Lies, damned lies and statistics!

How well do you understand risk?

Consider a disease called X cancer, XC for short. XC does not really exist. I just made it up. But the problems associated with my imaginary disease mirror, in simplified form, some of the real life problems caused by testing and treatment.

If XC is caught early the tumour can be removed surgically. Most patients who undergo the operation are completely cured. However the after-effects of the surgery are unpleasant and a small percentage, about 1%, actually die from the operation or its after-effects.

If treatment is left too late the cancer spreads and becomes untreatable. An excruciatingly painful death follows.

Patients are usually asymptomatic during the early phases of the disease. So the only way to catch XC early is through screening.

Happily there is an inexpensive, safe non-invasive test available. The test is 98% effective. If you have XC there is a 98% chance the test will pick it up.

Unfortunately the test also gives 5% "false positives." The test will be positive for the presence of XC in 5% of cases where the disease is absent.

Once the test shows positive there is only one way of determining whether you have XC and that is to undergo a surgical examination. About 5% of patients who undergo this sort of surgical examination experience lifelong debilitating consequences.

Would you allow yourself to be screened for XC? What factors would you take into account before deciding

Steven

You haven't given the statistic as to what percentage of the population is likely to contract XC. This would be the vital piece of information I'd need before considering such screening. It would then need to be a fairly high percentage for me to go ahead with it.

I'd also want to know what sector of the population was more susceptible, eg women, over fifties, meat-eaters or whatever, so I could then assess the chances of it being likely to apply to me.

You've also failed to describe the type of screening. If it was a blood test, I'd be more inclined to consider it, than if it was something involving radiation for example. I know you said it was 'non-invasive', but your idea of non-invasive might not necessarily be the same as mine.

Statistics in themselves rarely tell the full story. I would need much more information than you've provided here to make a decision.

I agree with Bronwyn your question is almost meaningless without more data.
I Liken your question too. ” if you were at sea would you rather have a life preserver handy or not. Given I swim like a fish....stone fish on the bottom. I would feel happier knowing that it was handy. The stats on how safe the boat is would be almost irrelevant. In your terms I get tested regularly for cancer. Cancer is a sensitive area to me.

When it comes most minor ailment ( Those were contraction does not = death, permanent disability etc.) are usually symptomatic and those not prevalent in my area therefore of little concern. My view is when in doubt check it out.

Awareness is a more important factor. i.e. I nearly always use prophylactics like sun hat sun block, insect sprays etc.

Some how I don't think this answered your question the way you wanted.

Steven, I rather think you are referring to the recent research about the outcomes of invasive surgery for prostate cancer. A quick summary of the research is that a blood test is available to determine whether you might be at risk of prostate cancer. Application of the blood test and subsequent follow up surgery has not greatly changed the mortality rates for prostate cancer. it turns out that much prostate cancer is benign or grows slowly and sufferers die from something else.

At the same time, the surgery has significant and widespread side effects including impotancy.

Therefore, there is now consideration as to whether the damage casued by applying the blood tests is not much greater than the benefits obtained.

lets try cures like

Vitamin E and Cancer
http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen/browse_thread/thread/9e093a3e4248db13?hl=en
The Chinese have studied Vitamin E and found it effective in preventing a variety of cancers.

from
http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Adams/2008/08/Adams_1_081908_220000.mp3

next comes this free cure

http://www.leesfountainofyouth.com/

The immune system will rebuild any body breakdown that happens to a body.this method cures cancer by melting it via electolisis

next link is about docters and using docter words,Symptoms of infection include the shift of language patterns towards a victimization posture, surrendering to the medical advice of doctors, and abandoning all hope for self determination.

In other words, people exposed to this virus of the mind become hopeless victims who verbally recycle medical babble while believing disease is a matter of fate or luck,not a result of causative actions.

In other words, they become the perfect victims to be exploited by Big Pharma and the conventional cancer industry!

And how is this virus of the mind propagated? As I later learned, it is passed from person to person through the use of the Secret Language Codes of modern medicine I mentioned earlier.

These Secret Language Codes are extremely powerful in shaping the thoughts, beliefs and even the vocabularies of people, http://www.truthpublishing.com/Prod…
This blog has a link to the paper:
http://iwforums.com/showthread.php?t=30783

The hardest thing in the world is admitting that you’ve been duped.


cure cancer extracted from
http://miraclemineral.org/
part one free book download

They treated many people after these letters were written and I did get more data concerning the Stabilized Oxygen(Humble Health Drink).
Stabilized Oxygen

another cure is relitive to high ph..[cancers die in high ph]

Bronwyn and others,

I'm impressed. Obviously OLO punters are statistically savvy.

You are correct. To make a decision you need to know what is the a priori likelihood of you having XC. I deliberately withheld that bit of the puzzle.

OK, what a priori probability of having XC would make you take the test? Assume it is a simple blood test.

Agronomist, yes it was the debate about prostate cancer that sparked this post. However the problem is more widespread than that and as more tests become available the conundrums will multiply. Whole body scans, for example, seem to throw up medical conditions most of which will resolve themselves if left untreated. So what do you do if a scan turns up what MAY be the start of a cancer? Hope it is one of those that will self-resolve? Undergo invasive surgery? There may be no way of knowing the odds – at least not until researchers have had the chance to gather a lot more evidence.