With some experience in working with statistics, I am always amused when people draw a "link" between two things.

The general rule is that the bigger the sample required, the less significant the link. For example, a study of about 100 million people over a decade of mobile phone use showed a statistically significant increase in one rare form of cancer. What this study failed to show is that one is 1000 x more likely to die from distractedly walking in front of a truck, or from cancer induced from drinking coffee. That the only study that seemed to draw a significant link between abortion and breast cancer was one in China based on 100m people tells me that even if it is valid, that it is so insignificant that it can be ignored, or is probably due to other factors such as those needing abortions being more prone to STDs etc.

The other side of the coin is that even discussing a link is politically incorrect, and the left, who so often throw around bogus statistics to prove their points are up in arms. Statistics that they like to ignore or attack is that nuclear power is the safest form of generation in the world, that people on lower incomes use public transport more and thus less fuel, etc.

Susanonline is right on the money!
There is no such scientifically established link, or better explained as a treatable endocrine problem, similar to that created by miscarriage or milk fever!
What is need is knowledgeable heads, rather than completely empty ones; however cool, spreading medieval medicine, or equally magnificent mombo jumbo!?
What follows that as an expansion of real knowledge?
A medicine man reading the runes perhaps, or a hocus pocus witch Dr, rattling the bones?
Rhrosty.

Feminist know best. They are scientist (especially gw), social experts, economist. Mostly they are tax payer funded employees but their word is 'god'. They would rather death over their own dogma.

Runner, it always amuses me that whenever something is upsetting you (and that seems to be often) then it must be the dreaded 'feminists' who caused it.

And there always has to be a 'dogma' involved somewhere in the conversation!
Lol.

No-one has proved a link between abortion and breast cancer so far, and no amount of ranting and praying can change that.

'No-one has proved a link between abortion and breast cancer so far, and no amount of ranting and praying can change that. '

As a staunch defender of the gw lie you have little credibility when it comes to 'proof'. Just very selective. Time and time again you have shown that your defense of the 'right ' for a mother to kill her child always triumps over reason.

I think that whilst Doctor's prescription of a cold shower is very well advised, I think we need to ask "who first?"

If the discussion about abortion and breast cancer links was limited to the rather dry and dusty confines of cancer research journals and ultimately expressed to the public as one more warning amongst hundreds of equivalent or greater others in the fine print, fair enough. It has however become a bit of a hobby horse in a flash, with two or three articles by anti-abortion campaigners published on this opinion forum alone. Social progressives are not entirely wrong to be apprehensive of this "mexican wave" of smug self-vindication on feint grounds.

Can we hope that anti-abortion campaigners will simply accept that this mild, barely detectable and clinically insignificant cancer risk is well within the bounds of personal volition, like smoking whose impact is at least an order of magnitude greater? Do you see any risk that it will be taken up by zealots?

Can we also expect, Doctor, that medical practitioners trained at public expense will assist the private citizens of the public to achieve their private medical aims without fear or favour, *respecting" rather than merely grudgingly tolerating the public's personal right to choose? Do you see any risk that medical practitioners with an axe to grind will selectively play up this incredibly minor aspect? Would *you*?

You see Doctor, "social progressives" might feel there is a lot to lose until "social" conservatives have definitely had a long cold shower first. The topic has been placed before the public eye not by cancer researchers wishing to inform the public of a significant risk but by long-term anti-abortion campaigners wishing to achieve an impact out of proportion to the significance. The topic belongs in the fine print, perhaps you should direct your rebuke to those who would not leave it there.

Rusty.