Antibiotics causing breast cancer report = Junk Science?

[tke711]

Great Story Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111937,00.html)

In a flagrant act of journalism, someone actually took the time to research the report and comment on it's flaws instead of just pushing the panic button and reporting it as-is to the public.

[Violet1966]

I heard this on tv and got freaked out. Then heard the report that told that there is no direct link...just coincidences. Scary stuff and it was disturbing to hear. Someone sees a link...it's plain to see it's much more then antibiotic use. What do we use antibiotics for? Infections. Well in this poorly controlled study, they can't even verify the facts pre enrollment as the article tells. I'm sure there's many women as myself not sleeping too easily if they had taken antibiotics. I had to take prophelcatic antibiotics when I was pregnant with my daughter, due to my kidney infections and stint. I will now worry about her where I thought I didn't have to before, until they say this is all just nothing. Scare tactics :(

[tke711]

I agree Vi. The AMA should be ashamed of itself for scaring women with a report that is so weak and incomplete.

The second last paragraph of the article makes an excellent point IMHO:

Antibiotics have been used since the 1940s ― to the great benefit of public health. More than 100 million prescriptions are written in the U.S. every year. If antibiotics were a cancer risk, it’s very likely that such a link would have been observed long ago.

[ethics]

I think it's a viable report, Gregg, you know why?

Because you can't look back at the data stemming from the forties only because the prior generation knew how to take AB's, the doctors of that generations also knew how and when to prescribe them.

Recently, however, the abuse, the resistent strains of bacteria outbreaks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2994528.stm), the HIV, and global travel all have contributed, in one way or another, the abuse of anti-biotics prescriptions and consumption.

[tke711]

Considering the shear volume of unknowns and missing data from the study, I don't see how you can say it's a viable report Leon.

I also think it's a pretty big leap of faith to assume that people in the 40's took their meds better than we do now.

However, I do agree with you that antibiotics are likely abused at this time, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the study in question.

[ethics]

Gregg, not to be picky by viable has the connotation of capability. Viable means "Capable of success or continuing effectiveness." In other words, it's also capable that this could be bunk. :)

[tke711]

I like the ladder better. :)

I guess I'm just disappointed in the AMA for releases such a scare-tactic report based on such flimsy and incomplete scientific evidence. That kind of research and and analysis would have awarded me a grade of "F" in my undergraduate psych courses, and frankly, I expect a much higher level than that out of the AMA.

[cdw]

I agree... It's a bunch of bunk as far as I'm concerned. Every couple of months they come out with another reason why people get cancer, which ever flavor of the week they want to talk about.