>Larry,
>
>
>
>I have to say, Yes. I am better off under this administration. I work at a
>company that relies heavily on Govt. defense spending. Our industry has
>been growing under the Bush administration due to the increased budgets.
But is that in general? Are you safer than you were four years ago. Where
is that money coming from? And who ends up paying for the deficits that
Shrub and his cronies are wracking up. Do you want to saddle yourself, your
kids, and posibbly your grandkids with the debt that the current
administration is laying on. Who is paying for the tax cuts to the
wealthiest 1 %. We went from a net surplus to the largest deficit in our
history in less than 4 years. Who is going to pay for the Republican
spending binge?
>
>
>I guess, you have to ask yourself the same question? Are you better off
>right now than you were under Clinton? I remember hearing that you just
>started a new job at ATCC? Is it a better job than you had before
>(benefits, salary, etc.)? Do you really think that your getting this job
>had anything to do with the current administration? Does it really matter?
Frankly I'm about the same. 4 years ago I was with a startup company that
barely managed to survive the bursting of the internet bubble but was
killed by another set of Shrub decisions.
As for my current job, partially. But when I was hired on they made it a
point to tell me that I was hired as part of the organization, rather than
on a federal contract. The pay is only slightly better, the distance is
about the same, its a larger company. So over all the chances are that if
it were a different administration, I do not think that it would have
affected my being hired.
Additionally I did not mention how much the Shrub administration has
politicized various science advisory committees and have packed these
groups with core administration supporters, such as fundamentalist
Christians etc. Its interesting to know that the Lancet has published a
study that firmly discounts the Shrub assertion that abortion causes
cancer. What's important about the meta-analysis (which is something I have
a fair amount of expertice) is that it showed that poorly conducted studies
that are methodologically inadequate were the only ones that found a link.
Those well conducted, well controlled studies showed no such linkage, or a
very weak negative effect. In other words having an abortion may result in
slightly lower breast cancer risk.
From yesterday's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25076-2004Mar25?language=printer
--
Abortion's Link to Breast Cancer Discounted
Scientists Compared 53 Studies and Based Findings on Better-Designed Research
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 26, 2004; Page A02
Having an abortion does not increase a woman's risk of getting breast
cancer later, according to the most comprehensive and definitive analysis
conducted on the controversial issue, scientists said yesterday.
The conclusion was based on 53 studies involving 83,000 women in 16
countries. For the first time, researchers compared all the studies
according to the quality of their methodology: Better-designed studies
found no link between abortion and breast cancer. Studies using weaker
designs were inconsistent, but on average, they found a link.
Currently, several states, including Texas, Minnesota and Kansas, tell
women considering an abortion that it may increase their risk of breast
cancer. Other states are debating whether to require doctors to warn women
of a risk. The federal government also had suggested that abortion might
raise the risk, but it recently dropped that information from an official
cancer information Web site.
The governmental assertions suggest that there is an ongoing scientific
debate in which studies that found no link are balanced by others that did.
The new analysis concludes that this approach distorts the truth. It is
being published today in the Lancet, a British medical journal.
"We have demonstrated that a certain group of studies are unreliable and
can't be trusted," said Valerie Beral, a professor of epidemiology at
Oxford University, who coordinated the study. Overall, she said, "you could
say, if anything, these results suggest the possibility of a slightly
reduced risk of breast cancer if you have had an abortion."
The studies deemed unreliable are the ones that antiabortion activists have
long championed. Beral, who conducted the analysis with an international
group of scientists, said those studies were flawed because they were done
by asking women with breast cancer whether they had ever had an abortion.
Such women are more likely than healthy women to reveal they had an
abortion, leading to the conclusion that there are more abortions among
this group and that abortions may have played a role in the disease
process, Beral said.
Researchers think women with breast cancer are more likely to reveal an
abortion because they are searching for explanations for why they got
cancer, said David Grimes, former chief of the abortion surveillance branch
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Healthy women
have less incentive to volunteer such information, he said.
The better "prospective studies," Beral said, tracked women for years to
see whether they had abortions and, later, whether they got breast cancer.
Other studies deemed reliable used official registries that kept track of
abortions and breast cancer cases in countries such as Sweden. These
results did not depend on women's retrospective accounts.
The two sets of studies produced strikingly different results . But both
sides in the abortion debate predicted the issue would not go away. The
National Right to Life Committee referred the issue to Joel Brind, the most
prominent advocate of the link between breast cancer and abortion, who
accused the new analysis of bias and said the new study was tainted by
"political correctness."
Abortion rights advocates said politics will keep the issue alive.
"I cannot imagine that any amount of scientific fact would deter the
anti-choice movement from continuing in this deceitful campaign," said Kate
Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We have the truth on our
side, but they have Congress, the White House and a majority of legislative
chambers."
Several states have "Right to Know" laws that require women considering an
abortion to be given information about a possible link with breast cancer.
A Texas Department of Health booklet tells women the risk of breast cancer
"may be higher if your first pregnancy is aborted. While there are studies
that have found an increased risk of developing breast cancer after an
induced abortion, some studies have found no overall risk. There is
agreement that this issue needs further study."
Margaret Mendez, chief of the bureau of women's health at the Texas agency
, and Sharon Watson, public information director at the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment, said officials in those states will evaluate the
new study.
In November 2002, the Web site of the federal government's National Cancer
Institute also suggested a possible breast cancer-abortion link. After an
expert consensus conference in February 2003, however, the Web site was
updated to say scientists had concluded that abortion did not raise the risk.
The fiercest critic of the NCI statement and the new study was Brind, a
professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City
University of New York, who has written widely about a possible abortion
link with breast cancer. Brind said the Lancet paper excluded one
well-conducted prospective study that had showed a link between abortion
and breast cancer, while including three others that were flawed. He
accused the peer-review process that approved the study for publication,
and the Lancet, of being "corrupt."
"If they were not corrupt, they would never allow garbage studies like this
to get published," he said. "These studies are junk science."
Beral defended the prospective studies that were included. She said two
prospective studies had been excluded because their investigators no longer
had the original data -- one found a link between abortion and breast
cancer, and one did not.
Because the studies were small, she said that even if they had been
included, they would not have changed the result.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
--
larry
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>
>Jeff Garza
>
> _____
>
>From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:39 AM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: Bush criticism hypocracy....
>
>
>
>Wow I guess you must have studied long and hard at the site "The
>Republican Platform for Dummies. Pardon that was not exactly fair on
>my part.
>
>The point being is that what are the differences you see between the
>two campaigns? Also you need to ask yourself a serious question, are
>you better off now under Shrub than you were four years ago?
>
> >So Kerry is a better choice than Bush ?
> >
> >
> >
> >He has personality equivalent to plain yogurt.
>
>Says nothing about his policies now does that. In this case I think
>that policies are more important.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >He lies - he doesn't have a clue what "real people" are like (and I' not
> >saying Bush does. but he's more real than Kerry - imo).
>
>Again not a discussion on the ideas put forward, but a personal
>attack. So if you're criticizing Kerry for his background lets not
>forget Shrub . Lets compare what he's done with Shrub in that case.
>Both have been children of privilege. Both went to elite schools. If
>you look at Shrub's background. Its even more elitist than Kerry's.
>Shrub had everything handed to him on a silver platter. When it was
>decided that it was time he needed to work for a living, daddy and
>his buddies got together and set up an oil company for him, then when
>that didn't work out they gave him a baseball franchise - that
>immediately went from a money maker to a money pit.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >I really hate 2 faced people. he wants to "the rich" to pay - when he
> >himself is rich.
>
>And accordingly he will pay his fair share.
>
>So in your words then its OK if you're rich and blatantly favour the rich.
>
>Kerry has certain convictions that he's followed since he left the
>service. LIke working with the VVAW, then other public interest
>groups, then running for office. Much better than getting blotto for
>20 years on drugs and alcohol after sneaking out of real military
>service.
>
> >
> >He has more wealth than just about everyone who subscribes to this thread
> >have - combined. and will ever have.
> >
> >
> >
> >Tax the rich. BS. I wish Kerry (and all Presidents) would simply tell us
>the
> >truth.
>
>lets start with Shrub. Like the truth on his cocaine usage, or his
>alcohol abuse. Or his using of Daddy's influence to get out of
>serving in Vietnam. Or look at the allegations that are surfacing
>this week about the deliberate ignoring of terrorist threats leading
>up to 9/11. Or his lying about WMD, and Iraqi threats to the world,
>or the Baathist links to Al-Queda?
>
>How about the lies that he and his administration used to get
>approval for the Iraqi invasion. Directly or indirectly Shrub is
>responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US servicemen and women,
>and possibly tens of thousands of Iraqis. Is it better to support
>such a blatant liar.
>
>He promised that the Iraq conflict would only take a short time, and
>last only a few months. Well we're running up on the 1 year
>anniversary, with no end in site.
>
>He also stated in that it would result in less terrorism and that
>Americans would be safer because of it. Are we safer, and has there
>been fewer terrorism incidents?
>
>If anything is been the opposite.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Kerry seems to want a foreign run United States.
>
>Would you mid rephrasing this into English. Its quite
>incomprehensible. It seems like you're missing out on most to the
>rules on the English language.
>
> >
> >
> >So - why don't we just hand the country over to the French.
> >
> >
> >
> >Even better - let the UN run us. that way we can all be mindless robots.
> >
> >
>
>Just waiting for the black helicopters to start flying overhead now
>aren't we. Can I suggest a tin foil had to block the evil Q rays from
>finding you. If you like I can suggestions some professionals in your
>area that might help.
>
> >
> >I dislike Kerry so much - I would vote for anyone just to stop Kerry.
> >
> >
> >
> >I even liked Dean more than Kerry.
> >
> >and I had a better image of the Democrat Party when it appeared Dean would
> >be the chosen - to run against Bush.
> >
> >
> >
> >Pierre
> >
> >
>
>Lets see given your name Pierre, now doesn't that suggest a motive
>for wanting the French to take over.
>
>As for Shrub, give his absolute failures, with the war on Terror, the
>Iraq Conflict, and the economy (how many jobs have permanently left
>the country because of his policies), his whole presidency has been a
>failure. Given that he's never really held a real job, we need to
>give him a taste of the real world, and fire him from his current job.
>
>larry
>--
>
>Larry C. Lyons
>
>========================================================
>Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
>========================================================
>Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
>
> _____
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
