Doug Anderson (ethelthelogremovethis{at}yahoo.com) writes:
> dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
> 
>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelogremovethis{at}yahoo.com) writes:
>> > dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>> > 
>> >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelogremovethis{at}yahoo.com) claims, again with
>> >> NO proof for any claim:
>> >> > dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>> > 
>> > (snip non-responsive text and personal attacks)
>> 
>> Translation" Snip material I CANNOT debate/refute "..
>> 
>> How... Feminist of you.
>>  
>> >> >> How many " runs for prostate cancer "
have you seen Teevee ads for ?
>> >> >> As many men die from prostate cancer as do women
die from breast cancer.
>> >> >> But, the latter gets ten times the health
research funding that the
>> >> >> former gets.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Could it be because the survival rate for prostate
cancer is now 97% in
>> >> > the US?
>> >> > 
>> >> > (see http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/prostate.htm).
>> >> > 
>> >> > In other words, we _know_ what to do about prostate cancer.
>> >> 
>> >> Yet, as many men still DIE from prostate cancer as women die from
>> >> breast cancer.
>> >> 
>> >> So, if your claim were true,
>> > 
>> > It is the CDC's claim, nt mine.
>> 
>> How do they account for the similar number of annual deaths, then ?
> 
> It is pretty easy.  There is a higher _rate_ of prostate cancer.

In spite of which, there is a rate of spending on breast cancer
thats ten times higher.

Why is that, eh ?

> But if you are diagnosed early you are almost certain to survive (hence
> the 97% rate even though quite a few people are _not_ diagnosed
> early).

None of which addresses the *fact* that the death counts for prostate
cancer and breast cancer are very similar, yet the spending on research
for breast cancer is ten times higher than the spending for prostate
cancer.

Since you were UNABLE to refute this, it stands as fact. A fact
you evade, again and again.
 
>> >> then we could say *the same exact thing
>> >> about breast cancer*, so there would be NO need to run
all the media
>> >> ads for women's " cure " runs, while having no
such runs for men.
>> > 
>> > We can't say the same thing actually.  
>> 
>> And, her comes the Femi-excuse.
>>  
>> > We know how to diagnose and how to treat prostate cancer.  While
>> > treatment of breast cancer has made great strides, diagnosis has not
>> > made such great ones, and in neither case is it as well understood as
>> > prostate cancer.
>> 
>> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
> 
> The internet is a wealth of information about cancer diagnosis and
> treatment. 

YOUR claim, YOUR burden of proof.

> For better information you can go to medical journals.  If
> you are actually _interested_ in this, which I doubt, it is easy to
> learn about.  

Proof I have not ? None ? Claims fail... again.
 
> It is more complicated than a sound-bite though. 

Not on this specific point. It is a fact, or not. 

> So you can decide
> you want to learn about this or not - it is up to you.  I'm not
> interested in summarizing the literature here.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.
 
> (more non-responsiveness and attacks deleted)

Translation: " More facts that Andre provided and Misandrist Anderson
CANNOT refute. "

Got it.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/7/05 4:05:25 PM ---