Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis

"Criticism of Media Coverage" section
What does the "Criticism of Media Coverage" section contribute to the article? The fact that the issue is politicized and subject to misrepresentation in the media has already been covered in previous sections. The "CoMC" section merely highlights some not-very-notable comments on the subject.

I propose removing the "CoMC" section. Can anyone cite a good reason not to do so? Goblinshark17 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: It's been two days since I posted the above. I will give it until the end of the weekend, then, if there are no responses, I will delete the "CoMC" section. Goblinshark17 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

FURTHER UPDATE: It's Sunday night and no one has posted any good reason (or any reason at all) to keep the CoMC section. Accordingly, I have deleted it. It's gone! RIP. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's pretty bold. Undone. Clarify to me how "misrepresentation in the media" is covered elsewhere? Just to expedite the conversation a bit, how liberal media treats the ABC issue and Brind. - RoyBoy 21:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Per talk? Yeah, I know, I wrote a reply. Don't see anything from you here... The ABC issue is repeatedly misrepresented in the media, John Carroll points it out. There is plenty in this article about pro-life propaganda, inaccuracies, etc, as well there should be. On the flip side, it is crucial to understand bias in presenting the ABC issue runs both ways. Removing the section removes this aspect, and IMO whitewashes the article. - RoyBoy 01:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Undone again, section explicitly demonstrates bias in the treatment of the subject with basic journalistic principles being violated. - RoyBoy 23:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unclear how it is "not-very-notable comments" for a well respected Editor to point out poor journalism on the ABC topic. I guess small picture, that individual item isn't large, but its a blatant example of wider (and less obvious) misrepresentation of the ABC topic. - RoyBoy 23:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is tangential trivia, of no value to us. Alexbrn (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please clarify tangential; it is on topic and unfair media treatment shows how this subject is kinda interesting. Moreover it speaks to political biases, which has value. - RoyBoy 23:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's too far off topic, and it's trivial. Adding it gives too much weight and so there's a NPOV problem. Alexbrn (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexbrn and with Goblinshark17. This "Criticism of Media Coverage" section is extraneous and distracting.  It's not our job to track media bias, only to report mainstream consensus on the issue.  The mainstream professional medical organizations all say the same thing, and that's enough for a Wikipedia article to report in an article about the hypothesis itself.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

New review

 * Association between abortion and breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis based on prospective studies It seems to have a generally negative conclusion. Perhaps once the "epidemiological studies" section or something resembling it is restored we can add this source. Everymorning   talk  16:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've been working on it slowly here. Typically Chinese studies find little / no effect, they have abortion quicker (more available) and tends to be after first pregnancy because of the One child policy. Actually one of the memes removed from the current draft. It would be interesting to see the sample size of nulliparous women they had. - RoyBoy 19:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See the comments by editor "2/0" in the "Weight" section earlier on this TALK page. We do not rely on primary sources and Wikipedia is not the place for a scientific literature review.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand "not rely on primary sources", Identifying_and_using_primary_sources. As bias has been demonstrated in the media on the treatment of the topic, it may be necessary to use them "more" for this topic rather then less, or not at all. But certainly has to be done with care to provide appropriate context and weight. - RoyBoy 23:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Identifying reliable sources (medicine) specifically says: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content." That is a direct quotation which you can easily verify. As I understand it, a "primary source" is any article which directly analyzes data, which would include meta-analyses (which pool, and re-analyze, data from previous sources), such as the meta-analyses in the new "Epidemiological Evidence" section (as opposed to a REVIEW ARTICLE, which lists and summarizes other articles, including primary articles.  So: Meta-analysis = BAD; Review article = GOOD.) HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Meta-analyses are secondary sources (if they're of others' data, which they almost always are). Alexbrn (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand thinking that, but I'm not sure it's true. Seems to me that if you author a meta-analysis by pooling data from several primary papers, and then analyzing the pooled data in a way which the original primary papers which published the data did not do, then your new analysis of the pooled data would be your own original interpretive work, which would make your meta-analysis a primary source.  In contrast, a review article would list the original primary articles, including their conclusions, and synthesize a "big picture" summary from the collected primary articles, without going and re-analyzing the data in those articles.  Anyway, that's how I see it.  Does Wikipedia have any official policy on meta-analyses and whether Wikipedia considers them to be primary or secondary sources?  Please advise, if you know.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sure it's true, and so is WP:MEDRS (e.g. "It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible"). Alexbrn (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You seem to be right.  Thanks!  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not quite what you said, but ur more right. Thanks for reminder... may be why I slowed down / gave up on Epidemiological re-write in Jun 2015. Looking at it now I was trying to summarize a narrative of the primary sources and their effect on the topic and notable personalities. Guessing that will be a no-go as well, if I can pull elements of this from meta-analyzes (they provide retrospective of previous studies usually in Discussion) would that be good?


 * Another topic that needs proper re-introduction "recall bias". The claim of up to 50% effect of bias reinserted into live article is based on bad science (refers to Lindefors-Harris 1991), this is from my Sandbox:

Recall or response bias occurs when women intentionally "underreport" or deny their abortion history. Women in control groups are less likely to have serious illnesses, and for personal reasons have less motivation to be truthful than those trying to diagnose their problem.[7] If this occurs it artificially creates an ABC risk where none exists. The Lindefors-Harris (1991) study was the first major study to examine response bias.[29] Using data of two Swedish induced abortion studies it concluded there was a 1.5 (1.1 – 2.1) margin of error from recall bias. However, eight women in this error margin "overreported" their abortions, meaning they reported having an abortion that was not recorded, so the researchers concluded it did not happen.[29] The 1994 Daling study found it "reasonable to assume that virtually no women who truly did not have an abortion would claim to have had one."[28][30] With the overreporting removed the error margin went from 50% to 16%. Brind believes the remainder may be from the Swedish fertility registry[31] – where women were interviewed as new mothers – which could have increased underreporting.[32]


 * I'm not aware of any reliable secondary sources that repeat Daling's common sense observation. IMO this is how primary sources should be used for this challenging topic. Of course, without the Media bias section, even an above average reader wouldn't be aware of this need. Can you explain why the "overreported" subset wasn't more widely reported / corrected? I sincerely can't, but I believe Carroll does indirectly. - RoyBoy 00:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't think we should be trying to make this kind of analysis ourselves. It's too close to original research or "synthesis".   We are not here to analyze media bias, and, although meta-analyses are considered acceptable reliable sources, we are not here to make a comprehensive list of meta-analyses or analyze what they say or why.  We are here to report the prevailing consensus in the scientific/medical community on the Abortion-Breast-Cancer hypothesis. Whether or not the consensus is correct, and why it may or may not be correct, it not for us to decide or discuss in an article on this.


 * Roy, RE: "I was trying to summarize a narrative of the primary sources and their effect on the topic and notable personalities. Guessing that will be a no-go as well,..."


 * I think that's a pretty good guess.


 * RE: "if I can pull elements of this from meta-analyzes (they provide retrospective of previous studies usually in Discussion) would that be good?"


 * I think NO that would NOT be good. You are (IMHO) putting too much of yourself, too much of your own originality into the slant of the article.  As I understand it, Wikipedia editors are not even supposed to come with an opinion and then find reliable sources to support that opinion, nor to "pull elements" of a personal impression from sources.  See No original research and What SYNTH is not.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am Wiki rusty, but above is not my analysis, it is Daling's and Brind's, not a "personal impression" but facts and common sense directly from a primary source speaking to the 1991 50%. Yes, primary sources 'should' not be used to avoid synthesis, unclear how you see "therefore C" above.
 * Consensus need not exclude noting reality for ABC recall bias. You did a good job of switching Melbye ref, however "susceptible to recall bias" is the consensus opinion, but remains opinion, keeping "is accounted for by recall bias" synthesis statement of fact from consensus opinion, I corrected it. At minimum the Science on ABC recall bias is mixed, unclear, even refuted (re: 50%). The ref to support it is an OpEd piece that isn't accessible, so I added Cancer.org ref from above for support / ease of access.
 * I re-read NPOV specifically on minority positions with a focus on Undue weight, reminding me that just because my recall bias position is true, that doesn't warrant automatic inclusion given its lack of "prevalence in reliable sources" (aka. media bias / merely repeating consensus). You're a solid Wikipedian HandsomeMrToad, and I know if we tweak something together it 'should' hold up to the Wiki sands of time. But I am discouraged again, likely as I was years ago. :| - RoyBoy 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing authored by Daling and/or Brind on this subject is a reliable source. Just as Michael Behe would not be a reliable source for information on biological evolution, and Peter Duesberg would not be a reliable source for info on HIV or AIDS.  See WP:FRINGE   HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Who do you think Dr. Daling is? On what basis do you compare her published, peer reviewed scientific studies, relating directly to her expertise in Breast Cancer to the likes of Behe. For Brind it's closer but not precise; as he's also published on the topic and was invited (likely begrudgingly) to the NCI workshop on the ABC topic. Which is a far sight more than Behe, regardless of your view of Brind's meta-analysis. While some of Brind's views would likely quality on Fringe; I doubt that allows carte blanche. Especially when he sometimes simply points to caveats, clarifications and retractions of ABC study by scientists upholding the consensus. - RoyBoy 22:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:HandsomeMrToad can you redo my edit to "is accounted for by recall bias", it's an opinion stated as fact from here, but even its referenced study considers it Fair evidence of no ABC association. - RoyBoy 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Epidemiological evidence" section
The "Epidemiological evidence" section is starting to read like a review of the scientific literature, not an encyclopedia article. Most of the studies described appear to be meta-analyses, so OK as sources (not "primary sources"), but, should a Wikipedia article be a list of meta-analyses? Shouldn't it be more of a big-picture summary as defined by the leading professional authorities? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The authoritative narrative of Cancer.org etc is easier reading; but not an easy subject. Besides, aren't they one and the same anyway? Said authorities pick the elements of the meta-analyzes (and some studies) they deem relevant / want to critique. For clarity I think pulling findings from meta-analyzes directly and response from authorities is best, as is currently the case. To do otherwise, we may end up over relying on one source? - RoyBoy 16:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013034110/http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102030744/http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-2.cfm to http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-2.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020054209/http://www.goldenboob.org/ to http://www.goldenboob.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927232722/http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/105/26/ to http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/105/26/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130074932/http://www.crlp.org/pr_02_0328ND.html to http://crlp.org/pr_02_0328ND.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Move
This article should be moved to Abortion–breast cancer myth. It was never a hypothesis, in the scientific sense, it was a case of policy-based evidence making, a conjecture developed in service of a pre-existing agenda. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrong given the topic has received extensive scientific study / debate and even epidemiological journal opinion pieces on historic mixed results; which was the main driver of study. Not pro-life claims or anti-abortion politicians, although their propaganda did its bit on the public discourse. Given the article has been gutted of this context, guess you deserve a mulligan.


 * Recall bias explanation of history mixed results is also mixed in itself.


 * The ABC mechanism remains scientifically plausible (has never been refuted) and aligns with why nuns have higher breast cancer risk. - RoyBoy 22:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)