You wouldn't give advice to NASA if you don't understand physics, so why are you trying to give advice to patients, when you don't understand statistics?

Let me make it simple for you.

There are two factors (at least) when you want to talk about increased risk.

First, this needs to be statistically significant over the measured population (taking into account both standard deviation and causation vs correlation).
Second, this risk needs to be actually significant (i.e. a 0.00000000001% increase may show statistical significance, but not actually matter in real life).

Since you have not provided information regarding either of any of these factors, you are not actually talking about anything.

Just to clarify
"might – just might "

"possible connection"

"If and when"

Are not medical terms, statistical terms or scientific terms. They are words used instead of "I don't know". If you don't know, then what are you trying to tell people?

yes lets debate faith healing as well... only foaming at the mouth anti-choice people are persuaded by this "evidence".

The medical community looked at it and found it incorrect.
There no causal link and no explanation why medical induced abortion would be different to a spontaneous abortion.

This article shows an author that did not do his homework before posting the article.
Where is this 'proof' from your 'experts' Lachlan?

What is your position on the many women who have had breast cancer who never had abortions?
You express surprise at why some women are distressed re this bogus connection between breast cancer and abortion.
"Why "unwarranted distress"? Presumably because of self-recrimination in the event of a previous abortion and the realisation that it may have been contributory."

Have you thought about all you judgemental pro-life people raving on about ANY woman who is fighting breast cancer who are immediately condemned as the 'sinner' who must have had an abortion and thus is receiving her just rewards?

What if they never had an abortion anyway?
There are many other reasons for breast cancer development that are put forward by real, scientific, medically proven, non-religious sites .

Look up The National Breast Cancer Foundation for the truth if you can be bothered.
www.nbcf.org.au

Zealots should not be allowed to suppress medical evidence, simply because it conflicts with their preconceived prejudices?
Like say, the soul enters the body at conception; or sexually transmitted aids is God's will! Even that acquired medically; or that you can cure or control it with garlic!?
Maybe, but only if you eat it by the bucketful and daily!
We cured the disease dear Lord, but lost the patient!
On the other hand, neither should there be equally suppressed medical evidence that supports them, even inadvertently?
But particularly if profit, or money for its own sake, is the only real or possible motive!?
Given, i.e., a possibly suppressed cure for aids, (Chinese traditional Medicine?) given the trillions that are and or, have been made from, more and more increasingly expensive anti virals?
And needing to be taken by the handful, by long term patients, being harmed by medical resistance issues!
[How would we be able to control aids, if it ever mutated into, the very latest super bug!? Leprosy like quarantining on remote Islands perhaps?]
Increasingly expensive anti virals, taken in many cases, by innocent and trusting victims, or the equally innocent but equally infected children! And failing a viable cure, for the rest of their days!
The endlessly rising profit and or share dividend graph of Big Pharma, or pro-choice anything, should never ever trump the suppressed truth! Like say, the misinformation that the morning after pill is an abortion pill, when in fact, its only action is to suppress ovulation until the sperm is no longer viable!
No ifs, buts or maybes!
If one has no other belief, allowed or possible; then one should believe in the mighty irrefutable truth!
Rhrosty.

Zealot; a person who has very strong feelings about something (such as religion or politics) and who wants other people to have those feelings : a zealous person ..

the feminist dogma of me, myself and I will always win out while we have a godless media and cowardly politicians. If they are concerned about the genocide of unborn babies why would they be concerned about future generations. I mean gw is the biggest moral dilemma of this century.