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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (11946)	11/28/2009 8:45:07 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Its pretty reasonable to think more screening leads to earlier detection leads to higher survival rates. Sure, but the attribution was to a specific increase in survival rates for women in their forties. It's also pretty reasonable to think that part of that difference would be from measures other than screening frequency such as, duh, treatment differences. It's also pretty reasonable to think that part of that difference might have come from women of other ages. And from survival for different diseases, maybe heart disease. And from the screening of older women. There are all sorts of other confounding variables. The authors of the recommended guidelines were quite specific about how the survival rate would be affected in terms of deaths per thousand women screened and it wouldn't account for a difference anywhere near 11% between the US and Europe. The elided conclusion is simply bogus. I see that it suckered in at least one person, though... <g>