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: Alighieri who wrote (522982)	10/23/2009 12:44:13 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580506

Prostate cancer isn't really representative of most cancers, as far as treatment or outcome. One of the most popular forms of "treatment" for this slow growing cancer is "watchful waiting", i.e. - doing nothing other than keeping an eye on it. One of the least popular is surgery, since it often involves total loss of sexual ability. Then, there's the fact that it ONLY involves men, who are the worst dealing with this cancer. Many just don't do anything about it at all.

To: Alighieri who wrote (522982)	10/23/2009 12:45:48 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580506

I heard about this a few days ago on CNN...the study is bringing into question the effectiveness of PSA screenings...ie: the assumption that it does in fact detect prostate cancer early enough may be misplaced....doesn't mean that early detection does not improve survivability in most forms of cancer. Ovarian cancer is another beast altogether...it is lethal in most forms...a} because it is a deadly form of cancer..and b} because there are no effective early screens...I know about this from personal experience in my family. The argument is not and never was about "early detection". We know that early detection of cancer is a good thing. But it doesn't result in decreased costs, which it the argument you have tried to make. And in the case of prostate and certain breast cancers, the increased costs do not improve mortality rates. You spend more money and get no improvement in results in these selected cancers. But even if you DID get improved results, you would be doing so at greater cost. PREVENTIVE MEDICINE DOES NOT LEAD TO SAVING MONEY. SOMETIMES, IT SAVES LIVES (BUT NOT FOR EVERY MEDICAL PROBLEM). BUT IT ALMOST ALWAYS COSTS MORE.