| Leonard Evens 2004-10-04, 2:21 am |
| George Conklin wrote:
>
> So if all studies you have a flawed, then why do you insist on dramatic
> 'cures' which have never been proven? If the results were going to be even
> a little bit important, the results would show up long before 15 years.
>
>
If you applied that reasoning to lung cancer, you would conclude that
it is not a very serious disease. Few cases of lung cancer develop
within 12 years of the time the subject starts smoking. The analogy is
not exact, but the point is the same. There are many medical
situations where you would get a misleading result if you followed a
population for too short a period of time. Your statement about results
showing up long before 15 years is contradicted by important examples.
Keep in mind that current treatment recommendations for prostate cancer
are not to use aggressive treatments like RP for men who have a life
expectancy of less than 10 years. So a study that follows patients only
for 10-12 years at best (or worst according to your point of view) is
going to confirm that practice. The question is whether patients with
longer expected life spans can be expected to benefit.
|