The researchers' statistical investigation found that women who had their last children after the age of 35 had a 58 percent lower risk of ovarian cancer compared with women who had never had a child.
So they compared two groups of people:
Group A - "women who had their last children after the age of 35"
Group B - "women who had never had a child"
They found that Group A had lower ovarian cancer likelihood than Group B. Fine. I can buy that.
What I do NOT buy are conclusions such as "late pregnancy seems to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer" or "women who give birth in their late 30s have a lower risk of developing ovarian cancer", the way it is being reported here. After all, what about Group C?
Group C: Women who had children, their last baby being born by age 35.
We are only told that Group A has less risk of cancer than Group B. But for all we know, perhaps Group C has even less risk of cancer than Group A! Which would mean a conclusion such as, "have all your children by age 35 in order to reduce cancer risk".
Yet it's being reported "having babies later in life reduces cancer risk"! See the problem?
I suspect what's going on here is that this story made the headlines because it fits a template which reporters/editors like to see: Good News For The Working/Independent Woman. "It's GREAT to wait to have babies later in life", the article seems to say.
The UK article reveals that these headlines are misleading and perhaps evidence of wishful thinking - because look at this:
"The researchers also found that women who gave birth before the age of 30 had a 45 per cent lower risk"
Oops... in other words, have babies sooner not later.
But how many people will only read the headlines and fail to draw that (correct) conclusion?
I suspect what's going on here is that this story made the headlines because it fits a template which reporters/editors like to see: Good News For The Working/Independent Woman. "It's GREAT to wait to have babies later in life", the article seems to say.The UK article reveals that these headlines are misleading and perhaps evidence of wishful thinking - because look at this:
"The researchers also found that women who gave birth before the age of 30 had a 45 per cent lower risk"
Oops... in other words, have babies sooner not later.
I wondered the same the moment I read the headline. With Australia going so far as to encourage procreation (the US offering a cool $10K taxcut for those willing to purchase kids from the Chicoms or various former Soviets), I think the same Interested Parties who've for so long "educated" us to the benefits of the Pill and safety of abortion now are interested in the Educated Reader's squeezing off another taxpayer or two.