|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Be careful on this issue. You really do need to verse yourself on 101 Applied Statistics before you read too much into figures like this. Granted, I might pull such stuff out for a bit of fun on a message board, but in the real world I tend to want much more information about how the data is collected before I allow statistical 'information' to sway or forment my opinions.
Much of the prostrate cancer diagnosed in the US is of a variety that takes a very long time to develop. So, if diagnosed early, it is not surprising that so many make it past 5 years. In the US there was a push for diagnosis of this cancer, and thus men are generally diagnosed earlier with this cancer than men in Britain. Yet, most men (in both the US and the UK) who have this form of cancer actually die of something else. So simply put, many men in Britain are never diagnosed with this cancer, and simply die of something else beforehand. Yet in the US, many more men are being diagnosed with something that will probably never greatly affect them. And so you have a bigger pool of 'diagnosed men' of which proportionally less will succumb. It's simple maths.
| Quote: |
The same publication suggests that 90.1 per cent of women in the U.S. diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2002 survived for at least five years, as against 77.8 per cent in Britain.
|
I don't know much about how the data is collected in the US compared to the UK, but again, I'd be very wary of forming any opinion until I had more information on hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an example of what I mean, regarding the prostrate cancer stats. In a nutshell, one group of men were annually screened (indirectly, as I understand) for prostate cancer. The other were not (though some would have been screened outside the study). There was little difference in the mortality rate (with regard to deaths from prostrate cancer) between groups.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0810696
| Quote: |
ABSTRACT
Background The effect of screening with prostate-specific�antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination on the rate of death from prostate cancer is unknown. This is the first report from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial on prostate-cancer mortality.
Methods From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 76,693 men at 10 U.S. study centers to receive either annual screening (38,343 subjects) or usual care as the control (38,350 subjects). Men in the screening group were offered annual PSA testing for 6 years and digital rectal examination for 4 years. The subjects and health care providers received the results and decided on the type of follow-up evaluation. Usual care sometimes included screening, as some organizations have recommended. The numbers of all cancers and deaths and causes of death were ascertained.
Results In the screening group, rates of compliance were 85% for PSA testing and 86% for digital rectal examination. Rates of screening in the control group increased from 40% in the first year to 52% in the sixth year for PSA testing and ranged from 41 to 46% for digital rectal examination. After 7 years of follow-up, the incidence of prostate cancer per 10,000 person-years was 116 (2820 cancers) in the screening group and 95 (2322 cancers) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.29). The incidence of death per 10,000 person-years was 2.0 (50 deaths) in the screening group and 1.7 (44 deaths) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.70). The data at 10 years were 67% complete and consistent with these overall findings.
Conclusions After 7 to 10 years of follow-up, the rate of death from prostate cancer was very low and did not differ significantly between the two study groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benji
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| benji wrote: |
[
Im not wrong and I dont post fallacies.
Then start providing links. I've already showed where you were wrong once.
An op-ed piece in the Seattle newspaper and criticism from an ambassador do not really show a government's true intentions.
Right after September 11th Canada readied its Princess Patricia Light Infantry ( stop laughing thats the real name)and yet they were not deployed because they were not asked by the Brits and Americans. Then Chretian backtracked and said maybe we wont send Princess Patricia after all. Very embarrassing. They finally went after Chretien negotiated his way into the war and slvaged Canadian pride. The Toronto Sun wrote about this back then.
Link please?
Of course ultimately the US wants as many countries in the coalition as possible. Its called diplomatic cover. Even Luxembourg and Iceland have 6 or 7 troops in Afgahnistan each.
The US used a lower level official to show displeasure that Canada didnt join Iraq. That speaks volumes. Not Bush, Rumsfeld or Powell. Canada is supposedly our ally and in NATO, so you cant let that go unchecked. So you just let the ambassador do the work.
This all happened in the aftermath of September 11. Now Canada has increased its troops there, and by all accounts are doing great. A true ally. |
When you say Canada has increased its troops there...the last nation you were talking about just prior to that was Iraq. If you mean Afghanistan you should say so. That what I was talking about when I said you are "misleading." |
I was talking about Iraq prior to that and I wrote "The US used a lower level official to show displeasure that Canada didnt join Iraq. Can it be more clear than " Canada didnt join Iraq"?
I guess i took it for granted that you knew that Canada sent troops to Afgahnistan but not to Iraq. In the future i will not overestimate your knowlegde of the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benji
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| benji wrote: |
| [. But they dont want to do that because its expensive and difficult. Now thats hypocrisy: Western Europe, Canada, Korea, even Japan and China. |
Canada and China have American military bases located in their countries?
And these bases would be where exactly? |
Im fully aware that the Us doesnt have bases on Canadian and Chinese soil, a bit of sloppy writing. Should have included "region" as well as "soil" Yet its true that the US military has meant that Canada doesnt have to defend its borders adequately itself and reap the benefits that that entails.
And the leaders of China know all too well (although they would never admit it) that the US navy has kept the free trade rolling and the has kept the peace in NE Asia allowing the Chinese economic miracle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| benji wrote: |
| Im fully aware that the Us doesnt have bases on Canadian and Chinese soil, a bit of sloppy writing. Should have included "region" as well as "soil" Yet its true that the US military has meant that Canada doesnt have to defend its borders adequately itself and reap the benefits that that entails. |
Defend its boarders adequately from who? Where are all these massively militarized nations that would simply take over the entire civilized world if not for the United States' military protection, or even force other nations to spend substantially more on national defense? You've all ready essentially labelled every civilized power in the world as under United States protection. Who are we protecting them from?
Sorry if you all ready answered this, I haven't been following this discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
That's the question, right? Where does the quality come from? Whatever the answer to that is, you don't want to kill it. But I'm confident it isn't insurance firms that add so much value (I suspect the opposite is true) so then what?
Many medical breakthroughs are government funded. Major universities use government funds for research. Competition between hospitals doesn't exist really. Different hospitals cater to difference income groups in the big cities. |
And yet, Sergio seems to think that substantially reducing the role the Insurance Industry plays in our health care would somehow degrade our system. After all, that's really ultimately all the health care debate is about: how to pay for and distribute what we're all ready getting, with a strong emphasis on, "Maybe we shouldn't be relying so much the Insurance Industry." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
And yet, Sergio seems to think that substantially reducing the role the Insurance Industry plays in our health care would somehow degrade our system. After all, that's really ultimately all the health care debate is about: how to pay for and distribute what we're all ready getting, with a strong emphasis on, "Maybe we shouldn't be relying so much the Insurance Industry." |
Buy some health insurance and quitcher whining!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've no time to argue, but it seems you're not following my point.
In the graph (the article i can not read as I don't have a password) there is no mention of how the data is collected. I haven't read the Guardian article yet - but there is no guarantee the journalist has a better understanding of stats than that fellow from the Daily Mail.
Understanding how the data has been collected (or not collected) is essential. Please outline for me how the data is collected in these reports (or find me articles with statistical comparisons where this is discussed) - or your stats are simply meaningless, I'm afraid.
In the US more men are diagnosed with the slow version of prostrate cancer. Most of these men were going to survive 5 years anyway.
It seems to have been a national policy in US to screen for this for sometime. In Britain there is no such policy, though men's groups whinge about it.
Thus in Britain, many more men are undiagnosed with this particular prostrate cancer. Therefore, simple mathematics can tell you that the men in Britain who ARE diagnosed are more likely to have an aggressive form, or are further along with the slow developing form. i.e. They've been diagnosed because they've already got a problem.
Thus, the pool of diagnosed men in Britain is proportionally smaller, than the US one, and given the difference in screening policy in the two countries, it follows that the survival rate of 'the diagnosed' is much worse in Britain. Simple Logic. Yet in fact, there are many British men walking around who have survived their prostrate cancer beyond 5 years, but are simply unaware of their condition as they were never diagnosed, and thus never make the stats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
And yet, Sergio seems to think that substantially reducing the role the Insurance Industry plays in our health care would somehow degrade our system. After all, that's really ultimately all the health care debate is about: how to pay for and distribute what we're all ready getting, with a strong emphasis on, "Maybe we shouldn't be relying so much the Insurance Industry." |
Buy some health insurance and quitcher whining! |
You should save nuggets of wisdom like this for your next town hall meeting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I've no time to argue, but it seems you're not following my point. |
I follow your point perfectly. It seemed decidedly made up.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Understanding how the data has been collected (or not collected) is essential. Please outline for me how the data is collected in these reports (or find me articles with statistical comparisons where this is discussed) - or your stats are simply meaningless, I'm afraid. |
These are scientific studies. They are not, as such, simply meaningless. If you wish to make some claim about how the data has been collected, the burden of proof is, therefore, on you to look into how such data was collected and present what you find. It is not acceptable to say "you don't know how the data was collected" thereby implying that, since this is so, it is meaningless.
This is arm-waving. The data is there. I believe it. And until I'm given good reason to disbelieve it - being shown flaws in data perhaps - I shall continue believing it.
| Big Bird wrote: |
In the US more men are diagnosed with the slow version of prostrate cancer. Most of these men were going to survive 5 years anyway.
It seems to have been a national policy in US to screen for this for sometime. In Britain there is no such policy, though men's groups whinge about it.
Thus in Britain, many more men are undiagnosed with this particular prostrate cancer. Therefore, simple mathematics can tell you that the men in Britain who ARE diagnosed are more likely to have an aggressive form, or are further along with the slow developing form. i.e. They've been diagnosed because they've already got a problem.
Thus, the pool of diagnosed men in Britain is proportionally smaller, than the US one, and given the difference in screening policy in the two countries, it follows that the survival rate of 'the diagnosed' is much worse in Britain. Simple Logic. Yet in fact, there are many British men walking around who have survived their prostrate cancer beyond 5 years, but are simply unaware of their condition as they were never diagnosed, and thus never make the stats. |
I find it very difficult to believe the scientific study in question made this elementary error - and you have not shown that they have. Instead, you have simply engaged in unrelated speculation.
Here's the full BBC article where the graph's from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6955545.stm
I don't know what's happened to the other one. It worked before.
Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| [It seemed decidedly made up. |
Truthfully? You think I made up a story about prostrate cancer diagnoses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| [It seemed decidedly made up. |
Truthfully? You think I made up a story about prostrate cancer diagnoses? |
Got a link? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I find it very difficult to believe the scientific study in question made this elementary error - and you have not shown that they have. Instead, you have simply engaged in unrelated speculation. |
The study itself may not have 'made this elementary error' but those reporting these studies (and comparing studies) very often do when they state certain conclusions. Your journalist friend reporting in the Daily Mail certainly did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| [It seemed decidedly made up. |
Truthfully? You think I made up a story about prostrate cancer diagnoses? |
Got a link? |
No. I shouldn't even be here talking to you about it - got an assignment. But there was some hooha about this very topic some time ago, with men's groups in Britain whinging about it. It was pointed out at the time that the screening they were demanding wouldn't really change much.
Try googling. You obviously have more time than me, and you are likely to find it.
If not, I'll google later, when I'm free to do so. Now I better log out.
But here is a start:
http://www.karlloren.com/biopsy/p14.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
