Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (489676)	6/21/2009 6:45:51 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571714

European cancer treatment is horrible. medscape.com The United Kingdom in particular comes out badly in the tables, showing cancer survival rates that are among the worst in Europe. One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients.

To: i-node who wrote (489676)	6/21/2009 9:09:37 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571714

"In other countries it is based on waiting times. In still others it is based on availability of services." And you have yet to give any examples of which ones are worse than the US. Except for Britain and Canada. You just make claims and wave your hands. "You go to Wikipedia and find particular examples where this country or that outperforms the US" Yawn. I didn't got to the Wikipedia. I have other sources. The fact of the matter is that you are the one blowing smoke. You made broad claims and refuse to back them up. When one of the claims is challenged, you just airily wave your hand and claim it doesn't apply. Like in this case. "But in the US you can also get radiation therapy, which you may not be able to get in Japan." You know nothing about the Japanese system other than that it is inferior. Somehow. You don't know why, just that it has to be. In other words, you are going on faith. Not facts. Which is ok, I suppose. But you also claim you know more, despite the lack of actual proof.