R.I.P. Recliner Pilot

[SUXBNME 1,340]

This thread is

[IMMensaMind 459]

Go to post 110 on page 3 of this thread.

 

You are taking the literal meaning of the word nuts. I could do the same thing with the word clown. Is Harry in the Circus! Outrage! He is a jackass! Does he have a tail? I consider anyone who supports the church of scientology to be a liitle out there or nuts. Sharron fits the bill.

 

I am taking the word nuts as it was intended - a description of her views. Harry's descriptors aren't comparable.

 

You didn't read the story. She doesn't support the church of scientology, according to the quote in the article. The quote said that the therapy isn't about where it came from, just whether it was effective or not. It's really a non-story. She cannot fit the bill if she doesn't fit the description, and your version of the facts aren't correct.

[phillybear 364]

I wasn't bragging, I was correcting you when you claimed to have RUN ME OFF THE BOARD FOR THREE YEARS.

 

Things we do know:

 

1. You can't get laid.

2. You ride the focking bus to work. 1.5 hours one way.

3. You've never been on a plane because you're askeered.

 

 

Look, I know you're angry that your BFF Recliner Pilot is gone but you can stop lashing out at me with your sissy slapfight. I didn't run him off, Ramone.

 

1. The morgue is right around the corner.

2. I meet plenty of people that I enjoy putting in that morgue.

3. Inanimate objects are in fact scared of me. Apartment buildings try to run away when I approach.

 

Look, Clownie, I ran you off before, and I may have to do it again. Never forget, you are the puppet and I pull the strings. When I say talk, you damn well better yell "Cocka Doodle Doo".

[IMMensaMind 459]

I'd insult you directly to your face.

 

Right after I punched it in front of your wife and kids.

 

 

Since you cannot seem to behave on this site like something approaching an adult, I'll clarify my explanation: no one insults in person like they do on a message bored. I actually avoid insults everywhere, because they're mostly useless. It comes down to whether someone offers something of value that merits avoiding insult. If it just comes down to the sheer lulz of pitting insult wits against someone, I'll do that.

 

You don't even rise to that level, actually Frank.

 

I wonder if Dentist will wonder about your internet tough guy stuff though. Prolly not. Birds of a feather, and whatnot....

 

Hey Frank: I'll bet 1000 you cannot take me in a fight, and I'll pay 2 to 1. 4 oz gloves.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I respectfully disagree. In fact, I have more respect for someone with that belief than someone who makes the exception for rape or incest. I'll explain my position....

 

If one believes that abortion is murder/taking of an innocent life/etc, than in no case can you agree to take that innocent life without becoming at least an unknowing hypocrite. If you believe the life created is innocent, and you believe it wrong to end that life, then under no circumstances can it be ok to do so. This belief does not make one a nut. It makes them consistent with their beliefs. You may disagree with them, but it doesn't make them a nut.

 

Is Sharon Angle a nut? I don't know. But what I do know is that this one belief does not make her so.

 

All that said....Nevada is indeed....full of nuts!

 

Yep. This is the position I offered also. Even if you disagree, it is far more intellectually consistent to hold this position than some middle of the road position wrt abortion - unless you have a damned good explanation (like I do, hehe).

 

Okay...back to my conference call....

[MDC 5,895]

Look, Clownie, I ran you off before

 

What's hilarious to me is that I was probably moving or on vacation or something while you were sitting here puffing your chest out like a focking rooster over "running" me off the board.

 

Never forget, you are the puppet and I pull the strings.

 

Go ride the bus.

[MedStudent 56]

I am taking the word nuts as it was intended - a description of her views. Harry's descriptors aren't comparable.

 

You didn't read the story. She doesn't support the church of scientology, according to the quote in the article. The quote said that the therapy isn't about where it came from, just whether it was effective or not. It's really a non-story. She cannot fit the bill if she doesn't fit the description, and your version of the facts aren't correct.

 

I didn't get the scientology thing out of that story. I have read that before. she has supported the church and tried to push legislation to help them.

[Me_2006 14]

Ask yourself this: Would RP have started this thread gloating and ranting about how Med had to leave the bored and all that? Yes. He would. And if Med hadn't left, RP would have stalked him forever bringing it up in every thread he posted in. So while this whole 'loser leaves' thing is stupid, RP would have undoubtedly demanded the bet stand if he had won, so he has to deal now that he lost.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I didn't get the scientology thing out of that story. I have read that before. she has supported the church and tried to push legislation to help them.

 

I dunno: I'm just referencing the quote in the story, which stated that it had little to do with the origins of the treatment, just whether or not it worked. I don't care to know much about it; it appears to be a dead story.

 

I seriously doubt she pushed legislation to 'help them', but that's just a gut sense. If you want to link to a story which substantiates that claim, go ahead; I'll read it.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

I've been wanting to retire that alias for a while now. What's the big deal?

 

[The Pope 8]

I've been wanting to retire that alias for a while now. What's the big deal?

 

 

[Frank M 181]

 

Since you cannot seem to behave on this site like something approaching an adult, I'll clarify my explanation: no one insults in person like they do on a message bored. I actually avoid insults everywhere, because they're mostly useless. It comes down to whether someone offers something of value that merits avoiding insult. If it just comes down to the sheer lulz of pitting insult wits against someone, I'll do that.

 

You don't even rise to that level, actually Frank.

 

I wonder if Dentist will wonder about your internet tough guy stuff though. Prolly not. Birds of a feather, and whatnot....

 

Hey Frank: I'll bet 1000 you cannot take me in a fight, and I'll pay 2 to 1. 4 oz gloves.

 

How about $10,000 and bare knuckles, f@g?

 

 

D@mn, you are too easy!

[IMMensaMind 459]

How about $10,000 and bare knuckles, f@g?

 

 

D@mn, you are too easy!

 

Did someone spike your punch with stupid, son?

 

I guess you think this internet tough guy stuff is real.

 

 

You couldn't take me on your very best day in your life regardless, pvssy!

 

 

[phillybear 364]

Go ride the bus.

 

 

Which one is Fred and which one is you?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Ask yourself this: Would RP have started this thread gloating and ranting about how Med had to leave the bored and all that? Yes. He would. And if Med hadn't left, RP would have stalked him forever bringing it up in every thread he posted in. So while this whole 'loser leaves' thing is stupid, RP would have undoubtedly demanded the bet stand if he had won, so he has to deal now that he lost.

[tikigods 76]

I'm going to start a "Bring Back Recliner Pilot Thread"

 

[NorthernVike 2,080]

I'm going to start a "Bring Back Recliner Pilot Thread"

 

Why?

[tikigods 76]

Why?

 

He is quality. The guy is actually pretty funny.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

He is quality. The guy is actually pretty funny.

Meh, he's just like newbie...addition by subtraction.

 

 

But they are both >>>> than MDC, that welching focker is still around

[Frank M 181]

Did someone spike your punch with stupid, son?

 

I guess you think this internet tough guy stuff is real.

 

 

You couldn't take me on your very best day in your life regardless, pvssy!

 

 

 

 

I saw the picture you posted of yourself. I don't think you could take anyone, fatty.

 

 

 

[Strike 3,980]

Ask yourself this: Would RP have started this thread gloating and ranting about how Med had to leave the bored and all that? Yes. He would. And if Med hadn't left, RP would have stalked him forever bringing it up in every thread he posted in. So while this whole 'loser leaves' thing is stupid, RP would have undoubtedly demanded the bet stand if he had won, so he has to deal now that he lost.

 

Hmmmmm......Seems to me Medstoopid could show how he's above RP tactics by saying "hey I could force you to leave but that's not how I roll." Instead, he perpetuates the same level of civility he whines about daily. Sounds like the Dems and Republitards. But hey, good for Medstoopid to stoop to RP's level. He'll be treated accordingly.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Hmmmmm......Seems to me Medstoopid could show how he's above RP tactics by saying "hey I could force you to leave but that's not how I roll." Instead, he perpetuates the same level of civility he whines about daily. Sounds like the Dems and Republitards. But hey, good for Medstoopid to stoop to RP's level. He'll be treated accordingly.

Nah, RP would have called him out so too focking bad for RP. The real question is why is Willis McGahee's Dentist taking the lead on this one? No one even recognizes his sorry ass yet all of a sudden he thinks we give a flying fock what he says

[Strike 3,980]

Nah, RP would have called him out so too focking bad for RP. The real question is why is Willis McGahee's Dentist taking the lead on this one? No one even recognizes his sorry ass yet all of a sudden he thinks we give a flying fock what he says

 

Agreed. It's not like he's Travis Henry's Dentist.

[MedStudent 56]

I'm going to start a "Bring Back Recliner Pilot Thread"

 

 

I said earlier in this thread that i was going to have a poll in a week to see how the geeks feel about letting him back in. Not sure if he would come back anyways.

[rholio 339]

Hmmmmm......Seems to me Medstoopid could show how he's above RP tactics by saying "hey I could force you to leave but that's not how I roll." Instead, he perpetuates the same level of civility he whines about daily. Sounds like the Dems and Republitards. But hey, good for Medstoopid to stoop to RP's level. He'll be treated accordingly.

 

Calling for him to take the high road while insulting him, and admitting the other guy wouldn't... quality. Hey, could you throw in a vague threat at the end, too? That'd really... oh, you got one in there already, good job.

 

[MedStudent 56]

"hey I could force you to leave."

 

Get outta the way mike, apparently there is a new sheriff in town and his name is medstoopid.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Med Stud is my new hero!

 

 

So does this mean Rusty has to go too, since Recliner was his alias? And FlaHawker? And apparently maybe Ravens03?

[IMMensaMind 459]

I saw the picture you posted of yourself. I don't think you could take anyone, fatty.

 

Fatty? Just WTF picture were you looking at? I'm not fat at all. I have about 9% body fat, in fact.

 

Hey - I thought about making it a battle of wits, but I thought I'd better give you at least a fighting chance, Franks 'n Beans.

 

still taking this pretty seriously, Frank?  Didja get abused as a young'un?

[FeelingMN 273]

It offers a link to follow ongoing information on this topic as it develops. It is not yet definitive.

 

Yeah....here is the info contained within that link:

 

Abortion has been suggested as a cause of subsequent breast cancer. Studies showing an association used recalled information in populations in which induced abortion had a social or religious stigma, differential reporting of prior abortion by breast cancer patients, and controls. Trials conducted in social environments where abortion is accepted, however, have not shown an association with breast cancer.[108-113]

 

A meta-analysis of women from 53 studies in 16 countries with liberal abortion laws was performed.[114] Analyses were performed separately on 44,000 women with breast cancer who had information on abortion collected prospectively (i.e., 13 studies) versus 39,000 women with breast cancer from whom information was collected retrospectively (i.e., 40 studies). The RR of breast cancer for women with spontaneous abortion was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92–1.04 for those with prospective data collection and 0.94–1.02 for retrospective data). The RR after induced abortion was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89–0.96; P = .0002) if the information was collected prospectively but was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06–1.16) if it was collected retrospectively. Additional analyses of the number and timing of aborted pregnancies were performed, but none showed a significant association with breast cancer.[114]

 

Though I'm glad you went back and actually posted something that supports your claim...however weakly. At least you quit referencing my link stating it was providing info it never had.

 

I'll tell you this. My wife had a miscarriage last year....actually the D&C was performed exactly one year ago (11/4). I spoke with the doctor who performed the procedure. She briefed us on the potential health concerns: bleeding, cramping, scarring, infection. The procedure itself wouldn't increase the likelihood of cancer, but the pregnancy terminated itself....kinda like an abortion. And not once did the doctor, at any point, inform us of an increased chance of breast cancer. Never. In fact, she focused on the positive....we wouldn't have to worry about anything. Given a month or two of recovery, she'd be good as new. And she is.

 

So it seems like the concensus within the medical community is that early termination of pregnancy does not increase the likelihood of breast cancer.

 

Not that I really care about any of this other than exposing you as someone who talks a lot of sh!t without being able to back it up. Sure, you've got some Maritime Sentry link here, and a WND link there....but nothing ever really substantive.

 

You're like a pedantic version of RP....I mean, that dude has some pretty slanted views too, but he's kinda clever. He can be funny at times.

 

You? Uhhhh.....not so much.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Yeah....here is the info contained within that link:

 

 

 

Though I'm glad you went back and actually posted something that supports your claim...however weakly. At least you quit referencing my link stating it was providing info it never had.

 

I'll tell you this. My wife had a miscarriage last year....actually the D&C was performed exactly one year ago (11/4). I spoke with the doctor who performed the procedure. She briefed us on the potential health concerns: bleeding, cramping, scarring, infection. The procedure itself wouldn't increase the likelihood of cancer, but the pregnancy terminated itself....kinda like an abortion. And not once did the doctor, at any point, inform us of an increased chance of breast cancer. Never. In fact, she focused on the positive....we wouldn't have to worry about anything. Given a month or two of recovery, she'd be good as new. And she is.

 

So it seems like the concensus within the medical community is that early termination of pregnancy does not increase the likelihood of breast cancer.

 

Not that I really care about any of this other than exposing you as someone who talks a lot of sh!t without being able to back it up. Sure, you've got some Maritime Sentry link here, and a WND link there....but nothing ever really substantive.

 

You're like a pedantic version of RP....I mean, that dude has some pretty slanted views too, but he's kinda clever. He can be funny at times.

 

You? Uhhhh.....not so much.

 

I've already posted peer-reviewed studies that concluded the opposite of what your studies concluded. There is no way to explain that contradiction definitively. Believe what you want - but it isn't nuts to think that abortion and breast cancer are related.

 

Your own personal anecdote means exactly zero in this conversation. It's a logical fallacy, in fact, to think that your own personal experience is emblematic of some sort of truth - we just don't know for sure, and I'm highly suspicious that this politically charged topic hasn't been suppressed/tinkered with in order to propagandize the issue.

 

Just how crushing would it be to the devout pro-abortion crowd if it became wide public knowledge that abortion can increase a woman's risk of breast cancer? It would be devastating to the movement, and a direct threat to the standing of Roe v Wade, which is itself bad law.

 

As for continued evidence that abortion can in fact increase the risk of breast cancer, here's an article published yesterday still claiming that the NCI is attempting to politically influence this issue, and that the threat is real, and substantiated.

 

So there.

 

BTW: what is it with you that you cannot seem to stop yourself from being insulting? I've given you a warning; now I will not publicly acknowledge you again. I'm not interested in merely insulting you back; you don't make yourself look good all by yourself.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Because the information in that link is so important, here's the full article:

 

National Cancer Institute Must Tell Women Abortion, Breast Cancer Linked

by Dr. Gerard Nadal | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/2/10 12:46 PM

 

As October has closed, so does another Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is a noble and worthy endeavor to raise awareness of this dread disease and how it affects the women we love and their families.

We have indeed made great strides against this disease in all areas: etiology, early detection, and treatment.

 

However, the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) pro-abortion political correcting of honestly assessing all areas of causality undercuts the effectiveness of this month’s activities, and leaves millions of women at needless increased risk. Specifically, we need to consider the risks associated with oral contraceptive (OC) use and abortion.

 

At my blog, I have been analyzing the peer reviewed scientific and medical literature showing the association between OC use, abortion and breast cancer. For a half-century now, well over a hundred studies have indicated a link between abortion and breast cancer, with increased risks being upward of 50% for abortions before a first full-term pregnancy, with many showing increased risks above 100%.

 

The biological explanation for this link is very simple and has been demonstrated repeatedly in animal studies. Prior to a first full term pregnancy a woman’s breasts are not fully developed, with her lobules made up of immature and cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells. When she conceives a child, estrogen levels rise dramatically, along with the pregnancy hormone HCG, which stimulate the lobules to undergo massive cell proliferation, roughly doubling in number. These first trimester events leave the woman with twice as many cells where cancer can start.

 

At the end of the second trimester, the baby begins to protect the mother by secreting the hormone human placental lactogen. This hormone matures the lobule cells into cancer-resistant Type 4 cells, which will produce milk. By the end of the pregnancy 85% of the lobule cells will have undergone this differentiation. The remaining 15% will undergo differentiation to Type 4 Cells during breastfeeding and subsequent pregnancies.

 

As animal studies bear out, if pregnancy is ended by abortion the woman is left with twice as many immature, cancer-prone cells where cancer can start, but she does not derive the protective effect of the third trimester. OC’s work by the same mechanism of stimulating cell proliferation, without the protective effect of a full term pregnancy. It is simple, elegant, and devastating.

 

Women who miscarry have abnormally low hormonal levels, and in all studies are shown to be at no increased risk of developing breast cancer.

 

So where does this political correcting at NCI come from?

 

Pro-abortion feminist researchers in and associated with the National Cancer Institute convened a panel in 2003 to craft a denial of their own research showing the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link. Their dismissal of the data was founded on the absurd notion that women with breast cancer are more apt to recall and truthfully report their prior abortions during detailed health histories in research studies than healthy women in the control groups of these studies. This phenomenon is alternately dubbed “recall bias” and “reporting bias”.

 

Such preposterous thinking is in contravention to the denial that accompanies such devastating disease. If anything, the reverse would be true. However, these researchers suggested that the only valid studies would be those that start in the present and move forward over time. These are known as prospective studies, and are thought to be advantageous over their retrospective counterparts.

 

But as my ongoing analysis of these studies indicates, these prospective studies are often conducted and funded by the same pro-abortion folks who denied the validity of their own published retrospective studies. These prospective studies, which have purportedly shown no recall bias, are so methodologically flawed, deliberately so, as to literally violate the scientific process.

 

In the biggest prospective study to allegedly show no ABC link, the Melbye study, the authors began counting breast cancer cases in 1967, but didn’t start a consideration of abortions before 1973. This puts the cases of disease six years before the suspected exposure to the potential cancer-producing cause. I would fail an undergraduate biology student on a research project for making such an obvious blunder. But this is the best study to which the pro-aborts point. But even Melbye’s studies indicate a 3% rise in risk of breast cancer for every week a woman waits to have an abortion, until at 18 weeks gestation her risk rises to 89%.

 

Further, when Melbye studied premature births, it was found that breast cancer risks are elevated in women who deliver before 32 weeks at the same levels that the retrospective studies establish for women who have induced abortions. Melbye notes the loss of protective effect in these cases of premature delivery. What Melbye refuses to admit is that the sudden end of pregnancy, through either induced abortion or premature birth, are equivalent biological events where the risk of breast cancer is concerned.

 

So we have progressed through another Breast Cancer Awareness Month where the pro-abortion gang at NCI has conspired to keep the whole truth about risk factors from women, including their chief epidemiologist’s (Dr. Louise Brinton) own paper last year which indicates that women who begin OC use before age 18 are at 540% increased risk of developing the most aggressive and deadly form of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer.

 

One wonders why there is not near hysteria in the media over such a catastrophic correlation, especially when Planned Parenthood dispenses OC’s to teens as though they were M&M’s.

 

It remains for us, the pro-life community, to patiently bring these scientific truths forward. The only force more ruthless and uncaring than the pro-abortion crew at NCI is nature. The laws of physiology and disease are coldly unforgiving of ignorance, political correctness, and willful disobedience. Dr. Louise Brinton and her handpicked coterie of abortion enthusiasts have betrayed women, betrayed scientific integrity, and betrayed their duty to the truth by politically driven machination. Having dug in their heels, we must simply maneuver around them and take the lead.

 

That's pretty damning. And soundly refutes your claims that there is nothing to this. Be a sucker if you will, however: it's your wife's body.

 

Here's another repudiation of your position, to really shut you up. Note that my speculation of the politicization of this hot button is confirmed with the last paragraph:

 

Editor’s note: In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute

held a consensus workshop on the possible link between induced

abortion and increased risk of breast cancer. They produced a

Summary Report, which concluded that “induced abortion is not

associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.” This is now

posted as “fact” on the NCI website

Although the issue was subject to a vote of “over 100 of the

world's leading experts,” the NCI website does not state the result of

the vote itself. And although the Summary Report did not mention

that there was dissent, the NCI’s website did post a “minority

dissenting comment” indicating that one of the participants remains

“convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real,

independent, positive association between induced abortion and

breast cancer risk.”

Sorting out the science and truth of the matter is of the utmost

importance so that relevant informed consent information can be

provided to women considering an abortion. Consensus and

political correctness must not inhibit the open discussion and

evaluation of the scientific data.

 

...and more corroboration...

[FeelingMN 273]

I've already posted peer-reviewed studies that concluded the opposite of what your studies concluded. There is no way to explain that contradiction definitively. Believe what you want - but it isn't nuts to think that abortion and breast cancer are related.

 

Personally, I'm pretty tolerant of all kinds of folks. So I wouldn't say she's nuts or crazy or anything bad. But what she said wasn't taken well. If she were a bit more savvy, she would have couched her opinion differently. But she stated it as scientific truth....when it's not. The evidence for her claim is tenuous. It's kinda like the vaccine/Autism debate. You'll find literature for and against that link...and doctors in each camp. But there is a concensus that vaccination does not cause ASD. All the same, the prevailing view now is that there is no link between abortion and cancer.

 

Your own personal anecdote means exactly zero in this conversation. It's a logical fallacy, in fact, to think that your own personal experience is emblematic of some sort of truth - we just don't know for sure, and I'm highly suspicious that this politically charged topic hasn't been suppressed/tinkered with in order to propagandize the issue.

 

Whatever...it was just firsthand evidence of what we're talking about. It doesn't prove anything, but it does support the info I've linked, and the stance I've taken.

 

Just how crushing would it be to the devout pro-abortion crowd if it became wide public knowledge that abortion can increase a woman's risk of breast cancer? It would be devastating to the movement, and a direct threat to the standing of Roe v Wade, which is itself bad law.

 

And what better ammunition for the pro-lifers....abortion gives you cancer....so it's really, really bad. Like physically bad, not just morally bad. You act like the Left is the only side politicizing stuff.

 

And even if it were true, it'd be no different than lighting up a cigarette. That gives you cancer too....though the studies aren't definitive....not everyone who smokes gets cancer. People should be able to decide what to do with their bodies as they wish. Yeah...yeah...the whole when does life begin. Nobody knows...and if science can't inform us conclusively, then it should be a personal decision.

 

As for continued evidence that abortion can in fact increase the risk of breast cancer, here's an article published yesterday still claiming that the NCI is attempting to politically influence this issue, and that the threat is real, and substantiated.

 

So there.

 

Was that an article or a blog....that was a question I had. Another one, what's the difference, physiologically speaking between an abortion and a miscarriage? And how come this doc doesn't include miscarriages in his screed....yes it's a screed when you use terms like pro-abortion and pro-life in a medical "article". Seriously though.....what's the difference between miscarriage and abortion....besides a moral distinction.

 

I call bullsh!t.....again.

 

BTW: what is it with you that you cannot seem to stop yourself from being insulting? I've given you a warning; now I will not publicly cknowledge you again. I'm not interested in merely insulting you back; you don't make yourself look good all by yourself.

 

Have I called you names? I simply said you're not very funny. I'm just being objective. Some people aren't very tall....or aren't fast. You're not funny. Neither are a lot of people. Not everyone can be funny. And hey....no matter how much you fail at being funny, I'll give you credit....you keep trying.

 

[FeelingMN 273]

Because the information in that link is so important, here's the full article:

 

National Cancer Institute Must Tell Women Abortion, Breast Cancer Linked

by Dr. Gerard Nadal | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/2/10 12:46 PM

 

 

 

That's pretty damning. And soundly refutes your claims that there is nothing to this. Be a sucker if you will, however: it's your wife's body.

 

Here's another repudiation of your position, to really shut you up. Note that my speculation of the politicization of this hot button is confirmed with the last paragraph:

 

Editor’s note: In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute

held a consensus workshop on the possible link between induced

abortion and increased risk of breast cancer. They produced a

Summary Report, which concluded that “induced abortion is not

associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.” This is now

posted as “fact” on the NCI website

Although the issue was subject to a vote of “over 100 of the

world's leading experts,” the NCI website does not state the result of

the vote itself. And although the Summary Report did not mention

that there was dissent, the NCI’s website did post a “minority

dissenting comment” indicating that one of the participants remains

“convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real,

independent, positive association between induced abortion and

breast cancer risk.”

Sorting out the science and truth of the matter is of the utmost

importance so that relevant informed consent information can be

provided to women considering an abortion. Consensus and

political correctness must not inhibit the open discussion and

evaluation of the scientific data.

 

...and more corroboration...

 

Miscarriage? Maybe you or the chunky Doc can enlighten me on the physiological differences between miscarriage and abortion...seems to me they'd be pretty similar with respect to the abrupt hormonal changes.

 

Oh wait....I found the difference....in the Bible. Nevermind.

 

[IMMensaMind 459]

I'll address you this last time to help you out, as you clearly didn't read all that I posted. He addressed miscarriages. You just glossed over this whole thing, as you had to to protect yourself and continue to convince yourself you're correct. Miscarriages don't react in the same manner, due to differences in hormonal response. Just read what I posted.

 

That DOCTOR's article is extremely convincing, as is the .pdf I linked you to. It's obvious to me that this "research" has been politically tampered with, and for reasons that I found so obvious that I predicted it before I even did the research to corroborate my hunch.

 

Ignore it at your own peril.

[FeelingMN 273]

Women who miscarry have abnormally low hormonal levels, and in all studies are shown to be at no increased risk of developing breast cancer.

 

This is from your link and it is wrong. Our miscarriage was not due to low hormone levels. It was genetic in nature.

 

Irresponsible.

 

[IMMensaMind 459]

This is from your link and it is wrong. Our miscarriage was not due to low hormone levels. It was genetic in nature.

 

Irresponsible.

 

 

You focking idiot. He's not saying that abnormally low hormone levels cause miscarriages, he said that those who miscarry have abnormally low hormone levels.

 

I'm done with you permanently. You're so insanely obtuse and stupid that you are no longer worth my time. You choose to be blind. Be blind.

[FeelingMN 273]

I'll address you this last time to help you out, as you clearly didn't read all that I posted. He addressed miscarriages. You just glossed over this whole thing, as you had to to protect yourself and continue to convince yourself you're correct. Miscarriages don't react in the same manner, due to differences in hormonal response. Just read what I posted.

 

That DOCTOR's article is extremely convincing, as is the .pdf I linked you to. It's obvious to me that this "research" has been politically tampered with, and for reasons that I found so obvious that I predicted it before I even did the research to corroborate my hunch.

 

Ignore it at your own peril.

 

You're gonna tell me about miscarriages? Even though my personal anecdote is a logical fallacy? Whatever dude. I just hope everyone here sees you for the freak you are.

 

Not every miscarriage can be attributed to low hormone levels. It's simply not true.

 

I wish I could laugh at you....but besides being painfully pedantic, you scare me with your rigidity.

[FeelingMN 273]

You focking idiot. He's not saying that abnormally low hormone levels cause miscarriages, he said that those who miscarry have abnormally low hormone levels.

 

I'm done with you permanently. You're so insanely obtuse and stupid that you are no longer worth my time. You choose to be blind. Be blind.

 

Wow....Mensa's true colors.

 

Like I said....I just wanted to expose you as a charlatan.

 

Mission Accomplished

[Willis McGahee's Dentist 61]

You focking idiot. He's not saying that abnormally low hormone levels cause miscarriages, he said that those who miscarry have abnormally low hormone levels.

 

I'm done with you permanently. You're so insanely obtuse and stupid that you are no longer worth my time. You choose to be blind. Be blind.

Mr MensaMouth debates like a fifth grader. Chubby, if you're going to pretend to be something, try to stay in character.

[Know Doubt 0]

Oh - and just so you you IMMensaMind sycophants are well-informed: I'm off to take care of some business. You know, the thing where successful people make money so that we have the freedom to do things we want to do, while being forced these days to defend our gains from pious leftists who think they're entitled to the fruits of other people's labors?

 

I know...foreign to you. Maybe when you're out of school you'll get clued in...

 

 

 

You guys missed this. Not only is he smarter than you, tougher than you and has 9% body fat but he also has more money than you.

 

Give up already, he's probably the guy who talked God into lending his talent to Rush Limbaugh.