michael sylvester wrote: > > U.S health authorities are back at it again. > > First they said that early attempts at mammograms are not necessary > > and women should wait tii they are 50. Now they are saying that those > > prostrate screening tests are unreliable,no need to get them,and > > prognosis for recovery is just as good by doing "nothing" . Well I > > guess copper,zinc,selenium,and saw palmetto may not be snake oil.
None of this is really very new. It has been known in health stats circles for years now. The problem is that screening test makers like to advertise their "survival rates" (usually 5-year) rather than their "mortality rates" because it makes them look better. What screening does it to catch cancers earlier, but it doesn't (contrary to much PR) actually decrease mortality by very much. So, if you catch an ultimately fatal cancer earlier, you're more likely to survive 5 years from the point at which it was discovered than if you wait until symptoms appear, but only because the point which you started "counting" was earlier, not because you actually live much longer than you would have otherwise. The apparent increase is largely artifactual. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1276 or send a blank email to leave-1276-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
