Re: Delayed Treatments for Prostate Cancer


"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PAtFg.97691$FQ1.49777@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iLiFg.10216$0e5.7283@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9_8Fg.140629$1i1.122040@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_33Fg.5011$Sn3.149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2fQEg.904055$084.859533@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Are you talking about,
"Incidence of Initial Local Therapy Among Men With Lower-Risk
Prostate
Cancer in the United States " ?

All that that article finds is that we are overtreating some men
with
low
grade prostate cancer - something which we all know already.

A major journal does not publish articles about what is already
known.

LOL... yes they do - all the time. Confirmational studies. They're
actually much easier to get published than are novel ideas. But hey,
thanks
for expressing your ignorance.

The study cited is based on real-world experience rather than from a
self-selected group of volunteers. That is always a difference.

Good to know for future reference - so from now on, whenever I cite a
study
based on the SEER database, you'll have to accept it as strong evidence.


You have a real bias against large data bases. You seem want more
variables and confuse that with moe variables...those of your choosing.



These are real-world outcomes, not those projected from a few hundred
self-selected men in a so-called 'clinical' study.

It was actually nothing more than a retrospective review, which is much
weaker than a randomized control trial would be.

Incorrect.

No, not incorrect. It was a retrospective study. If you don't agree with
that, then you don't understand the terminology being used.


Your assumption that using data on real-world out comes is WEAKER (your
term) than some small-scale clinical study with self-selected volunteers is
pure BIAS. I know the terms used, but your biases are so horrid you cannot
accept anything but what you want.


It is everyone they could get ahold of,

It was a retrospective review of thousands of patients in the SEER
database.


So what? Better than a self-selected population in a clinical study.


.

Loading