SatanBurger · 36-40, F
A group of 10 scientists are suing an academic journal over three scientific studies, including two highlighting the dangers of abortions pills, that were retracted by the publisher, seemingly for no reason other than that the pro-abortion lobby didn’t like the results.
Nope. The real reason is because of factual errors. When you're using a science study to take away rights, you can't take them away due to a study especially when that study is factually inaccurate. I don't have time to say more but it's scientists responsibility to ensure accuracy within their data. Especially if you're using it to make a case against abortion or other societal issues.
Did you really think you can just do whatever you want?
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2024/02/why-flawed-study-medication-abortion-was-retracted
Earlier this month, the academic publisher Sage retracted three studies that had run in one of its scientific journals, citing a “lack of scientific rigor.” One of these studies had received particular attention in the context of a court case attempting to restrict access to the medication abortion drug mifepristone — a case with potentially far-reaching implications that will soon be heard by the Supreme Court.
Taking a closer look at this study shows that the decision to retract it was justified — and exposes the larger context in which unsound science is used to drive an anti-abortion agenda in courts and legislatures.
Mifepristone is not a new drug. It was first approved by the FDA in 2000 and had been used globally long before then. The extensive approval process at the time — and over two decades of actual use in the U.S. since then — have provided overwhelming evidence that mifepristone is safe and effective, and that serious complications are very rare.
The retracted 2021 study claims that mifepristone has a much higher rate of complications than previous research had found — making the study a clear outlier in the larger body of evidence. A study that goes against the established scientific consensus does not necessarily mean it’s wrong, but it does mean its findings and methodology deserve close scrutiny. And that’s where the retracted study falls far short.
After concerns about the study were raised, the journal asked outside experts to conduct a post-publication peer review. This review found “fundamental problems with the study design and methodology, unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the authors’ analysis of the data, and misleading presentations of the data that … demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part.”
Earlier this month, the academic publisher Sage retracted three studies that had run in one of its scientific journals, citing a “lack of scientific rigor.” One of these studies had received particular attention in the context of a court case attempting to restrict access to the medication abortion drug mifepristone — a case with potentially far-reaching implications that will soon be heard by the Supreme Court.
Taking a closer look at this study shows that the decision to retract it was justified — and exposes the larger context in which unsound science is used to drive an anti-abortion agenda in courts and legislatures.
Mifepristone is not a new drug. It was first approved by the FDA in 2000 and had been used globally long before then. The extensive approval process at the time — and over two decades of actual use in the U.S. since then — have provided overwhelming evidence that mifepristone is safe and effective, and that serious complications are very rare.
The retracted 2021 study claims that mifepristone has a much higher rate of complications than previous research had found — making the study a clear outlier in the larger body of evidence. A study that goes against the established scientific consensus does not necessarily mean it’s wrong, but it does mean its findings and methodology deserve close scrutiny. And that’s where the retracted study falls far short.
After concerns about the study were raised, the journal asked outside experts to conduct a post-publication peer review. This review found “fundamental problems with the study design and methodology, unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the authors’ analysis of the data, and misleading presentations of the data that … demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part.”
View 17 more replies »
OriginalDumbMan · 36-40
@SatanBurger god has not given you right to end life whether your own(suicide) and your baby. (Abortion) there is a bigger reason for that.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@OriginalDumbMan I'm spiritual but you still can't prove god exists or doesn't exist.
That's a poor excuse.
Women do have a right to terminate the fetus, there's more than a few high profile cases of rape or health issues. But also we don't know what others are going through irregardless.
Women have the right to end anything they want with their own body. Just because conservatives passed laws doesn't make it right to tell women what to do. I hope women find someone credible enough to do low key abortions and that they don't bleed out or die because of conservatives.
That's a poor excuse.
Women do have a right to terminate the fetus, there's more than a few high profile cases of rape or health issues. But also we don't know what others are going through irregardless.
Women have the right to end anything they want with their own body. Just because conservatives passed laws doesn't make it right to tell women what to do. I hope women find someone credible enough to do low key abortions and that they don't bleed out or die because of conservatives.
OriginalDumbMan · 36-40
@SatanBurger you don’t know the implications, as your experience is limited. These things are learned through observations. Implications for these sins are very bad. The OP is correct when he says that soul is conceived at the time of fertilisation. God has given a path to that soul. You can’t terminate it. I have seen many women are terminating just because they don’t want a second or third baby in the name of women rights.
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@LadyGrace
You're right about that, sister.
Amen, brother. Anyway you say it or put it, it's still murder. Sad.
You're right about that, sister.
missyann · 56-60
Well, said ❤❤❤❤