mnealtx 0 #101 September 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteYou infer that the 'non-fatal' cancers skew the data in favor of the US, when you have NO proof that 'non-fatal' cancers were not included in the Eurocare study. No, I did not imply such a thing. Such a conclusion would be absolutely absurd considering none of the nations have a zero survival rate. Bullcrap. Your own words: "higher cancer survivor rates of the US compared to the EU include minor cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable" How do you know those same minor cancers WERENT included in the Eurocare study? PROVE YOUR ASSERTION, counselor. QuoteYour own source, however, implies that the survival rate in the US is biased due to including more cases that are treated that don't necessarily require treatment. Like I said, it's funny how you thought the source was credible until it was pointed out that it does not imply what you think it implies, after which, you suddenly require more supporting sources. No - I have no problems with the credibility of the source - only the credibility of your assumption. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #102 September 24, 2008 QuoteBullcrap. Your own words: "higher cancer survivor rates of the US compared to the EU include minor cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable" How do you know those same minor cancers WERENT included in the Eurocare study? PROVE YOUR ASSERTION, counselor. Actually, if you read my post, what you attribute to me is a restatement of what was said in your own source. If you read your source, you will understand the bias better. QuoteNo - I have no problems with the credibility of the source - only the credibility of your assumption. I didn't assume anything. I restated what your source said. If you have a problem with the assertion, the problem is with your source. I can't help you there. You're the one that posted it. It's not my fault you failed to read and/or understand it first.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 September 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteBullcrap. Your own words: "higher cancer survivor rates of the US compared to the EU include minor cancers that might not even need treatment to be survivable" How do you know those same minor cancers WERENT included in the Eurocare study? PROVE YOUR ASSERTION, counselor. Actually, if you read my post, what you attribute to me is a restatement of what was said in your own source. If you read your source, you will understand the bias better. QuoteNo - I have no problems with the credibility of the source - only the credibility of your assumption. I didn't assume anything. I restated what your source said. If you have a problem with the assertion, the problem is with your source. I can't help you there. You're the one that posted it. It's not my fault you failed to read and/or understand it first. Incorrect again - the doctor said that we show a higher survival rate due to earlier detection and treatment, even of cancers that may not be fatal. YOU said that the US numbers COMPARED to the EU numbers include minor cancers that skew the results - I'm saying that you have NO proof that minor cancers were NOT included in the EU study. So, yet again - provide your proof.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #104 September 24, 2008 QuoteSo, yet again - provide your proof. Dude, read your own source. That's where the information came from. No matter how many times you deny it, that fact remains. Edit to add clicky so it won't be too hard for you to find your source's quote and my paraphrase, which implied nothing that wasn't implied by your source.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
