My goal is to protect children from disease. My belief is that protecting children against disease and death NOW is a moral imperative more important than obsessing over the 50+ yr old origin of cells used to make vaccines. The Catholic Church agrees w/ me. @Right_to_Life doesn'thttps://twitter.com/Right_to_Life/status/1006551994037915648 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @gorskon @Right_to_Life
It's almost as if they care more about controlling women's reproductive choices than the actual lives of children who exist now and could be harmed by vaccine-preventable diseases. Funny how that works...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @aetiology @gorskon
How does giving people information control their choices? Isn't it the opposite?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
Not when it's misleading and skewed. Oh look, like another misleading conclusion you push. Again, how surprising.https://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/AbortionsLinktoBreastCancer.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aetiology @Right_to_Life
Oh, bloody hell, seriously? The claim that abortion causes breast cancer, otherwise known as "ABC" for "abortion-breast cancer" was refuted long ago and continues to be refuted. Anyone promoting that claim loses the right to be called science-based.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @aetiology
Well, the majority of peer-reviewed research on the topic shows a correlation. Is it science-based to ignore actual research for bureaucratic pronouncements?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @aetiology
No, the preponderance of high quality evidence does NOT show increased risk. The
@theNCI characterized the lack of correlation between induced abortion and breast cancer as "well-established."https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk …2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
A bureaucratic pronouncement in 2003 is not "science." When that workshop organizer co-authors a paper showing a statistically significant correlation between abortion and breast cancer, that's science:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754710/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That you would call an NCI consensus conference a "bureaucratic pronouncement" shows how little you know about how a scientific consensus conference works. But, hey, here's the largest meta-analysis looking at the question, if you're interested.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
We can find cherry-picked dueling studies all day, but the large majority of studies show a correlation, regardless of what was declared at a workshop. You are the one arguing that researchers who publish these studies are no longer "sicience-based."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Simply counting studies is not how you evaluate biomedical evidence, as anyone who evaluates such evidence for a living (such as myself) knows. Quality trumps quantity. Indeed, low quality studies are far more likely to result in false positives than anything else.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.