Rountine campaign lies

This Krugman column reminded me of the strange role of lies in politics. With some they just roll along. Everyone knows them but they’re not election issues. Then others become election issues. Read the Krugman column below the fold, but it put me in mind of a very strange interview on the 7.30 report. Kerry O’Brien was interviewing Swan and (I think) he raised the claim that 70 percent of the ALP front bench are former union officials. Swan said that the number included him but he’d never been a union official of any kind. Kerry brushed this off as a minor detail – and indeed Swan accepted this premise and went on defending the ALP against the point – which presumably stood as a revised figure of 67 percent union officials or whatever.

What gives? Since when was a research mistake (at best) then continued as a routine lie in politics something that the media plays along with?

Krugman is beneath the fold.

Postscript: this story is written on a false premise as my comment 12 makes clear. The 70% union officials claim appears to be correct. Krugman’s comments survive. NG

My chance of surviving prostate cancer and thank God I was cured of it in the United States? Eighty-two percent, says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.

It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isnt. And thereby hangs a tale one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, Im sorry to say, about whats wrong with political news coverage. … Mr. Giulianis claim is wrong on multiple levels bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.

Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers… And theyre just wrong.

You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The … chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America. So Mr. Giulianis supposed killer statistic about the defects of socialized medicine is entirely false…

Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.

As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: The Clinton health care plan which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system. Of course, this hasnt stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears…

But heres what I dont understand: Why isnt Mr. Giulianis behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?

For better or (mostly) for worse, political reporting is dominated by the search for the supposedly revealing incident, in which the candidate … reveals his true character. And this incident surely seems to fit the bill.

Leave aside the fact that Mr. Giuliani is simply lying about what the Democrats are proposing; after all, Mitt Romney is doing the same thing.

But health care is the pre-eminent domestic issue for the 2008 election. Surely the American people deserve candidates who do their homework on the subject.

Yet what we actually have is the front-runner for the Republican nomination apparently basing his health-care views on something he read somewhere, which he believed without double-checking because it confirmed his prejudices.

By rights, then, Mr. Giulianis false claims about prostate cancer which he has … continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they arent being treated that way.

To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But its only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillarys laugh and John Edwardss haircut.

And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, its not in dispute. Its not the case that Democrats say theyre not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they arent.

The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things … that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.

And from another blog. (Hat Tip – Mark Thoma).

The Rudy campaign has now blithely confirmed that they are going to keep on telling this lie [about health care]. …[C]heck out this little nugget at the end of the piece about Rudy spokesperson Maria Comella’s response to all this:

Asked if Mr. Giuliani would continue to repeat the statistic, and if the advertisement would continue to run, Ms. Comella responded by e-mail: “Yes. We will.”

Memo to media: Rudy and his campaign think you’re a bunch of chumps. … Maybe it’s time to get serious about what this guy is up to….

This entry was posted in Economics and public policy, Politics - international, Politics - national. Bookmark the permalink.

169 Responses to Rountine campaign lies

  1. Jc says:

    Guilani isn’t lying. Krugman is as usual as he never staright with the facts.

    Here is what Rudi said:

    I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago. 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.

    This is the authors explanation

    Let me be very clear about why the Giuliani campaign is correct: the percentage of people diagnosed with prostate cancer who die from it is much higher in Britain than in the United States. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports on both the incidence of prostate cancer in member nations and the number of resultant deaths. According to OECD data published in 2000, 49 Britons per 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 28 per 100,000 died of it. This means that 57 percent of Britons diagnosed with prostate cancer died of it; and, consequently, that just 43 percent survived. Economist John Goodman, in Lives at Risk, arrives at precisely the same conclusion: In the United States, slightly less than one in five people diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die. None of this is surprising: in the UK, only about 40 percent of cancer patients see an oncologist, and historically, the government has been reluctant to fund new (and often better) cancer drugs.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-10-31dg.html

    Here’s another example of how NHS kills:

    “Britain, with one of the worlds worst cholesterol problems, began prescribing statins years late, and much less aggressively than it should have. Nine years after the first statin had been licensed in the United States, Britains National Health Service was still grappling with the fact that it couldnt afford the drugs, and its doctors were prescribing statins to only a small fraction of the people needing them. ”

    The author also says:

    “Since the publication of my City Journal essay, the prestigious journal Lancet Oncology has released a landmark study on cancer survival rates. Its findings:

    The American five-year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99 percent, the European average is 78 percent, and the Scottish and Welsh rate is close to 71 percent. (English data were incomplete.)
    For the 16 different types of cancer examined in the study, American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent, compared with only 47 percent for European men. Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
    American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent for European women. For women, only five European countries have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
    These data, recently released, are now the best available. They too confirm Giulianis point: he was fortunate to be treated here.”

    Dr. David Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

    It’s always best to fat check anything Krugman ever says as he simply can’t ever be trusted to tell truth.

    A slightly more market based system 1
    Krugman and Socialized Medicine 0

  2. lois says:

    Jc, just for fun, try to refute Gratzer’s argument. It may help to Google ‘lead time bias’, ‘prostate serum antigen’ and likelihood that prostate cancer, once detected, will actually lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Good luck.

  3. JC,

    Why write what you’ve written as a ‘fact check’. After all, Krugman cites the same sources? And says they’re biased and explains why – as lois makes clear.

  4. Jc says:

    Why write what i have written?

    Because this is another example of Krugman’s thorough dishonesty in misusing fact and figures.

    Rudi was right. His account of long term surviving in the UK campared to the US is much lower.

    Surviving prostate cancer in the UK is frought with danger compared to the US. That’s a fact.

    As I said:

    Krugamn’s honesty and socialist medicine 0

    A slightly more market based system 1

    Her

  5. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    It would seem about 20% of the present ALP frontbench were Union leader/Bosses.

    Some others worked for union but they also worked in other areas as well.

    Big deal.

    A union boss has to get his hands dirty with financial budgeting, project management, funds management issues as well as being on top of a whole realm of legislative issues.

    Which is why Union bosses usually make better policians than QCs for instance.

    Yes the liberal party ‘facts’ are wrong as shown by Costello’s interview on Insiders but even BArie Cassiday couldn’t follow up.

    I do like JC attempting to argue against Kruggers and putting his foot in it

  6. lois says:

    “The Manhattan Institute is not a conservative group and Krugman says. Hes lying. The Manhatan Institute is basically a libertarian group.”

    It’s propped up by oil companies, financial firms and shady billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife. If it makes you comfortable to think of it as “libertarian”, fine; in practice it’s a factory for Republican hatchet jobs.

  7. haiku says:

    JC,
    if your (and Rudy’s) claims are true, then this will show up in longevity statistics, as the UK has had socialised medicine for many years. With cancer being a major cause of death, something as dramatic as twice the success rate in the US compared to the UK will work its way through to overall longevity.
    Indeed, you could probably do some back of the envelope calculations to demonstrate the impact that the failure of socialised medicine would have on expected life span … unfortunately for you, you will then run into the facts.

    Note: this is not an argument that the NHS is an ideal model for health care. It is merely a simple way to demonstrate that your claims are bollocks.

  8. Jc says:

    Mortality rates in the US are affectd by different things. Violence in the underclasses being one example.

    Read the link. An asian woman living in the US has a possble life span of 87 years.

    The UK has only recently begun to introduce oncologists!

    When comparing stats it would always be good to compare like with like even for races and economics class.

    In sum:

    If you live a healthy lifestyle… exercise, stay away from violent neighbourhoods you have more chance of living a longer lifespan with the medical system on offer in the US.

    To be prefectly frank, you don’t often hear of many Americans going to the UK to have life prolonging medical procedures or drugs administered, do you?

  9. Robert Lee says:

    JC said, “The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports on both the incidence of prostate cancer in member nations and the number of resultant deaths. According to OECD data published in 2000, 49 Britons per 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 28 per 100,000 died of it”

    Where is the source for the OECD statistic?

    JC said, In the United States, slightly less than one in five people diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die.

    Where is the source for the statement that 20% of people in the US dies of the disease compared with 57% for the UK?

    What is the citation for the Lancet Oncology journal article you quote?

    Without citations and sources to fact check your statements your post is just a series of unsupported assertions and isn’t worth the time of day to an intelligent audience.

  10. Bill Maher at HBO’s Real Time has a short take on Giuliani’s claim, suggesting that Rudi got his figures from the same place they took the cancer out of – his “ass”.

  11. Norm at onegoodmove.org/1gm has a clip in which Bill Maher (HBO’s Real Time )suggests Giuliani got his figures from the same place they took the cancer out of – his “ass”.

  12. I’m wrong – at least on looking at the Liberal Party website (pdf). I passed one of those advertising trucks on a family Sunday drive and took a careful look and followed up on the Liberal Website. The story is this: at least according to the Liberals, 70% of the ALP’s front bench are union officials (21/30). Wayne Swan is marked on the ad as a ‘Party official’ or something like that. So they’re playing that up as well, but that’s NOT counted in the 70%. So the premise of my comment was quite wrong and I owe readers an apology.

  13. Jc says:

    Hey Robert. Last time I was doing citations was in my years at uni. I’m not about to start that on a blog. If you don’t want to believe it, go ahead, knock yourself out, no sweat.

    Others can follow the links or go to the report with Google.

    ——————–

    Nic

    The lying started when the unions began running throughly dishonest ads on workchoices. It’s always worth recalling just how disgustingly dishonest those ads were.

    Roger:

    Did Maher mention ear wax picking and eating it? Yuk. Let’s not go there.

  14. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    guess what rudy was insured by a Government backed organisation.

    What a triuph for private enterprise.

    Nick,

    The term union officials appears to be very generic.

    Let us look at Mdme gillard. Is someone hoestly saying the she was an official in a union. I do not think the University students union counts as a union.

    Kim Il Carr was a pleb at a union for a short time. Severaal are research officers which are hardly officials.

  15. wilful says:

    The 70% figure is still bullshit, in what it is trying to infer versus the actual role many of these people played in their respective unions. Julia Gillard, the Students Union? Anyone down as ‘organiser’ or ‘industrial officer’ – absolutely bottom of the food chain, and quite likely a role they held a long long time before entering politics. Research Officer? Not even part of the food chain. There are really only a few there, notably Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson, that are what the Libs are trying to infer.

    Mind you, the whole campaign is highly questionable. Obviously carefully planned and researched, but not really having much of an impact. Personally I’d vote for a former union official than a merchant banker or a lawyer.

  16. Aidan says:

    Re: Prostate cancer

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=861

    Prostate cancer survival at five years among men diagnosed during 1999-2003 was 74.4 per cent. This was 3.6 percentage points higher than the rate of 70.8 per cent for men diagnosed during 1998-2001. Much of this is likely to be due to increasingly widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.

  17. wilful says:

    Oh dear. Sounds like Aidan won that little debate.

    Even though the US Democrats aren’t even proposing an NHS-style system.

  18. Jc says:

    “Even though the US Democrats arent even proposing an NHS-style system.”

    Even though the front runner- Hillary- has used the UK’s NHS as a model in previous discussions and debates. Choke!

    I wouldn’t send a pet dog through the UK NHS.

    Wiful:

    The UK has only started to use screening in the past few years.

  19. wilful says:

    ha ha. Why is it that people can’t ever admit they were wrong.

    It’s simple Jc, all you have to say is “oops, looks like there’s not that big a difference for prostate cancer survival between the US and UK”.

    Are you big enough?

    As for the fact that the UK has only started screening in the past few years, Rudy Guiliani has only started running for President more recently than that. meanwhile, the Democrats still aren’t proposing an NHS style system, and the UK remains a country with a higher life expectancy than the US, at less cost to the nation.

    I would send a pet dog through US style health care – good analogy, they would waste squillions CAT scanning it for all sorts of unnecessary BS, rather than providing basic health services to tens of millions of poor humans.

  20. Jc says:

    I admit I’m wrong more often than most people, Wilful. I’d be poverty stricken if I didn’t.

    I don’t think your looking at this too carefully. Robert seems to have included prostate cancer survivors. The NHS thinks carry those numbers too in order to boost up the survival rate. :-)

    Go back and read the link I posted and try to figure it out again. I’ll try to help where you get stuck.

    “I would send a pet dog through US style health care – good analogy, they would waste squillions CAT scanning it for all sorts of unnecessary BS, rather than providing basic health services to tens of millions of poor humans.”

    So you think CAT scans are unnecessary? Really? I always think the doc is better off with more information than less when making a diagnosis. I lived with the US healthcare system for 16 years and found it to be excellent. Truly excellent in almost all respects.

    What do you consider to be basic health care?

  21. Jc says:

    Umm correction

    Robert seems to have included FEMALE prostate cancer survivors. The NHS thinks IT OUGHT CARRY those numbers in order to boost up the survival rate.

  22. wilful says:

    74.4%

    That is all.

    Yes, CAT scans are unnecessary, for dogs.

  23. Jc says:

    No they are not. I know of a perosn who’s spending 3 g a month keeping their dog alive from cancer.

    —————-

    Here’s the part of the link that answers this 74.4% you keep dredging up.

    The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports on both the incidence of prostate cancer in member nations and the number of resultant deaths. According to OECD data published in 2000, 49 Britons per 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 28 per 100,000 died of it. This means that 57 percent of Britons diagnosed with prostate cancer died of it; and, consequently, that just 43 percent survived. Economist John Goodman, in Lives at Risk, arrives at precisely the same conclusion: In the United States, slightly less than one in five people diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die. None of this is surprising: in the UK, only about 40 percent of cancer patients see an oncologist, and historically, the government has been reluctant to fund new (and often better) cancer drugs.

    Are you saying this is wrong?

    Read it very carefully.

    A post 5 year survial rate doesn’t mean (eg) you won’t die of prostate cancer after the 5 th year.

    I told you to red the link carefully and try to make a reasonable attempt at understanding what it is you’re reading.

    Survival and mortality rates mean different things ,wilful. This is something Krugman tried to get through the censor. It didn’t succeed.

  24. Fyodor says:

    JC, you’ve been comprehensively trounced on this thread and no amount of bluster is going to get you out of it.

    Your bullshit source, David Gratzer (whom you neglected mention is an adviser to Giuliani’s campaign), has been comprehensively repudiated by the organisation that produced the original data, The Commonwealth Fund. Read what they say and give up on this partisan rubbish. Look up the definition of mortality while you’re at it.

    Also, Robert would not have included “FEMALE prostate cancer survivors”, as women don’t have prostates.

    JC: 0
    Facts: 1
    Logic: about one gorillion

    This would be one of those occasions where you don’t have to admit you’re wrong, because any such admission would be embarassingly redundant.

  25. Jc says:

    I always thought you were humorless, Fyds. The fenale prostates thingi was a joke. But nice to see you’re on the ball (Pun intended dopey):-)

    So tell us exactly where the OECD report is wrong, Mr. Femele Prostaticator. Just facts and figures fyds.

    Here, l’ll help you:

    The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports on both the incidence of prostate cancer in member nations and the number of resultant deaths. According to OECD data published in 2000, 49 Britons per 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 28 per 100,000 died of it. This means that 57 percent of Britons diagnosed with prostate cancer died of it; and, consequently, that just 43 percent survived. Economist John Goodman, in Lives at Risk, arrives at precisely the same conclusion: In the United States, slightly less than one in five people diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die. None of this is surprising: in the UK, only about 40 percent of cancer patients see an oncologist, and historically, the government has been reluctant to fund new (and often better) cancer drugs.

    \———————

    I’ll start it for you:

    The EECD is wrong because…………………….

  26. Fyodor says:

    The fenale prostates thingi was a joke.

    The absence of humour makes your jokes a little difficult to separate from the other stuff you make up, JC. You should have realised by now that you’re only unintentionally funny.

    As you’re evidently too lazy to read, or simply unable to comprehend English, I’ll quote you The Commonwealth Fund’s response verbatim:

    The Summer 2007 issue of City Journal included an article authored by David Gratzer, M.D., that says the U.S. prostate cancer survival rate is 81.2 percent and the U.K. survival rate is 44.3 percent. According to abcnews.com, Gratzer has cited a seven-year-old Commonwealth Fund report as his source for the statistics. In fact, the five-year survival data cited in the City Journal article do not come from The Commonwealth Fund report, and cannot be calculated from that report. What the report, Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2000 by Gerard F. Anderson and Peter S. Hussey of Johns Hopkins University, includes are data on prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in the two countries.

    Specifically, The Commonwealth Fund report features a chart showing that, in 1997, the incidence of prostate cancer in the U.S. was 136 per 100,000 males and the mortality rate (death rate) was 26 per 100,000 males. By comparison, in the U.K. the prostate cancer incidence was 49 per 100,000 and the death rate was 28 deaths per 100,000. (The prostate cancer incidence ratewhich is the number of men diagnosed with the disease in a given yearin the U.S. is thought to be higher because prostate cancer screening is much more common in this country.)

    The incidence rates simply report the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in a given year. Prostate cancer mortality rates report the number of men who died of the disease in a given year. Neither speaks to length of survival, and that figure can not be calculated using the others.

    The incorrect survival statistics in the City Journal article have since been used in speeches and a radio ad by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The Commonwealth Fund believes it is important that all presidential candidates have accurate and reliable information.

    The UK mortality rate for prostate cancer is 28/100,000, not materially different from that of the USA, 26/100,000.

    Your biased, incompetent source mangled the statistics, and you’ve evidently been too naive or stupid to question his take on the data.

  27. Jc says:

    Thanks for the link, Rasputin. By the way did you even bother to even read it and marry it up with the City journal piece? No, I guess not genius.

    Let me summarize it (The Commonwealth Fund) for you. Its your link by the way.

    1. US incidence of prostate cancer is 136/100,000 with a mortality rate of 26/100,000

    2. UK Incidence of prostate cancer (no not female, Fyodor, you humorless genius ) 49/100,000 with a mortality rate of 28/100,000.

    A few things standard out:

    The screening attributes of the US system are far superior to that of the UK’s. There’s a good reason for that. The US was screening at the time and the UK wasn’t until recently) which is something your Commonwealth Fund link only casually mentions. Strike two for socialized medicine.

    26/136 means the death rate in the US was 19%. Said another way, the survival rate was 81%.

    28/49 means the death rate in the UK was 58%. Said another way, the survival rate was 42%

    The other conclusion is that UK was shockingly woeful in prolonging life when prostate cancer threatens.

    In summary that’s what Dr. Daivid Gratzer says and that’s what Giuliani says in his ad.

    Is this another example of you winning, or another case of the black knight in Monty Python declaring victory when there’s a skinny little stump of a human remain?

    I guess its now back to checking/ commenting on typos and mentioning peoples names as payback. Maybe it we could even get back to that fun time of posting where you thought another commenter worked. Lets watch and learn as I have made to popcorn.

  28. Jc says:

    ” The UK mortality rate for prostate cancer is 28/100,000, not materially different from that of the USA, 26/100,000.”

    You nincompoop. You plonker.

    It’s not the same thing when you look at the survival rate and the number of people found with prostate cancer (not gals Fyodor) in each country.

    136 incidence/28 death rate is a far superior outcome than 49 incidence/ 28 death rate the UK”S NHS shows.

    The Death toll has a different connotation when looked at in those terms, Fyodor. That’s what you and others to understand and what Krugman lied about.

    In other words the US has a superior “incidence found” screening procedure and when it finds these poor souls there is 81% chance of curing them.

    Which odds would you like to have? The US or the UK’s?

  29. Fyodor says:

    Merely restating the flawed analysis doesn’t make it any less incompetent, JC.

    Let me restate the CORRECT analysis. As The Commonwealth Fund put it:

    Specifically, The Commonwealth Fund report features a chart showing that, in 1997, the incidence of prostate cancer in the U.S. was 136 per 100,000 males and the mortality rate (death rate) was 26 per 100,000 males. By comparison, in the U.K. the prostate cancer incidence was 49 per 100,000 and the death rate was 28 deaths per 100,000. (The prostate cancer incidence ratewhich is the number of men diagnosed with the disease in a given yearin the U.S. is thought to be higher because prostate cancer screening is much more common in this country.)

    The incidence rates simply report the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in a given year. Prostate cancer mortality rates report the number of men who died of the disease in a given year. Neither speaks to length of survival, and that figure can not be calculated using the others.

    More common screening means more cases of prostate cancer are picked up in the USA, but it has no visible effect on the mortality rate.

    Face the facts, JC: you’ve been trounced, yet again.

    Now have a lie down, old-timer – I can tell you’re getting your panties in a bunch.

  30. haiku says:

    Nice work Fyodor, but leading horses to water and making them think are two different things. Anyway, JC goes into the doctor’s surgery:

    JC: So what’s happening here then, Doctor?
    Doctor: It’s a routine test for prostate cancer, JC. Bend over, please.
    JC: Ouch! My elbow!

  31. Jc says:

    ” Now have a lie down, old-timer – I can tell youre getting your panties in a bunch.”

    Oh, it’s the “old” schtik today. Let’s me go over it again for you as you don’t seem to be keeping up with the class. (I’m not that old by the way.)

    The US has a superior outcome going by your link for the following reasons.

    26/136 is a better result than 28/49.
    ———————-

    “The incidence rates simply report the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in a given year.”

    Ah yea. We know that, Mergatroid.
    ———————

    “Prostate cancer mortality rates report the number of men who died of the disease in a given year.”

    Yes, we know that too. It’s called the mortatlity rate which for cancer sufferers is taken to be 5 years , the common standard in medico speak unless otherwise said when standardizing etc.

    ———————-

    ” Neither speaks to length of survival, and that figure can not be calculated using the others.”

    It does if you had bothered to think about it.

    The Survival rate in the US is 81% if the death rate is 19%, a much better outcome than the UK.

    In other words, going back to the original point of this thread Giuliani was right to say a US male (not female,fyodor) sufferer has an 81% of surviving than does a UK sufferer’s 42%.

    Unless you have any further evidence from your link you would be far better off shutting up shop and calling it a day.

  32. Jc says:

    Nice try at humor, Liam, but it doesn’t work well for you.

    If you think any of the points I’ve raised relating to Rasptuin’s link are wrong, please so, otherwise go eat some earwax with chopsticks.

  33. Liam says:

    Twenty bucks says this thread gets shut down before comment #75. I’m good for it—just.

    Last time I was doing citations was in my years at uni. Im not about to start that on a blog

    Nobody cites their sources these days on blogs, Joe. It’s all one unattributed source after another.

    Maybe it we could even get back to that fun time of posting where you thought another commenter worked.

    At the Russian hackers department of the Penrith branch of the CBA? Lock it in, Eddie.

  34. Jc says:

    Liam:

    Any repsonse to:
    a

    ny of the points Ive raised relating to Rasptuins link are wrong, please so

  35. Liam says:

    [JC at] 8:27 pm

    [Liam at] 8:30 pm

    OK that’s pretty fucked up right there. It makes Joe look like more of a psychic than a savant.

    If you think any of the points Ive raised relating to Rasptuins link are wrong, please so,

    Please so? Yes, so. Well, so-so. You know.
    The mortality rate and the morbidity rate measure different things, Joe.

  36. Jc says:

    Ummm

    say so
    Far better with figures than editing.

  37. haiku says:

    To be clear, there is a difference between me – haiku – and Liam, occasionally known as haiku hogan. For a start, his poetry is far superior. As is his beret.

    From the stats provided, the death rate from prostate cancer is 2 per 100,000 higher in the UK than the US. The survival rate is therefore 2 per 100,000 lower. It is possible that one could run tests on this to identify whether this difference were statistically significant.

    If you can’t work that out, I have some excellent creationist literature for you to spruik.

    To make it even more stark, according to your interpretation of the stats, the UK could halve its death rate by halving its testing for the incidence of prostate cancer. Cut that incidence rate down to 24.5 per 100,000 and hey presto: the mortality rate will fall to 14 per 100,000!! (Still gives you a “JC survival rate” of 42%

    But why stop there?? Cut the testing in half again! The incidence rate plummets to 12.25, while the mortality rate plunges to 7 per 100,000. That “JC survival rate” is still 42%, but prostate cancer has almost been removed from the UK!!

    I think your $20 is safe, Liam …

  38. Jc says:

    Liam says:

    The mortality rate and the morbidity rate measure different things, Joe.

    Sweetheart, this is what Rasputin quoted in his comment #29 which is from his own link by the way.

    The Commonwealth Fund report features a chart showing that, in 1997, the incidence of prostate cancer in the U.S. was 136 per 100,000 males and the mortality rate (death rate) was 26 per 100,000 males. By comparison, in the U.K. the prostate cancer incidence was 49 per 100,000 and the death rate was 28 deaths per 100,000. (The prostate cancer incidence ratewhich is the number of men diagnosed with the disease in a given yearin the U.S. is thought to be higher because prostate cancer screening is much more common in this country.)

    Could you please point out to me where morbidity is used in dicussing these figures?

    Nowhere right? And the reason for that is that we’re talking about a standardized outcome between the two countries for death rates and incident rate to which we can inpute the survival rate for the same period.

    Let’s go though this one more time seeing you haven’t kept up with the class.

    Survival rate in the US for the same period as the death toll rate is 81%.

    We can break this down to easy to understand sums.

    {26/136-1} * 100 =81%

    For the UK

    (28/49-1) * 100 =43%

    I know faith is religious experience to you, but I am surprised you’re arguing about these facts.

    No mordity rates, Liam , just survival, death and incidence rates.

    I’ll have that 20 bucks please.

  39. haiku says:

    Ill have that 20 bucks please.

    You can’t even understand the following:

    Twenty bucks says this thread gets shut down before comment #75.

    I think another arse-elbow joke is in order …

  40. Jc says:

    I thought you were the same person, but it doesn’t matter in the end because you’re both laughably wrong.

    But anyway let’s go on.

    From the stats provided, the death rate from prostate cancer is 2 per 100,000 higher in the UK than the US. The survival rate is therefore 2 per 100,000 lower.

    Bingo. Your right so far.
    ——————–

    It is possible that one could run tests on this to identify whether this difference were statistically significant.

    You could but the difference is pretty insignificant as it could be attributed to noise etc.
    ——————-

    If you cant work that out, I have some excellent creationist literature for you to spruik.

    Damn and here I was thinking you were going to be nice to me and pat me on the back with an apology. But……..!
    ——————–

    To make it even more stark, according to your interpretation of the stats, the UK could halve its death rate by halving its testing for the incidence of prostate cancer. Cut that incidence rate down to 24.5 per 100,000 and hey presto: the mortality rate will fall to 14 per 100,000!! (Still gives you a JC survival rate of 42%

    Don’t be idiotic. We’re assuming honest representation of the figures. I don’t believe they were testing until recently in the UK (don’t you just love the NHS) by the way which meant that most of these people were being diagnosed on presentation.

    Oh please. Stop this pathetic nonsense. These are pretty hard facts made up of large sample data. There isn’t any fudging.

    Let’s repeat for your benefit too shall we?

    {26/136-1} * 100 =81%

    For the UK

    (28/49-1) * 100 =43%

    Giulani said that 81% of US prostate sufferers survive in the US while only 43% do so in the UK. He was telling the truth while Krugman was being dishonest.

  41. Liam says:

    Nuh-huh, haiku. I think the jokes here are done.
    A knife, a fork, a bottle and a cork, that’s the way you spell New York, right on…

    And the reason for that is that were talking about a standardized outcome between the two countries for death rates and incident rate to which we can inpute the survival rate for the same period.

    No, Joe. We’re not. First of all you can’t have one standardised figure for two rates, and two, you’re looking at the wrong rate.
    From what did the men in the UK and the US die? I’ll give you a hint—it’s not the violence of the lower classes. Crack won’t save you this time.

  42. Jc says:

    Ill have that 20 bucks please.

    You cant even understand the following:

    Twenty bucks says this thread gets shut down before comment #75.

    I think another arse-elbow joke is in order

    Another mirthless moniker. It was a joke.

    This has to be the funniest thread in ages. Can any of you use figures. This is pretty basic stuff guys. It’s not rocket science.

    Hey Haiku:

    did you know that dinosaurs were around with early man? That was only lots of (6,000) years ago.

  43. haiku says:

    It is possible that one could run tests on this to identify whether this difference were statistically significant.

    You could but the difference is pretty insignificant as it could be attributed to noise etc.

    Exactly correct. Thank you for confirming Fyodor’s point.

    To put it another way, if the UK increased its testing, and the incidence rate then went up to 98 per 100,000, then the mortality rate would double to 56 per 100,000. Is that what you are saying?

  44. Jc says:

    Liam

    As an aside, what did you score your PHD in? Just out of interest, that’s all.

    A knife, a fork, a bottle and a cork, thats the way you spell New York, right on

    Another typo catcher when he’s wrong. Geez louise! What is going on here.

    No, Joe. Were not. First of all you cant have one standardised figure for two rates, and two, youre looking at the wrong rate.

    You lost me here, doodlechops. The thing that seems to be standardiazed is the 5 year rate. That’s all they need to do in order to make a valid comparison.

    From what did the men in the UK and the US die? Ill give you a hintits not the violence of the lower classes. Crack wont save you this time.

    I presume you talking about the Prostate study, right? Never know with you, which is why I’m asking.

    26/100,000 Americans and 28/100,000 Brits (males this time) die of protate cancer. Howewver there is good news, Laim, especially if you live in the US compared to the UK. If you live in the US you have a 81% chance of surviving the cancer compared to only 43% who do in the UK.

    Morals of the story:

    1.It really does matter where you get sick , doodlechops.

    2.Listen to Rudi as he’s very informative.

    3. Don’t whatever you do listen to the Krugmeister, unless your googled up and ready to go fact check. hahahahahha

    Gotta go.

  45. haiku says:

    JC’s conclusion:
    Move to the UK and don’t get tested. Moving to the US means you are 177% more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer …

    [(136-49)/49 = 1.77]

    Liam, I think our work here is done. Back to the Missy Higgins thread?

  46. Jc says:

    haiku said:

    It is possible that one could run tests on this to identify whether this difference were statistically significant.

    You could but the difference is pretty insignificant as it could be attributed to noise etc.

    Exactly correct. Thank you for confirming Fyodors point.

    You don’t seem to even understand what it is we’re referring to Doofus. We’re talking about the 28/26 /100,000 deaths. However it’s pretty significant when put up against the incident count for each place.

    To put it another way, if the UK increased its testing, and the incidence rate then went up to 98 per 100,000, then the mortality rate would double to 56 per 100,000. Is that what you are saying?

    Fme is there no end to this.

    1. the point of the thread was ….. Was Guilani lying? No he wasn’t as I have exhaustively explained to you, laim.

    2. We find out that the US healthcare sytem was possibly superior in screening.

    3. We find out that the UK has only recently begun to introduce more oncologists. Presumably GPs were administering cancer drugs. Way to go NHS.

    Seeya tom.

  47. Jc says:

    Haiku

    Move to the UK and dont get tested. Moving to the US means you are 177% more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer

    That would have to be the most idiotic conclusion I have ever seen and quite possibly the silliest statement on the thread. Please continue :-)

    Let’s go through it slowly.

    What it means is that you have a great chance of surviving prostate cancer if you live in the US. while you stand a better chance in the UK by seeing a vet who isn’t governed by the NHS.

  48. haiku says:

    That would have to be the most idiotic conclusion I have ever seen and quite possibly the silliest statement on the thread.

    Indeed. And it is implicit from the “JC survival rate”. I don’t have to call you an idiot, you manage it yourself. But if you insist on your calculation of death rate = mortality rate/incidence rate, then it seems that the call is warranted.

    Your claim is that the difference in the “JC survival rate” is due to the inferior NHS. ie 43% as opposed to 81%, with consequent “JC death rates” being 57% and 19%.

    In reality, the death rates are 26 per 100,000 and 28 per 100,000, a marginal difference, as you have admitted.

    The way you arrive at the “JC rates” is via the denominator. Now, either the incidence is truly lower in the UK, in which case one way to combat prostate cancer would be to move from the US to the UK, since this lowers the incidence of this occurring. Or the reported incidence is due to increased levels of testing. In which case the likely effect of the UK increasing its testing will be to increase the reported incidence. The death rate is already accurately measured. As Liam says, when someone dies of prostate cancer, they die of prostate cancer. Males in the UK currently do this at a rate of 28 per 100,000.

  49. Jc says:

    Getting back to Krugman and his dishonesty..

    Dan Okrent was made public editor of the NY Times after the dreadful Jayson Blair affair. As public editor it was Okrent’s job to ensure proper reporting standards were met etc and deal with public compalints about the paper in order to make it more responsive. Okrent is as New York liberal as you could get. Pity about his politics, but he is truly one of the finest scribes you could ever read.

    This is what he said about the Times when he was getting lot’s of criticism about its leftwing bias:

    THE PUBLIC EDITOR
    Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
    By DANIEL OKRENT

    Published: July 25, 2004

    OF course it is.
    The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left – and there are plenty – generally confine their complaints to the paper’s coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ex=1194411600&en=7515d3859f14eb44&ei=5070

    And I agree. Of course the NYTimes is a left wing paper. They have every right to be and represent what and whom they like in terms of political slant.

    But even Okrent was disgusted by Krugamns level of honesty.

    This was his parting shot at Krugman:

    Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/weekinreview/22okrent.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=9e5b276bd1b0d35a&ex=1117598400&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

    He said even after he once opined that columnists could bot be held to the same standards as regular reporters.

  50. Fyodor says:

    The way you arrive at the JC rates is via the denominator. Now, either the incidence is truly lower in the UK, in which case one way to combat prostate cancer would be to move from the US to the UK, since this lowers the incidence of this occurring. Or the reported incidence is due to increased levels of testing. In which case the likely effect of the UK increasing its testing will be to increase the reported incidence. The death rate is already accurately measured. As Liam says, when someone dies of prostate cancer, they die of prostate cancer. Males in the UK currently do this at a rate of 28 per 100,000.

    Parfait, Haiku.

    Sometimes it really is a joy to watch Cranky Joe digging himself a deeper hole. It makes it even more amusing when one can gather ’round a posse of pith-takers to share the fun.

    Quality stoush, gents.

  51. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    this has been very funny

  52. Jc says:

    Could I possibly be wrong? This doubt was totally erased the momement homer disagreed with me.

  53. Fyodor says:

    What momement was that, JC? He hasn’t contradicted anything you’ve said. Granted, he noted that,

    I do like JC attempting to argue against Kruggers and putting his foot in it

    but that’s not disagreeing with you so much as making an observation. His only crime there was gross understatement.

    Is there NOTHING you can’t fuck up? You’re like a rolling clusterfuck of incontinently incompetent fubarity.

  54. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    keep digging JC

  55. Liam says:

    JC while being trounced:

    I admit Im wrong more often than most people, Wilful. Id be poverty stricken if I didnt.

    JC after being trounced:

    Could I possibly be wrong? This doubt was totally erased…

    I’m utterly in awe of your ability, once you’ve been shown up to be wrong, to get progressively wronger, until the wrongness piles up into an avalanche of wrong. You’ve made an art form out of being empirically incorrect, and I salute you.

  56. Jc says:

    The way you arrive at the JC rates is via the denominator. Now, either the incidence is truly lower in the UK, in which case one way to combat prostate cancer would be to move from the US to the UK, since this lowers the incidence of this occurring”

    Next to your earlier comment this has to be the sillier, more opprssively stupid comment of the two.

    “Or the reported incidence is due to increased levels of testing. In which case the likely effect of the UK increasing its testing will be to increase the reported incidence.”

    Yea and how do you know that because……. Is this another one of your “guesses”, is it?

    As Liam says, when someone dies of prostate cancer, they die of prostate cancer. Males in the UK currently do this at a rate of 28 per 100,000.

    Bringing Laim into it immediately reduces your chances of being right. H

  57. Fyodor says:

    Still digging!

    *golf clap*

  58. Jc says:

    Laim says:

    Im utterly in awe of your ability, once youve been shown up to be wrong, to get progressively wronger, until the wrongness piles up into an avalanche of wrong. Youve made an art form out of being empirically incorrect, and I salute you

    .”

    You know what I’m thunderstruck by, Laim. I’m zonked by the fact that you owned up to having a PhD after this comment:

    The mortality rate and the morbidity rate measure different things, Joe.

    I think even your lunch companion would be a little embarrassed.

    Rapsutin? Are you?

  59. Jc says:

    What momement was that, JC? He hasnt contradicted anything youve said. Granted,

    he noted that,

    I do like JC attempting to argue against Kruggers and putting his foot in it

    but thats not disagreeing with you so much as making an observation

    Oh really?

    Homer, get over here I actually need you for a sec. No serious.

    Do you agree or disagree with me?

  60. Jonno says:

    Check this out for a few prostate facts:

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/2081837.htm#transcript

    It is an emotional subject for men!

  61. Fyodor says:

    Homer, get over here I actually need you for a sec. No serious.

    Do you agree or disagree with me?

    Yeah, c’mon, Homerkles: do tell. Now that I’ve told him you didn’t disagree with him, Cranky Joe doesn’t know what to think. The old duffer’s in a right pickle.

    The rest of us get by with facts and logic, but the RCIIF really needs to know what YOU think so he can work out if he’s:

    a) merely wrong;
    b) grossly incorrect; or
    c) Oh, look! Isn’t that an African swallow?

  62. Jc says:

    Let’s summarize the debate in case those who haven’t followed it want to know what’s going on here.

    1. Was Giuliani correct is saying that you stood an 81% chance of surviving Prostate cancer in the US against at 43% survival rate int eh UK?

    2. Was Krug man’s assertion that both countries suffer a mortality rate of 26% for the US and 28% for the UK an accurate dismissal of Giuliani or was the NY Times public editor correct ii saying:

    Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.

    ?

    The facts are:

    US
    136/100,000 incidence rate. 26/100,000 mortality rate.

    UK
    59/100.0000 incidence rate. 28/100,000 mortality rate.

    The survival rate comparison is basically an extrapolation of the death rate for the same period.

    US
    {26/136-1} *100 =81%

    UK

    {28/59-1} *100 = 53%

    Giuliani’s ad says that the a prostate cancer suvivor has a better chance under US health care than he does under the UK’s NHS.

    This statement is in fact correct and once again Dan Okrent’s summation of Krug man’s activities are prived to be accurate.

  63. Liam says:

    1. Was Giuliani correct is saying that you stood an 81% chance of surviving Prostate cancer in the US against at 43% survival rate int eh UK?

    The UK five-year prostate cancer survival rate is 74.4%. Giuliani was and remains a liar.

  64. Jc says:

    Laim

    Do you even understand the parameters of the discussion?

    He/we are not comparing mortality rates, Doodlechops. We’re comparing survival rates. They aren’t the same thing. Can you get that through your PhD addled mind?

    You need to apologise for that silly comment you made about morbidity rates when were’re nowhere near discussing that subject.. If you’re too embarrassed I suggest you get the mad monk to apologise for you. I’m sure Tania is used that by now.

  65. Liam says:

    From the NSO link, unread by you:

    Prostate cancer survival at five years among men diagnosed during 1999-2003 was 74.4 per cent.

    Rate of JC being wrong: 100%
    Depth of hole: increasing exponentially

  66. Ken Parish says:

    Comment 33 – “Twenty bucks says this thread gets shut down before comment #75.”

    About the only element of interest in this thread is whether it actually makes it that far. I’m certainly not going to shut it down. I’m intrigued to see whether you can keep it going that long.

  67. Fyodor says:

    The survival rate comparison is basically an extrapolation of the death rate for the same period.

    US
    {26/136-1} *100 =81%

    UK

    {28/59-1} *100 = 53%

    No, it’s NOT.

    The National Cancer Institute of the USA says that “survival rate” is:

    “The percentage of people in a study or treatment group [my emphasis] who are alive for a given period of time after diagnosis. This is commonly expressed as 5-year survival.”

    What you’re clutching at is a bullshit ratio you’ve concocted of prostate cancer mortality, divided by REPORTED prostate cancer morbidity (i.e. the OBSERVED incidence of prostate cancer).

    This is not a “survival rate” and, further, it’s a meaningless ratio because of the KNOWN DIFFERENCES in screening programmes between the UK and USA that cause the USA to REPORT a higher prevalence of prostate cancer.

    For all the reasons that have been explained to you at length above you are manifestly, comprehensively and embarassingly WRONG.

  68. Liam says:

    Bet’s off.
    With a wrap like that from an admin, we’ll be here watching Joe humiliate himself until Jacques has to buy a new HD to hold the vast database of bullshit.
    Further, it wasn’t Krugman who disputed Giuliani’s figures, it was Bosman in this article, with the argument-settling line:

    Five-year survival rates cannot be calculated from incidence and mortality rates, as any good epidemiologist knows, the group said in a statement.

  69. Jc says:

    Im intrigued to see whether you can keep it going that long.

    Ken, this is how the thread of doom lasted for 2500 comments.

    —————–

    Laim:

    I noticed earlier that you made a dishonest attribution reagrding a comment I made about the “US underclass”. You attributed me as referring to the “lower class”.

    These are two different things, Mr. Phd, which even you would know (I hope I got that right).

    You flunked out with your confusion about what morbidity means and you are were being dishonest over this.

    That’s two apologies now thanks.

  70. Fyodor says:

    Shorter JC: “Oh, look! Another trivial distraction from my awful and catastrophic wrongness!”

    Proportion of JC “argument” containing actual argument: around 28/100,000 – probably the (incorrect) punctuation

    Depth of hole: somewhere in Jiangsu province.

  71. Jc says:

    I’m sorry folks. It’s Laim again.

    “Further, it wasnt Krugman who disputed Giulianis figures, it was Bosman in this article, with the argument-settling line….”

    Laim, you’re whistling past the graveyard, aren’t you doodle chops?

    Two things to that:

    1. The thread used Krug man as the counter to Giuliani’s comment/ad. Krugman did dispute the figures by wrongly asserting (like you) that it is the death toll that ought to be looked at. You’re screwing up, however Krug man is lying seeing he is a MIT graduate. No MIT grad is that stupid.

    See here:

    Krug man…

    It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isnt. And thereby hangs a tale one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, Im sorry to say, about whats wrong with political news coverage. Mr. Giulianis claim is wrong on multiple levels bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.

    Smearing whom he doesn’t say of course proving Okreant thesise top be correct.

    And it continues on, so read the whole thing and get acquainted with the topic of the thread, Laim, as we all know you better than that.

    2. If you take both my original link where the good Doc explained himself and Rasptin’s that basically presented the same figures despite a “laim” attempt at refuting Giulinai you will see that they marry up quite well.

  72. Jc says:

    “Shorter JC: Oh, look! Another trivial distraction from my awful and catastrophic wrongness!

    What Rasputin is really saying:

    I sure hope that people don’t realize who much I have screwed up here. I blame Liam for dumping me in the 8th circle of hell where all the liars and falsifiers end up.

  73. Liam says:

    Two things to your two things.
    1. WTF? That’s incoherent even by your standards. What does MIT have to do with anything?
    2. We’ve long since established that the numbers used in your City Journal link are wrong. They do marry up quite well with your argument, as your argument is also wrong.
    Can we skip forward to the bit where you start raving about bananas and Fyodor makes monkey noises at you?

  74. Fyodor says:

    …and the Clusterfuck of Incontinently Incompetent Fubarity rolls on.

    But where are we now?

    JC can’t refute the science, and keeps referring to some op ed saying mean, unsubstantiated things about Krugman. Why, anyone would think you didn’t like Krugman, JC! You’re not biased, are you?

    Probability of JC refuting evidence: zero %

    Approximate measure of JC’s desperation: about 100,000/28, and rising

  75. Jc says:

    Laim’s back:

    WTF? Thats incoherent even by your standards. What does MIT have to do with anything?

    What i think you’re saying is that why did I bring up MIT? Is that right, Laim?

    1.Krug man went to and taught at MIT. Anyone who went to MIT (let alone doing a PhD there) has to be quite bright (SAT of 1500/1600). Hence my assumption that he is a liar rather than a dumb ball which concurs whith Okrent’s view.

    2.

    Weve long since established that the numbers used in your City Journal link are wrong. They do marry up quite well with your argument, as your argument is also wrong.

    Are you certifiable now, Laim. Even Rapstin’s link didn’t argue the basic raw stats.(Fyodor…. Stop chewing on your paw, we all make mistakes linking stuff. Even I do at times, although rarely).

    Do I need to go through it again for you as you’re obviously not keeping up.

  76. Jc says:

    Rasptin’s back working his way through Dante’s inferno to the 9th circle of hell.

    ………JC cant refute the science………

    Nothing wrong with the science, Ras. I’m simply using the figures statistical research (that’s not science by the way) and proved that Giulian’s comment was correct while Krug man was as dishonest as you are.

  77. Jc says:

    Missed this one:

    Rasptin goes off to the US NCI to get a definition of the survival rate.

    The percentage of people in a study or treatment group [my emphasis] who are alive for a given period of time after diagnosis. This is commonly expressed as 5-year survival.

    No problem with that. But let’s look at what they say about the mortality rate, shall we?

    NCI says :

    Mortality also refers to the death rate, or the number of deaths in a certain group of people in a certain period of time.

    No problem with that either.

    But let’s go on.

    Rasputin says:

    “What youre clutching at is a bullshit ratio youve concocted of prostate cancer mortality, divided by REPORTED prostate cancer morbidity (i.e. the OBSERVED incidence of prostate cancer)

    Mortality and survivability used in the context I have been (to prove Giulinai’s assertion) are the inverse of each other. There is no problem with the figures. The Survivability rate is also over the 5 year mortality rate.

    Giuliani is correct. Krug man lied. And Rasputin refuses to die for the 6th time.

  78. Fyodor says:

    Last time I checked, medical research was still scientifical, Cranky Joe.

    That’s why terms like “survival rate” have a defined meaning, and not the one that desperate cranks attach to them. It’s also why the numbers don’t mean what you think they mean. But, hey, you know better than medical researchers, right? You’ve really got one over those charlatans at the National Cancer Institute, huh?

    Gotta say you’re getting even more incoherent, JC. Maybe Liam’s got a point: you might be more persuasive if you brought bananas into the equation. That’s more your key competency, I reckon: fruit.

  79. Fyodor says:

    Mortality and survivability used in the context I have been (to prove Giulinais assertion) are the inverse of each other. There is no problem with the figures. The Survivability rate is also over the 5 year mortality rate.

    Whoah, Nelly, this is getting really pathetic.

    1. No, they are not the “inverse of each other” (WTF?);
    2. Yes, there IS a problem with your figure. Specifically, dividing mortality by morbidity does not produce a “survival rate”; and
    3. No, the “survivability rate” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be) is not “over the 5 year mortality rate”.

    You’re simply making this shit up now.

  80. Rasptins back working his way through Dantes inferno to the 9th circle of hell.

    If memory serves, that’s the circle of traitors. Whatever – JC is very definitely in the 5th circle – the circle of the wrathful and sullen. Here’s a nifty interactive map of the place, for future reference.

  81. Liam says:

    Thats more your key competency, I reckon: fruit.

    Sounds more nutty to me. Perhaps they’re the inverse of each other?
    Anyway, on the subject of digging holes—it’s youtube time.

  82. wilful says:

    The 5th Circle: Ill Temper

    The souls in this circle live in the mucky edges of the river Styx. They are in two categories: the Wrathful and the Sullen.

    The Wrathful do constant battle in the filth, while the sullen are immersed among the reeds, gurgling through the reeds.

    Liam and Fyodor are the wrathful, Jc the sullen.

  83. Liam says:

    Sullen? I’m not sure about that. If by sullen, you mean sullen like a punch-drunk coked up jack-in-the-box.
    I’ll take the 5 1/2th circle: banally sarcastic.

  84. Jc says:

    What is this gals, the Socialist collective meeting? Wow! I love this. Trot, Wilful, Laim, the mad monk. All we need is Fred, CS and we’ll end up with a quorum.

    If memory serves, thats the circle of traitors. Whatever – JC is very definitely in the 5th circle – the circle of the wrathful and sullen. Heres a nifty interactive map of the place, for future reference.

    Come one trot, i’m not like that. I’m one of the happiest dudes going. That alone will get me through the pearly gates. Look, if i get there first, i’ll tell the big guy to open those gates and I’ll seak you in… for a while only though ok. I’ll show you how the better 1/2 live :-)

    Wiful:

    I’ll get you straight through. No problem. You’re wrong but at least you’re resonably fair.

  85. Jc says:

    Laim’s back fully loaded to take out his other foot.

    Sounds more nutty to me. Perhaps theyre the inverse of each other?
    Anyway, on the subject of digging holesits youtube time.

    Look, Dumphy I’ll repeat it again for you so that you understand.

    it’s not about , morbity, it’s not about mortality it’s about whether Giuliani was correct. He was. So off to the 8th circle with you too.

    By the way I haven’t seen you at the other site for ages. Any reason?

    ———————–

    Rasputical says:

    Last time I checked, medical research was still scientifical, Cranky Joe.

    Which is not the point, is it Rasputical?

    We’re not talking about statistical analysis, here dopes. Let me know when you wanna put on your lab coat to discuss the treatment efficacy of proctology as I’m sure you’re an expert.

  86. Jc says:

    Ummm Sorry, Should read:

    Were talking about statistical analysis……….

  87. Fyodor says:

    I wouldn’t worry about correcting yourself, RCIIF – you should leave that to people with English as their first language. Besides, it’s not as if you make any more sense the second time around.

    Rasputical says:

    “Last time I checked, medical research was still scientifical, Cranky Joe.”

    Which is not the point, is it Rasputical?

    Were not talking about statistical analysis, here dopes. Let me know when you wanna put on your lab coat to discuss the treatment efficacy of proctology as Im sure youre an expert.

    Hehehe. So “statistical analysis” is the term for what you’re doing here, is it?

    I thought it was obvious to everyone that what you’re doing is putting on a rather desperate and vulgar display of Chewbacca Defense. No, your sole contribution to analysis is the first two syllables.

    As for proctology, we must all defer to your manifestly superior expertise at pulling bullshit arguments at random out of your fundament.

  88. Aidan says:

    By the way, Daniel Okrent was nasty and wrong:

    Paul Krugman Responds to Dan Okrents Response

    By The Public Editor

    Just one last word. Mr. Okrent has so far offered only one example that, if true, would have justified his all-out attack on my ethics. Everything else is picking nits: I could explain why 77 percent, not 64 percent, is the right number, but does it really matter? The only significant example was his claim that I blended household and establishment survey data on jobs, in an attempt to score political points. But as I showed in the previous note, I didnt and in the column itself I pointed readers to the correct data. Now Mr. Okrent claims that he was only referring to my assertion that the economy needs to add 140,000 payroll jobs per month, which for some reason he thinks comes from the household survey. (It doesnt.) Sorry, thats an unconvincing evasive maneuver. Mr. Okrent clearly accused me of playing mix and match with the job numbers themselves. In fact, in our correspondence, when I said that it was all payroll data, he declared that your insistence that you relied only on one set of numbers is very puzzling. I dont see how the math works any other way; maybe you could further enlighten me. In other words, the only accusation that could have justified Mr. Okrents attack was completely unfounded. And now hes not enough of a mensch to admit his error.

  89. Jc says:

    Okrent was wrong because Krug man says so. Good one Aidan. The Sydney bridge is up for sale by the way. Please deposit 1 mill dolls in my account asap.

    Okrent had a belly full of the lying Krug. That’s the real story.

  90. Fyodor says:

    Okrent was wrong because Krug man says so. Good one Aidan. The Sydney bridge is up for sale by the way. Please deposit 1 mill dolls in my account asap.

    Okrent had a belly full of the lying Krug. Thats the real story.

    Shorter JC: Okrent is right for the same reason I am – neither of us have to substantiate our arguments. We’re right because we say so. Nyah, nyah.

    Commitment of JC to the truth: lower than a rat’s arse

    Propensity of JC to believe any old bullshit that suits his prejudice: so high it makes your nose bleed

  91. Jc says:

    You get so emotionally tied up with your own lies that you don’t even know what the truth is, Ras. Too funny.

    Okrent was the public editor, doofus. He had no political or personal motivation in body slamming Krug man other than the fact that he had a gut full of the dishonest critter. He’s kind of like you, Ras. In fact it’s eerily similar.

    Here you are denying that 81% means just that. What makes it even more hilarious is that your own link offered the same stats as those found in the first link I posted.

    Let me go through this again, you innunerate, so it splatters all over your face.

    The facts are:

    US
    136/100,000 incidence rate. 26/100,000 mortality rate.

    UK
    59/100.0000 incidence rate. 28/100,000 mortality rate.

    The survival rate comparison is basically an extrapolation of the death rate for the same period.

    US
    {26/136-1} *100 =81%

    UK

    {28/59-1} *100 = 53%

    Giulianis ad says that a prostate cancer sufferer has a better chance (81%)under US health care than he does under the UKs NHS (53%).

    The above shows how Giuliani’s campaign dervied those numbers. They are correct and no amount of drivel or lying will change that.

    Now push down and take a deep breath, the proctologist is in the room checking to see why you’re always talking through your arse.

  92. Liam says:

    Extrapolation: not what you think it means
    Survival rate: not at all what you think it means
    The denominator: used wrongly, as has been demonstrated to you over and over again
    Giuliani: remains wrong, but not nearly so spectacularly as you
    The facts: are nowhere
    Sound the bell sucka: school’s in

  93. Jc says:

    Laim

    You’re even more innumerate than your master, Comrade Rasputin. Truly remarkable.

    By the way you seem to have left out the “morbidity rate”….. that’s when you really had a brain explosion.

    Go away laim, this is for adults who have some understanding in how to figure out what numbers mean.

    Rasptin will be out of the proctologist’s office soon and it will be your turn….. Hear the screams? He’s only 1/2 way through.

  94. Liam says:

    this is for adults who have some understanding in how to figure out what numbers mean

    Hee hee. How many women have prostates, Joe? An approximate number should do.

  95. Fyodor says:

    Extrapolation: not what you think it means
    Survival rate: not at all what you think it means
    The denominator: used wrongly, as has been demonstrated to you over and over again
    Giuliani: remains wrong, but not nearly so spectacularly as you
    The facts: are nowhere
    Sound the bell sucka: schools in

    Yep, and yet the RCIIF rolls on, seemingly oblivious to yet another public humiliation. Hee hee, indeed.

    Actually, scotch that: a hee hee won’t cover it.

    Monsieur! A ROTFLMAO, s’il vous pla

  96. Liam says:

    Make mine a croque-rotflmao, with extra cheese.

  97. Jc says:

    Laim:

    “How many women have prostates, Joe? An approximate number should do.”

    I’d say one at least since your sex change, Laim.

  98. Fyodor says:

    …and a can of whuparse for the old bloke.

  99. Fyodor says:

    Oh, hang on: here’s one I opened earlier for him.

    Just a spoon and a bid, then, s’il vous pla

  100. Liam says:

    Well that’s the ton. I think we ought to give JC a small token of our appreciation for being such a moderately good sport.

  101. Fyodor says:

    I think you’ve been a bit generous there, Haiku Hoges. Bubble-Boy here seems to think his Chewbacca Defense is impenetrable.

    Why doesn’t he realise that we’re keeping him out of the impoverished and violent underclass by showing him exactly where he’s so egregiously wrong?

  102. Liam says:

    Oh, look, I’m all out of jokes, anyway, I could hardly improve on the ones entered above. I’ll just have to go with a gratuitous link.

  103. Jc says:

    Laim

    Not only are you innunerate but you’re also dishonest dissembler which is not a surprise with the crowd you’re running with.

    Oh but I keep forgetting, it’s also the reason you were asked to never show your face over at Catallaxy because of the merely mouthed way you tried to slime Helen over that Xmas story she wrote last year. Good effort.

    But do keep the slime tactics up as it presents you in the proper light we’re accustomed to seeing from you.

    Now let’s go through this again just to remind you:

    The facts are:

    US
    136/100,000 incidence rate. 26/100,000 mortality rate.

    UK
    59/100.0000 incidence rate. 28/100,000 mortality rate.

    The survival rate comparison is basically an extrapolation of the death rate for the same period.

    US
    {26/136-1} *100 =81%

    UK

    {28/59-1} *100 = 53%

    Giulianis ad says that a prostate cancer sufferer has a better chance (81%)under US health care than he does under the UKs NHS (53%).

    The above shows how Giulianis campaign dervied those numbers. They are correct and no amount of drivel or lying will change that.

    Now push down and take a deep breath, the proctologist is in the room checking to see why youre always talking through your arse.

    sorry, I cut and pasted the last bit as it actually refers to Rasputin.

    Here are some facts that will defintitely help support your thesis that socialsized medicine is superior :-) No liquids as I don’t want you to choke.

    ————————————-

    http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/11/rudy-giuliani-h.html

    Let me be very clear about why the Giuliani campaign is correct: the percentage of people diagnosed with prostate cancer who die from it is much higher in Britain than in the United States. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports on both the incidence of prostate cancer in member nations and the number of resultant deaths.

    According to OECD data published in 2000, 49 Britons per 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 28 per 100,000 died of it. This means that 57 percent of Britons diagnosed with prostate cancer died of it; and, consequently, that just 43 percent survived. Economist John Goodman, in Lives at Risk, arrives at precisely the same conclusion: In the United States, slightly less than one in five people diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die.

    None of this is surprising: in the UK, only about 40 percent of cancer patients see an oncologist, and historically, the government has been reluctant to fund new (and often better) cancer drugs.

    Here is Gratzer’s explanation of the error made by the critics:

    So why do the critics think that Britains survival rates are as high as Americas? The main reason is that they are citing overall mortality rates, which are indeed, as Ezra Klein writes, similar across various countries.

    That is, the percentage of all Americans who die from prostate cancer is similar to the percentage of all Britons who do. But this misses the point, since a much higher percentage of Americans than Britons are diagnosed with prostate cancer in the first place. If you are a patient already diagnosed with prostate cancer, like Rudy Giuliani, your chances of survivalas Giuliani correctly saidare far higher in the United States.

    So Gratzer is arguing that people in the UK are dying of undiagnosed prostate cancer and are not counted at all. Perfectly possible.

    And this makes sense as an explanation given that, as Clive Crook points out, the UK does much worse on cancer overall than the US. Why, apart from the Gratzer argument, would prostate cancer be an exception?

    Giuliani’s US critics are missing the point about the British healthcare system.

    First, we spend much less money per head than in the US. This is a deliberate feature of a “socialized” system. If everyone in the UK bought as much healthcare as they wanted given their income, spending would be greater than it will ever be under a taxpayer funded system.

    The US spends $5274 per head and we spend $2164. The NHS aims to use its monopoly buying power to achieve greater value for money, although there is some evidence that it doesn’t succeed as well as it thinks it does. But even if it did brilliantly in achieving efficiency gains it would be surprising if that disparity in spending did not produce some difference in outcomes.

    Second, the UK system is not designed to produce optimal outcomes. Who would design a monopoly system, centrally managed with almost no market incentives, if optimal outcomes was the aim?

    No, the UK system is aimed at something else – equity.

    —————————-

    Here’s another tidbit

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-10-31dg.html

    Since the publication of my City Journal essay, the prestigious journal Lancet Oncology has released a landmark study on cancer survival rates. Its findings:

    The American five-year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99 percent, the European average is 78 percent, and the Scottish and Welsh rate is close to 71 percent. (English data were incomplete.)
    For the 16 different types of cancer examined in the study, American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent, compared with only 47 percent for European men. Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
    American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent for European women. For women, only five European countries have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
    These data, recently released, are now the best available. They too confirm Giulianis point: he was fortunate to be treated here.

  104. Jc says:

    Umm…. mealymouthed

  105. Liam says:

    the proper light were accustomed to seeing from you

    If you say so, Joe. I’ll do my best to illuminate things. Go go gadget
    You do *not* arrive at the survival rate by dividing the number of people diagnosed by the number of people who die, and you will never do so, no matter how many times you post it. Nor will you arrive at the survival rate by extrapolating, fractionating, embiggening or shrinkifying to suit your favourite candidate. See fyodor’s comment #67 if you want to be further confronted with your wrongness.
    The timesonline post you cite simply repeats Gratzer’s wrongness. It’s wrong.
    Gratzer’s cityjournal post you’ve cited (again) has been dealt with above. In the very second comment on this thread.
    Giuliani remains a liar, you remain wrong.
    Now then, back to our previous programming.

  106. Fyodor says:

    Aw, feckit, Haiku, I was going to trounce him for the gajillionth time with YOUR summation.

    The RCIIF’s long-winded, repetitive and ultimately redundant cut-and-paste job does warrant some response, however. Here’s a reward for all that hard work you put in, JC.

  107. Jc says:

    Thanks Ras. But lot’s of thanks for your link corraborating what i as saying.

    Which out of you two played the part of getting your tongue glued to a frozen steel girder in Dumb and Dumber, you innunmerates?

  108. haiku says:

    I think we should all marvel at the impressive achievement of the NHS in keeping the incidence rate so low. With all that socialised medicine, they are clearly way ahead of the USA in preventing prostate cancer. The figures speak for themselves: the incidence of prostate cancer in the UK is a mere 59 per 100,000, while the tight jeans and synthetic underwear nation of the US has a staggering rate of 136 per 100,000. Clearly the lesson is: with socialised medicine, your chance of catching prostate cancer is almost 57 per cent lower!!

    No need to insert the digit in JC’s elbow, just move to the UK and cut down the incidence! Never mind The Cure, check out The Prevention! (I always thought “The Prevention” would be a great name for a cover band …)

  109. Liam says:

    That would be a good cover band name, haiku. Not quite in the league of Bj

  110. Jc says:

    I think we should all marvel at the impressive achievement of the NHS in keeping the incidence rate so low.

    Did you both share the same PhD?

    Liam come on, tell us what you are a “dr” in and I promise I won’t laugh. Scouts honor.

  111. haiku says:

    I think we should all marvel at the impressive achievement of the NHS in keeping the incidence rate so low.

    Did you both share the same PhD?

    JC, it’s called irony. I know you lived in the States for a while, but even so …

    No, really, I apologise for the insinuation that you might not know your arse from your elbow. Upon reflection, I could never underestimate your intelligence.

  112. Jc says:

    Forgive me, but you were using even stupider assertions to support your thesis that Giuliani was lying.

    But nice to see you’re on the ball ( no fyodor, females don’t have prostates).

    You gotta be careful, the mad monk, Rsputin seems to go off the handle when such things are mentioned. It sends him off into a blockquote frenzy.

  113. haiku says:

    Indeed, it is important to bear in mind that the use of statistics is fraught with all sorts of challenges. In fact, back in comments 37 and 40, I think we nailed down the difference in survival rates:

    From the stats provided, the death rate from prostate cancer is 2 per 100,000 higher in the UK than the US. The survival rate is therefore 2 per 100,000 lower.

    Bingo. You’re right.

  114. Jc says:

    Indeed, it is important to bear in mind that the use of statistics is fraught with all sorts of challenges.

    I agree, especially when you begin to deny what ought to be the obvious.

    In fact, back in comments 37 and 40, I think we nailed down the difference in survival rates:
    From the stats provided, the death rate from prostate cancer is 2 per 100,000 higher in the UK than the US. The survival rate is therefore 2 per 100,000 lower.

    Indeed. However it doesn’t speak to the point made in the post which was that Guilani had lied. He didn’t, as I showed that the chance of surviving is 81% in the US and 57% in the UK. Point being: the NHS is a poor match.

    Bingo. Youre right.

    Thanks. At least there is one person who admits error.

    Laim, Rasputon, what about you guys.

    Don’t skulk away, Ras you blustering mad monk.

  115. haiku says:

    JC, the “Bingo. You’re right” is your comment, on my correct definition of the survival rate. Which does not assist Rudy’s claim. If he continues to use those statistics, it will be difficult to avoid accusations of mendacity.

    But I think that’s enough for now, since we’ve clearly gone over similar ground without a meeting of minds.

  116. Fyodor says:

    JC, the Bingo. Youre right is your comment, on my correct definition of the survival rate.

    I’m not sure which is funnier: JC furiously agreeing with himself, or crowing about furiously agreeing with himself. The Rolling Clusterfuck of Incontinently Incompetent Fubarity lives up to his name by fucking up yet again!

    But I think thats enough for now, since weve clearly gone over similar ground without a meeting of minds.

    You set your sights too high there, Haiku. JC’s mind can’t even get a blind date…with itself.

    Dont skulk away, Ras you blustering mad monk.

    Who’s skulking, RCIIF?

    Percentage of time JC is right: (still) zero

    Percentage of time JC fucks it up: 100%

  117. Credit where credit is due – JC has certainly succeeded in creating enough confusion to completely derail this comments thread from the topic of the post – why do we accept lying in political campaigns as being a matter of course? Or perhaps it’s not “us”, so much as the politicians and the professional commentariat.

    The more I’ve read of the comments on the “survival rate” in this thread, the more I’m inclined to dismiss it as a useless and nonsensical idea, however defined. Do you look, for example, at those death rate figures of 26 per 100,000 (US) and 28 per 100,000 (UK). If so the “survival rates” are 99,974 per 100,000 (US) and 99,972 (UK). But most of those “survivors” will survive prostate cancer by not getting it in the first place.

    The rate of diagnosis vs death rate doesn’t help – the US has a higher rate of diagnosis, either due to earlier detection or environmental and lifestyle factors which make prostate cancer more likely in the US than in the UK. These are not mutually exclusive, so you can’t extrapolate the US rate to the UK.

    Leaving us where? With two death rates that are not significantly different. So when it comes to prostate cancer, the US health care system and the NHS produce outcomes that are virtually identical. If you were to look at it purely in economic terms, the figures, if anything, suggest that the US health system spends too much – in the form of prostate cancer screening – for very little return. UK style “socialised medicine” does slightly worse but if you looked at it in terms of dollars spent for deaths prevented, I suspect that the UK would win the contest.

    That, of course, is a gross simplification of the issue – when we consider health economics we have to look at a lot of other factors and issues – such as does funding prostate cancer screening “waste” money that could be used to address more widespread health problems. But hey, who cares, as long as we can all have our ideological fun paying out on JC?

  118. Ken Parish says:

    “the US has a higher rate of diagnosis, either due to earlier detection or environmental and lifestyle factors which make prostate cancer more likely in the US than in the UK. ”

    Aaagh. There’s nothing in any of these data which suggests that Americans are more likely to get prostate cancer than the British. Why would they be? They’re both wealthy western countries and demographically very similar. When you see such dramatically different stats about apparently very similar countries, you need to look carefully for the reasons. Here, the differences in “incidence” are apparent rather than real. They’re entirely artefacts of the fact that the US apparently undertakes widespread asymptomatic screening for prostate cancer, whereas the Brits don’t (nor does Australia). The US has a much higher “incidence” of prostate cancer simply because they are looking for it more assiduously. The British by contrast have many more undiagnosed cases because they’re not looking as hard. That this is the case is indicated by the fact that death rates in both countries are virtually identical. The actual incidence in the 2 countries is unlikely to differ much at all.

    It’s a bit like the phenomenon whereby domestic violence rates rise dramatically when governments set up dedicated police domestic violence units. The incidence of doemstic violence doesn’t really rise at all, it’s just that there’s a bureaucracy out there looking for it much more assiduously and victims have somewhere more obvious (and more responsive) to lodge complaints.

    However, in the case of prostate cancer (as opposd to domestic violence) there appears to be a perfectly reasonable basis on cost-benefit grounds for not implementing preventative asymptomatic sreening of the population. As the Cancer Council explains:

    The benefits of population screening for prostate cancer are, at this time, unproven. The central concern is that many prostate cancers will not progress sufficiently to cause harm in the mans lifetime, while others will progress and be lethal. No current test (including the PSA test) adequately differentiates between these types of cancer.

    The Cancer Council Australia does not support population-based screening of asymptomatic men for prostate cancer, because as yet there is no direct evidence showing a net benefit of screening in terms of reduction in mortality rates.

    I strongly suspect that the reason US death rates are still virtually identical to the UK, despite much wider testing and positive diagnosis, also flows from the above. Since the doctors can’t tell reliably which cancers will become dangerous before death from other causes and which won’t (and most don’t), and because the side effects of treatment commonly include unpleasant things like permanent incontinence and complete erectile dysfunction, most blokes opt not to have treatment even where they are diagnosed with prostate cancer.

    Returning to the original point of this post, it’s entirely possible that Giuliani wasn’t “lying” in the first place when he made his statement. Like several commenters on this thread, he may simply not have understood that the apparent differences between the US and UK stats were entirely an artefact of different screening regimes and said nothing at all about the benefits or otherwise of “socialised” medicine. However, the fact that he has apparently subsequently said that he intends continuing to use the claim, despite having its falsity drawn to his attention, is certainly indicative of ideologically driven gross dishonesty (routine lying).

  119. Fyodor says:

    But hey, who cares, as long as we can all have our ideological fun paying out on JC?

    Hey, I resent that. Paying out on the village idiot doesn’t have to be ideological. I think you’ll find the paying out has been broadly bipartisan – and unanimous, AFAICT.

  120. Liam says:

    Ken, there’s going to be some tears dealing with the idea that Giuliani wasn’t lying but is simultaneously grossly dishonest. I’m sticking around.
    Fyodor: there’s nothing parochial about Joe. As McLuhan might have explained patiently to an interviewer, a society based on electronic media changes our behaviours of idiocy entirely, making village idiots into global idiots. Joe’s wrongness can create patterns of universal mocking that change the world.
    BTW, on villages: I caught up with “Hot Fuzz”. Fantastic.

  121. Ken,

    I think you’ll find we’re in heated agreement on this issue – to quote myself in full context (with a little extra emphasis):

    The rate of diagnosis vs death rate doesnt help – the US has a higher rate of diagnosis, either due to earlier detection or environmental and lifestyle factors which make prostate cancer more likely in the US than in the UK. These are not mutually exclusive, so you cant extrapolate the US rate to the UK.

    In short, there may be a lot of ceteris that ain’t paribus here.

    However, the fact that he has apparently subsequently said that he intends continuing to use the claim, despite having its falsity drawn to his attention, is certainly indicative of ideologically driven gross dishonesty (routine lying).

    Quite agree. However this criticism of Giuliani doesn’t apply to Australian pollies: the current criterion of honesty in Australian politics, is that one can plausibly claim that you don’t know the facts, and have done your best not to find out what the facts are. It’s been that way since “children overboard”.

  122. wilful says:

    Guiliani was still lying. He made three basic claims: firstly the specific one about prostate cancer, where he was wrong but it may have been an honest mistake (unlike some), a more general inference that the US system was better than the UK system, which it generally isn’t measured just in outputs, in terms of efficiency it’s miles behind. And his third claim was that his ideological opponents wanted to introduce UK style health policies into the US. Which they don’t.

    He could have been pulled up on any of these and asked to justify them. The first claim is the simplest to test, but it’s also the most trivial (and he was still wrong).

  123. Aidan says:

    Okrent was wrong because Krug man says so.

    Uh no. He was wrong because, weirdly, he was incorrect. He was not right. He said something that was not true. Okrent claimed Krugman made mistakes when he did not. Okrent could not and did not explain his errors. One of the people claimed something and was proven to be wrong. This was Okrent. Okrent failed to back up his smear of Krugman.

    Does repeating it in different ways help to make you understand?

    Good one Aidan. The Sydney bridge is up for sale by the way. Please deposit 1 mill dolls in my account asap.

    Send me your bank account details and I’ll see what I can do.

    Okrent had a belly full of the lying Krug. Thats the real story.

    Okrent thought he was smarter than Krugman and he wasn’t. And still isn’t by the way.

  124. Jc says:

    See, evidence right here I’m right. Trostsky turned up and is arguing the opposite to the claim. So down weapons everyone it’s over. Trot thinks Giuliani is wrong which by definition therefore makes me right.

    Let me edit the last bit, Trot as I think you made a transcription error that can happen to the best of us. (Me too)

    “….one can plausibly claim that you dont know the facts, and have done your best not to find out what the facts are. Its been that way since the unions dishonesty on freer labor markets.

    ————————–

    Don’t be so willfully wrong, wilful. I had hopes for you as big as imagination would allow. Now look what you’ve done.

    Let’s again take a look at what Giuliani says, shall we:

    (Oh, by the way I won’t vote for him as the mad monk was earlier suggesting I support Giuliani. He’s too strange and not very nice.)

    But facts is facts and truth is truth.
    This is what he said:

    My chance of surviving prostate cancer and thank God I was cured of it in the United States? Eighty-two percent, says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.

    Now lets take the figures from Rasputias link (heres Rasputia by the way: http://images.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/02/09/norbit/story.jpg). I can’t be fairer than that. Hell, who else would take a debating opponents link to support his own case unless he was a fair-minded person like I always demonstrate? No one, except a decent fair-minded person like moi (French for me, Rasputia)

    Rasputias figures come out looking like this:

    81% of US males found to have prostate cancer are still alive like Rudi after 5 years. The UK figure is a little different in Rasputias link but it still argues for Giuliani. Only 53% of UK males confirmed with prostate cancer are alive after 5 years.

    Now I’ve seen the argument that screening may not actually help in reducing deaths etc. However that presents a few problems in arguing that this supports NHS socialist medicine when we take into account that the UK has only begun to add oncologists to the spectrum of services. This in itself hardly speaks in favor of the NHS. In other words, go to a vet if you get sick in the UK.

    ____________

    Aidan

    Okrent was a fine public editor. Krug man is not a fine columnist. Okrent was right to give Krug man a good uppercut before leaving his job.

    The only letter to the editor supporting Krug man was by Krug man himself (hilarious). He defended is action of using one of the two surveys used for US payroll statistics. Krug man of course was using the one, which showed lower payroll gains thereby supporting his thesis that the Bush administration was “soft of jobs”. This has proved to be laughably dishonest.

  125. Jc says:

    Oh, and Rasputia was in one of Eddie Murphy’s flicks that happened to be very funny.

  126. Fyodor says:

    Nothing new there, RCIIF – same old discredited garbage…

    Oh, wait, hang on, there’s this:

    See, evidence right here Im right. Trostsky turned up and is arguing the opposite to the claim. So down weapons everyone its over. Trot thinks Giuliani is wrong which by definition therefore makes me right.

    Oops, sorry: false alarm – JC is just recycling the same line he used with Homer Paxton way back at #52. Even your (faux) wit is tired, RCIIF.

    That said, I am curious about two things: if Homer and Gummo were to disagree on a given issue, would your brain explode and, if so, would we notice the difference?

  127. Jc says:

    Ummm that’s a hard one, Rasputia. NOT! I could never imagine those two ever disagreeing and if they did I could well imagine the situation where they’re both wrong. This is Homerpath and Trot we’re talking about here, Rasputia. These are two very special ozblog personalities that require lots of watering to get full bloom. Treat them well with all the disrespect they deserve and I’m sure we’ll get many fun years outta them yet.

  128. Fyodor says:

    *pop*

    What was that? It sounded a bit like a flea’s fart…

  129. Jc says:

    *pop*

    You sound so romantaic when you do the french schtik, Rasputia. Are you always the effervescent or gaseous is more likely.

    Let me answer it for you. Yes you are.

    only comment in French for a as I’m going there next year for a while and doing a lingo course. Let’s see if i can translate.

    I’ve got he italian down pat though See here, Rapsutia. What do you think?

    Tu sei un gran stronzo lo sai, Forse ill piu grande nel tutto ill mondo.

  130. Liam says:

    I’m getting more and more impressed, I’d never have guessed you’d be multilingually incoherent. Truly this is an epic fail.

  131. Jc says:

    Settle down Laim. Was it the Italian that jumped at you from the screen.

    I think you need some help with numbers old son, start with colors or paint.

  132. Fyodor says:

    I think your Italian is lousy: your linguistic incompetence is clearly not language-specific.

    In italiano si dice “stronzone”, stronzetta. Ma, evidentemente, tu no lo sai, perche tu sei un’ ignorante buffone, e sai solamente dire sciocchezze.

    I can translate that for you, if you like – your translator may not be up to it; I know you’re not.

  133. Jc says:

    I can translate that for you, if you like – your translator may not be up to it”

    No, no Rasputia. i’ll be more than happy to.

    Rasputia is syaing

    ” I realize I’m wrong about amost everything I’ve said so far and have behaved like a real turd. The link I put up in fact supported your assertions, but I’m too much of a coward to admit it”

    He asked me to tell everyone as he doesn’t want to do it himself……..Obviously

    Thanks rasputia. And I can genuinely tell you that everyone (Homer and trot included, as they know what being wrong is all about) are fine with it.

  134. Fyodor says:

    Don’t be like that, RCIIF. It’s not as if we didn’t know you’d fuck up in Italian.

    As Haiku said, it’s impossible to underestimate your abilities. Think of it as a gift…to us.

  135. Liam says:

    On the subject of Italian failures: Roberto Baggio.

  136. Jc says:

    Talking about incomptence, Rasputia, i would say that would be a toss up between you and Laim. You, for scoring an won goal by puting up a link that inadvertently helped my argument and Laim for discussing morbidity rates (enough said about that one the better).

    You really haven’t changed much since the thread of doom in which you were trouced on almost every silly assertion you came up with. You still think major banks haven’t failed in the past 25 years?

  137. Liam says:

    You really havent changed much since the thread of doom in which you were trouced on almost every silly assertion you came up with. You still think major banks havent failed in the past 25 years?

    Kamikaze Chewbacca Defence. Superb.
    Please let’s go there… that way lies madness.

  138. Fyodor says:

    Yeah, JC’s really pulling out all stops now. And just like a Kamikaze pilot he’s flying a big fat ZERO.

    Talking about incomptence, Rasputia, i would say that would be a toss up between you and Laim. You, for scoring an won goal by puting up a link that inadvertently helped my argument and Laim for discussing morbidity rates (enough said about that one the better).

    What link was that, Stronzetta? The one to the National Cancer Institute stating your “survival rate” miscalculation was dead wrong? Or was it the one to The Commonwealth Fund stating you were…dead wrong? Hang on, you don’t mean this one, do you? That would improve your case immeasurably, but you’ll recall that I didn’t put that one up.

    You really havent changed much since the thread of doom in which you were trouced on almost every silly assertion you came up with. You still think major banks havent failed in the past 25 years?

    Now come on, grandpa, really. We all know how this one goes: “I don’t normally write letters to Forum, but the other day I had this amazing experience I just have to share with you…”

    Where am I supposed to have said what? This sounds like another one of your fantasies about me. Was I in a Penrith branch of the CBA at the time, hacking computer networks while fondling nubile dyevushki?

    Again, you’re making shit up out of pure, infantile desperation.

  139. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    This is just too much.

    don’t stop Joey dig deeper dig deeper

  140. Nabakov says:

    This’ll further inflame poor old joe cambria’s terminal case of mumpsimus.

    His bumchum Rudy’s been fingered for even more mendacity. Turns out his prostate was treated through the kind of taxpayer-funded public sector health program that he’s now railing against.

    In short, Rudy’s using dodgy figures to claim that the kind of program that worked for him, wouldn’t work for him.

    And it really has been most entertaining to watch poor old joe cambria following Rudy’s lead in taking a suitably informed look at the issue of prostate cancer.

  141. Bring Back CL's blog says:

    err Nabs I said that possibly over 100 comments ago

  142. Jc says:

    Why are they dodgy, Vapidov? I think ought you to stick to busking nabs. Hell I’d even throw a coupla dolls your way if I knew you were that tight for cash.. The moment you wonder out of your core competency you seem to get into lots of trouble. Now tell us again that free labor markets are a

    “ying and yang thang

    Vapid says:

    “Turns out his prostate was treated through the kind of taxpayer-funded public sector health program that hes now railing against.”

    Ah, yea doofus he was when he was mayor. Medical insurance goes with the job. Didn’t ya know, Vapidaov? Another day another bollicking for the resident busker.

    Here’s the numbers Vapidov. Do tell why they’re wrong. ( i won’t giggle Scouts honor.

    US
    136/100,000 incidence rate. 26/100,000 mortality rate.

    UK
    59/100.0000 incidence rate. 28/100,000 mortality rate.

    The survival rate comparison is basically an extrapolation of the death rate for the same period.

    US
    {26/136-1} *100 =81%

    UK

    {28/59-1} *100 = 53%

    Giulianis ad says that a prostate cancer sufferer has a better chance (81%)under US health care than he does under the UKs NHS (53%).

    The above shows how Giulianis campaign dervied those numbers. They are correct and no amount of drivel or lying will change that.

    ——————————–

    As an aside………………….

    Is this a Catallaxy exiles convention or what? The three of you, Vapid , Laim and Rasputia seem to blame me for getting shown the door. Don’t be angry with me as I stuck up for youse guys (well I didn’t actually). Too Funny.

    Gals, it wasn’t my fault you got the size 10 hobnail up the butt.

  143. Liam says:

    Heh. You shouldn’t be let out of there without a minder.

  144. Fyodor says:

    Minder? The doddering fool needs a nanny.

    The stupidity is simply breath-taking – you were right before, Liam: JC’s a world-class clown. If Fuckups were an Olympic event, he’d podium. He might even pick up all three top spots – there’d be JC, daylight and then these relative genii.

  145. Liam says:

    …as the flags are raised for the medallists, the band plays the champion’s anthem

  146. Jc says:

    That’s certainly unpset the scorpion nest. Was it something I said , gals?

    You know what? Both of you just such rank losers. It’s not just the attempt at trying to cover up your innunerate incomeptence here. It’s the way you both tried to attack SL over her Xmas story last year and how your were ready to condemn her without a shread of evidence. Soon was right in bouncing both of you. Pretty good going fellas as the Cat has the most liberal policy on earth. But somehow both you managed to achieve what looked like the impossible. Congratulations.

    And no, I didn’t get you thrown off the site so don’t blame me Rasputia. Laim, you deserved it 100% and the beret doesn’t change the image of what you tried to dd to the poor kid.

  147. Liam says:

    Shorter Joe: I’ve been made to look an idiot outside the rarefied space where my fringe-dwelling arse-clown mates protect me. Everybody’s so mean. Boo fucking hoo.

  148. Fyodor says:

    Wah-wah-wah, JC’s a big baby.

  149. Jc says:

    “Shorter Joe: Ive been made to look an idiot outside the rarefied space where my fringe-dwelling arse-clown mates protect me. Everybodys so mean. Boo fucking hoo.”

    Ummmmm. I used to notice your name in lights there Boo Boo; often. So bitter, so angry. Laim, you only have yourself to blame, so take responsibility for you own actions. I know it’s hard and has to be learned behaviour for you, but give it a whirl.

  150. Jc says:

    “Wah-wah-wah, JCs a big baby.”

    Oh no, he’s back witrh the bird and other assorted noises.

    Rasputsia, look up! You know you got booted for making bird noises everytime you got caught out in a lie (often) or made fun of because of your silly views on monetary policy. Try to overcome these afflictions and the desire to scream when uou’re wrong.

  151. Fyodor says:

    Nah, Mumpsimus Maximus, they’re baby noises, like the kind you make when you whine like the baby you are. I only make monkey noises at you when you start raving about bananas, which on your present form is just around the corner.

    You’ve been comprehensively trounced, and now you’ve nothing but humiliation ahead of you. I told you this way back at #24 but, being the moron you are, you pressed on regardless.

  152. Ken Parish says:

    I should probably point out at this stage that I’m letting this thread burble along in part as an experiment. You blokes obviously get some sort of weird, even perverse pleasure from slagging each other endlessly, and you all understand the rules of the game (even if I don’t). However, my fear is that this sort of discussion may eventually begin attracting other dickheads who don’t understand those rules and whose ill-tempered abuse is real rather than playful. If it looks like this style of discussion is beginning to attract others and to infect the rest of the blog then I’ll chop it off at the knees without hesitation. Otherwise I’ll treat you as consenting adults entitled to choose your own perversion.

  153. Jc says:

    You look like a skinny naked plucked chicken without the block quotes, Rapsutia.

    Saying I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m wrong, by the way. It’s just that you’re an innunerate who wouldn’t know when to call it quits. What’s hillarous is that is the second time you’ve showed up to a site with a pretty link that later became obvious it actually supported your opponents arguments all along. The other time Reynolds and I calmly explained that you on the banking thread. And the result? Animal noises.

    By the way I’m sure you would be allowed back to Catallaxy if you asked nicely and promised some good behaviour. You want me to put the good word in. Just say so and I’ll see what I can do ok? I’m there for you, Rasputia. You know that.

  154. Liam says:

    Joe, the safety words are “you’re right”.
    Better go wake up the gimp…

  155. Fyodor says:

    Im there for you, Rasputia. You know that.

    Heh. I know, and you’re the gift that keeps on giving!

    In years to come, I’m going to be able to point out this thread and show people exactly where Joe Cambria comprehensively, embarassingly and, most of all, publically, fucked up.

  156. Jc says:

    Thanks Ken.

    I’ll watch over the kids. I’ve suckled Fyodor on my breast unilt he was 12. now look at him, i”m as proud as any mum in the way he’s turned out.

  157. Fyodor says:

    Ill watch over the kids. Ive suckled Fyodor on my breast unilt he was 12. now look at him, im as proud as any mum in the way hes turned out.

    !

    Mmmokay…that takes the cake for flat-out, dead-set weirdest comment.

    I really hope that was an attempt at a witty allusion, because if it wasn’t, it’s just pathetically creepy. Which, come to think of it/you, IS kind of appropriate.

  158. Jc says:

    Creepy? No its funny because you can never admit you’re wrong and then try and lie about it. You’re just a kid who’s still in mental diapers when it comes to fessing up to a mistake. Pathetic really.

    And it was that attitude that got you booted from Catallaxy and you still haven’t learned a thing.

  159. Liam says:

    Ive suckled Fyodor on my breast unilt he was 12. now look at him

    As of now, this thread needs a NSFW tag. Actually, that’s not safe for anywhere. Monsieur, bring me my purgatives, a bucket, a bottle of rubbing alcohol and a wire brush!
    I feel so very very dirty.

  160. Fyodor says:

    No its funny because you can never admit youre wrong and then try and lie about it.

    Hahahahahaha! Oh, the irony. Stupid, creepy, delusional…just how many boxes on the fuckup list are you going to tick?

  161. Jc says:

    Rapsutia
    you are just upset that i keep bringing up the your catallaxy experience. Seething……!!!! i’m sure, but face facts you are a self confessed thread wrecker from way back.

    Laim

    I wouldn’t be talking about creepy and disgusting if I were you, Mr. I-Care- Because-I-Wear-a-Beret. That routine doesn’t wash after what you tried to do to Helen. That was truly the most pitiful thing done for a while. In fact I really don’t know how you continue to show up at other places like this where she contributes. No shame?

  162. Fyodor says:

    Rapsutia
    you are just upset that i keep bringing up the your catallaxy experience. Seething!!!! im sure, but face facts you are a self confessed thread wrecker from way back.

    Not at all – talk about Catallaxy as much as you wish. Knock yourself out.

    I’m taking the piss out of you because you’re such a creepy weirdo, “Mum”. Honestly, you couldn’t make up shit that freaky.

  163. Jc says:

    “Im taking the piss out of you because youre such a creepy weirdo,”

    Is that like the time you posted what you thought was another commneter’s place of work then realized it was the wrong person? Recall? Personally it’s toss up between you and your pet robot _ laim_ as to who has done the vilest thing.

    Which do you think it was Liam. Your actions or Rapsutia’s.

  164. Fyodor says:

    JC, have you told your psychiatrist these fantasies about breast-feeding grown men?

    All jokes aside, are you seeing a therapist? It could help, you know.

  165. Jc says:

    That was a pretense it was you mother talking, Rasputia. But I guess is did hit a nerve. You were suckled until your teens because no one could ever be as pathetic as you are into adulthood like you are.

  166. Liam says:

    No shame?

    I think shame’s a pretty relative thing for you, Bitty Joe.

    Honestly, you couldnt make up shit that freaky.

    I hear the Japanese do. But again… that way lies madness.
    By the way, Ken, what makes you think that the mutual abuse in this thread isn’t real? I’m sure I’m not imagining Joe’s ludicrously humiliating self-inflicted 360° arse-kicking. How do you differentiate between real creepy and faux creepy?
    Sounds like a job for Doctor Troppo.

  167. Jc says:

    How do you differentiate between real creepy and faux creepy?

    Gee laim, If you think that’s creepy, I’m surprised you remained silent after your pal, Rasputia (pronounced Raspushia) made this comment. This defines creepiness (and to this he made that comment at # 29

    Rasputin says:

    Now have a lie down, old-timer – I can tell youre getting your panties in a bunch.

    So he imagines older men in panties, Hey!

    Edit time #165

    Raspitia, have you told your psychiatrist these fantasies about panties and grown men?

    All jokes aside, are you seeing a therapist? It could help, you know.

    Excuse me if Rasputia took the thread down to the base level he normally slunks around during his normal working hours.

    Now did you apologise to Helen?

  168. Jacques Chester says:

    Hmm. How did this thread get so far out of control? Lockdown time.

Comments are closed.