391:(science reporter): "Studies dating back to 1957 had found varying results on whether abortion raises the risk of breast cancer, but scientists frequently cited methodological flaws in the positive studies. Then in 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine published a massive study of 1.5 million women in Denmark that found no connection, more or less closing the door on the so-called "ABC link." "The scientific community felt this was by far the best study that had been done to date, and really settled the issue," says Lynn Rosenberg, an epidemiologist at Boston University who has participated in the ABC debate. But that didn't stop Brind, who continued to insist that the ABC link was alive and well. Though he does not appear to have published any original research on the question, Brind--who did not return calls for this article--became a prolific writer of letters to academic journals and of articles in pro-life newsletters.
710:
the scientific community. I can't accept "unproven" because this suggests that the scientific community's rejection of a causal link isn't based on studies that disproved the link and I can't accept "unsupported" because it suggests that the scientific community just hasn't found evidence to support it, not only haven't they found evidence to support it, they've found "well-established" evidence which shows there is no link. I hesitate to speak for IronAngelAlice or MastCell, but in the past we have all supported the "rejected" language on the basis of the reliable and verifiable references in the article. OK, I could sort of support moving "rejected" to the second sentence except that this makes the lead more verbose and complicated for the sole purpose of compromising on a POV push - this seems like bad precedent in a science/medical article. Maybe we should consider moving on to other issues and revisiting this later.
864:- it explicitly states that "Knowledge (XXG) articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Knowledge (XXG) editors." Mooney, Yeoman, Jansen, all of them note how the hypothesis has been rejected by consensus. If it is a fringe theory (and it is - just look at sources needed to flesh out the article), it has, almost by definition, been rejected by scientific consensus - otherwise it would be a minority view - unfortunately outside of a cabal of self-publishing self-acknowledged pro-life activists there are no legitimate epidemiologists that support the hypothesis. Also, your logic is OR - this about policy: sources and weight. --
1391:
occurring but a result needs to be very significant to make that determination. It is an assertion that confounding factors (including reporting) can fully explain positive results. Reporting has zero impact on Howe, Melbye and
Michaels; saying confounding factors explain all their positive results is wishful thinking and Original Research as Melbye refers to ABC as a possible explanation for their results! Not a vague and unsubstantiated "confounding factors" excuse, which would mean their study is invalid and hence their result are meaningless; that's what happens to your credibility if you fail to account adequately for confounding factors. Scientists understand this, hence this is why their official determinations are not editorial rejections.
991:
is an OR inference beyond bounds; whether its by you or Mooney I could care less as the NCI does not substantiate such a broad statement. By broad I mean it asserts/infers no legitimate support whatsoever for the ABC hypothesis. As I clarified above Melbye refers to it as a possible explanation for their positive findings in 1997; however if that is too far back then I'd simply refer you to WHO, which clearly delineates that the strength of the "no association" determination for first trimester abortion does not hold for second trimester abortion. If there indeed were no legitimate ABC support/evidence, then this important caveat would disappear.
397:(medical historian): " study supported the theory that structural changes in breast tissue are responsible for the lasting, protective effect of full-term pregnancy. They observed that abortion left the rats highly susceptible to developing cancer, but that the aborted rats “were at the same risk as virgin animals treated with the carcinogen”. Over the next two decades, however, their findings would be cited repeatedly as evidence that pregnancy begins a process of breast change which, when stopped by abortion, put female rats (and thus humans) at greater risk of cancer than those who had never been pregnant."
1437:"There was no excess risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion among parous women. These data support the hypothesis that there may be a small increase in the risk of breast cancer related to a history of induced abortion among young women of reproductive age. However, the data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time; neither do the collective results of the studies suggest that there is a subgroup of women in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually high." - Daling et al. (1996)
464:
Jasen wrote a good article, but Jasen failed to note that Russo & Russo did indeed propose the ABC mechanism as a possible explanation for positive results in other studies (and that their study did specify "slightly higher" benign lesions for aborted rats). "Documented misappropriation" is meaningless if it isn't accurate and complete, and it is still unknown to me what Russo had in mind when they specified "which could render the gland again susceptible to carcinogenesis." If they meant equal susceptibility to virgins, or undetermined.
556:
rejected. I think "rejected" is an integral part of what the subject is. Also, if we kept "rejected" in the first sentence, we could then phrase the second sentence to add even more info and accuracy to say something like "Though the hypothesis isn't accepted by an cancer organization, it continues to be promoted by pro-life advocates." Again, I think it's important to echo MastCell's point about the irrelevance of our personal interpretations of R and V sources, and to emphasize looking at the quality of sources used to support each POV. --
1960:; it behooves the scientific community to clarify. They usually choose not to (until forced into an awkward position by politics). Just because there's no conspiracy (I think Brind is wrong), that doesn't mean scientists are doing what they should. It's critically important that is made clear to you and readers; if we bring up the "silence" meme on Knowledge (XXG), regardless if it stays in ABC hypothesis or is moved to Joel Brind to keep ABC from bloating. -
860:. MastCell means that WP is bound to value NCI's finding because the findings have been published by a reliable source (NCI)- that's what the verifiability policy means - not whether an editor has access to every piece of information in order to evaluate the claims - that's OR. Also, you're dead wrong on primary sources - please review Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources in the official policy
1536:
think it's safe to say that the majority of the parties involved, Sophia, MastCell, IronAngelAlice, and myself all view ABC as fringe per documentation. Since RossNixon has only been marginally involved, I don't know his position on it, and RoyBoy's is that it's not fringe. I think we should start here - determine whether or not it is a fringe theory and move forward. Daniel? Everybody else? --
1768:
likely produce a solid result, and I hope you all can take it in that spirit and start discussing specific proposals again with more vigour as opposed to general argument which has been covered, re-covered, and covered again without causing any "backflips" (and is unlikely to do so). Where one cannot convert, one must compromise, basically, is the essence of my message. Respectfully,
634:(undent) It is a good proposal Daniel, but "largely unsupported" isn't on the table in relation to describing status of the hypothesis; "unsupported" is what I'm going for in relation to primary scientific evidence (as referenced by WHO). "Largely" gives an inaccurate weighting of the ABC evidence. I do consider "largely" appropriate when describing the scientific consensus.
1518:" No causal interpretation in 1996. 6 years later with NCI, no link whatsoever. It's not your job to re-evaluate the material presented by the scientific community - no matter how plausible a theory appears. The scientific community is quite clear on this - there is no link. You may bring up all the quotes you want - it doesn't change the fact that this is a fringe theory.
806:. Though my personal belief is other scientists at the NCI workshop disagreed with the strength of the findings... but did not think it was worth it (politically, financially and scientifically) to formally disagree with it. However, my POV doesn't permit me to deny the obvious reality that scientists and cancer organizations do not support it. (some go further and
588:(actually we mean Barry Yeoman) stipulates "ample" evidence for response bias exists, then cites a retracted conclusion from a Lindefors-Harris study; a conclusion even before correction that barely meets your criteria for statistical significance. You, and your sources, do not prioritize all facts; rather selected facts that reflect a scientific consensus as y'all
1634:. Finally you ask me for the source when its been in the article since day 1; why you'd include an "unreliable source" comment is strange given you should already know where it's from and should have requested it (or maybe even looked it up?) long ago if you had any legitimate concerns. It's certainly more reliable than an editorial of a criticized editorial. -
1657:(undent) My apologies for the confusion, I'm not trying to imply that the sources you quoted last were unreliable, that was an oblique reference to Brind's self-published work and the material from religious newsletters, etc.. But if you'd answer my question, I think we might be able to move forward. Do you agree or disagree that ABC is a fringe theory? --
1332:"largely rejected" for good measure, to placate y'all and to keep other misguided good faith editors from changing "not associated" to "rejected" with the latest crap editorial ref they come across; thinking it is completely suitable for a Knowledge (XXG) lead, and to make a scientific determination. Asking for more isn't NPOV given clear
1219:
1368:. The correlation, also known as a co-incidence, has been explained by confounding factors, typically issues with reporting (as established in later studies). The hypothesis is about causation. As editors, we cannot allow our personal interpretations of specific data to outweigh the scientist's own assessment. --
1096:(as it provides no references, and does not generate science of its own), to render a scientific verdict. You have more (in quantity) reliable references, yes, more people supporting your position, seems to be the case. Does it matter in the least? No, not if you (and your sources) are verifiably wrong.
1864:
We may need to visit issue 2 (Brind's meta-analysis outside the "Epidemiological studies" section). I'm going to move it back soon to where it belongs and rework the "Hypothesis and proponents" section as best I can, providing context to Brind's POV of "conspiracy of silence", as required by NPOV; or
1268:
and managed to convince a goodly part of the UK not to vaccinate their children (leading to the first death from measles in the UK for decades) - we need to be wary of these science "loners". There is a real danger of giving them undue weight based on their web presence as people such as this tend to
1535:
Could we get the whole paragraph on Melbye? You seem to add a lot of your own interpretation. If you would like to add this info, it seems it's your responsibility to prove that the POV is legitimate and not a product of SYN and OR science from unreliable sources. I'm going out on a limb here, but I
1095:
Don't ignore my salient recent points by bringing up a non-specific point from before. We all think the sources you have can be considered reliable, that sure as hell doesn't make them better than WHO. You are making a scientific determination on the ABC issue, you cannot use editorials, nor the NCI
990:
Daling and her research did not reject it in the least, Jasen clarifies Daling was at the NCI workshop, but Brind claims Daling did not present on the ABC issue. What Daling's position on it currently/actually is, I can't be sure. I am sure "no legitimate epidemiologists that support the hypothesis"
729:
Also, I'm not really feeling like communication between RoyBoy and myself is going very well, maybe there's too much stuff between us for me to be an effective mouthpiece for the pro-rejection camp. I can see why RoyBoy would associate all of this with me, I spontaneously reviewed the article, found
709:
Daniel, I don't see how your proposal addresses weight issues. My proposal of starting with rejected, moving to no cancer org accepts it and on to its continued promotion by pro-life advocates adequately covers its "status" as reflected in reliable sources. The hypothesis has no legitimate status in
341:
3) I may not accept that easily as "rejected" is already in the third lead paragraph with its appropriate NCI ref and context. The first sentence should be as straight-forward as possible; maybe moving the current "rejected" sentence to the first sentence could work, but I've been uncomfortable with
1708:
proposals moving forward, with the intention of appeasing some of the other sides' concerns in mind when drafting them. Remember that, if mediation works, both sides of this dispute will leave feeling as if they've lost a little bit of ground from their "preferred" version, but ultimately satisfied
1587:
What I meant by not fringe, is that the studies/people I reference are not fringe on the ABC issue. Equating no causal interpretation to "rejected" is laughable; likewise "not associated" does not equate to "no link whatsoever" as per WHO, as I patiently explained to MastCell and Sophia above. If I
1158:
Also I'm curious as to why you think I'm demoting and/or ignoring the NCI workshop. "Give it up." Give what up? The NCI workshop is front in center in my draft. It's not like I'm shoving it in the back of the article; it is given proper context and the editorial word "rejected" instead of the NCI's
1012:
than WHO? Just because Wiki-policy allows use of secondary sources for analysis of primary sources; that certainly doesn't permit superseding scientific sources with non-scientific editorials. (being written by science writers, and a scientist, doesn't make them scientific
Phyesalis) You seem to be
967:
Pro-choice advocates attacked the agency for allowing abortion politics to drive the cancer research agenda, but when the majority of the assembled scientists, among them Daling, Rosenberg, Russo, and Melbye, reached an apparent consensus that “induced abortion is not associated with an increase in
771:
position. ABC is a fringe theory, so why are you bringing those other sources, they have no relevance (yet) for this mediation. The issue on the table involves an ironically uncontroversial aspect of the ABC issue. WHO isn't a fringe source. If that weren't enough (clearly it isn't for you); Melbye
723:
theory, then unreliable references like the ones that RoyBoy has brought to the table (www.catholiccitizens.org, lifenet.org, Brind's self-published material off his website) are admissible as long as they are weighted as unreliable and self-published fringe sources. If this is not a fringe theory,
677:
Of course my intent it to move the existing rejected into the second sentence. I am adding "unproven" to the mixed as an alternative to "unsupported". I don't know which one is better, but I would like to keep the wording consistent between
Abortion, Breast cancer, and the ABC article. The Abortion
534:
is about equity based on the parity of sources. The fact is that the hypothesis has been rejected by the scientific community - this isn't my POV - it's documented. This is an issue of weight due to an attempt to diminish the weight of established facts by cherry-picking (OR interpretation of Russo
463:
As to
Phyesalis' references, what they want reality to be is simply not the case. Their 1-dimensional editorials and political analysis is simplistic and irrelevant given the science. Mooney wrote a poor article, as the Denmark study shows a possible ABC connection (as reflected accurately in WHO).
1284:
irresponsible. This was true before WHO, and it is verifiably the case after WHO. It's fine to say pro-choice editorials consider it rejected, but taking a line from
Mastcell, it is not our role to make that determination. (and, using editorials to relay that determination, isn't correct either) -
918:
Mooney, non-scientific editorial opinion on the NCI workshops findings; which found the evidence "well established" against the ABC hypothesis; but did not reject/analyze the hypothesis itself and neither (NCI and Mooney) provide primary science to back up their statements, which are substantively
820:
It annoyed me enough you rejected the ABC hypothesis based on (at times) crappy secondary sources you believed uncritically; and maintained my interpretation of the primary evidence was flawed/naive/maybe even Brind worshiping, and hence incorrect. Now you're just being a POV pusher in the face of
438:
which RoyBoy favors is entitled "Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk". That is about as clear a "rejection" as one could ask for, and characterizing the WHO as "rejecting" the hypothesis seems unarguable on the basis of that source and its title. While they review the evidence in
414:
for bad science and the two epidemiologists Weed and Kramer authoring a response for the JAMA, have called the hypothesis anything from "beyond the bounds of inference" to "Biased Agenda Driven science" and "pseudoscience". I'm thinking "rejected" is the mst accurate and most polite way to put it.
1879:
Sorry for the inactivity on my part, things have been awfully crazy for me in the real world. Listen, as long as the article states clearly that the hypothesis has been rejected, I can compromise on a number of issues. I'm fine with including Brind's position on a "conspiracy of silence" - but it
1313:
Even if that were true, which it isn't (see: Daling), that makes it an unsupportable position? It's also a double edged point, pro-choice groups and authors are quite capable of mis-characterizing the ABC issue. Pro-life groups tend to see it as supported by the science, and ignored/hidden by the
1918:
Well those potentialities are not in direct conflict. What has occurred here is ironically proof of that. The ABC results are mixed, and scientists tend not to go out of their way to point this out. Lacking clear science they won't outright reject it... but at the same time they won't support it
1495:
Association is not causation - association is not proof of causation. Russo and Russo argue that giving birth protects breast tissue, and that pregnancy interrupted rats are at the same risk as the baseline, virgin rats. You are arguing out of your own interpretation. Jasen is a secondary source
1189:
What makes editorials suitable to reference for a scientific conclusion? Answer: Nothing at all. Your rebuttal, but the NCI consensus is suitable to make a conclusion. My answer, AbsolutelY, but they didn't conclude "rejected" and WHO is also suitable, transparent and has less political baggage,
1121:
The key is, I/we don't have to rely on my opinions. I simply have to establish one neutral valid scientific primary source disagrees with your selected editorials and NCI. I've established that repeatedly; I'm unsure why further discussion is necessary. The reliability for the NCI workshop is an
555:
support the proposal if the second sentence read: "Though the hypothesis has been rejected by the scientific community, it continues to be promoted by pro-life advocates." However, the whole reason the subject is notable is because it continues to be championed by pro-life advocates after it was
1767:
Respectfully, my comments were more a generalised explanation of mediation rather than a stab at any of the parties, or you in particular — my apologies if my message gave off the wrong vibes. My comment merely had the intention of directing this discussion in a direction that I feel would most
1390:
That's a cogent perspective. However, I'd reaffirm "personal interpretation" has little impact on significant positive results; regardless of causation/correlation determinations, which are merely a reflection of a RR strength. If the result is weak, they call it a correlation, causation may be
1331:
Now you might pull a MastCell on me and ask: Well if you acknowledge "not supported" by the community, then why disagree RoyBoy? Because the science says different, WHO acknowledges this, if you don't then that's unfortunate. The "apparent consensus" (as Jasen aptly puts it) is in my draft with
970:
Jasen speaks of consensus, not of a conclusion, or a finding of fact that the hypothesis is wrong and hence "rejected". To say again, since the NCI workshop isn't transparent, that by itself means I cannot in good conscience consider it scientific in its determinations. (add on top of that, its
467:
I respect MastCell's position and perspective, however I find
Phyesalis' position (and those ze cites) untenable if scrutinized. Further, her referencing continues to be sloppy; as Weed and Kramer call research and conclusions by Brind "beyond the bounds of inference"; not the hypothesis itself
378:
For me, this is a matter of semantics - no legitimate cancer org. accepts the hypothesis - for the last 10 years it has been considered a fringe theory promoted by pro-life advocates based on the documented misappropriation of Russo and Russo's rat studies and Joel Brind's work. The article has
1752:
As to both parties "give a little bit to get a little bit", I already specified above how I've already been "bending backwards" (search for that) to allow "largely rejected" from the NCI ref. I'm not conceding ANY FURTHER to
Phyesalis' particular interpretation and narrow selection of sources,
33:
However, because mediation is voluntary, I just want to make sure you're both OK with me mediating. I couldn't think of anything that I'd need to recuse over (hence why I took it), but there's every chance I might have forgotten something or you may simply not be comfortable with me mediating.
1122:
assertion based on authority. Is the NCI a reliable source, of course, more reliable than WHO? Well not on this subject, as WHO provides research with which to confer. Reliability isn't a rubber stamp, which you can apply uncritically and equally to any organizations conclusions you prefer. -
1283:
Mostly true, but I would remind you Melbye and many other pro-choice researchers have statistically significant positive results. While Melbye and other notable recent conclusions does push the ABC hypothesis to the fringe; their positive results make a "rejected" determination incorrect and
667:
The abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis (also referred to by supporters as the abortion-breast cancer link) is an hypothesis that posits a causal relationship between induced abortion and an increased risk of developing breast cancer. As the ABC hypothesis remains unsupported/unproven by
1404:
Stipulating ABC needs a "causation" determination to not be rejected, that confounding factors and response bias erase positive results, putting editorial junk together with the NCI to the exclusion of everything else, are your personal interpretations, and I cannot allow it to outweigh the
1696:
The inactivity of this mediation over the last week is largely my fault, which I apologise for. Although I will hopefully be more active in the near future, I will still not be as active as I would like. However, we should be able to cope anyways with some extra drive from you as parties.
1700:
With all due respect to all involved, I think discussion about the merits of one argument and position over another is not achieving terribly much. You guys are all intelligent and have hashed out everything you can, and I can hardly see a massive backflip occuring to end the discussion.
328:
for those perceiving ABC as "rejected". I find that uncompelling as the workshop does not make the evidence and its deliberation process transparent; making it unverifiable as a scientific source, whereas other sources (WHO) provide differing nuanced opinions based on leading
457:(undent) I focus on the science, not the headlines; and I want the article to do the same. The WHO details are: "Two major studies have been carried out using this methodology, and neither found an increased risk of breast cancer associated with first trimester abortion."
1420:"Although our data are not compatible with any substantial overall relation between induced abortion and breast cancer, we cannot exclude a modest association in subgroups defined by known breast cancer risk factors, timing of abortion, or parity." - Michels et al. (2007)
1190:
making them preferable. Now you just want to go ahead and declare it defacto rejected based on a consensus of sources, which on second look most don't even follow your assertion. Knowledge (XXG) and science doesn't work that way. Reconsider your position, all of you. -
1833:
Point taken about the inactivity being related to a form of resolution. In light of the above comments, I have closed this case as "Successful in resolving the dispute, discussion exhausted with the appearance of one version being accepted over the other". Thanks,
1251:
the current studies - the fact that the mechanism sounds convincing is irrelevant if there is no reliable empirical evidence to support it. From what I have read all the wranglings come down to Melbye in one form or another which pushes it well into the realm if
1515:
However, the data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time; neither do the collective results of the studies suggest that there is a subgroup of women in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually
810:
to reject it outright, that's their prerogative, but it certainly isn't science) Likewise, you cannot deny the obvious when WHO reflects the best evidence as unsupportive, not rejective, on the ABC issue. Politics, editorials and headlines work that way, not
513:
I'd like to hear thoughts on this as a general idea, as well as a specific second sentence if anyone likes it and has a proposal. I also welcome other proposals with great interest, whether a modification of this or something completely different. Cheers,
654:
There is also a risk, that putting the two statuses together will unintentionally infer something in the other. Though with context this should be minimized, it is something I want to be considered as a draft is put forward. I'll write one now for fun:
1060:
It doesn't matter that you think reliable sources are "crappy" - they satisfy WP policy. Your personal opinion of their accuracy is completely irrelevant. NCI does not have to be transparent, just reliable, it is - give it up. No really, anyone else?
898:
prominence. I was expanding on why my personal POV is not interfering in allowing reasonable accurate statements from
Reliable (but not scientific, see below) sources. After your appalling Wiki-policy rant, you have a great sentence that moves things
173:
1) Does references 1, 2 and 3 at the end of the first sentence say "rejected", "unsupported", both, neither, etc.? I need to know because any suggested rewording of this sentence as a compromise will require me to know what sources verify what, if at
752:
and WikiPolicy, and he takes my points in stride; although I'm curious how he seems to think
Knowledge (XXG) is "bound" to do anything with the NCI since it isn't transparent, and hence not verifiable! It isn't just my friggin wish or fancy, it is a
1712:
If you disagree with a proposal by someone, please discuss it in practical terms — ie. propose a version which solves the specific problem but leaves everything else. That way, there's more chance both sides will like what eventually comes out.
159:
The abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis (also referred to by supporters as the abortion-breast cancer link) is an unsupported hypothesis that posits a causal relationship between induced abortion and an increased risk of developing breast
919:
different. Any further blanket statements by Mooney are by one opinionated writer, who takes a backseat to primary scientific research. You wax eloquently and unnecessarily about Wiki-policy, then mean to tell us this source is A-okay and
489:
The abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis (also referred to by supporters as the abortion-breast cancer link) is an hypothesis that posits a causal relationship between induced abortion and an increased risk of developing breast cancer.
429:
I think "rejected" is the clearest and most accurate phrasing. It has been rejected, as sources attest. The
National Cancer Institute says as much, and while I respect RoyBoy's desire to know more about the inner workings of their panel,
1163:
to properly ref "rejected" for the NCI. Redux because Mooney says Scott Gold "appears to have known the scientific issues perfectly well," is it just me, or is using a commentary on a commentary non-encyclopedic? It certainly isn't
1314:
scientific community. If we look at the scientific community, they tend to say abortion is not associated with breast cancer; while some speak out on both sides of the equation saying "its rejected" or "it plausible/exists".
529:
Here's the problem, my understanding is that NPOV isn't about favoring or not favoring an editor's POV, but about accurately and neutrally presenting published facts and opinions. Neutral does not necessarily mean equal.
825:
our history that is the problem here, it is your arguments, your sources and your POV. A POV you seem to be oblivious to, so long as you have sources you are comfortable with. Your sources aren't all that and a bag of
574:
Your interpretation of NPOV and Knowledge (XXG) is in line with my understanding; your concepts of parity and sources is problematic on many levels for the ABC issue; mentioning "personal interpretations" is very
1956:; which is permitted by scientists general disengagement from the issue. Scientific studies speak, scientists don't. That's the way it should be of course, but when you have journalists writing things that are
1919:
either, especially if its controversial (making for conspiracy fodder). Perhaps its simply conservative interpretation scientists adhere to by default, *shrug* it doesn't particularly matter in my estimation.
757:
for any source being presented as scientific. But I consider it a non-issue, since the NCI is prominently a part of the second sentence draft; correctly speaking to consensus... not the science of the ABC
1814:
By that I mean a solid result has been achieved. The article will remain as it is, I say this given Pro-Lick, an historic opponent of mine took the initiative and replicated my version of the ABC lead in
1246:
We seem to have the same situation as before where RoyBoy is personally convinced by the mechanism of ABC and is holding the door open a wedge waiting for more studies to be published. The science of ABC
787:
the Denmark study to have "refuted" the ABC hypothesis (as some of your preferred sources incorrectly maintain) as they acknowledge, and it is in their freely available abstract, that there are possible
730:
numerous errors and delisted it, but it seems inaccurate to suggest that this is all me. MastCell, he seems to respect positions when you offer them, perhaps you would consider taking a turn? --
506:
The two statuses are mentioned with the same prominence (in the second sentence), favouring neither as the preferred opinion of Wikipedian writers, hence complying to the placement part of NPOV.
130:
I'm trying to limit my participation in Knowledge (XXG) as a whole at the moment, due to real-life demands, but feel free to get started; I'll watch the page. No need to wait on me any further.
1454:
Melbye et al. explained that even though the result was "in line with the hypothesis of Russo and Russo," they deemed the number of cancer cases small and did not want to overstate the finding.
1790:
I understand, and you're right about no backflip, but a lack of activity is an indication something occurred. You perceive the discussion at stagnant, I'd deem it concluded on that issue. -
605:, blindly follow suit by asserting a plausible hypothesis has been "rejected", that may actually explain positive results (in Denmark and elsewhere) which exist in primary research; and are
1269:
attract vested interests - hence the pro-life support. I think "rejected" best describes the current situation and would resist watering this down this current assessment of the situation.
971:
political context and inaccurate statement about pre-term delivery, and I think more people would have to agree with me; and this is all without referring to Brind's version of events)
724:
then these types of undesirable and unencyclopedic sources should be discarded and we should stick with R and V sources appropriate for the scientific discussion of a medical subject.
509:
This also allows the opinions of "largely unsupported" and "rejected" to be clearly qualified to their source, allowing the reader to make up their own mind about which they believe.
678:
lead already makes use of "unproven". Come to think of it, unproven is better... as some studies do "support" the ABC hypothesis to some extent; "unsupported" ignores that fact. -
802:
I've established the factually inaccuracy of your position; the prominence "largely rejected" would receive from this compromise reflects the current consensus as best as we can
37:
Could I get both of you to either note "I agree" or "I disagree" (to me mediating) below. I'll get started once I hear back from both parties. Also, can I get both of you to
923:
to determine scientific status of the ABC issue; when there are plenty of primary sources to draw directly from without any need for secondary source interpretation or OR.
468:
and/or other positive results in less criticized studies. Misguided pro-choice/feminist editorializing (ie. Golden Boob) should have no weight on the first sentence. -
180:
3) My plan is to restructure the first sentence to include both "rejected" and "unsupported", with disclaimers for both, in an attempted compromise. If anyone has any
1865:
move the entire meme to Brind's sub-article. Specifics on which direction to go, or criticism of it are welcome now. I'm hoping to avoid another lengthy debate. -
2024:
2002:
1673:
592:. The Denmark study found no overall ABC association, yup! Did they also have positive results your sources choose to gloss over or ignore outright, yup!
1704:
The idea of mediation is for you to compromise on possible wordings to represent both viewpoints in an amicable fashion. What I would like is further
1672:
My bad, understood. ABC is a fringe scientific theory, making "hypothesis" the term I felt was most appropriate to use when describing the subject. (
1030:
I appreciate your candor and references. Apologies for the length, the last and first paragraphs are my response, the rest is reasoning out loud. -
17:
944:
Yeoman, I glossed over the article quickly. Clarify the rejected by consensus paragraph if you feel it continues to be pertinent. I doubt it will.
89:
If one of the parties could get the attention of the other three, it'd be much appreciated. I'd like to get this show on the road, so to speak :)
1159:"not associated". That denotes not only fairness, but bending backwards on my part as we would have to rely on the non-medical sources like a
1969:
1889:
1874:
1843:
1828:
1799:
1777:
1762:
1725:
1685:
1666:
1643:
1545:
1478:
1377:
1345:
1308:
1293:
1277:
1238:
1199:
1131:
1070:
1039:
873:
839:
739:
702:
687:
649:
626:
565:
523:
477:
445:
439:
detail, and the intricacies should perhaps be covered later in the article, "rejected" is clearly an accurate summary of their conclusions.
424:
365:
351:
197:
136:
125:
111:
98:
84:
70:
55:
693:
Opinions and further suggestions for improvements, if applicable, from parties much appreciated. Thanks to RoyBoy for the proposal.
333:
330:
321:
274:
269:
177:
2) Is the "rejected" v. "unsupported" debate relating to any other specific part of the article, or is it just the first sentence?
278:
1300:
I would say you have it exactly the wrong way round. Only Pro-life groups see it as "not rejected" by the scientific community.
1747:
that clearly contradicts her position. The inactivity in the discussion, I believe, is a reflection of a backflip you missed.
1709:
that they can live with the agreed-upon solution. All parties will have to give a little bit to get a little bit, basically.
640:
And will I have to put up with a repeated "rejected" in the third paragraph, or can that be merged to the second sentence? -
261:
890:
How can something be OR when there is no references offered by the NCI to begin with? Anyway, as I tried to stipulate above
670:
663:
228:
223:
232:
407:
342:
a long compound first sentence... and as such have not pursued it myself. It could simply end up being bad style. -
1731:
Inactivity, that's cool with me. The rest of it, respectfully, what are you smoking? Phyesalis refs don't say what
1588:
have to repeat this again I'd have to question your good faith; as they seem to have not reiterated their points.
1223:
637:
Also, advantages 2 and 3 might be nullified by this attempt at compromise; for instance which status goes first?
215:
503:
of the hypothesis (and the fact that they are in conflict) without inflating the length of the first sentence.
311:
1) No scientific source I've come across has said "rejected" or "unsupported"; a good start would be to read
830:
Sea Salt and Malt Vinegar chips, they simply do not outweigh WHO and primary sources... not even close. -
1496:
documenting how Russo and Russo are misinterpreted (just the way you are doing it) by pro-life advocates.
548:
394:
1885:
1662:
1541:
1373:
1066:
968:
breast cancer risk”, Brind and his supporters accused the NCI of a politically-motivated whitewash.
869:
735:
561:
420:
121:
80:
1253:
720:
614:
531:
388:
265:
1949:
435:
312:
536:
1880:
seems odd that he's arguing for a conspiracy of silence if the theory hasn't been rejected. --
772:
referring to the ABC hypothesis as a possible explanation for their positive results makes it
203:
Also, I should have noted that changes in the lead on the parent paragraph will likely impact:
894:
my personal rationale on the NCI (and Brind as a secondary source); I was willing to give it
857:
1964:
1869:
1839:
1823:
1794:
1773:
1757:
1721:
1680:
1638:
1473:
1340:
1288:
1257:
1233:
1194:
1126:
1034:
834:
698:
682:
644:
621:
519:
472:
361:
346:
193:
94:
65:
51:
861:
1736:
1160:
415:
Ack, running out of time right now, will provide links to the refs in the article later. -
767:
Your positions are hopelessly skewed as you skate around issues and sources to suit your
585:
544:
1953:
1008:
By specifying the above, do you mean to tell us Mooney, Yeoman or Jasen's commentary is
827:
325:
1881:
1658:
1537:
1369:
1062:
865:
731:
557:
416:
117:
76:
853:
441:
257:
219:
132:
1819:
some time ago. I'm unsure if it is an endorsement of my version, but it could be. -
295:
249:
540:
1961:
1866:
1835:
1820:
1791:
1769:
1754:
1717:
1677:
1635:
1470:
1361:
1337:
1301:
1285:
1270:
1230:
1191:
1123:
1031:
831:
694:
679:
641:
618:
515:
469:
357:
343:
336:; which form the basis of my "unsupported" (and Rossnixon‎'s "unproven") stance.
306:
That was my oversight and I apologize, should I add those to the mediation page?
189:
104:
90:
62:
47:
27:
584:
Reliability isn't automatic based on perceived "authority" or "reputation", as
157:
OK, lets move on - sorry for the delay, all. The current first sentence reads:
181:
1740:
1469:
This is not old fringe science nor rejecting the ABC causation hypothesis. -
1226:
668:
scientific studies it has been largely rejected by the scientific community.
460:
A clear rejection would be: "breast cancer is not associated with abortion".
1365:
1744:
1631:
1336:
from WHO, Michaels, Melbye, Daling with zero "personal interpretation". -
1816:
543:
to disparage reliable and verifiable secondary and tertiary sources like
434:
we are bound to attach great weight to their conclusions. Similarly, the
211:
103:
I am watching this page so will be ready to comment when things begin.
965:
Jasen, I think, specifies exactly what is in my draft proposal above:
1265:
715:
I think the question becomes "Is this a fringe theory?" If this
1261:
660:
748:
MastCell's positions are simply better and take into account
411:
1743:, which is a crummy ref when compared to my ref which is a
1013:
conflating policy with common sense in pursuit of your POV.
791:
the hypothesis to be "rejected" by the scientific community
551:, and the published opinions of multiple experts. I could
1753:
especially if it comes from an 2nd hand POV editorial. -
1360:
While a number of early studies have found evidence of a
1676:
made me just realize I need to specify "scientific") -
291:
287:
283:
245:
241:
237:
39:
408:
House Committee for Oversight and Governmental Reform
1513:
Please note the last sentence of the Daling quote, "
184:
proposals as a prelude to mine, I'd love to hear it.
499:
It allows a comprehensive description of the status
315:
to get an almost balanced overview of the evidence.
1566:I'm not arguing association is proof of causation.
535:despite documentation to the contrary), and using
1735:they did, and the remaining ref that does is a
356:It may end up being two sentences, actually :)
116:MastCell seems to be on a short wikibreak. --
8:
1609:Phyesalis "fringe" does not mean "rejected".
1334:positive results and caveats taken directly
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for mediation
537:unreliable, partisan non-medical sources
406:Others, including a watchdog group, the
2023:was invoked but never defined (see the
2001:was invoked but never defined (see the
1987:
1948:In the end you have a gap between the
7:
495:For me, this has three advantages:-
169:Three questions to all the parties:
2015:
1993:
1260:had a very convincing theory about
24:
852:Two problems - you misunderstand
30:and I'll be mediating this case.
162:. The key word under dispute is
547:, peer-reviewed journals like
432:for Knowledge (XXG)'s purposes
153:Issue I: Introductory sentence
43:so we can keep things moving?
1:
1763:23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1726:06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1686:03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
1667:00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
1644:23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
1546:19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
1479:01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1378:04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1346:01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1309:18:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1294:00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1278:07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1239:04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1200:03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1132:00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1071:22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1040:05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
874:03:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
601:Knowledge (XXG) needn't, and
840:22:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
740:21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
703:00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
688:04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
650:03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
627:03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
566:18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
524:11:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
478:23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
446:19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
425:19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
366:10:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
352:03:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
198:01:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
137:04:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
126:03:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
112:05:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
99:01:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
85:21:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
71:00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
56:04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
1405:scientists own assessments:
1222:, Los Angeles Times Editor
609:R and V sources than those
412:the NBCCF Golden Boob Award
2046:
1364:, there is no evidence of
1970:23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1890:19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1875:04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1844:23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1829:20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1800:20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1778:12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1161:Mooney's redux editorial
379:multiple refs including:
26:Hi parties, my name is
541:self-published sources
921:even takes precedence
166:, from what I infer.
2019:The named reference
1997:The named reference
1741:criticized editorial
774:logically impossible
607:acknowledged by more
1958:factually incorrect
1745:letter in a journal
1630:The Melbye letter,
410:, the head of NCI,
1229:on the article. -
1954:public perception
750:scientific nuance
675:
674:
2037:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2022:
2014:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2000:
1992:
1306:
1275:
1258:Andrew Wakefield
661:
299:
281:
253:
235:
109:
42:
2045:
2044:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2020:
2018:
2016:
2011:
1998:
1996:
1994:
1989:
1694:
1302:
1271:
1218:Notes to self:
549:Medical History
485:
272:
256:
226:
210:
155:
105:
40:watch this page
38:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2043:
2041:
2032:
2031:
2009:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1749:
1748:
1716:Respectfully,
1693:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
845:
844:
843:
842:
815:
814:
813:
812:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
789:
780:
779:
778:
777:
762:
761:
760:
759:
743:
742:
726:
725:
712:
711:
706:
705:
673:
672:
669:
665:
658:
632:
631:
630:
629:
596:
595:
594:
593:
579:
578:
577:
576:
569:
568:
511:
510:
507:
504:
493:
492:
484:
481:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
399:
398:
392:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
371:
370:
369:
368:
338:
337:
317:
316:
308:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
254:
205:
204:
186:
185:
178:
175:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2042:
2026:
2013:
2010:
2004:
1991:
1988:
1971:
1968:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1873:
1872:
1868:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1714:
1710:
1707:
1702:
1698:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1645:
1642:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1517:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1347:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1305:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1221:
1220:Gold abstract
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1201:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1011:
1010:more relevant
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
969:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
922:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
841:
838:
837:
833:
829:
828:Miss Vickie's
824:
819:
818:
817:
816:
809:
805:
801:
800:
799:
798:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
775:
770:
766:
765:
764:
763:
756:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
741:
737:
733:
728:
727:
722:
718:
714:
713:
708:
707:
704:
700:
696:
692:
691:
690:
689:
686:
685:
681:
666:
662:
659:
656:
652:
651:
648:
647:
643:
638:
635:
628:
625:
624:
620:
616:
613:to give more
612:
608:
604:
600:
599:
598:
597:
591:
587:
583:
582:
581:
580:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
533:
528:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
508:
505:
502:
498:
497:
496:
491:
487:
486:
482:
480:
479:
476:
475:
471:
465:
461:
458:
447:
444:
443:
437:
433:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
413:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
396:
393:
390:
387:
386:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
350:
349:
345:
340:
339:
335:
332:
327:
323:
319:
318:
314:
310:
309:
305:
304:
297:
293:
289:
285:
280:
276:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:Breast cancer
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
183:
179:
176:
172:
171:
170:
167:
165:
161:
152:
138:
135:
134:
129:
128:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
113:
110:
108:
102:
101:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
72:
69:
68:
64:
60:
59:
58:
57:
53:
49:
44:
41:
35:
31:
29:
19:
2021:NCI workshop
2017:Cite error:
2012:
1995:Cite error:
1990:
1965:
1957:
1870:
1824:
1795:
1758:
1733:she asserted
1732:
1715:
1711:
1705:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1681:
1656:
1639:
1514:
1474:
1341:
1333:
1303:
1289:
1272:
1248:
1245:
1234:
1224:John Carroll
1195:
1127:
1035:
1009:
966:
920:
895:
891:
835:
822:
807:
803:
788:associations
773:
768:
754:
749:
716:
683:
676:
657:
653:
645:
639:
636:
633:
622:
610:
606:
602:
589:
552:
512:
500:
494:
488:
483:Proposal one
473:
466:
462:
459:
456:
440:
431:
347:
322:NCI workshop
320:2) Yes, the
187:
168:
163:
158:
156:
131:
106:
66:
45:
36:
32:
25:
1362:correlation
1164:scientific.
804:estimate it
758:hypothesis.
755:requirement
590:perceive it
324:is the key
164:unsupported
1256:. Just as
1227:commentary
821:WHO. It's
611:you choose
603:should NOT
436:WHO source
182:compromise
75:Agreed. -
2025:help page
2003:help page
1882:Phyesalis
1737:editorial
1692:Specifics
1659:Phyesalis
1632:certainly
1538:Phyesalis
1370:Phyesalis
1366:causation
1254:WP:FRINGE
1063:Phyesalis
896:increased
866:Phyesalis
769:political
732:Phyesalis
721:WP:Fringe
615:WP:Weight
558:Phyesalis
532:WP:Weight
417:Phyesalis
326:reference
118:Phyesalis
77:Phyesalis
61:Agree. -
1950:evidence
1817:Abortion
1706:specific
1674:Feb 20th
899:forward!
811:science.
586:Discover
545:Discover
442:MastCell
212:Abortion
188:Cheers,
133:MastCell
46:Cheers,
892:despite
858:WP:PSTS
575:ironic.
334:studies
331:notable
275:protect
270:history
229:protect
224:history
1836:Daniel
1770:Daniel
1718:Daniel
1304:Sophia
1273:Sophia
1266:Autism
862:WP:NOR
808:choose
695:Daniel
617:to. -
553:almost
516:Daniel
389:Mooney
358:Daniel
279:delete
233:delete
190:Daniel
160:cancer
107:Sophia
91:Daniel
48:Daniel
28:Daniel
1739:of a
1516:high.
395:Jasen
296:views
288:watch
284:links
250:views
242:watch
238:links
16:<
1952:and
1886:talk
1840:talk
1774:talk
1722:talk
1663:talk
1542:talk
1374:talk
1264:and
1067:talk
870:talk
856:and
854:WP:V
776:for:
736:talk
699:talk
562:talk
539:and
520:talk
421:talk
362:talk
292:logs
266:talk
262:edit
246:logs
220:talk
216:edit
194:talk
174:all.
122:talk
95:talk
81:talk
52:talk
1999:WHO
1966:Boy
1962:Roy
1871:Boy
1867:Roy
1825:Boy
1821:Roy
1796:Boy
1792:Roy
1759:Boy
1755:Roy
1682:Boy
1678:Roy
1640:Boy
1636:Roy
1475:Boy
1471:Roy
1342:Boy
1338:Roy
1290:Boy
1286:Roy
1262:MMR
1235:Boy
1231:Roy
1196:Boy
1192:Roy
1128:Boy
1124:Roy
1036:Boy
1032:Roy
836:Boy
832:Roy
823:not
684:Boy
680:Roy
646:Boy
642:Roy
623:Boy
619:Roy
474:Boy
470:Roy
348:Boy
344:Roy
313:WHO
67:Boy
63:Roy
2027:).
2005:).
1888:)
1842:)
1776:)
1724:)
1665:)
1544:)
1376:)
1249:is
1069:)
1061:--
872:)
738:)
719:a
717:is
701:)
671:”
664:“
564:)
522:)
501:es
423:)
364:)
294:|
290:|
286:|
282:|
277:|
273:|
268:|
264:|
248:|
244:|
240:|
236:|
231:|
227:|
222:|
218:|
196:)
124:)
97:)
83:)
54:)
1884:(
1838:(
1772:(
1720:(
1661:(
1540:(
1372:(
1065:(
868:(
734:(
697:(
560:(
518:(
490:.
419:(
360:(
298:)
260:(
252:)
214:(
192:(
120:(
93:(
79:(
50:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.