Cancer Stats -- Smoke & Mirrors

[Rouser2]

As regards to The NCI Cancer Progress Report

"The Report Card apart, there are disturbing questions on the reliability of NCI’s incidence statistics. This is well illustrated by wild reported variations since 1973 for the percent changes in the incidence of childhood cancer:
1973-1980 +21%
1973-1989 +10%
1973-1990 +1%
1973-1991 -8%
1973-1994 +31%
The Report Card’s optimistic and misleading assurances, the latest in a series of smoke and mirror break-throughs since 1971 when President Nixon launched the "War Against Cancer," are designed to divert attention from the escalating incidence of cancer, which has reached epidemic proportions. Cancer now strikes 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women, up from an incidence of 1 in 4 a few decades ago. Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, apart from relatively infrequent cancers particularly those of children, remains virtually unchanged. "

-- Samuel S. Epstein, MD

http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNS98CanceReportFails.htm



-- Rouser

[BTox]

Rouser's moronic "sources" - smoke and mirrors are a perfect description!

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, apart from relatively infrequent cancers particularly those of children, remains virtually unchanged. "


Well that's something anyway.

Also, I assume more of us are getting cancer because we're living longer.

[tracer]

And, of course, the fact that this article appears on the website for an organization named the "Nutrition for Optimal Health Association" wouldn't imply any form of bias here....

[roger]

The article is nothing more than allegations. No proof. No review of the statistical analysis utilized by the report.

Much like rouser's posts. No wonder he likes it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by LucyR


Well that's something anyway.

Also, I assume more of us are getting cancer because we're living longer.


You assumptions only in part true. Perhaps you skipped over this:

"Additionally, any true decline would be considerably less if the mortality rates were appropriately based on the current age distribution of the U.S. population, rather than that of 1970, with its relatively higher representation of younger age groups, as misleadingly calculated by NCI. These criticisms are in general consistent with those detailed in a May 1997 New England Journal of Medicine article, "Cancer Undefeated," by former NCI epidemiologist Dr. John Bailar."


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by tracer
And, of course, the fact that this article appears on the website for an organization named the "Nutrition for Optimal Health Association" wouldn't imply any form of bias here....

Indeed. Suerely must be another "kook" site. To think that nuitrition or lack thereof has anything whatever to do with the increased incidence of cancer. Perhaps cancer is really just a demon. We should call an exorcist.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by roger [/i]

>>The article is nothing more than allegations. No proof. No review of the statistical analysis utilized by the report.

The proof is in the analysis of the conclusions. How the incidence of childhood cancer go from plus one to minus 8 to plus 31 in the space of a few years defies credulity and offers the suspicion that these numbers are simply pulled from right out of the air.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox
Rouser's moronic "sources" - smoke and mirrors are a perfect description!

A "moronic source" is any source you disagree with, eh? Shall we add to your list the New England Journal of Medicine???


"President Nixon declared a "war on cancer" in 1971 and launched a $42 billion spending spree. What has 30 years and $42 billion produced? Not much, according to the University of Chicago's Dr. John Bailar.
Bailar reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986 and again in 1997 on the progress in cancer research. In 1986, Bailar concluded that "some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure."
In 1997, Bailar added, "Now, with 12 more years of data and experience, we see little reason to change that conclusion..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32304,00.html


-- Rouser

[Zep]

Originally posted by Rouser2
As regards to The NCI Cancer Progress Report

"The Report Card apart, there are disturbing questions on the reliability of NCI’s incidence statistics. This is well illustrated by wild reported variations since 1973 for the percent changes in the incidence of childhood cancer:
1973-1980 +21%
1973-1989 +10%
1973-1990 +1%
1973-1991 -8%
1973-1994 +31%
The Report Card’s optimistic and misleading assurances, the latest in a series of smoke and mirror break-throughs since 1971 when President Nixon launched the "War Against Cancer," are designed to divert attention from the escalating incidence of cancer, which has reached epidemic proportions. Cancer now strikes 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women, up from an incidence of 1 in 4 a few decades ago. Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, apart from relatively infrequent cancers particularly those of children, remains virtually unchanged. "

-- Samuel S. Epstein, MD

http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNS98CanceReportFails.htm



-- Rouser Ooooh! Numbers! MUST be true if it's got numbers!

Ahem.

Given the paucity of numbers to work with, I decided to go with what was provided above. I have plotted these differences over time, using 1973 as the "base" point, at 100%. Therefore, at the years indicated, the percentages will be 121 (1980), 110 (1989), and so on. Then I plotted two trend lines - linear and polynomial. Here's the result below, and from that we can see that the trend using that data is a slight increase in rates from 1973 to today, not the calamity he trumpets. And this may quite easily correlate with the increased ability to actually detect cancers in recent years - there are more to plot simply because there are more detected now, whereas previously they went undetected.

Of course, there's a LOT of blank spaces in between these points, and it would be awfully nice if Rouser would fill them in... But then again, more data might easily collapse his case for him, so I bet he won't oblige. :)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rouser2


The proof is in the analysis of the conclusions. How the incidence of childhood cancer go from plus one to minus 8 to plus 31 in the space of a few years defies credulity and offers the suspicion that these numbers are simply pulled from right out of the air.

-- Rouser So because the figures are strange, you conclude that they are fabricated? If you were to fabricate figures for some purpose, would you just put down some wild shots? Well, I guess I believe that, but MOST frauds are smart enough to fabricate some numbers that look sensible and support their claims :rolleyes:.

Now, Rouser, what is your message with this thread? What is it you wanna discuss?

Hans

[Rolfe]

:s2:

Rolfe.

[The Don]

I will make this assertion on Rouser's behalf just to get the ball rolling.


The medical profession has no effective way of treating cancer. Figures suggesting that they do have been deliberately doctored (no pun intended). Money spent developing cancer "cures" has been wasted. The hold that the medical monlith (comprising drug companies and conventional doctors) has over the medical profession maintains the status quo and prevents alternative treatments being investigated or rubbishes those which have.

-- Strawman substituting for Rouser

[Zep]

Originally posted by The Don
I will make this assertion on Rouser's behalf just to get the ball rolling.


The medical profession has no effective way of treating cancer. Figures suggesting that they do have been deliberately doctored (no pun intended). Money spent developing cancer "cures" has been wasted. The hold that the medical monlith (comprising drug companies and conventional doctors) has over the medical profession maintains the status quo and prevents alternative treatments being investigated or rubbishes those which have.

-- Strawman substituting for Rouser Clunk! Black ball into the corner pocket, game over.

:s2:

[ingoa]

I start with a simple assumption:

Eventually we will all die.

To obtain a death certificate you can use several means:

- Accidents
- Infectious diseases
- Cardiac problems and other effects that indicate a worn out body
- Suicide
- Cancer

Accidents and suicides can happen any time (not really age related, I guess)
Infecticous diseases can happen anytime, but many aren't mortal anymore.
Problems with the heart and organs should rise. Obesity will surely help to that.

So how does one achieve to obtain a death certificate in order to elegible for resurrection (if one belives in such)? Cancer. If lung cancer doesn't get you, kidney cancer will or if that fails another one would do the trick. Cell replication is not perfect. This will get you at the very end. The only way to beat cancer in the long run is to get rid of my initial assumption. But I am afraid that that's not so easy.

:teacher:

[Rolfe]

Well, we're back to the reason I agree with the anti-vax mob that dog and cat vaccines cause cancer (apart from vaccine-associated fibrosarcoma, which isn't disputed).

If your pet dies of distemper or infectious hepatitis or parvovirus at a young age, he won't get cancer. Vaccines drastically reduce the incidence of these diseases, thus allowing more pets to survive long enough to die of one of the diseases of old age, including cancer.

Thus, vaccination causes cancer. Right.... :D

I wish Rouser would actually say what he means. Does he think the stats are faked? If they were, wouldn't those faking them do a better job?Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, .... remains virtually unchanged.And the evidence for this would be....?

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32304,00.html

Well with a web pages like foxnews, I can't help but think "well now *that's* not a biased source full of garbage." I'm biased, I admit.

That said, the link is in fact about the -federally funded- failure of stem cell research to treat, prevent, even fully cure diseases. The article then goes on to blame these federally funded programs, stating outright that "the feds" are flushing money down the toilet.
and then there are gems like The problem is that as long as the feds run the research, we won't know what the true prospects for a cancer cure are. The federal medical research bureaucracy won't give us a straightforward assessment. and The only certain beneficiaries are the scientists who seem to view cancer research funding as a workfare entitlement for the overeducated but underproductive.
and then it goes on to spew more hate about "the feds" stopping the funding of people who challenge the idea that HIV causes AIDS, and by the way what have "the feds" done lately to combat mutations and resistent strains of HIV virus? Shame on them for turning their nose up at new proposals!


Mention of idea that penicillian was discovered by accident with no government backing.
And then the rest ends with: If we are going to take ethical liberties with embryos, we should at least have confidence that the process has a chance of producing something worthwhile. Federally funded research doesn't meet this standard.
You know, as if researching HAS to produce viable results, instead of exploring the possibility of discarding the possibility of viability.

AH, well. what do I know?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]


>>Well with a web pages like foxnews, I can't help but think "well now *that's* not a biased source full of garbage." I'm biased, I admit.

Oh, but Fox only reports; you decide.


>>That said, the link is in fact about the -federally funded- failure of stem cell research to treat, prevent, even fully cure diseases. The article then goes on to blame these federally funded programs, stating outright that "the feds" are flushing money down the toilet.

Flushing money down a rat hole. Same difference. The taxpayer's money; the NCI's rat hole.

>>Mention of idea that penicillian was discovered by accident with no government backing.

Ah, that's a point die-hard worshipers of government funded research seem to always choke on.

>>And then the rest ends with:
You know, as if researching HAS to produce viable results, instead of exploring the possibility of discarding the possibility of viability.

Yes, indeed. The Cancer Industrial Complex is very good at exploring dead ends, with other people's money.

>>AH, well. what do I know?

Not much. You seem to have overlooked the author, Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, a frequently referred to website on these alleged "skeptic" boards, as well as his association as an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. But what do they know? Just a bunch of anti-goverment free market loving radical kooks, eh??? The implication is, that the War on Cancer as implemented by the the Cancer Industry, is, in fact, worthy of the label "Junk Science".

-- Rouser

[bjornart]

Maybe Americans don't get proper cancer treatment for their research bucks. But us Norwegians certainly appear to.

Looking at the raw data I get these results (based on 5 year averages and rounded whichever way I chose):

A decrease of 50% in mortality in the under 29 bracket, a decrease of 30% in the 30-39 bracket, a decrease of 20% in the 40-49 bracket and 0-5% decrease in the 50-59 bracket.

In the 60-69 bracket the mortality has increased by 20% for men and stayed stable for women. In the 70-79 it has increased 30% for men and stayed stable for women. And for those 89 and older it has increased by 50% for men, and stayed stable for women.

Broken down to individual years 1991-2001 the figures for women are slightly worse for the 70-79 and 89+ bracket, and slightly better for men in the 60-69 bracket.

Based on the table (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/01/10/dodsarsak_en/tab-2003-06-20-07-en.html): Sex and age-specific death rates from malignant neoplasms. Underlying cause of death. 1951-2001. Per 100 000 population

The data has been compiled by the official sensus and statistics bureau, Statistics Norway, so I suppose the paranoid can scream about government coverup if they want. To me the numbers are obvious. We're getting better at curing cancer, but people are living longer and/or men are the weaker sex and/or men have cancer inducing habits.

Edited to add: Neoplasm is a fancy word for tumor, I think.
Edited again to add: these figures aren't adjusted for age distribution, and won't be since I don't have access to age distribution data for that whole period.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, .... remains virtually unchanged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>And the evidence for this would be....?

As outlined by Dr. Epstein:

"Reversal in overall mortality rates has been minimal and due largely to a reduction in lung cancer deaths from reduced smoking in men rather than to advances in treatment. Overall five-year survival rates for all cancers have remained virtually static since 1970, from 49 to 54 percent for all races combined, and from 39 to 40 percent for African Americans. Dr. John Bailar, formerly an epidemiologist at the NCI and now chair of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago, has found that reduced mortality rates are more likely the result of earlier detection and diagnosis rather than improved cancer treatments."

"Longer life expectancy cannot explain these increases, as incidence and mortality rates in cancer registries are age-adjusted to reflect these trends."

Excerpted from "The High Stakes of Cancer Prevention" by Samuel Epstein and Liza Gross, Tikkun Magazine, Nov/Dec 2000 www.tikkun.org
and Stop Cancer Before It Starts: How to Win the War on Cancer by Samuel S. Epstein,


-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]


>>Well with a web pages like foxnews, I can't help but think "well now *that's* not a biased source full of garbage." I'm biased, I admit.

Oh, but Fox only reports; you decide.

*****Sure. Fox news reports the biased information that Rouser2 uses to support his mixture of paranoid and unsupportable ideas.*********


>>That said, the link is in fact about the -federally funded- failure of stem cell research to treat, prevent, even fully cure diseases. The article then goes on to blame these federally funded programs, stating outright that "the feds" are flushing money down the toilet.

Flushing money down a rat hole. Same difference. The taxpayer's money; the NCI's rat hole.
*******exploration costs money, Rouser2. Didn't you know that?*********
>>Mention of idea that penicillian was discovered by accident with no government backing.

Ah, that's a point die-hard worshipers of government funded research seem to always choke on.
****not at all. Some of the best medical advances were found by accident. No one is choking on it. Although, it might be pointed out that some of the best medical advances were also found through GOVERNMENT GRANTED STUDIES!!!**** :D

>>And then the rest ends with:
You know, as if researching HAS to produce viable results, instead of exploring the possibility of discarding the possibility of viability.

Yes, indeed. The Cancer Industrial Complex is very good at exploring dead ends, with other people's money.

***Rouser2 has dodged the achievements is has made, as well as other institutions***
>>AH, well. what do I know?

Not much. You seem to have overlooked the author, Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, a frequently referred to website on these alleged "skeptic" boards, as well as his association as an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. But what do they know? Just a bunch of anti-goverment free market loving radical kooks, eh??? The implication is, that the War on Cancer as implemented by the the Cancer Industry, is, in fact, worthy of the label "Junk Science".
[/b]
****http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

That Steven Milloy is NOT an authority on research, cancer, or skepticism in general.
The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative, Rush Limbaugh type, political agenda. It is heavily anti-environmentalist, pro-business and libertarian. Milloy uses "junk science" mainly as a political and polemical term.

That was most pathetic Rouser2.**** [/b]
-- Rouser

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Not much. You seem to have overlooked the author, Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, a frequently referred to website on these alleged "skeptic" boards, as well as his association as an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. But what do they know? Just a bunch of anti-goverment free market loving radical kooks, eh??? The implication is, that the War on Cancer as implemented by the the Cancer Industry, is, in fact, worthy of the label "Junk Science".

-- Rouser

None of the opinions below negate Steven Milloy's point of view but they do indicate that he consistently pushes a particular agenda (as do we all) in the form of editorials.

On his defnition page http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm he highlights a number of uses of junk science. They tend to be of the "don't try to stop me doing stuff" ilk.

He is very anti-big government and that seems to be his beig beef with the cancer industry. He feels that money is being used wastefully and that things should be left to market forces.

This does NOT make him an authority on the medicine of hte thing, he is however offering an opinion on the way it is organised.

- Are some cancer organisations on some kind of gravy train ?
IMO - Hell yes!

- Are all cancer organisations on some kind of gravy train ?
IMO - Hell no!

- Could research into cancer be more efficient ?
IMO - because of the sheer number of people involved in the research of course it could be more efficient

- Have the results been somewhat disappointing ?
IMO - Disappointing to me, but then again many things have been

- Am I sorry that someone close to Rouser died of cancer and that current medical treatment was unable to stop them dying ?
Yes

- Do I believe that this invalidates all cancer treatments ?
Hell no!!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by bjornart [/i]

Re: Norway Cancer Stats:

>>Looking at the raw data I get these results (based on 5 year averages and rounded whichever way I chose):

>>A decrease of 50% in mortality in the under 29 bracket, a decrease of 30% in the 30-39 bracket, a decrease of 20% in the 40-49 bracket and 0-5% decrease in the 50-59 bracket.


To paraphrase Bill Clinton's infamous remark, ("That all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is', is.") it really all depends on the meaing of the word "mortality," or more correctly, the obverse of "mortality," namely, "survival" which is frequently translated as "cure."

For example, if a man is diagnosed with prostate cancer, and lives ten or twenty or 30 years, as often is the case, then his five year survival rate is repeatedly scored as a "cure" every five years he does not die. Fact is, earlier diagnoses would seem to have a significant impact on so-called "survival rates" for cancer.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


A "moronic source" is any source you disagree with, eh? Shall we add to your list the New England Journal of Medicine???


-- Rouser

Too bad you don't actually read the studies, just reports of them in news articles. Nor do you read the source, such as the NEJM. This was also published in the same journal in response:

Winning the war on cancer, NEJM, Volume 337:935-938 September 25, 1997 Number 13.

In their Special Article, provocatively entitled "Cancer Undefeated," Bailar and Gornik (May 29 issue)1 acknowledge the substantial changes in mortality due to cancer during the past 20 years in men and women under the age of 55 years. The authors note that for this age group, there has been a 25 percent decrease in all cancer-related deaths, a 23 percent reduction in deaths from breast cancer, and a slight but definite decline in mortality from lung cancer; for persons of all ages, there has been approximately a 15 percent drop in deaths from colorectal cancer.

...

Bailar and Gornik reveal their underlying bias by choosing to ignore the influence of treatment on the reduction in cancer-related mortality among persons under the age of 55 years. During the past 25 years, previously fatal conditions, such as advanced testicular cancer,2 Hodgkin's disease,3 and childhood leukemia,4 have become curable in more than 70 percent of cases, and up to 50 percent of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphomas may now be cured.5 Prospective, randomized trials have shown that postoperative (i.e., adjuvant) therapy leads to a 25 to 30 percent reduction in mortality among patients with locally advanced breast cancer 6 or colorectal cancer.7 Reductions in cancer-related mortality clearly have multifactorial explanations, but for Bailar and Gornik to dismiss widely used, well-accepted advances in treatment is not only absurd but also potentially damaging to patients with newly diagnosed malignant conditions, who may be influenced by the publicity surrounding this extreme view to reject life-saving treatment. . . .


Robert J. Mayer, M.D.
Lowell E. Schnipper, M.D.
American Society of Clinical Oncology
Alexandria, VA 22314




Source: nejm winning war on cancer 1997 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/13/935)

Also, note that the stats I provided in the other thread that clearly show decreases in cancer death rates in age groups 0-55 since 1975 are much more recent than those analyzed by Bailar 7 years ago.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Yes, indeed. The Cancer Industrial Complex is very good at exploring dead ends, with other people's money.


How do you know it's a dead end until you've explored it?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Not much. You seem to have overlooked the author, Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, a frequently referred to website on these alleged "skeptic" boards, as well as his association as an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. But what do they know? Just a bunch of anti-goverment free market loving radical kooks, eh??? The implication is, that the War on Cancer as implemented by the the Cancer Industry, is, in fact, worthy of the label "Junk Science".

-- Rouser

Does Milloy say anywhere in that article that cancer research should be labeled "junk science"? Of course not. That absurdity is only implied by you via your prejudice and ignorance. Typical rouser argument - 100% bombast, 0% evidence.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Suezoled
[B]

Just reiterating for Rouser2's sake...
[quote]

****http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

That Steven Milloy is NOT an authority on research, cancer, or skepticism in general.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative, Rush Limbaugh type, political agenda. It is heavily anti-environmentalist, pro-business and libertarian. Milloy uses "junk science" mainly as a political and polemical term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Also, note that the stats I provided in the other thread that clearly show decreases in cancer death rates in age groups 0-55 since 1975 are much more recent than those analyzed by Bailar 7 years ago.


Yeah, well the whole point is the numbers put out are routinely flim-flammed. Perhaps some of the dead revived since 1997? But you and the other critics miss the point made in the orginal piece, namely, that although there has been some progress with some cancers, overall, nothing really has changed. Incidence and mortality figures are age adjusted, and thus, there has been virtually little or no overall progress of the War on Cancer since first declared in 1971, upteen billion dollars later. The only real cure for most cancers is to not get it in the first place. An ounce of prevention...?????

Cancer Undefeated," Bailar and Gornik (NEJM; May 29 issue)

"Age-adjusted mortality due to cancer in 1994 (200.9 per 100,000 population) was 6.0 percent higher than the rate in 1970 (189.6 per 100,000). After decades of steady increases, the age-adjusted mortality due to all malignant neoplasms plateaued, then decreased by 1.0 percent from 1991 to 1994."

"Conclusions The war against cancer is far from over. Observed changes in mortality due to cancer primarily reflect changing incidence or early detection."

Comment: In other words, it's smoke and mirrors, just as I said.

" The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/22/1569


-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Yeah, well the whole point is the numbers put out are routinely flim-flammed.

No, that's just your inane claim, without evidence, of course.


Originally posted by Rouser2
But you and the other critics miss the point made in the orginal piece, namely, that although there has been some progress with some cancers, overall, nothing really has changed. Incidence and mortality figures are age adjusted, and thus, there has been virtually little or no overall progress of the War on Cancer since first declared in 1971, upteen billion dollars later.

Ah, the famous rouser weaseling starts again. First it was there has been no progress against cancer, now the admission that there has been. You slowly catch on...


Originally posted by Rouser2
"Conclusions The war against cancer is far from over. Observed changes in mortality due to cancer primarily reflect changing incidence or early detection."

Comment: In other words, it's smoke and mirrors, just as I said.

-- Rouser

No, that's only Bailar's assertion, and yours, both of which have been roundly refuted.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Ah, the famous rouser weaseling starts again. First it was there has been no progress against cancer, now the admission that there has been. You slowly catch on...

No, my original assertion was to the effect that the postiive stats as versus the negative stats make so-called cancer cure "progress' virtually a wash. I think the umpteen billions extracted from taxpayers each and every year for alleged cancer research would do more for humanity if left in the pockets of the taxpayers to do with as they so choose.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by richardm [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2

Yes, indeed. The Cancer Industrial Complex is very good at exploring dead ends, with other people's money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>How do you know it's a dead end until you've explored it?

Oh, just a pretty good jaded, cynical gut feelling hunch gleaned from long years of wisdom concerning anything government touches with other people's money. Just think of the impact on all of the Dr. Strangeloves involved in the Cancer research business if there really was a legit cancer cure-all found tomorrow. The future viability of government funded cancer research is only to be found in the continued pursuit of logical dead-ends. When they start spending 95% of their reseach money on the proven road to progress, namely "prevention," that will be the day that hell freezes over.

-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by richardm [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2

Yes, indeed. The Cancer Industrial Complex is very good at exploring dead ends, with other people's money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>How do you know it's a dead end until you've explored it?

Oh, just a pretty good jaded, cynical gut feelling hunch gleaned from long years of wisdom concerning anything government touches with other people's money. Just think of the impact on all of the Dr. Strangeloves involved in the Cancer research business if there really was a legit cancer cure-all found tomorrow. The future viability of government funded cancer research is only to be found in the continued pursuit of logical dead-ends. When they start spending 95% of their reseach money on the proven road to progress, namely "prevention," that will be the day that hell freezes over.

-- Rouser

So in other words, you don't know a dang thing.

[Prester John]

Rouser said:
Just think of the impact on all of the Dr. Strangeloves involved in the Cancer research business if there really was a legit cancer cure-all found tomorrow.

I love sweeping generalisations, especially when they are made by someone who probably has never met a single real scientist in his life. Nothing like a bit of demonisation aswell to bolster the moral highground occupied as well.

[Rolfe]

Yeah, but Rouser thinks that the "Dr. Strangeloves" are inhuman monsters who aren't at risk of getting cancer themselves, and who don't have families and friends who might get cancer, and indeed don't even know anyone with cancer.

Yeah, they just keep taking that money, and suppress everything that looks like it might benefit the human race to make sure they'll never be out of a job.

:crazy:

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Not only that, it seems he hasn't even bothered to watch "Doctor Strangelove" :D