Here\'s one ambiguous article

simply unbelievable,if not tragic....We are to remain optimistic and quiet as sheep, as long as no symptoms evolve, but when they do appear,,,HELLO too late

Hi Pat,

I was wondering when this article was going to hit the forum!

Boy, would I love to get my hands on the orignal research write-up, i.e. sample size, definitions, what's definition of aggressive, populations from which sample was taken, was the sample random, how were the costs calculated, what stat tests were used, etc.!! If I didn't know better I'd think you included this article to get me to "chime in"! But you know what, by golly, we, now, seem to be more critical when we read these studies. And, that's good.

Thank you for your contributions to the forum.

Gordon

p.s. One reason for the medicare bias is because that is one of the few good data-bases available - so it really gets "mined". Unfortunately, it really isn't applicable to younger populations. But, unfortunately, that doesn't seem to stop a lot of the young researchers who have to produce reasearch to keep their jobs. One man's opinion. mine.

I read this article in Uro Today on April 8 and I did not like it either. I sometimes think the insurance companies sponsor such findings since bladder cancer is very expensive to treat.
Balihigh

Wonder how they would feel if it was themselves facing this disease. Bet they would go as aggresive as they could. Have read a lot of articles in the last couple of weeks that are based on medicare statistics. There is a nasty underlying current to them that imply that we spend to much money trying to cure the elderly. It gives me a sick feeling. I also wonder how narrow their view is. It is not just those of retirement age that face these issues, but they only looked at those statistics.

I have to agree with Pat this infuriates me.

Webs

There are so many variables in this article i can't believe they even printed it.......it is infuriating.
www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5375X120090408
Pat