Guest guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 From factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html Go to the above link for your answers. Article in NYT. LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's health secretary complained on Thursday about an advertisement run by Rudy Giuliani, saying the U.S. Republican presidential candidate had maligned Britain's health care system with bad statistics. In the radio ad, Giuliani, who has suffered prostate cancer, said the U.S. survival rate for the disease was 82 percent, but the survival rate in Britain was just 44 percent " under socialized medicine. " Britain's Health Secretary Alan said Giuliani's figures were wrong and the survival rate under Britain's National Health Service was in fact much higher. " The British NHS should not become a political football in American presidential politics, " told The Times newspaper. " Our rate of prostate cancer survival is actually much higher than has been claimed. The latest data show a survival rate of over 70 percent and rising. " A health department spokesman said the latest figures from Britain's Office of National Statistics showed a five-year survival rate of 74.4 percent for prostate cancer. Giuliani spokeswoman Comella has said the former New York mayor got his figures from a magazine article and used it at a campaign stop, which was recorded and used in the advertisement. Cancer survival rate statistics depend on the number of cancers that are detected and when they are reported, and therefore may not necessarily reflect how well a health care system performs at preventing cancer deaths overall. The Times said roughly the same proportion of men -- 25 out of 100,000 -- die of prostate cancer in the United States and Britain each year. From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Metcalf Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:21 PM To: Prostate Cancer Support Subject: 82% cure rate? I don't want to get into politics across the pond but our press in the UK and we are up in arms about comparisions between the USA and UK cure rates for PCa. (In a report quoted presumably by a politician in the US of A). I think we need to explore the stats. Things that make me wonder are:- 1. The certainty of no recurrence at 5, 10, 15, 25 yearrs etc. Who can say they are cured for certain? 2. Are the stats base like for like. eg is it just a selected few who have low grade PCa and radical treatment who have a 82% cure rate and a wider sample in the UK some of whom have more advanced cancers? 3. Is the lower rate of screening in the UK not picking up some easily treatable PCas.? Has anyone got access to the report reasoning and data sources? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 , Kathy’s excellent response certainly puts the issue into focus, but for anyone who hasn’t followed her link or found the article too long to download, can I answer your questions: 1. The certainty of no recurrence at 5, 10, 15, 25 yearrs etc. Who can say they are cured for certain? No one can claim certainty in any aspect of prostate cancer. There are long term studies that show recurrence in ‘cured’ men over 20 years after their treatment. The medical world knows this else why would they continue to annual PSA tests on a man who is ‘cured’? 2. Are the stats base like for like. eg is it just a selected few who have low grade PCa and radical treatment who have a 82% cure rate and a wider sample in the UK some of whom have more advanced cancers? No the statistics are not directly comparable and this shows up when one looks at international statistics. I used to have the URL of a WHO website (in French!) that gave the incidence rates and mortality rates of every country in the United Nations. The enormous variance in the numbers could not be but down to anything but different statistical methodology in my opinion 3. Is the lower rate of screening in the UK not picking up some easily treatable PCas.? That is precisely the core of the issue – many of the prostate cancer cases diagnosed in the US are what can be termed insignificant tumours which are highly unlikely to ever cause the death of the man, so naturally, if you put those into the mix, the mortality rate will go down. Just how many such cases there are is a matter of debate with estimates varying from 25% to 80%. All the best Terry Herbert +61 3 9891 6883 +61 421 907 318 : terryherbert1942 1/60 Morna Rd, DONCASTER EAST VIC 3109, Australia From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Metcalf Sent: Friday, 2 November 2007 10:21 AM To: Prostate Cancer Support Subject: 82% cure rate? I don't want to get into politics across the pond but our press in the UK and we are up in arms about comparisions between the USA and UK cure rates for PCa. (In a report quoted presumably by a politician in the US of A). I think we need to explore the stats. Things that make me wonder are:- 1. The certainty of no recurrence at 5, 10, 15, 25 yearrs etc. Who can say they are cured for certain? 2. Are the stats base like for like. eg is it just a selected few who have low grade PCa and radical treatment who have a 82% cure rate and a wider sample in the UK some of whom have more advanced cancers? 3. Is the lower rate of screening in the UK not picking up some easily treatable PCas.? Has anyone got access to the report reasoning and data sources? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Kathy: After reading the url, I wonder what treatment Mr. Rudy G. used to give him his position of being cured? It would be interesting to compare notes on that, would it not? Bill. > > From factcheck.org > > http://www.factcheck.org/elections- 2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html > > > > Go to the above link for your answers. > > > > Article in NYT. > > > > LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's health secretary complained on Thursday about > an advertisement run by Rudy Giuliani > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/rudolph_ w_giul > iani/index.html?inline=nyt-per> , saying the U.S. Republican presidential > candidate had maligned Britain's health care system with bad statistics. > > In the radio ad, Giuliani, who has suffered prostate cancer, said the U.S. > survival rate for the disease was 82 percent, but the survival rate in > Britain was just 44 percent " under socialized medicine. " > > Britain's Health Secretary Alan said Giuliani's figures were wrong > and the survival rate under Britain's National Health Service was in fact > much higher. > > " The British NHS should not become a political football in American > presidential politics, " told The Times newspaper. > > " Our rate of prostate cancer survival is actually much higher than has been > claimed. The latest data show a survival rate of over 70 percent and > rising. " > > A health department spokesman said the latest figures from Britain's Office > of National Statistics showed a five-year survival rate of 74.4 percent for > prostate cancer. > > Giuliani spokeswoman Comella has said the former New York mayor got > his figures from a magazine article and used it at a campaign stop, which > was recorded and used in the advertisement. > > Cancer survival rate statistics depend on the number of cancers that are > detected and when they are reported, and therefore may not necessarily > reflect how well a health care system performs at preventing cancer deaths > overall. > > The Times said roughly the same proportion of men -- 25 out of 100,000 -- > die of prostate cancer in the United States and Britain each year. > > > > > > _____ > > From: ProstateCancerSupport > [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Metcalf > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:21 PM > To: Prostate Cancer Support > Subject: 82% cure rate? > > > > I don't want to get into politics across the pond but our press in the UK > and we are up in arms about comparisions between the USA and UK cure rates > for PCa. (In a report quoted presumably by a politician in the US of A). I > think we need to explore the stats. > > > > Things that make me wonder are:- > > > > 1. The certainty of no recurrence at 5, 10, 15, 25 yearrs etc. Who can say > they are cured for certain? > > > > 2. Are the stats base like for like. eg is it just a selected few who have > low grade PCa and radical treatment who have a 82% cure rate and a wider > sample in the UK some of whom have more advanced cancers? > > > > 3. Is the lower rate of screening in the UK not picking up some easily > treatable PCas.? > > > > Has anyone got access to the report reasoning and data sources? > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 If I am not mistaken he had bracytherapy. Kathy From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of rlmoyer2002 Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:52 PM To: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: 82% cure rate? Kathy: After reading the url, I wonder what treatment Mr. Rudy G. used to give him his position of being cured? It would be interesting to compare notes on that, would it not? Bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 I think it's important to separate " cured " from " survival " in these studies and reports. 82% cured is a pretty good number, 82% surviving could mean about anything, even watchful waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 I believe if you read Kathy's post and read where Guiliani gave his views about cancer treating in the US vs England etal. you will see that he said " thank god I was cured of it " . He said it, it was not a study or a statistic. This sort of statement from someone that has been treated for PCa has been either given too much false assurance from his doctors or he is deluding himself in deducing that he believes he is indeed cured, when in fact he may have a recurrence. And he paints a stupid picture by not saying he is monitoring himself since treatment. Or worse, some cells may have been missed or margins did escape as is part of the histriolics of this diseases' treatments. There are hard statistics about that. And yet there are tons of testimonials that give every indication that some can truly say they are 'cancer free'. And, in my opinion they do not need to pound us with that fact where some of us have not been that lucky. This is no place for some to " brag " . You are absolutely right to say " survival " but it is also a given that anyone being diagnosed needs to continue to monitor what they get in the way of treatment, because as has been mentioned here, over and over, nothing is certain and everyone is different. Bill. > > I think it's important to separate " cured " from " survival " in these > studies and reports. 82% cured is a pretty good number, 82% surviving > could mean about anything, even watchful waiting. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 - Guiliani's statement about being cured is simply a political statement. If he were not " cured " then he is un-electable. Some would vote for him anyway. Most ,or enough, would not because they do not want a president that will sick out half way his first term. Politicians spin almost everything. d. -- In ProstateCancerSupport , " rlmoyer2002 " wrote: > > > I believe if you read Kathy's post and read where Guiliani gave his > views about cancer treating in the US vs England etal. you will see > that he said " thank god I was cured of it " . He said it, it was not a > study or a statistic. > This sort of statement from someone that has been treated for PCa has > been either given too much false assurance from his doctors or he is > deluding himself in deducing that he believes he is indeed cured, > when in fact he may have a recurrence. And he paints a stupid picture > by not saying he is monitoring himself since treatment. Or worse, > some cells may have been missed or margins did escape as is part of > the histriolics of this diseases' treatments. There are hard > statistics about that. And yet there are tons of testimonials that > give every indication that some can truly say they are 'cancer > free'. And, in my opinion they do not need to pound us with that > fact where some of us have not been that lucky. This is no place for > some to " brag " . > > You are absolutely right to say " survival " but it is also a given > that anyone being diagnosed needs to continue to monitor what they > get in the way of treatment, because as has been mentioned here, over > and over, nothing is certain and everyone is different. > > Bill. > > > > > > > > I think it's important to separate " cured " from " survival " in these > > studies and reports. 82% cured is a pretty good number, 82% > surviving > > could mean about anything, even watchful waiting. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 What Guiliani conveniently ignores is the possibly thousands of necessary deaths and morbidity tat occurs because so many uninsured, especially in Florida, that goes without timely prostate biopsy! The Moffit Cancer Center in Tampa, in particular, will provide help on a sliding scale, but requires diagnostic confirmation by biopsy and pathology report, and for that, you are on your own! Louis. . . Re: 82% cure rate? Guiliani's statement about being cured is simply a political statement.If he were not "cured" then he is un-electable. Some would vote forhim anyway. Most ,or enough, would not because they do not want apresident that will sick out half way his first term. Politicians spin almost everything. d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.