Re: Too Much Medicare "Care" Again


"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ftQPh.18588$tD2.11531@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Only after a committee decided what the men might have died of, where the
different classification of several would have negated the results.

So, like I said, YOU are cherry picking which studies to use to support your
opinion. Of course, that's the ONLY RCT to be done to date, and is showed a
clear survival advantage, so your counter argument just doesn't exist. All
you can do is try to say their methods were faulty because they used a
committee to determine cause of death. I happen to think a committee is a
more balanced way to do it than relying on one person AND it was done
blinded so there was no selection bias. There is no way around that sort of
problem - but they did an admirable job handling it.

Here is a quote from today's paper:

Oh wow, some random "paper"? Awesome.

Sure, aggressive treatment is reducing mortality and improving the quality
of life for some patients. Sometimes it even cures. But for many others,
the
cancer machine offers only marginal benefits at best, and providers push
screening and aggressive treatment in part because they have nothing else
to
give, but also because it's profitable. How much of the money we spend on
unnecessary or futile cancer treatment might be put to better use
searching
for real advances?

Hey, it's one person's opinion. Uninformed as it is, it's still an opinion
that writer is entitled to have. A "real" cure for prostate cancer would
ABSOLUTELY include the surgical removal of a cancerous prostate gland that
would otherwise result in a man's death. There's nothing not "real" about
that. Screening is needed to find that man. PSA screening is probably a
very good thing. It not only finds cancer, but also results in referrals to
urologists with the uncovering of other treatable diseases such as BPH,
neurogenic bladder, bladder cancer, etc. that are often mismanaged by
primary care doctors.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The secrets of Armstrong
    ... Ther e are some basic facts: ... That is your opinion. ... Note that while it is indeed a rare cancer (<1% incidence in males, ... would be sufficient to produce the observed changes ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Should terminally ill patients have the right to take potentially unsafe drugs?
    ... patients should be allowed to judge the risks for themselves. ... Most cancer patients are unable to participate in clinical ... For a contrary opinion from a cancer surgeon, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Dichloroaectate acid DCA and Cancer Cells
    ... Actually you never said I had a right to post my opinion and I never ... What you did do was call me a nut because I use webtv. ... (Because I have cancer you moron) ... to think all canadians were assholes. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: ANOTHER QUICK CHANGE...
    ... I'm expressing an opinion ... which I suspect a lot of other readers share, and explaining the basis of ... died of cancer, many people would consider it to be an improvement. ... Or, better still, have the balls to identify yourself and/or apologise. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Will we ever be able to cure cancer?
    ... Note that the screening tests which apparently HAVE been associated with greater longevity are PAP for cervical cancer and occult stool blood for colon ca. ... have been shown as mainly useful for monitoring effectiveness of treatment in people who already have the ...
    (sci.med)