SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (11985)11/30/2009 2:02:24 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
So how could self-examination be a factor in our higher cancer survival rate?

I'm quite sure I didn't assert it was. I don't know where you got that idea. Let me be clear. I doesn't seem likely that self-examination raises our cancer survival rate compared to Europe.

Good.

Whether or not self-exam is a factor in the overall comparison of survival rates is irrelevant to the question.

Then why did you bring up self-examination in a discussion of survival rates here vs Europe?

Let me refresh the question. It was about mammograms done on forty something women in the US and the extent to which discarding that practice would reduce the overall US survival rate. It was alleged that it would be reduced by 11 percent on the basis that the overall European survival rate is that much less than the overall US survival rate. That is a ridiculous claim.

Whether the reduction is 11% or a smaller percent is less relevant than that a reduction would occur from reducing mammograms for women under 40. I realize thats not your opinion. Its mine.

We already know what the reduction in US survival rate would be if forty-something mammograms were discontinued. You may recall the report that said one US woman is saved per something just under 2000 mammograms.

That certainly seems like a lot. Clearly the impact on survival rates of people with breast cancer is significant.

Bear in mind that the stat - 1 women in 2000 - has a base of all women (or at least all women who have mammograms which in America is most women). Survival rates are calculated on a base of women who get breast cancer ... a small subset of all women.


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.

Indeed. Funny you should mention that because that what I've been arguing. Not that it's "possibly bogus" but it's preposterous.

I know. Again, the issue is how important it is to be exact about the benefits of mammograms for women in their 40's. For you, very, for me, not very.


"It" is that 1) early mammograms in the US save some lives, 2) stopping them would cost some US lives, 3)looking at overall survival rates in Europe tells us nothing about how many lives or to what extent stopping those early mammograms would reduce overall US survival rates

Good as to 1) and 2). But you undercut your argument on behalf of 3) when you earlier wrote:

" We have data claiming one life saved per 2000 mammograms in the US. It's clear that they save lives in the US. Presumably they would do so at approximately the same rate in Europe if they were to start testing younger women. That was never in question."

Those were your words. You said earlier mammograms in Europe would save lives (ie boost the survival rate) at "approximately the same rate in Europe". That is exactly what the writer you called dishonest and stupid assumed.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News