Studies – 50% onjuist?
Data can be sculpted to fit a preferred theory.
Er is een verschil tussen ‘marketing’ en ‘cijfers’.
1) Lancet – perhaps half may simply be untrue
2) NEMJ New England Medical Journal – it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published
3) NARAL founder and chairman – gelogen over aantallen 300 versus 10.000 / 200.000 versus 1 miljoen
4) NGVA Nederlands Genootschap Van Abortusartsen misleiding film abortuspil
5) The mental health controversy
6) In Nederland: NRC: Sjoemelen met wetenschap in NL: “Ruim de helft van de wetenschappers in Nederland zondigt regelmatig tegen wetenschappelijke regels door onwelgevallige onderzoeksresultaten weg te laten, problemen met de methodiek van een studie te verzwijgen of selectief te citeren uit de beschikbare literatuur.”
7) Vooringenomenheid, slechte methodologie, pro-choice cultuur van professionele organisatiies, politieke motivatie en oncontroleerbare bevindingen
Gezien het feit dat zoveel vrouwen weigeren te reageren op vragenlijsten of vervolgvragen over hun abortussen, is het onmogelijk om ooit zeker te zijn wat ‘de meerderheid’ van de vrouwen op een bepaald moment voelt of denkt over hun eerdere abortussen, laat staan hun hele leven.
Bovendien:
Niet alle studies kunnen op het eerste gezicht worden geloofd.
Not all studies can be believed at face value.
Gegevens kunnen worden gebeeldhouwd/gemanipuleerd/gemasseerd om te passen bij een voorkeurstheorie
Lancet editor-in-chief
and
New England Medical Journal editor-in-chief
Trust science?
– withholding data is not science.
– manipulating data is not science.
– cherrypicking studies is not science
– censorship is not science.
1) Lancet
Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world:
Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
Data can be sculpted to fit a preferred theory
2) New England Medical Journal NEMJ
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long-time Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337
3) Dr Nathanson – NARAL founder and chairman
Lies about numbers
‘National Abortion Rights Action League’
It is known that those wanting to push legalizing abortion, make up numbers to make it seem worse.
Example: Dr Bernard Nathanson, who presided over some 60.000 abortions was founding member and chairman of NARAL to legalize abortion in the USA. After filming an abortion via ultrasound (the film: ‘The Silent Scream’) he became pro-life.
He admitted that in those beginning years: “We claimed that between 5.000 and 10.000 women a year died of botched abortions,” he said. “The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 .
And we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000.
So, we were guilty of massive deception.”
Overestimating the scale of illegal abortions has taken place many times in history, where claimed numbers later showed to be inconsistent with reality.
4) NGVA Nederlands Genootschap van Abortusartsen
Misleiding film abortuspil
Abortuskliniek Bloemenhove verwees naar een film omtrent de abortuspil, op hun pagina over de abortuspil 5-8 weken. Zie schermafdrukken.
Wat een verschil
De film wilde het doen lijken alsof je baby maar een klompje cellen is wanneer je de abortuspil zou gebruiken.
Het plaatje komt overeen met 1e week van de zwangerschap, wanneer je waarschijnlijk niet eens weet dat je zwanger bent. Dus deze afbeelding die zij in het filmpje toonden, komt waarschijnlijk niet overeen met de wekelijkheid voor gebruik van de abortuspil die tot 7 weken na conceptie of 9 weken amenorroe zou zijn, waarbij je baby veel verder zou zijn ontwikkeld.
16.3.2021 gaat de link niet meer naar het filmpje, maar ‘keuzebijabortus.nl’ gaat nu automatisch door naar NGVA website, en de film is niet meer te zien op eerdere link. Deze screenshots waren van 17.8.2017. 1.4.2021 staat keuzebijabortus.nl nog steeds vermeld op de site van Gynaikonklinieken (Rotterdam en Roermond)
5) The mental health controversy
The high dropout rate and non-participation rate in studies that claim abortion has little or no negative risks:
“A study of 246 employees exposed to an industrial explosion revealed that those employees most resistant to a psychological checkup after the explosion had the highest rates and most severe cases of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder].
Without repetitive outreach by the employer and employer mandated follow up assessment – 42% of PTSD cases would not have been reported including 64% of the most severe cases.”
In 2008 the American Psychological Association sent out a press release to the media proclaiming that there are no mental health risks associated with the abortion of an unwanted pregnancy.
Problem: the women that were excluded from the study:
– the study did not include 50% of women who have had more than 1 abortion (1/3 or 1/2 of all procedures are repeat procedures)
– excluded the nearly 20% that are minors at the time of their abortions
– the 11% that are beyond the first trimester
– the 7% abortion for personal health concerns or poor prenatal diagnosis
– those women (11%-64%) who had ‘wanted, planned’ pregnancies or women who developed attachment to the fetus despite problematic circumstances that led to abortion.
Another study which showed that the ‘overwhelming majority of women felt that termination was the right decision for them over 3 years’ … a self-selected minority of volunteers (27%) does not reveal what the vast majority of women feel or think about their abortion experience.
Women who were ‘relieved’ after the abortion: “the same researchers also found that between the 3 month and 2 year post-abortion assessments, both relief scores and positive emotions decreased significantly while the average for negative emotions increased.” Headlines claimed the study found the vast majority of women were satisfied with their abortion.
Given the fact that so many women refuse to respond to questionnaires or followup questions about their abortions, it is impossible to ever be certain what ‘the majorty’ of women feel or think about their past abortions at any given time, much less their entire lifetimes.
6) In Nederland: NRC – helft wetenschappers sjoemelt
De helft sjoemelt? Dit komt overeen met de bewijzen die wij hebben van Lancet en New England Medical Journal – zie hierboven. Dit bracht ik naar voren tijdens een ‘cross-examination’ door journalisten van Investico begin 2021, onder meer omtrent de betrouwbaarheid van beweringen van verschillende studies. Wat ik deelde kwam nauwelijks naar voren in de uitgave van de Groene, maar wij zijn dankbaar voor deze aanvullende anonieme enquete.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/07/08/sjoemelen-met-wetenschap-komt-vaak-voor-in-nederland-blijkt-uit-integriteitsenquete-a4050423
“Ruim de helft van de wetenschappers in Nederland zondigt regelmatig tegen wetenschappelijke regels door onwelgevallige onderzoeksresultaten weg te laten, problemen met de methodiek van een studie te verzwijgen of selectief te citeren uit de beschikbare literatuur.”
“Maar is het niet denkbaar dat veel wetenschappers die de enquête niet invulden dat achterwege lieten omdat ze dan iets moesten opbiechten – en dat de cijfers in het echt dus hoger liggen? Bouter: „Dat zou kunnen, maar we weten het niet. Veel lager zullen ze in ieder geval niet zijn, want ik kan me niet voorstellen dat respondenten fouten hebben toegegeven waaraan ze zich niet schuldig hebben gemaakt.”
“More than half of the scientists in the Netherlands regularly violate scientific rules by omitting unwelcome research results, by covering up problems with the methodology of a study or by selectively citing the available literature.” “But is it not conceivable that many scientists who did not complete the survey did not do so because they then had to confess something – and that the numbers are actually higher? Bouter: “That could be, but we don’t know. In any case, they will not be much lower, because I cannot imagine that respondents have admitted mistakes that they were not guilty of.”
Vooringenomenheid en slechte methodologie
7) Vooringenomenheid
Studie laat zien de
– vooringenomenheid
– slechte methodologie
– pro-choice cultuur van professionele organisaties
– politieke motivatie
– bevindingen die niet controleerbaar zijn
wat studies beinvloed.
This review begins with a detailed focus on the Turnaway Study, which addresses associations among early abortion, later abortion, and denied abortion relative to various outcomes including mental health indicators. The Turnaway Study was comprised of 516 women; however, an exact percentage of the population is not discernable due to missing information. Extrapolating from what is known …
