Re: Too Much Medicare "Care" Again
- From: "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:26:17 GMT
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r9APh.20388$oV.8120@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<TTZOh.16393$PL.14363@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b_yPh.133122$_73.27591@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:35tPh.19313$oV.15740@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TDrPh.132967$_73.14656@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:M4hPh.17972$_c5.6735@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q96Ph.132583$_73.81423@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:euhr7r$4i04@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article
messageGeorge Conklin <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A5YOh.15802$_c5.363@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:dDtOh.17453$tD2.3607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxmessagenews:3LMOh.16153$PL.6101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:afEOh.14779$oV.469@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
justwasmessage
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WCkOh.13064$_c5.9247@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:dA6Oh.131636$_73.88116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
news:27ZNh.18035$Jl.2812@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxmessage
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aN_Nh.10696$_c5.5244@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WAXNh.10377$_c5.8421@xxxxxxxxxxxx
message"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
in
...................
That is not what mainline science has shown. HRT
forbeenharmful,
period.
HRT had immediate benefits.
..................
You are the fool. If any advantage were large, it would
have
baselessly)established years ago.
You keep playing the fool. I could just as easily (and as
say
the converse.
It is truly pitiful that surgical procedures have been in use
100
years before there is a true scientific evaluation. This is
robotic -retropubicplan
criminal.
Some surgical procedures have been in use for thousands of
years. Do you think that amputations started only 100
years ago?
I was speaking specifically of prostate surgery.
The current gold standard for prostatectomy is an open radical
havingprostatectomy. As it is done today, it's only a few decades old,
undergone a huge revision at that time. The newest method -
evolving),is
true...still in its infancy.
So? If you change the lighting in the OR, does that change cancer
cure
rates too?
your above comment about it being around for a 100 years just isn't
not its current state. Yes, the change in technique a few decades hadloss,
DRAMATIC changes with better success, lymph node sampling, less blood
preservation of urine control and erectile dysfunction (still
metastaticetc.
PSA screening has only been around since the 1990's
and thus the prostate cancer we're operating now is generally lessadvanced
than it was before then, when patients often presented with
areand
thus inoperable disease - or locally advanced disease. We really
in
stageaStage can be and has been controlled for in research. Who are you
new era of prostate surgery.
trying
to confuse? Yourself?
No, George, it hasn't. The vast majority of cancers treated today are
T1c. Before PSA came out in the 1990's THERE WAS NO SUCH STAGE AS T1C.You
can't contol for it.In short, you are trying to say that no evaluation of your cash cow
My two biggest money makers are cystoscopies and TRUS biopsies. By far.
Neither are done in the operating room.
The biopsy leads to the OR, right?
Not the issue now is it? Surgery has been going on for over 100 yearsis
ever going to be done because you keep changing the definitions and this
will go on forever. Money first. Results? Who cares? We do, but you
rely
on faith-based outcomes.
I merely pointed out that you lied. There is no way to control for a new
stage of cancer that didn't exist 15 years ago and now accounts for 90% of
diagnosed prostate cancer.
and none of it scientifically evaluated even controlling for stage. And now
what? Next there will another change, and then you will say that that
cannot be evaluated. It never ends. Well, PIVOT is out there and I am sure
you will discount whatever it finds, unless it finds what you want. Like
HRT, right?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Too Much Medicare "Care" Again
- From: Skeptic
- Re: Too Much Medicare "Care" Again
- Next by Date: Re: Too Much Medicare "Care" Again
- Next by thread: Re: Too Much Medicare "Care" Again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|