And may I ask again: do you know of a study that proves that the 50+% reduction in PC death rate that began with wide spread PSA testing and early detection in 1992 is mostly from improved treatment, and none or very little from early detection?
Your earlier question was quite different...and in fact it didn't make sense so I ignored it. You wrote: "Would the treatments that we have today still cut the death rates in half compared to 1992 even if we delay treatment by say 5 years? Is there a study that proves that?"
Moreover, this 2nd, different question doesn't make sense either.
There's an old saying:
The easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes is that real scientists never use the words "scientific proof" because they know no such thing exists; anyone using the words "proof," "prove" and "proven" in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
Proofs are not the currency of science. You've been a member here since 2014; I'm a little surprised this fact hasn't caught on with you yet. I hope this explanation helps...not only in understanding this thread, but many others, too.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.
The conclusion of the currently accepted theory on PSA screening (as well as the "answer" to your convoluted question) is contained in the original poster's link...if the benefits of PSA routine screening outweighed the harms, the conclusion would be different. Not having any sort of scientific foundation, you might choose to think that there's a conspiracy theory out there which is making all this up...but that's not what the rational scientific community believes. To each their own.
Oh no! Please not another "scientist" telling me how I don't understand science! Your apparent conclusion that there is no advantage to early diagnosis and treatment, and that the plummeting death rates that started the very year that the testing and early diagnosis started is all really do to a huge advance in treatment that started in the same year, is what does not make any sense. Your apparent conclusion- which you seem to think is a scientific conclusion- that it is all the treatments with no help from early diagnoses, that is what makes no sense. Unless you have- if not proof- evidence? Some studies?
You are side tracking/building a straw man with an argument about
"telling the TRUE scientists from the hacks"by saying the hacks demand proof when no proof can ever exist in science. Yet, you make dogmatic statements such as "It's really quite simple: total deaths went down, but that change is attributable to improvements in treatments and not to PSA screening.". Well, if you have no proof, because proof can never exist, then how can you be so sure that is the explanation?
I don't think I will be catching on to something that makes no common sense, if by that you mean I should catch on to the theory that despite death rates plummeting from the year that PSA testing(and the early diagnosis that goes with it) started that it is not due to the early diagnosis but only due to improved treatments which apparently became widely available the very same year. I think I should have reprinted an article I read recently titled something lie "Science's War on Medicine" but I did not do so because I did not want to start a bunch of stuff. But maybe I should?
I think you ignored my earlier question, and my 2nd version of it, and went off on a straw man building adventure about
how unscientific I am, because you do not want to answer that question. And you still have not done so. I will try a third time. Do you, or do you not, believe- that there is an advantage to early diagnosis of cancer, PC as well as other cancers? Or do you, conversely, feel we will do just as well if our cancers- and especially PC- is diagnosed at an advanced stage?
Do you feel that your odds of long term survival if you were diagnosed with wide spread mets and a PSA of 2000 is the same as it would be if you were diagnosed while still completely contained in the prostate? Please, just a "yes, odds of survival are the same, or "no odds of survival are not the same" this time, rather than some ad hominem about
me being an scientific hack compared to you.
Man, I hate to see a simple discussion deteriorate into accusations against some one with a different opinion. Why does this happen so often? But I sure do long for your yes or no answer!
BTW, even though you say about
me "Not having any sort of scientific foundation", and I believe you used the word "hack", I actually did have a biology, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics, heck even botany class or two along the way to getting my degrees. 1st in Nursing and later during a degree in anesthesia. All followed by a required minimum 20 hours a year of continuing education X 36 years in anesthesia in order to keep my license. Many of those classes claiming to be about
science stuff like gas laws and such and stuff they called "medical science". So despite my obvious lack of understanding all of this science stuff, I actually do have at least a minor scientific foundation. As I once asked another fellow here who tends to make such statements about
other folks, if you don't mind me asking, what is your scientific foundation? He never did answer me, but maybe you will, along with answering the previous question? But no matter. Even if you have a Ph.D. in Astrophysics or biology or chemistry, your concept that the plunge in death rates had zero to do with early diagnoses(which you appear to believe) seems illogical.
And if you don't have proof- because there can never be proof in science- do you at least have strong evidence? Maybe evidence can exist? Maybe there was a huge advance in treatment that occurred in 1992 that accounts for all improvements in death rates that started in 1992? You probably have a study showing strong scientific evidence of that. That is all I need, is the study or studies. Do you have them? Being unscientific as I am, if you have strong studies I will go ahead and call that proof, as we laymen are prone to do.
I hope the thread does not get closed. I guess I should not have responded.
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 3/8/2018 7:30:13 PM (GMT-7)