, as Aspphly would say, "nice work". I'll have to dig through these.  I'll mark any I review with some comments after the link, please anyone else who does so do the same so we don't overlap work?  And obviously, move any good ones to the article.  At some point we will have to sift for consistency and stuff, as jtl pointed out.
 * Guess I know what I'll be doing on here for the next few hours I'm RWing! human be in 23:41, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * What did you do, search teh entire site for the "%" sign??? Phreak :) human be in 23:47, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Just Aschlafly's additions, then I did some minimal glancing at them for ones that looked like they might be relevant. I've been working on some tools to allow some semi-automated analysis and this was a good test for them.  Anything else you'd like me to search for? --jtl talk 00:13, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Parse this?
Hey Doc, don't you think there is a big fat article here in it's own right? human be in 12:04, 29 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure how to present this in an article, but I think it should be. Any ideas are welcome.--PalMD-yada yada 23:40, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * How about an article called Breast cancer and abortion - the link that isn't? You write averything you have to say, as rebuttal/etc. to permalinked quotes from CP?  Does that make sense?  And, if you're working on it and fleshing it out, put a header that says so on it, so people leave it alone until you're done. And then, we archive this stuff here. human be in 23:58, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Doc wrote it, but it ended up at Schlafly, breast cancer and abortion. --jtl talk 00:29, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Start here
This is that silly discussion about breast cancer/abortion stats. If anyone wants to parse thru it feel free. Just to inform the person, which put this study about breast cancer caused by abortion in there. In any study I read about it, there is not a single bit of evidence for that. As Christians we might be free to believe whatever, but we should not believe in something dogmatic, especially when the evidence that this one study by Christian conservative researchers secreted is just faked reality, since this study apperently got tested lately and disproven, in order to support exactly these dogmatism. It is one thing to believe in Jesus and the trinity, but it is blasphemious and just morally incorrect to use the Lord in order to save a personal paradigm. That is one reason why a lot of Christians in the world are pointing to the US and state, Lord, please forgive them, since they do not know how much evil they bring upon us with that behavior.

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in abortion.

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--Aschlafly 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm new here, so please forgive if this comment is put in the wrong place on the page. I notice that a lot of "sensitive" articles on Conservapedia are locked - fine, they do that on other wikis as well. But, the reason for locking them should be clearly stated on the top of the article - as it is, they are just presented as "Here it is, take it or leave it.", with no comments or explanations at all, unless you dig around in the discussion pages to find them. In the case of this article on breast cancer, it would seem that the reason for locking it, is that the controversy over whether abortion is a contributory factor to breast cancer incidence, is considered by the person who did the locking, to be too important (perhaps for religious reasons connected to the abortion debate......) to permit both sides of the vigorous debate to be equally represented  and detailed within the body of the article itself. At any rate, i do wish that the people who run this site would clearly and candidly explain exactly why each locked article is off-limits - it would be quite useful to the reader.Elrond May 11, 2007. 10:47 AST.

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. Britinme 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --PalMDtalk 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no credible sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are many good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--PalMDtalk 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have.  Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research.  Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking.  This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here.  But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--Aschlafly 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-Ames G yo! 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--PalMDtalk 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. Murray 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy, if you can give me an actual NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--PalMDtalk 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See Bias - Original work


 * Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --Elamdri 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Haven't finished yet...--PalMDtalk 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--Elamdri 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--Elamdri 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Who has a financial horse in this race?
Quote: I'm not going to allow concealment here... Aschlafly, above.


 * http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
 * http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
 * http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--PalMDtalk 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Awesome. Jrssr5 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! Britinme 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --Cgday 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) MyaR 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either.  In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.


 * I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--Aschlafly 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court. Britinme 17:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) MyaR 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --Cgday 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--Aschlafly 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * wow, I've seen people blocked for less. Flippin 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)


 * I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --Ed Poor 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true--TimS 17:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --Cgday 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer.  However, most studies show that they are not.  That's the bottom line.  Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading. Murray 17:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise.  We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.--Aschlafly 18:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this. --Cgday 18:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * How am I wrong about the studies Andy? You've mentioned that there are 16 that show a significant risk.  I've listed (on my talk page) 24 that show there isn't.  Perhaps you could clarify? Murray 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't see where Andy has better credentials than anyone else to speak on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just keeps referring to the "essjay" thing which has nothign to do with this discussion. Can we move on and talk about credentials or forget the whole mess? Flippin 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --Cgday 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Read abortion without any preconceived opinions. Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk.--Aschlafly 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * So it's not about the research then? Murray 19:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" is not a very good answer. sorry. Flippin 18:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" suggests that the sun goes round the earth - because after all it looks as if we're standing still and the sun goes round us, doesn't it? But evidence suggests otherwise. At least, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court does. Britinme 18:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Looking here : "Although the increase in risk was relatively low, (emphasis added) the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." That's in the abstract. I don't have access to the article. I'm a little suspicous, however. Most studies would give some sort of correlation, and not an "odds ratio", whatever that means. Sterile 18:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Whoops--that is the article... Hmmm...Sterile 18:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)  OF course, there's this: Sterile 18:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Judging from the NE Journal of Medicine articles at the bottom of the ref 1, it seems that this is unclear. Hence, it would be intellectually dishonest to include it in the article. Sterile 18:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967 - I'm not sure when in the US (1972?) so women old enough to have abortions then would now be around sixty or older - a time when age-related factors increase the rate anyway. However, it's not as simple as that. For example, among other things the rate of obesity is now much higher than it was forty years ago, and that is an influencing factor.Britinme 18:36 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but...
No time to work on this myself right now, but... I know a man who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and he tells me that when it does occur in men it is apt to be very dangerous. He's getting regular radiation therapy now, and things seem to be going OK, but it's a very serious business. And men often miss or ignore the symptoms because they don't know it can occur in men. He says he's on a mission to convince men to perform regular breast self-examination. Dpbsmith 18:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Absolutely correct. Because it's so uncommon in men it doesn't usually get caught until it's fairly advanced, so prognoses are often not as good as they are for women. Murray 19:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Risk factors
I just got off the phone with PalMD and am now convinced that he is a real human being. I don't think he's a cancer expert (see oncologist).

I'm hoping he'll ease off and allow a few links to sources which contradict his view of the abortion-cancer connection to be inserted into the article, and that he will not try to "own" the article. He merely submitted a few edits; he's not the author. --Ed Poor 18:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

You are correct, I am not an oncologist, and have never claimed to be. I am still, as an internist, the closest thing we have to an expert here. I lecture on these topics regularly. I have no problem at all with injecting the abortion thing in here, however, just like any other info, it must be sourced, and the data should be available for anyone to view.--PalMDtalk 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW, perhaps an interested, intelligent person could post on the talk page the article links on abortion/breast cancer. I find it a little confusing on the abortion page. That way we could more easily and accurately incorporate it.--PalMDtalk 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

These are the ones used in the abortion article: Britinme 20:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * 1) ↑ http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
 * 2) ↑ http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
 * 3) ↑ Id.
 * 4) ↑ Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).
 * 5) ↑ "Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).
 * 6) ↑ R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).
 * 7) ↑ A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).
 * 8) ↑ N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).
 * 9) ↑ Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).
 * 10) ↑ Joel Brind, "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [1] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).
 * 11) ↑ http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm

Thank you. As a public service, I will parse each one individually, and add comments under each listing, if you dont mind.--PalMDtalk 20:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor: Murray 21:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * 1) NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
 * 2) British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
 * 3) Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
 * 4) Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
 * 5) American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
 * 6) British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
 * 7) American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
 * 8) International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
 * 9) European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
 * 10) Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
 * 11) Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
 * 12) American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
 * 13) Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
 * 14) International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
 * 15) Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
 * 16) International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
 * 17) British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
 * 18) International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
 * 19) Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
 * 20) American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
 * 21) British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
 * 22) Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
 * 23) Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
 * 24) International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8

Your posting above is false and misleading. The Lancet entry, for example, is not a study at all. I doubt many of the others are either. Virtually all statistically significant studies have shown an increase risked, as does logic. The increased risk was shown before abortion became politically controversial and before the abortion industry became so powerful.--Aschlafly 23:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The Lancet article is indeed a study, though it is regarding ovarian cancer, not breast. My mistake.  But you don't understand what statistical significance means.  The majority of studies (ie, those in my list) were not statistically significant, meaning they found no effect of abortion on breast cancer.  That doesn't mean they don't count.  Murray 02:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocking
I blocked AmesG for a day for making an edit I considered threatening, and for not retracting it or apologizing for it.

When "PalMD" is editing outside his area of expertise, then I suggest he remove his "MD" label (which is not his real user id here anyway). My review of PalMD's past edits show a vast number of unproductive changes, including reverting one of my factual edits within a short period after my making it. I think a review of PalMD's edits does support blocking, but in an abundance of caution I will await his future edits. Any edit that falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion, particularly if made under the misleading moniker "MD", will likely result in a block of PalMD. Conservapedia is not going to allow the spreading of liberal falsehoods here to promote abortion. Go to Wikipedia if you want that. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Just plainly listing abortion as a risk factor is false because it suggests that a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk than a woman who was never pregnant. That is simply not true, and it is plain in the research.  Murray 21:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Your comparison is badly misleading, and scientific nonsense. A woman who is pregnant is not choosing between an abortion and not being pregnant.  She is choosing between an abortion and childbirth, and it is indisputed that choosing abortion is harmful to her health.--Aschlafly 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Please would you define your understanding of 'falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion'? As far as I can ascertain, the reverse is the truth. According to maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions in the developed world are of the order of 0.2-1.2 per 100,000, whereas in the USA maternal deaths associated with giving birth were 17 per 100,000 (12.2 in the UK)

deaths. The conservative view is of opposition to abortion, and conservatives have many reasons to oppose it, but it does this site and your argument no favors if you misrepresent the facts. Britinme 21:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The above data are silly and misleading, even if true. The above risks are far too small to be worth considering, and are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of breast cancer and premature birth of future children.--Aschlafly 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * You're missing the point entirely Andy. There's a difference between pregancy decreasing the risk and abortion increasing it.  If you phrase it that way well and good, but that's not what you're doing.  And you still haven't addressed the issue that the majority of studies find no link between abortion and breast cancer.  Too much to hope for I suppose.  Murray 02:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Support
copied from PALMD's talk page

I'm disappointed I was away from the computer last night ... I find it appalling that Andy is attacking Peter's credentials, when Andy himself does not have any in this field. The hyprocisy is astounding. I've also done my own research into this and see nothing of substance that backs up Andy's claims of a link. Unfortunately this is his site and if he wants to spread false information in an effort to vilify abortions even further that is his agenda. I would think someone who is as religious and allegedy educated as him would be able to tell the difference between facts and trash "research". And the whole calling something you disagree with a liberal agenda, liberal facts, etc only discredits him further. Peter you have my full support. Jrssr5 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

NEJM studies
I'll repeat what I said above.

The New England Journal of Medicine has two studies: and. They contradict each other. Given that the NEJM is the most well known medical journal, I think it can be safely said that there is no concrete conclusion here. I then conclude to mention abortion as a risk factor is highly deceptive, unless details about the contraversy are given. Stating that "there is a contraversy" is really not intellectuall satisfyingy, again, unless details are given. If Conservapedia is going to be a "trusted/fair source," then this must be done; otherwise the credibility of the project is undermined. Sterile 09:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like to know on what basis the Breast Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Society are deemed to be 'politicized' when they state unequivocally that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. As it stands, this article is dishonest in making the claim that a proven link exists. I note that there is no citation in support of this.--Britinme 17:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Danger/Boycott
Well, I'm still keeping my hands off this article, and my edits out. It is obviously so politicized that it is absurd. Breast cancer is one of the most important health problems in this country. Abortion is one of the most important moral discussions in this country. They happen to be medically unrelated. I certainly hope people who read the current article do not rely on it for accurate information on breast cancer. I mean this not just because of the "abortion issue" but also because, as long as it remains politicized, no real medical expert will put their name to it and help keep the article otherwise accurate. And before you accuse me of one of those ridiculous 90/10 violations, check my recent contributions.PalMDtalk 20:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Quote mine or AssflyStat?
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ABreast_cancer&diff=206606&oldid=156699

Actually, it's true. So, quote mining, since it is in the context of holiness, not science. (monthly cycles "cause" cancer. pregnancy and breast feeding reduce cycles hugely.) human <font color="#00AA00">be in 23:18, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Check the comment. The point is, in the actual article, he doesn't say that.  He just says that breast feeding reduces risk. I, er, that commenter pointed out that the study said no such thing, but that hyperfertility and long  term breast feeding were what showed decreased risk in the study.--PalMD-yada yada 23:20, 27 June 2007 (CDT)


 * "Having children reduces the risk of breast cancer. If a woman breastfeeds her babies she greatly reduces her risk of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html"
 * "According to the source given in the article, returning to preindustrial fertility may reduce risk, not breast feeding alone. The article states that having an average of 6 children and breast feeding them for an average of 2 years reduces risk.  Someone should correct it or clarify it, because as it stands it is misleading--"breastfeeding" alone is not enough.FredRidr 13:55, 23 June 2007 (EDT)"

I guess my only issue is, and I shouldn't talk since I never really fleshed this article out like I meant to, is that "assfly stats" are really the numbers he pulls out of his ass, usually on his talk page. But, that said, I see no reason now that it should not be included. Although, I can't for the life of me follow the text in the article. There, the only issue seems to be 6 kids versus an uncited number of them. It lacks the mockery that makes this article a nice, fun read :) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 00:27, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, got all serious. Maybe it can go elsewhere.  It's less a outoftheass situation than a quote mine thing>--PalMD-yada yada 00:30, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, let's keep it here until it finds a good home. Don't we have an article on how assfly can abort your breast cancer with baby's breath, or something, already? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 00:36, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

More fun examples
Probably one of the best Schlafly statistics yet! Sandman 17:27, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I hope Schlafly realizes that you could use real statistics to advance progressive causes using his logic
Such as the whole abstinence-versus-comprehension debate. Andy claims that 99% of Christian converts from Islam change their names. Meanwhile, condoms have been show to work 99% of the time. Think Andy will bank on the 99% THIS time? Didn't think so. --Crazyswordsman 23:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Best of CP
Is it at that level yet? 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's been there for a while. 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay added. 03:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Another One
Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be atheists.

Doubly good because I doubt you'll find 100 teenagers who believe the earth is that old anyway - I believed it was 4-4.5 billion years old when I was a teenager. Still do. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

6 times more liberal than the American public
I think I understand Schlafly's logic. Though he doesn't use the best wording, think of this the following way. You have one group that has 10 conservatives and 5 liberals, and another group that has 10 conservatives and 30 liberals. This has the same ratios that Schlafly mentions, and to get from the first group to the second you have to increase the amount of liberals by 6. I know this reasoning is problematic but I think this is his line of inquiry, rather than mistaking ratios for fractions. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly the entry on this subject is very contentious, and describing Schafly's number as 'entirely fallacious' is .. entirely fallacious. Firstly, the calculation resulting in a number of 2.25 is only the odds ratio of self-describing as a liberal for WP editors vs the American public. That's not what most people would understand by the term 'more liberal' when describing an organization: it ignores the non-liberals.  As Mr Anon implies, we also need to capture the fact that the WP editors are apparently 8/3 = 2.7 times less likely to be conservative.  The measure of liberality of an group in the sense Schafly intends, surely, must involve some measure of the difference between libs and cons, or the ratio between them, and the 2.25 number only reflects a part of this difference.
 * Doublenegative (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only eight years late to the party. But I read this section and had the exact same thoughts.
 * Say my christmas lights are 50% red 50% green christmas lights. I want them to be twice as red as before - does that means 66% red, or 100% red? I don't know.
 * "Six times more liberal" is a pretty meaningless statement on it's own. It is clear what Schlafly is referring to is the ratio of liberals to conservatives.
 * (3/2)/(1/2)=6 is perfectly valid. In other words, the public is 1:2 (equal to 0.5:1), WP is 3:1. Therefore there are 3/0.5=6 times more liberals per conservative person on WP. The supposed explanation is a bit silly (where does the 300% figure even come from? I calculate 33.3%*6=200%).Kauri0.o (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think Schlafy's logic holds in this case.  If we start with his assertion of 1 part liberal to 2 parts conservative in America (1:2 ratio, or 33% liberal), and then multiply the liberal part by 6, we end with 6 parts liberal to 2 parts conservative (3:1 ratio, 75% liberal) -- the stated Wikipedia ratio.  Similarly, in the Christmas light example above, the correct answer is 66% red.  That is, if we start with 50/50 red/green (1:1 ratio), and want to double the red portion, we end up with a 2:1 red/green ratio, i.e. 66% red.  Example: start with 3 strands of each color, then double the red to 6 strands, you end up with 6 red to 3 green (2:1 ratio, 66% red lights). Cpetty (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Uh?
What's the "chimney sweep" thing meant to mean? MESSIAH OF DOOM  Mortality is truth…  02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)