It's been a while since we've visited our friends at the John Locke Foundation. I wonder what they're up to? Oh, I see, something stupid:
This explains a lot
Posted October 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 PM by Jon Ham
Abortion is the best predictor of breast cancer.
So, that's the whole post. Before we dive headfirst into this pile of ignorance, I want to know exactly what this would explain? Seriously, I really want to know what exactly, is explained by this. Jonny, if the foundation's computers allow you to go to non-Pope-approved websites, please feel free to start making sense in the comments.
More below the jump.
So anyway, it's hard to start breaking down a single sentence blog post with this much stupid in it. Let's start by looking at the article to which he links. Hmmm, it's an article from Lifesite.net, a website which was started by 'a Canadian national pro-life organization headquartered in Toronto, Canada'. Hmmm, I have a feeling it's a slightly biased source. Nevermind the fact that conservative writers have been trotting out this tired story for decades despite the much evidence to the contrary. Anyhoo, on to the story!
WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer," and fertility is also a useful predictor.
The study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected. Where a decline in abortion has taken place, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.
Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales based on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004.
But wait a minute! I thought computer models didn't work when it came to predicting the effect of mankind on global warming! Are you saying they're okay now? Okay, it's good to know. As long as the message is consistent. (Of course, I'm just kidding here.)
So anyway, on to the paper itself. I knew my math degree would come in useful one day.
I see that this paper has been published in the prestigious Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Oh wait a minute. Uh-Oh.
I've written about JPANDS before, pointing out that its claim of peer review is a sham and that it has an explicitly antivaccine agenda, not to mention its far right wing politics. It only took sampling a few of its articles for me to conclude that JPANDS is useless as a source of valid scientific articles.
But Kathleen dug deeper and found that JPANDS is even worse than I had feared, which is why I hope that she takes a break to let her neurons recover before diving back into the fray again, as the Pooflinger was forced to do to maintain his sanity after delving too deeply into creationist idiocy for too long. In her reading, she's dug way deeper into JPANDS, reading far more of its articles than even I have dared, even going back to its predecessor Medical Sentinel to find more examples of its flagrant wingnuttery.
It's not a pretty sight. Kathleen did a pretty comprehensive takedown of AAPS and JPANDS, listing all of their positions and many of the reasons why JPANDS should not be taken seriously as a scientific journal. She also makes the ironic observation that liberal icon RFK, Jr. has used JPANDS as a source for much of his thimerosal conspiracy-mongering.
From Kathleen's comprehensive takedown:
AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg presents his theories as a guest of AAPS. Fellow AIDS denialist Nathaniel Lehrman — advisor to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) — judges homosexuality as inherently conducive to crime and disease:
...the "gay" male lifestyle significantly increases the incidence of infectious disease and shortens life expectancy by about 20 years... The concept of homosexuality as a permanent "orientation" is, however, without scientific validation; the notion is entirely politically grounded. One effect of this new view has been to understate the medical and societal harm produced by the promiscuous sexual practices typically associated with homosexuality... [E]ven though homosexuals seeking to change often succeed in doing so (frequently with the aid of therapy), the AMA statement, by publicly opposing "reparative" or "conversion" therapy "based on the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation," seems to take an implicit moral position of denying that such change should occur. (Nathaniel Lehrman, MD)
Undocumented immigrants are described by Madeline Pelner Cosman — a trial lawyer and featured speaker at the 2004 Annual Meeting of AAPS — as ominous threats to public health. The author’s assertions are largely supported by newspaper articles and political literature.
Hmmm, so what we have here is a "scientific journal" which is walking the most precarious of idealogical tightropes to put an academic sheen on standard, old-ass conservative talking points? I wonder where they got that idea?
Oh, and just in case you had any lingering thoughts of taking this crap seriously, I will note that this prestigious journal has it's own conservapedia page, unlike pretty much every academic journal on the planet. From the page:
The Journal has sparked criticism by liberals who may dislike the data and results presented.
Final note for Mr. Ham: 10 seconds of google searching turned up all of this and way way more. Maybe you could use all the time you save by writing single sentence blog posts to do a little research, and a little less time blaming the decay of journalism on a blowjob from 10 years ago.
Crossposted at my blog, The Midpoint