Slashdot Mirror
Cervical Cancer Just Got Much Deadlier -- Because Scientists Fixed a Math Error (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Cervical cancer is 77 percent more deadly for black women and 44 percent more deadly for white women than previously thought, researchers report today in the journal Cancer. But the lethal boosts aren't from more women actually dying than before -- they're from scientists correcting their own calculation error. In the past, their estimates didn't account for women who had undergone hysterectomies -- which almost always removes the cervix, and with it the risk of getting cervical cancer. We don't include men in our calculation because they are not at risk for cervical cancer and by the same measure, we shouldn't include women who don't have a cervix," Anne F. Rositch, the study's lead author and an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins told The New York Times. For the study, the researchers looked at national cervical cancer mortality data collected between 2000 to 2012. They also looked into national survey data on the prevalence of hysterectomies. Then, they used those figures to adjust the number of women at risk of dying of cervical cancer. The researchers found that black women have a mortality rate of 10.1 per 100,000. For white women, the rate is 4.7 per 100,000. Past estimates had those rates at 5.7 and 3.2, respectively. The new death rate for black women in the US is on par with that of developing countries. Though the new study wasn't designed to address racial disparities, experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare.
Should I do an Angelina Jolie on my gear, just in case?
Seems like an obvious error from a statistical analysis standpoint. Makes me wonder how much critical medical research has obvious errors like this.
...as if cancer is caused by either of those. Political alert!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
See? I always told everyone math give you cancer! Now I finally have a proof.
First World Country with Third World medical access problem. I guess U.S. people should just move to any third world country as they'd get more use out of their money while at the same time, receive better medical access through u.s. founded help organisations than in the United States of Assholes.
The new death rate for black women in the US is on par with that of developing countries.
In other news, insurance companies make record profits since Obamacare
lucm, indeed.
It seems to me both are true and useful. I would even go so far as to say the original number is more useful.
1 in X women die from cervical cancer. (old number)
Of women who did not have a hysterectomy (prior to cancer), 1 in Y die from cervical cancer. (new number)
Both are true. How might mortality rates be used? One important use is comparisons for policy making decisions:
10 in X women die from heart disease, 1 in X die from cervical cancer. Therefore, we should invest more prevention efforts toward heart disease.
Or:
X% of women die from alcoholism, Y% from cervical cancer. Therefore, we should spend the most money researching cures for ______ ?
For these policy, questions, we want to know how many people are affected. Period. It's not a useful comparison to say "of people who drink, X die from alcoholism, while of people who have a uterus, Y die from cervical cancer". Those numbers don't give us any useful comparison with which to make decisions. The useful numbers for decision making are "how many people could be helped by addressing this issue?"
It sounds like they just divided women into two sub-groups, one of which has a zero risk of getting cervical cancer.
The overall risk of cancer for women is still the same.
Depending on what you are using the statistic for (e.g. assessing your own risk of getting cervical cancer, large-scale targeted prevention efforts, allocating government health-care funding based on overall population, etc.), you may find the new set of statistics more useful than the old one, or vice-versa.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Cervical cancer didn't become deadlier, we've just become slightly better informed.
Before guessing the racial disparity is from unequal access, rule out Vitamin D. Low Vitamin D levels are associated with higher rates of some cancers. Darker skin causes slower Vitamin D production from exposure to sunlight.
I bet you're the type to rush to evolution as the 'holy grail' of science, but deny that humans separated for tens of thousands of years will develop any differently.
Just like the scientists who made a 'math error' and then blamed it on 'evil whitey keeping the black woman down' I'm sure in 6 months they'll say it's actually a genetic difference between blacks and whites that leads to higher rates of cervical cancer.
Even more annoyingly, hint at issues with carbon-14 dating and you're a global warming denier, discuss climategate and you're a creationist.
Then you need to filter out stories from BeauHD.
No, I'm more of an evidence based practice type of person. How about you? You believe everything you were taught as an child?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Cancer might not be caused by lack of quality healthcare, but dying of cancer certainly can be. i.e. People who have access to quality cancer treatments are more likely to survive than people who don't.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Or aren't on a witch hunt for SJW boogeymen:
...as if cancer is caused by either of those. Political alert!
... as if the study was looking at the incidence of cervical cancer rather than the outcomes. Political alert indeed.
I should correct myself since I know someone will nitpick: looking solely at the incidence rather than the combination of incidence and outcomes.
No, this article is about the fairer sex.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Cervical cancer didn't get more deadly, statistics have nothing to do with whether or not a certain cancer is more lethal or less susceptible to treatment.
The statistics also no longer apply to 'just' women, they only apply to women who haven't (yet) had their cervix removed, it's a different subset of people. 1/3 of women get hysterectomies (2/3 of those are deemed to be unnecessary).
It's not necessarily true that you can't get cervical cancer after a hysterectomy, even with the cervix removed (not necessarily completely removed in all cases), plenty of people have cervical cancer already spread to nearby organs.
So 'at best' these statistics just identified that you're more susceptible to cervical cancer before treatment/prevention of cervical cancer.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Hey, at least there's no spelling errors and not too many grammatical oddities -- double dashes notwithstanding.
"Cervical Cancer Just Got Much Deadlier -- Because Scientists Fixed a Math Error"
No, it's just as deadly as it always was, it's just being measured more accurately now. The perception of the mortality value changed, but nothing else.
The headline would have you believe that scientists changed a physical property of the universe because they moved a decimal point or something.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Article is paywalled so I can't read their actual data. If R is the rate at which women die of cervical cancer, n is the number of women who die of cervical cancer, N is the population of women, and h is the fraction who have had hysterectomies.
R_initial = n / N
R_adjusted = n / (N - h*N) = (n / N) * (1 / (1-h))
R_adjusted / R_initial = 1 / (1- h)
(1-h) = 1 / (R_adjusted / R_initial)
h = 1 - 1/(R_adjusted / R_initial)
For black women, R_adjusted / R_initial = 1.77, so
h = 1 - 1/1.77 = 0.435
43.5% of black women have had hysterectomies.
For white women, R_adjusted / R_initial = 1.44, so
h = 1 - 1/1.44 = 0.306
30.6% of white women have had hysterectomies.
According to this site over 1/3 of women over age 60 have had hysterectomies. Which seems to agree with the above calculated rates. I had no idea hysterectomies were that prevalent.
This new number was created by explicitly removing women that do have quality healthcare by removing women from the study that had hysterectomies, a form of quality healthcare when cervical cancer is involved. What is left are women that do not have quality healthcare.
In other words, black women that do not have quality healthcare die of cervical cancer at higher rates than white women that do not have quality healthcare.
The real question at this point is, how are they going to blame this disparity on some *ism? By lying through intentional equivocation of course!
"Science-based beliefs are the new bible. One is either a Darwinist [...] There is no longer room for discussion or dissent."
About species evolution by means of natural selection? No, certainly there's no longer room for discussion or dissent. Just like it's the case about thermodynamics or, say, special relativity. No, ignoramus douchebags' rants don't count.
Nowadays it's easier to have discussions with pro-lifes or intelligent designers than with "learned" people.
Sure, lucm, is that because all of the things you want to say are what they want to hear?
Notice how you didn't say anything to challenge them and their agenda.
This new number was created by explicitly removing women that do have quality healthcare by removing women from the study that had hysterectomies, a form of quality healthcare when cervical cancer is involved. What is left are women that do not have quality healthcare.
You do realize that a woman NOT having a hysterectomy does NOT mean they don't have access to quality healthcare, right?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Or aren't idiots:
...as if cancer is caused by either of those. Political alert!
Cervical cancer is deadly in the final stages when symptoms begin appear that force people to seek medical care. If it's caught early through routine exams it has an exponentially higher survival rate.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Exactly what the Subject says. Cervical cancer did not get deadlier. That would be an adjustment to the 1, 3, or 5 year mortality rates which are not addressed here. What they adjusted was the incidence of the disease, i.e. the likelihood that you will get the disease.
Their data is valid presumable, but this headline about "deadlier" is wholly inaccurate. Report what the study actually concluded, not clickbait.
experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare.
Which "experts"? Why dismiss all the other cultural and genetic possibilities?
If it is about "access", why do poor whites have better life expectancy, and why are Hispanics so healthy and long lived in the US?
I am pretty sure about this information you shared because its really helpful for everyone Obat Kuat pria alami Obat Kuat pria Alami Online Cara mengatasi ejakulasi dinisecara alami Obat kuat Obat Kuat Pria Obat pembesar penis Cara memperbesar penis secara alami Obat kuat online Cara mengobati ejakulasi dini secara alami Obat kuat Online Cara mengatasi darah tinggi secara alami Obat alami darah Tinggi Hajar jahanam Cap Piramid Minyak Lintah Papua asli
..(and apparently harder than surgery).
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Cervical cancer is virtually always (according to cancer.org) caused by an HPV infection. Effective prevention as part of healthcare is how you combat STDs like that, so yes, it seems reasonable to expect that poor healthcare will lead to increased cervical cancer rates.
@"The researchers found that black women have a mortality rate of 10.1 per 100,000. For white women, the rate is 4.7 per 100,000. "
No, this is incorrect, NOW the phrase should read "The researchers found that black women WHO HAVE A CERVIX have a mortality rate of 10.1 per 100,000. For white women with a cervix, the rate is 4.7 per 100,000. "
The original number was correct, and women without a cervix knew they weren't at risk of cervical cancer and the women who had cancer had an easy estimate of survival rates because they know who is a woman.
When cancer is not removed leading to death? Yeah, that is NOT quality healthcare.
Spin your alternative facts all you want right? Anything to defend your worldview. Wouldn't want to face reality.
I don't understand why they split the groups into black and white.. Does "black" cover anyone who isn't white, or are we ignoring asians? And what does this have to do with cervical cancer anyway?
If there is an actual medical/statistical reason for separating groups like that, I'm genuinely curious, otherwise whats the point?
Bigot.
First, praise for communicating the error!
Second, how does such a beginners boo boo slip into statistics? I understand forgetting females without a cervix. But beings that weren't conceived with one? It sort of leaves the impression of botched research. Perhaps the findings and interpretation were rushed out to appease patrons. What else brings back memories of Roquefort and needs a once over? Did they confine the research to humans or more generally to primates?
So many questions.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
a) Scientists never make huge mistakes like this, and 'the science is settled', etc.
b) I thought there was 'no such thing as race', so why the racial disparity? They'll be telling us that black men are ten times more likely to murder white women they are in a relationship with than white men...
Cervical cancer actually IS caused by BOTH those. Because Cervical cancer is preventable with a vaccine. Now do you think access to preventative care may increase somebody's ability to get a vaccine ? Those two sentences are practically the same thing.
More-over, the lethality of ALL cancers is directly linked to preventative care. The quicker a cancer is detected, the higher your odds of survival - preventative care is the number one way to detect the damn tumour BEFORE It metastasises - i.e. while you can still just cut the fucking thing out.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
So they correct the figures by removing women with hysterectomies from the group and the number jumps up, and then they claim that the cause is "unequal access to healthcare" causing higher stats in that group. So I take it the women are getting their uterus and cervix removed by NON health care professionals?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Medicine and biology are not sciences!!
Statistics can be used to prove or disprove anything regardless of equal data access. They probably did it on purpose. It's not like Cervical Cancer or statistics are a new thing. We've probably knew about HPV forever (just as an example) and now that documents are being declassified or exposed left and right, it's better to make things like this look like a "new discovery" instead of people do actual research and sue. Funny how Johnson & Johnson just got caught knowing about talcum powder and cervical cancer links. Related?....hmmmm...
>The virus that causes cervical cancer is transmitted as the result of habitual unprotected sex.
Falsehood one. HPV can be, and most often is, spread by non-sexual contact.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Shouldn't including men be even more useful? A disease which affects 1 in X women should get the same attention as a disease which affects 1 in 2*X people.
Ironically the error that just got corrected will also serve as a convenient reason for insurance companies to raise their premiums.
I don't know... I know a lot of black women, dated several. On average, they had more sexual partners than the women of other races I've dated (meaning more HPV exposure), were less likely to see a doctor for routine screening (despite ALL having health insurance and seeing a doctor whenever they needed one), and were far more likely to express the "wait and see" approach so common in men. I'm sure healthcare access plays a role, but cultural elements do also appear to be present as well, and would need to be accounted for (and negated) in any plan of action. Much like getting men to check their testicles.
"Though the new study wasn't designed to address racial disparities, experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare."
This is very strange, because we are spending lots and lots of money trying to get every woman to attend the damn screening (which together with vaccination is the only way to prevent cervical cancer). Do you know how hard that is?
It's not because of unequal access, it's not because of "muh oppression", it's because we cannot do more than send out invitations, offer self-sampling that can be mailed in, send out a gyno-bus, or offer online/phone consultations. We cannot forcibly make them. Do you have any other suggestions? Or is it more fun to claim "muh equality" on this one too?
In short, if they do not *want* to take a smear, they won't. I've heard women say "what's the point? Even if I have high-grades lesion I won't come in to the clinic". How the fuck are you supposed to improve care for women that effectively try to hamper their own survival chances? Do you know how many projects, how much money, and how many scientists are working on ways to up the screening coverage? it's practically impossible to get the non-attenders to regularly take smears. Even when their own mothers die from cervical cancer they *still* won't go.
Experts my ass.
The biggest healthcare issue is lack of follow up and preventive care. For many type of cancers you can be determined if you are a risk or not, by genetic screening, auditing your life style, environmental conditions... So for many of these conditions if we had a strong healthcare infrastructure the focus will be far heavier on detecting and preventing then on curing or holding off.
The proble with this method it means we will need an infrastructure so it will require corporations and governments and the population to work together. And across the world this is very difficult.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's a classification error.
what planet are you on?
It is fake news. Cervical cancel has not changed one little bit - but our understanding of it has improved. There is not even any new evidence, just a new interpretation of it.
There is STILL not even a test for HPV in men, let alone a vaccine. Why is this discriminatory policy still the norm? You can vaccinate girls all day long but you will not halt the spread of HPV among men, because a vaccinated woman can still carry the virus for a short time (days or weeks) until her body clears it.
A woman who has multiple sexual partners can still spread the HPV she is carrying to multiple men, and the men aren't even allowed to find out they have it unless they have one of the strains that shows symptoms by causing warts.
The question we have to ask is, why was only a woman-specific vaccine developed, and why is there STILL no test for asymptomatic HPV in men? It just so happens that the asymptomatic strains of the virus are the ones that most commonly cause cervical cancer. So, one would think there would be impetus to develop a test for ALL people, regardless of gender.
Dirty dudes....pick a better mate than one who has screwed everything.
Cancer might not be caused by lack of quality healthcare,
Actually, in this case, lack of quality healthcare DOES rise the incidence of cancer:
Like several other types of cancer (e.g.: like colon cancer ; unlike pancreatic cancer), it's possible with a routine test to detect cellular anomalies long before those degenerate into an actual cervical cancer (the same way you can notice polyps on a scopy long before an actual cancer).
But for those early detection to be done, the woman needs to be able to afford going to a gynaecologist for said test to be done.
Otherwise she'll eventually get actual cervical cancer.
Also, cervical cancer is one of the few cancers where there is a well known and documented infectious cause - human papilloma virus - that accounts for a significant chunk of cervical cancer.
But again, for prevention to work, the woman needs to be able to afford going to a doctor who'll administer an HPV vaccine.
(or - less optimally - to gynaecologists who'll at least detect the HPV infection and do closer monitoring)
Otherwise the poor woman will catch HPV, which will go unnoticed, and eventually she's at high risk being one of those who caught a cervical cancer as a consequence of HPV infection.
(Disclaimer : I am a doctor, Jim ! ...but population health isn't my speciality).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Given that this is all speculation, I think what they speculated on doesn't cover the bases, but was the most PC thing to suggest. For example if they suggested things like "higher rate of having sex with men with HPV" or "less condom use" then the blogosphere would be getting out its pitch forks.
I had a virology professor who presented some stats I don't have the citation for, but the long and short of it was that all populations, no matter how divided, have a exponential increase of the percentage of them that is positive for herpes over time. The only exception in his dataset was nuns. And yes, it isn't just a Parks and Rec joke that apparently nursing homes are hotbeds of STDs since no one uses protection since the women aren't fertile anymore.
Eh, not a new bible... you don't have to take any of that on faith. Although, I guess you could, if you were profoundly ignorant about how science works but were willing to go along with what scientists said for some reason.
One of the reasons we get foaming at the mouth antivaxxers is a redefinition of autism a bit over ten years back. The other is to look for something to blame other the cruel and hard reality of genetics.
Or aren't idiots:
...as if cancer is caused by either of those. Political alert!
Health care rates are probably part of it. The rest is probably ignorance and lifestyle as well. "Planning for the future" isn't one of the things a big slice of American culture does.
Likewise, cervical cancer (and a bunch of other types) seem to be correlated and in part, CAUSED by viral infections such as HPV. Which is strongly correlated to cultural behavior, sexual activity, and again, ignorance and education.
Given that, one would expect the numbers to fall where they do when broken down racially.
My opinion is, anybody wanting to "solve" this problem needs to be pushing for the HPV, and other related viruses to get wiped out with widespread and effective vaccinations. Over and over again, they are finding cancer is set off by viral infections. Sharks, Wombats (the famous nose cancer study) and in several known instances in humans. You aren't going to change people, or their culture, but you can make the virus factor go away with science.
Though the new study wasn't designed to address racial disparities, experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare.
But, but, everyone is supposed to have affordable, quality health insurance! It's required!
We need not trust ANY data. Even our own. Verify.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Math is racist, cancer is mysoganist!
* trigerred *
to the cervix though?
Does developing nation include third world nations? Does anyone doubt that black people are murdered by our social systems? So let's go have a rally about how America is number one in the world. That's enough to keep CHUMP supporters happy.
This new number was created by explicitly removing women that do have quality healthcare by removing women from the study that had hysterectomies
Cancer is not a driving factor in most hysterectomies. There is no basis for claiming that "women who have had hysterectomies" have higher quality healthcare than "women who have not had hysterectomies".
This is why I never touch the stuff.
Let's defund Planned Parenthood! Those pap smears will just depress you, and we'll use some alternative facts to lower these numbers.
This is completely wrong.
Science-based beliefs are the new bible. One is either a Darwinist global warmist or religious scum taking money from Big Oil. There is no longer room for discussion or dissent. Just hint at possible issues with carbon-14 dating and you're branded a creationist. Discuss the climategate and you're automatically a global warming denier.
It's just like the switch between Republicans and Democrats over the last century. Nowadays it's easier to have discussions with pro-lifes or intelligent designers than with "learned" people.
Maybe for you it is easier. Why have a discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge facts and sticks their head in the dung pile? Seriously, the time for discussion is past on some portions of these topics, e.g., Are we pumping stored CO2 into the atmosphere? Yes. Does CO2 have the ability to raise temperatures? Yes. Is the world warming? Yes. Anything that refutes those statements requires backing scientific evidence of a degree that would indicate matter/energy can be destroyed, as the science behind those facts is about as solid as you can get. I'm not sure what you want to argue about there, or why. Maybe it goes against intelligent design or a pro-life stance?
What's your issue with Carbon-14 dating? That it's limited to 50K years and that it is based on statistical sampling? Don't complain about the acknowledged error margins unless you can come up with something better. We'll all be all ears should you do so. At this time it is one of the few tools in the basket for this specific task.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
The useful numbers for decision making are "how many people could be helped by addressing this issue?"
No, the first and primary useful number consideration is, "Now that we're 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and most new jobs are low-paying junk that barely creates any tax revenue, and we have an exploding entitlement spending problem the mere interest on the debt for which will soon displace nearly all discretionary spending ... what can we afford to research?"
You want to address the X in Y cases of Z disease in given populations? Return to producing the sort of economic health and largess that allows us to spend that kind of money in the first place. Otherwise, it's like a bankrupt person trying to decide whether to buy a new raincoat or an umbrella so they don't get their nice to outfit wet, because, you know, priorities. A house in fiscal order can spend vastly more money on everything from pure medical research to Mars missions without crushing the very economy that underwrites such things.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Diabetes and cancer have to be analyzed together. It has been known for a long time but rarely publicized that people with diabetes have higher rates of cancer and higher mortality rates from cancer. Blacks have a 75 percent higher rate of diabetes than Whites and Black women have a higher rate of diabetes than Black men. Previous medical studies that have looked at cancer rates conditional on having diabetes have found that once having diabetes is considered, the rates of cancer mortality between Blacks and Whites is equal. Unless the researchers conditional the probability of cancer mortality on having diabetes, the unconditional data will always show higher rates of cancer deaths for Blacks. Unfortunately, researchers and media generally attribute the difference in cancer mortality between Blacks and Whites as a difference in cancer treatment and diagnosis instead of the known difference in diabetes rates, which is the primary reason for the difference in mortality.
I don't disagree with your general conclusion when it comes to spending that politicians force on us. I don't think my post said anything about government spending, though.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute has $18 billion dollars, the Kellogg Foundation has $8 billion. Both spend on health / medical programs. I personally decide how to donate my money.
Racist AC troll is racist AC troll, move along, no feeding
It's almost like it could be caused a number of factors. Lack of access to quality healthcare, personal health choices leading to higher rates of HPV, lower quality of health care even when they have access to it (eg, black women tend to receive the lowest quality healthcare even when adjusting for insurance coverage within the same hospital as other women), lower quality diet, etc.
And then each of those reasons also comes with their own slew of "but why". Medical and social sciences are more complicated than people seem to think. But let's all keep jumping on "you're racist" "no, you are" on both sides.
The study isn't looking at women who had cancer and DIDN'T get hysterectomies. It's looking at incidence of the disease...NEW DIAGNOSIS. To calculate incidence you take the population at risk for the disease and see how many develop it per year.
(XXX cases) / (People who can possibly get it) = Incidence
The study made the observation that:
(XXX cases) / (All women) = Incidence A ---> (XXX cases) / (All women WHO HAVEN'T HAD HYSTERECTOMY) = Incidence B
Because the denominator is smaller in the 2nd case and the numerator is unchanged, Incidence B > Incidence A
Everyone who is suggesting that this study makes some conclusion about how cervical cancer is treated is completely missing the point of the study. It's not about how it's treated, it's about how common it is. Hence why the title about "Deadlier" is completely and utterly irrelevant to the study itself.
There's a fun flipside: having access to high quality healthcare increases your chances of (not only being diagnosed with, but also) contracting cancer and other diseases - but, then the healthcare fixes you up, so, it's a net win - especially if you make money selling healthcare.
The healthcare itself doesn't (usually) cause your cancer, it's all the comorbid lifestyle factors.
Now, if you don't have access to healthcare or a healthy environment, then you're just screwed.
HPV gets around, you're looking for virgins if you're going to get away from it.
There is no basis for claiming that "women who have had hysterectomies" have higher quality healthcare than "women who have not had hysterectomies".
Assumption1: Not all women have health care, by circumstance or choice.
Assumption2: Hysterectomies are solely the result of health care of some sort.
Discounting false positives leading to unneeded hysterectomies, in the set of women who have had hysterectomies, all of the women who have needed hysterectomies have received hysterectomies. In the set of women who have not had hysterectomies, there will be some women who have needed hysterectomies have not received hysterectomies. Therefore, "women who have had hysterectomies" have higher quality healthcare than "women who have not had hysterectomies". Throw back in the false positives, and you still have one group, all with health care by tautology (even if it sometimes misdiagnoses), and another group where many/most probably have health care, but some have no health care (by circumstance or choice). This would work at lesser degrees for any medical procedure.
Nearly 90 percent of all women in the US never have hysterectomies. Pretty sure a lot of them have quality health care.
Newton: F=Gmm/r^2 . Good, that's done.
Einstein: Not so fast
When cancer is not removed leading to death? Yeah, that is NOT quality healthcare.
Spin your alternative facts all you want right? Anything to defend your worldview. Wouldn't want to face reality.
There are a number of reasons a woman may need to get a hysterectomy. This study excluded those who had, for whatever reason, had a hysterectomy from the total population of people who could get cervical cancer (since they would, by definition, not have a cervix anymore). That does not mean that all the women left in the study don't have access to quality healthcare just because they never had a hysterectomy. A hysterectomy isn't like getting a vaccine, it's something that every women with healthcare will get in their lifetime. However, that's exactly what you stated in the quote in my original reply. Get off the crack pipe.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
The current status in the US should assume that 100% of adults have herpes (passes by mouth, and is asymptomatic in most cases), HPV, and Toxoplasmosis. To assume otherwise is silly. There has not been a study into the rates of those in adults, corrected (or correlated with) demographics. It's not high on the list to narrow down the level of "common" diseases to who is more likely to have it, and how they get it. Treating it in 100% of the population would be the goal, due to the level of infection.
Learn to love Alaska
Nearly 100% of those with no access to health care have not had a hysterectomy.
Learn to love Alaska
Nope. Y makes you immune, only X die from cervical cancer.
Just because you have to buy private for-profit insurance doesn't mean that a for-profit hospital will set up in your town. The "solution" is to cut costs by eliminating the profit motive in insurance and carers. Just that should eliminate 30-50% of healthcare costs (10%-15% profit, and the 10%-20% of a company dedicated to increasing profit but unrelated to services, times two middlemen). Having basic insurance doesn't guarantee access to health care. That was proposed, and shot down by the Republicans who would rather the poor just crawl under a rock and die.
Learn to love Alaska
Nope. This is the real news. All the other statistics used before were the fake news.
Learn to love Alaska
Except it's not quite that simple. People like to forget that we actually do have public healthcare options. There may be a gap where the working poor fall through the cracks but those in serious poverty do have access to healthcare. It's called Medicaid.
Also personal choices do matter. Even if a pap smear or colonoscopy is free, you still have to go out and get it. People may still avoid doctors if services are free or if they are "wealthy" enough.
Also, pap smears are an annual ritual of those that choose to take birth control pills.
Vague ideas about "healthcare access" are driven by politics.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
A lot of these people with "poor access" are probably on Medicaid. So this politically motivated proposition may ultimately and ironically resolve into "socialized medicine sucks".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Nowadays it's easier to have discussions with pro-lifes or intelligent designers than with "learned" people.
Sure, lucm, is that because all of the things you want to say are what they want to hear?
Notice how you didn't say anything to challenge them and their agenda.
One of my best friends is a Jehovah's witness. We've been arguing for over 15 years about the bible (I'm more on the atheist side) and we're still friends.
lucm, indeed.
what planet are you on?
Look at the mods on my post. QED.
lucm, indeed.
...but it sounds like a self-solving problem.
Unless you are using the numbers to support removing the cervix.
So, do they have health care, or don't they? If they do, then they are excluded. If they don't, then they are included. A lot of poor have no health care. Anyone working at Wal-Mart may be poor enough for food stamps, but not for medicaid, and they don't get any insurance through work, so they'd be a group that'd have no insurance. And there are many other similar groups.
Note, my comment was about health care, not wealth or income.
Learn to love Alaska
Wait isn't it technically possible to die from Cervical cancer without a Cervix - just have some stray metastasized cancer after the removal of the cervix. Let this uncaught cancer expand to terminal levels - then the poor subject could still have died of cancer from a body part they now lack. Granted that would probably be a major outlier.
(MUST READ: HOW I GOT CURED FROM MY HIV/HPV VIRUS) I was diagnosed of HIV in 2012 and I have tried all possible means to get cure but all to no avail, until i saw a post in a health forum about a herbal doctor from West Africa who prepare herbal medicine to cure all kind of diseases including herpes virus, at first i doubted if it was real but decided to give it a try, when i contact this herbal doctor via his email: drewanherbshome@gmail.com, he prepared a herbal medicine and sent it to me via courier service, when i received this herbal medicine, he gave me step by instructions on how to apply it, when i applied it as instructed, i was cured of this deadly virus HIV within 3weeks of usage, I am now free from the virus, i was tasted negative. He also told me he cures so many disease like Hepatitis, cancer Influenza, coronary artery, lower respiratory infections,Trachea, bronchus, HIV/AIDS, HPV, Herpes, Kidney failure, Arthritis, Diabetes, Hypertension, Stroke, Obesity, Infertility/Impotency, Cancer, Eye Problem, Skin Problem, Fibroid Tumor, Ulcer, Prostate Problem, Asthma, Weight Management, Gonorrhea/Staphylococcus, Candide, Low sperm can, Weak erection, Weak ejaculation, Pile, Elephantiasis, Skin Infection, Paralysis, If you want your ex back and many more he listed. please if you are suffering from any of these diseases contact this great herbal doctor called Dr. Ewan on his Email: drewanherbshome@gmail.com. You can also call him on his mobile number via: +233245731436 . website: www.drewanherbshome.wix.com/ewan
Preferring one sex above another isn't bigotry.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I was being... facetious :).