Re: Delayed Treatments for Prostate Cancer


"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9pIFg.911937$084.677719@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ebCFg.8059$Qf.4958@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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.


Oooh, no, I love large databases. I'm merely pointing out that you are
stating it is excellent to use the SEER database so when I use it later
you
will, of course, accept it as great evidence. (yes, I'm setting you up
here, so tread carefully).

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 well established that strongest evidence is prospective. Yes, even
smaller numbers of a prospective study are generally stronger than larger
numbers of a retrospective study. That's not my opinion - it's an
established fact.

This is your personal bias which you memorized in high school. Clinical
studies are your gold standard, but the self-selection process in clinical
studies is a horrid bias.

You remind me of people who read data on such things as the birth rate
and then declare that the exact numbers are unimportant because we know
there is one. All prospective studies of future births, for example, fail
to predict actual outcomes at the individual level.



.

Loading