To: Wharf Rat who wrote (99275 ) 10/19/2018 12:37:58 AM From: i-node Respond to of 357343 Neither of the linked articles are about the "political right". They're the media taking on Trump, which is just not an honest difference. Climate change is a statistical argument, not a meta-statistical one. And there are serious problems with both. As to the second link, this was excised from the article:“The pages were removed on December 6, 2017 because content was not mobile-friendly and very rarely used. Before we update any of the information…we engage in a comprehensive audit and use analysis process that includes reviewing other federal consumer health websites to ensure we are not duplicating efforts or presenting redundant information.” I find this information hard to believe considering breast cancer is the most common cancer among women . Also, this isn’t the first time the administration has launched a salvo against health information that it apparently finds objectionable for some reason. It is true breast cancer is common, non-metastatic (which is 62% of all breast cancer) has a 99% five year survival. Very significantly, immunotherapy has shown significant efficacy and new immunotherapy trials are even more promising. The author is speculating first as to the reason the material was removed and secondly that the administration somehow found it "objectionable." A far more likely explanation is that given in the article. You know this information is changing rapidly:Medical knowledge has been expanding exponentially. Whereas the doubling time was an estimated 50 years back in 1950, it accelerated to 7 years in 1980, 3.5 years in 2010, and a projected 73 days by 2020, according to a 2011 study in Transactions of the Amercan Clinical and Climatological Association . I expect whatever it was was considered outdated.