The schedules for mammograms are different. European women are allotted fewer and for a shorter number of years. Presumably, then, European women actually get fewer mammograms. While American women can certainly find lumps, too, they don't have to rely on that technique as much and often don't because they get more frequent mammograms. Therefore it's reasonable to expect there to be some difference between the two groups being compared re lumps found via self exam vs mammogram. Now, since what was at issue was the role of mammograms of women in their forties in "survival rate," then to be a valid comparison you'd have to differentiate in your statistics between lumps found by mammogram vs some other mechanism. Thus, self-exam is one of the myriad factors that corrupt the comparison and would have to be factored out for the comparison to be valid.
I can't imagine what you're thinking here. Since our country does more mammograms, women here are less dependent on self-exams as a means of catching cancerous lumps early than women in Europe. So how could self-examination be a factor in our higher cancer survival rate? The only way would be if American women were uniquely endowed with a superior self-examination capability. Unlikely.
The salient factor, of course, the one that most clearly makes the whole comparison bogus is that American women get mammograms in their forties and European women don't.
On the contrary, that is not only not bogus but very relevant. More mammograms in women's 40's mean more early detection mean more survive breast cancer ie a survival rate will be elevated. The only thing you could possibly say is bogus is attribution of ALL the difference in American vs European survival rates to mammograms performed in womens 40's. Logically such mammograms would likely be a significant factor.
So there are no data anywhere that address the survival rate of European women whose cancer would have been diagnosed during their forties had they gotten mammograms.
It is obvious there are no data on survival rates of European women who weren't diagnosed early. But we can be sure such women who weren't diagnosed early went on to have lower survival rates as a result of not being diagnosed early.
The survival rate from breast cancer for European women, the data offered for comparison, is utterly useless for comparison
No, it isn't. The only uncertainty is exactly how much of the difference in survival rates is due to less early detection due to fewer early mammograms.
We have no clue about the outcomes of 40 something women in Europe.
Of course we do. We know early detection raises survival rates - thats virtually a truism and a pretty big clue. We simply can't quantify the benefit to a high degree of accuracy. At least not high enough to satisfy you.
Therefore, there is no way to defend her claim other than giving her a pass out of partisanship or being as dumb or deceitful as she demonstrated herself to be.
Again, you seem to be so stubborn on this point you're coming close to arguing early mammograms are worthless. Surely you don't believe that.
... it's important to me to be reasonable and civil, just for example. And, frankly, because I don't want to prevail if I'm wrong nor if I have to use tactics that are distasteful to me. This should be a gentleman's game. Partisans are driven to prevail by any means necessary. They typically put tribe above all else. Neither of those is what I'm about.
In the battle of ideas, I'd rather better ideas prevail over worse ones even if the battle doesn't stay a "gentlemans game". Being reasonable civil losers is what a lot of liberals would like conservatives to be. I see no gentlemen on the pro-socialism side.
Which is not meant hostilely.
Likewise. Different is simply different. It does not necessarily imply a value judgment. And it is not inherently hostile.
Ah, a point of agreement. |
