Rudy Tells Critics to Kiss His RINO Ass!

P

Patriot Games

Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/giuliani_cancer/2007/11/02/46280.html

Giuliani Defends His Cancer Stats

Friday, November 2, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Rudy Giuliani is defending the survival rates he quotes when
talking about his prostate cancer, amid criticism he understates the figures
and makes unfair comparisons.

In a radio ad running this week in New Hampshire, Giuliani says: "My chance
of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United
States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only
44 percent under socialized medicine."

The American Cancer Society says the survival rates are actually higher and
it's misleading to compare the two countries.

Regardless, Giuliani said Friday, his point is clear.

"Even if you want to quibble about the statistics, you find me the person
who leaves the United States and goes to England for prostate cancer
treatment, and I'd like to meet that person," he told reporters in
Washington.

The American Cancer Society says five-year survival rates were 95 percent in
the U.S. and 60 percent in the United Kingdom, which includes Britain, in
1993-1995, the most recent time period with data to compare.

Rates are even higher today _ 99 percent in the U.S. and an estimated 74
percent in the U.K.

Moreover, experts from the American Cancer Society say it's misleading to
compare the countries at all.

American men are far more likely to undergo screening tests that detect the
disease in its earliest stages. That means U.S. survival rates include many
men whose lives probably weren't in danger _ and whose cancers may never
have been noticed in the United Kingdom.

Mortality rates in the two countries are closer _ 15 of every 100,000 people
die of prostate cancer in the U.K., compared with 12 of 100,000 in the U.S.

Giuliani defended his figures as "absolutely accurate" at the time of his
prostate cancer treatment in 2000. "Those statistics have changed slightly
today," he said Friday.

The former New York mayor got his numbers from the City Journal, a quarterly
magazine published by the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank.

Giuliani made his remarks at a Capitol Hill news conference with Republican
Sens. Kit Bond of Missouri and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, who endorsed
Giuliani this week.
 
Patriot Games wrote:
> http://www.newsmax.com/politics/giuliani_cancer/2007/11/02/46280.html
>
> Giuliani Defends His Cancer Stats
>
> Friday, November 2, 2007
>
> WASHINGTON -- Rudy Giuliani is defending the survival rates he quotes
> when talking about his prostate cancer, amid criticism he understates
> the figures and makes unfair comparisons.
>
> In a radio ad running this week in New Hampshire, Giuliani says: "My
> chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in
> the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer
> in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine."
>
> The American Cancer Society says the survival rates are actually higher
> and it's misleading to compare the two countries.
>
> Regardless, Giuliani said Friday, his point is clear.
>
> "Even if you want to quibble about the statistics, you find me the
> person who leaves the United States and goes to England for prostate
> cancer treatment, and I'd like to meet that person," he told reporters
> in Washington.
>
> The American Cancer Society says five-year survival rates were 95
> percent in the U.S. and 60 percent in the United Kingdom, which includes
> Britain, in 1993-1995, the most recent time period with data to compare.
>
> Rates are even higher today _ 99 percent in the U.S. and an estimated 74
> percent in the U.K.
>
> Moreover, experts from the American Cancer Society say it's misleading
> to compare the countries at all.
>
> American men are far more likely to undergo screening tests that detect
> the disease in its earliest stages. That means U.S. survival rates
> include many men whose lives probably weren't in danger _ and whose
> cancers may never have been noticed in the United Kingdom.


I can speak from personal experience on that one.
I just had a prostate biopsy last month, because my blood prostate
specific antigen (PSA) level was just 10% higher than normal.

And like millions of other men with false positive PSA readings, my
biopsy was negative. Yet it's damned expensive, so all that money is
wasted.

But the answer to that is to develop more accurate screening tests.

BTW, a prostate biopsy is NOT something you ever want to do just for the
hell of it. The side effects last for weeks:

Visualize you're sitting in front of a roaring fire with your
Significant Other, a bottle of wine, you kiss, one thing leads to
another--and you end up ejaculating BLOOD. Spoils the whole romantic
evening, doesn't it? :)


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
 
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ina0u6as185ed@corp.supernews.com...
> Patriot Games wrote:
>> http://www.newsmax.com/politics/giuliani_cancer/2007/11/02/46280.html
>> Giuliani Defends His Cancer Stats
>> Friday, November 2, 2007

> I can speak from personal experience on that one.
> I just had a prostate biopsy last month, because my blood prostate
> specific antigen (PSA) level was just 10% higher than normal.
> And like millions of other men with false positive PSA readings, my biopsy
> was negative. Yet it's damned expensive, so all that money is wasted.


Wasted? If your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
early treatment and you were NOT DEAD (as you would be in England where they
DO NOT do early cancer screening) you wouldn't be calling it a waste.

> But the answer to that is to develop more accurate screening tests.
> BTW, a prostate biopsy is NOT something you ever want to do just for the
> hell of it. The side effects last for weeks:
> Visualize you're sitting in front of a roaring fire with your Significant
> Other, a bottle of wine, you kiss, one thing leads to another--and you end
> up ejaculating BLOOD. Spoils the whole romantic evening, doesn't it? :)


Yep, that's nasty. I didn't need to know that!
 
On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:13ina0u6as185ed@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Patriot Games wrote:
> >>http://www.newsmax.com/politics/giuliani_cancer/2007/11/02/46280.html
> >> Giuliani Defends His Cancer Stats
> >> Friday, November 2, 2007

> > I can speak from personal experience on that one.
> > I just had aprostatebiopsy last month, because my bloodprostate
> > specific antigen (PSA) level was just 10% higher than normal.
> > And like millions of other men with false positive PSA readings, my biopsy
> > was negative. Yet it's damned expensive, so all that money is wasted.

>
> Wasted? If your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
> early treatment and you were NOT DEAD (as you would be in England where they
> DO NOT do early cancer screening) you wouldn't be calling it a waste.
>
> > But the answer to that is to develop more accurate screening tests.
> > BTW, aprostatebiopsy is NOT something you ever want to do just for the
> > hell of it. The side effects last for weeks:
> > Visualize you're sitting in front of a roaring fire with your Significant
> > Other, a bottle of wine, you kiss, one thing leads to another--and you end
> > up ejaculating BLOOD. Spoils the whole romantic evening, doesn't it? :)

>
> Yep, that's nasty. I didn't need to know that!


The chances of dying from early stage prostate cancer is quite small.
Many men walk about with it for decades before they die of something
else.
 
<barkerplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194192132.517390.32130@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13ina0u6as185ed@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Patriot Games wrote:
>> >>http://www.newsmax.com/politics/giuliani_cancer/2007/11/02/46280.html
>> >> Giuliani Defends His Cancer Stats
>> >> Friday, November 2, 2007
>> > I can speak from personal experience on that one.
>> > I just had aprostatebiopsy last month, because my bloodprostate
>> > specific antigen (PSA) level was just 10% higher than normal.
>> > And like millions of other men with false positive PSA readings, my
>> > biopsy
>> > was negative. Yet it's damned expensive, so all that money is wasted.

>> Wasted? If your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
>> early treatment and you were NOT DEAD (as you would be in England where
>> they
>> DO NOT do early cancer screening) you wouldn't be calling it a waste.
>> > But the answer to that is to develop more accurate screening tests.
>> > BTW, aprostatebiopsy is NOT something you ever want to do just for the
>> > hell of it. The side effects last for weeks:
>> > Visualize you're sitting in front of a roaring fire with your
>> > Significant
>> > Other, a bottle of wine, you kiss, one thing leads to another--and you
>> > end
>> > up ejaculating BLOOD. Spoils the whole romantic evening, doesn't it?
>> > :)

>> Yep, that's nasty. I didn't need to know that!

> The chances of dying from early stage prostate cancer is quite small.
> Many men walk about with it for decades before they die of something
> else.


Obesity Boosts Prostate Cancer Mortality
Obese men with prostate cancer are more than twice as likely to die of the
disease than their leaner peers and have more than triple the risk that the
cancer will spread beyond their prostates
http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.../Obesity_Boosts_Prostate_Cancer_Mortality.htm

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. Black
males have a dramatically increased risk for prostate cancer death compared
to other ethnic groups.
http://courses.unt.edu/phed1000/mcdrp/tsld024.htm
 
On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:13ina0u6as185ed@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Patriot Games wrote:


> > I can speak from personal experience on that one.
> > I just had a prostate biopsy last month, because my blood prostate
> > specific antigen (PSA) level was just 10% higher than normal.
> > And like millions of other men with false positive PSA readings, my biopsy
> > was negative. Yet it's damned expensive, so all that money is wasted.

>
> Wasted? If your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
> early treatment and you were NOT DEAD (as you would be in England where they
> DO NOT do early cancer screening) you wouldn't be calling it a waste.
>


OTOH if your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
early treatment and you DIED DURING SURGERY (as you wouldn't in
England where they DO NOT do early cancer screening, although they do
really), what would you call it then? And what if in ten years time
they reanalysed your prostatic cancer and figured out with new tests
that your cancer would have had a near zero capacity to kill? Then
how'd ya feel in your heavenly choir, hmmmm?
 
<barkerplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194650676.367868.248870@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13ina0u6as185ed@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Patriot Games wrote:
>> > I can speak from personal experience on that one.
>> > I just had a prostate biopsy last month, because my blood prostate
>> > specific antigen (PSA) level was just 10% higher than normal.
>> > And like millions of other men with false positive PSA readings, my
>> > biopsy
>> > was negative. Yet it's damned expensive, so all that money is wasted.

>> Wasted? If your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
>> early treatment and you were NOT DEAD (as you would be in England where
>> they
>> DO NOT do early cancer screening) you wouldn't be calling it a waste.

> OTOH if your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
> early treatment and you DIED DURING SURGERY (as you wouldn't in
> England where they DO NOT do early cancer screening, although they do
> really), what would you call it then? And what if in ten years time
> they reanalysed your prostatic cancer and figured out with new tests
> that your cancer would have had a near zero capacity to kill? Then
> how'd ya feel in your heavenly choir, hmmmm?


HAHAHAHAHHHAHA!!!!

The risk of dying during prostate surgery has to be MUCH LESS than the risk
of dying from undetected advanced prostrate cancer!!
 
On Nov 11, 10:07 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> <barkerpl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194650676.367868.248870@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:13ina0u6as185ed@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > Patriot Games wrote:
> >> > I can speak from personal experience on that one.
> >> > I just had a prostate biopsy last month, because my blood prostate
> >> > specific antigen (PSA) level was just 10% higher than normal.
> >> > And like millions of other men with false positive PSA readings, my
> >> > biopsy
> >> > was negative. Yet it's damned expensive, so all that money is wasted.
> >> Wasted? If your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
> >> early treatment and you were NOT DEAD (as you would be in England where
> >> they
> >> DO NOT do early cancer screening) you wouldn't be calling it a waste.

> > OTOH if your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
> > early treatment and you DIED DURING SURGERY (as you wouldn't in
> > England where they DO NOT do early cancer screening, although they do
> > really), what would you call it then? And what if in ten years time
> > they reanalysed your prostatic cancer and figured out with new tests
> > that your cancer would have had a near zero capacity to kill? Then
> > how'd ya feel in your heavenly choir, hmmmm?

>
> HAHAHAHAHHHAHA!!!!
>
> The risk of dying during prostate surgery has to be MUCH LESS than the risk
> of dying from undetected advanced prostrate cancer!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I saw some jackass supporter of Giuliani in City Journal claiming men
with prostate cancer have a 99% 5 year survival rate. Which must be
better than men without cancer.
 
<barkerplace@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194821284.114009.158720@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 10:07 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> <barkerpl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1194650676.367868.248870@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:13ina0u6as185ed@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > Patriot Games wrote:
>> >> > I can speak from personal experience on that one.
>> >> > I just had a prostate biopsy last month, because my blood prostate
>> >> > specific antigen (PSA) level was just 10% higher than normal.
>> >> > And like millions of other men with false positive PSA readings, my
>> >> > biopsy
>> >> > was negative. Yet it's damned expensive, so all that money is
>> >> > wasted.
>> >> Wasted? If your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted
>> >> in
>> >> early treatment and you were NOT DEAD (as you would be in England
>> >> where
>> >> they
>> >> DO NOT do early cancer screening) you wouldn't be calling it a waste.
>> > OTOH if your tests were POSITIVE and your early screening resulted in
>> > early treatment and you DIED DURING SURGERY (as you wouldn't in
>> > England where they DO NOT do early cancer screening, although they do
>> > really), what would you call it then? And what if in ten years time
>> > they reanalysed your prostatic cancer and figured out with new tests
>> > that your cancer would have had a near zero capacity to kill? Then
>> > how'd ya feel in your heavenly choir, hmmmm?

>> HAHAHAHAHHHAHA!!!!
>> The risk of dying during prostate surgery has to be MUCH LESS than the
>> risk
>> of dying from undetected advanced prostrate cancer!!

> I saw some jackass supporter of Giuliani in City Journal claiming men
> with prostate cancer have a 99% 5 year survival rate. Which must be
> better than men without cancer.


http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
 
Back
Top