|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 12:00 AM January 11th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't just us Men who are being used to finance vacations and bigger boats. But, it is refreshing to see some research focusing on Men. I wonder how many People in this country alone have had parts and pieces removed that were not necessary? I met a Woman recently that had undergone chemo for cancer, and found out afterward that the type of cancer that she had doesn't respond to chemo, it almost killed her. I thought that doctors took an oath before they could practice, oh yes, it was an oath of silence and profit...........That is not to say that there isn't good Doctors out there, but I believe that they are out numbered!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by JulianDroms on 11:06 AM January 11th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
What a bunch of crap. This is a case-control study, which is a very shitty type of study. Academic doctors at all sorts of public institutions are forever trying to find excuses not to spend money on men's health. Yet, they continually moan and groan about every little dime that could be spent on women, fuss about every minor statistical contribution to children's health (a.k.a. all that arsenic microcontamination that became such a fuss so many years ago), even when the science doesn't hold water.
This guy is from Britain, and is no doubt trying to find a way to pinch a few pennies from their Universal Health care system by letting the men go without treatment first. No doubt setting up a crappy study like this (case control) is just the way to do it. Pure idiocy.
Moreover, there is nothing new about this guy's data. Health policy makers have been trying to pull the rug out fro under men's health for decades.
I'm a doctor, so I guess my years of medical training must mean I'm biased. Yeah right. What a bunch of bull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by DocDamage on 05:08 PM January 11th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
This too was my reaction, I'm sure we've all seen the convenient excuses, the lies, the evasions all designed to accomplish 1 thing, to divert funds away from just about the only unambiguously male health issue.
However, this presents an opportunity to demand more be done to seek out a truly effective test, one that is capable of distinguishing malignant prostate cancers from benign. It's not necessary to bow to the feminist solution to an ineffective test (let the men die, they deserve it for having a prostate gland). Rather, articles such as this should be used as evidence of the appallingly lax attitude of government to male health.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
zerostress writes "According to