Giuliani lies about prostate cancer!

[ViolaLee]

Rudy said men in England are nearly twice as likely to die from prostate cancer than men in the USA.

"My chances 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."

But that's not true.

...mortality rates from prostate cancer in Britain and the United States are roughly the same: About 25 men out of 100,000 die of prostate cancer each year in both countries.

We don't need another lying President. Go away Rudy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110101991.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[nevadamedic]

Rudy said men in England are nearly twice as likely to die from prostate cancer than men in the USA.

"My chances 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."

But that's not true.

...mortality rates from prostate cancer in Britain and the United States are roughly the same: About 25 men out of 100,000 die of prostate cancer each year in both countries.

We don't need another lying President. Go away Rudy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110101991.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


Get your facts straight and get them from credible sources not DU or KOS. Lor knows that I love ya Vi but sometimes you can have a serious brain fart.

[Drocket]

So, um, when did Daily Kos buy the Washington Post?

[Labrocca]

Having a fact wrong isn't a lie.

And here is a more balanced article that debunks your statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/politics/31prostate.html?bl&ex=1194062400&en=a040ad66e1b14f8c&ei=5087%0A

“The citation is an article in a highly respected intellectual journal written by an expert at a highly respected think tank which the mayor read because he is an intellectually engaged human being,” Ms. Comella said in an e-mail message.

That article, titled “The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care,” was written by Dr. David Gratzer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and an adviser to the Giuliani campaign.

In an interview, Dr. Gratzer said the statistic came from the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group in New York specializing in health care policy issues, but he acknowledged that it was seven years old and “crude.”

But the Commonwealth Fund said yesterday that Dr. Gratzer had misused its research by calculating a five-year survival rate based on data on prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in the United States and Britain.

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

Dr. Gratzer dismissed the Commonwealth Fund’s statement, saying the group had “an ideological bias.” 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.”

BANG...now what? You have more lies that aren't lies?

And Rudy had his cancer 4 years ago. Don't quote statistics from today...

[Drocket]

Having a fact wrong isn't a lie.

No, it's not. However...


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.”
Repeating a "fact" even after you've been informed that it's incorrect is.

[ViolaLee]

OK so Dr Gratzer acknowledged his study was old and crude and Giuliani said he would continue to claim the false information anyway, and you tell me not to quote current statistics?

Has medical science advanced so much in 4 years? Seriously?

Are you really going to defend Rudy for claiming false statistics?

How exactly did that article debunk my article anyway?[hr]
Get your facts straight and get them from credible sources not DU or KOS. Lor knows that I love ya Vi but sometimes you can have a serious brain fart.
What's DU?

My quote is from the Washington Post.

:dizzy::ponder:

[Drocket]

What's DU?

Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/)

[Labrocca]

Repeating a "fact" even after you've been informed that it's incorrect is.

And crude doesn't make it wrong. Also they only quoted one word..the crude one. For all we know he said something like.."the statistics are crude but we firmly believe them to be accurate".

How exactly did that article debunk my article anyway?

Do you have such a hard time understanding the meaning of LIE. A deliberate deception is required. I showed you that they Guiliani was given this information from an advisor that it a medical doctor. So obviously there is no intent to lie here....hence your entire post is debunked. If you continue to assert it's a lie...then it's YOU that are the liar. You are now fully informed of FACTS.

EDIT: Oh and his cancer was 5-6 years ago. And yes...medicine does advance at a solid pace. In the 70's the mortality rate was very high.

[ViolaLee]

Repeating a "fact" even after you've been informed that it's incorrect is.

And crude doesn't make it wrong. Also they only quoted one word..the crude one. For all we know he said something like.."the statistics are crude but we firmly believe them to be accurate". LOL! Now you're making up what he MIGHT have said to defend Rudy repeating innaccurate statistics even after he knows they are false?

Brilliant!

Makes sense too. The only way to defend a lie is with more lies!

How exactly did that article debunk my article anyway?

Do you have such a hard time understanding the meaning of LIE. A deliberate deception is required. I showed you that they Guiliani was given this information from an advisor that it a medical doctor. So obviously there is no intent to lie here....hence your entire post is debunked. If you continue to assert it's a lie...then it's YOU that are the liar. You are now fully informed of FACTS.

EDIT: Oh and his cancer was 5-6 years ago. And yes...medicine does advance at a solid pace. In the 70's the mortality rate was very high.


His "facts" are shown to be false. His spokesperson said he will be repeating them anyway. That is a deliberate deception and so fits your definition of a lie.

The 70s were 30 years ago. What does the 70s have to do with a false statistic from 5 or 6 years ago?

Are you trying to tell us that prostate cancer, 5 or 6 years ago, killed twice as many people in England as it did in the USA, but now, 5 or 6 years later it kills the same amount?

So England has improved or the USA has declined? Which one is it?

Can you please show us some proof that these statistics have changed in the past 5 or 6 years, from Rudy's doctor's statistics to the statistics of today?

[Labrocca]

Can you please show us some proof that these statistics have changed in the past 5 or 6 years, from Rudy's doctor's statistics to the statistics of today?

These are a couple quotes I found concerning survival rates in 1991 for UK vs USA.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/prostate_cancer/prognosis.htm
Survival rate for Prostate Cancer: 56-65% survival rate for prostate cancer in the UK 2001 (National Statistics – UK Government Census, 2001)

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/407
Comparison with traditional cohort survival analysis for patients diagnosed in 1990 showed 5- and 10-year relative survival of 90% and 82%.

There ya go.

LOL! Now you're making up what he MIGHT have said to defend Rudy repeating innaccurate statistics even after he knows they are false?

Are you going to continue with your lies now? You know the truth now. How many times are you going to repeat your lies?

His "facts" are shown to be false

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

[Interrested]

Giuliani said he would continue to claim the false information anyway, And where are you getting that from..?

[preservanation]

The claim that Rudy is a liar is true, even though the documents can't be authenticated... Shades of Dan Rather.

All experts agree that all Republicans are liars, the debate is over... Shades of Al Gore.

[jafar00]

LOL! Now you're making up what he MIGHT have said to defend Rudy repeating innaccurate statistics even after he knows they are false?


By deliberately repeating inaccurate or misleading information, he is just showing all of us that he really is Presidential material. He just follows the excellent example of integrity that Bush has given time and time again.

[Labrocca]

Giuliani said he would continue to claim the false information anyway, And where are you getting that from..?


Notice I proved her to be 100% wrong and a liar and she just leaves the thread. She is the type of liberal to never admit they are wrong...a true partisan that only cares about furthering an agenda of hate and blame vs truth and honesty.


By deliberately repeating inaccurate or misleading information, he is just showing all of us that he really is Presidential material.

Read the thread Jafar. I showed independent information that backs up Rudy's claims.

[Drocket]

Notice I proved her to be 100% wrong
Actually, you really didn't. You provided a link that states the survival rate in the UK versus the *relative survival* rate in the US. Those are different measurements. Using the same source as you did for the US survival rate, you'll find that the 5/10 year rate is 79%/54%, rather a far cry from your quoted rate of 90%/82%. It is, in fact, pretty close to the "56-65%" stated in your UK rate.

and a liar
Wasn't your defense of Rudy in this thread based off of 'you can't call someone a liar unless you can PROVE that they're deliberately lying and not just wrong'? So, I assume you can prove that she's a liar?

[preservanation]

Faster than a speeding bullet, Drocket to the rescue!
Look both ways before you cross the train tracks...

[ViolaLee]

Giuliani said he would continue to claim the false information anyway, And where are you getting that from..?
From the article I posted where his spokesperson said he will keep saying it.[hr]Labrocca, you're a liar, claiming to have proven me 100% wrong. You're a liar claiming I've left the thread.

How do you like that?

[Trish]

Oh PLEASE people. Labrocca wasn't calling Viola Lee a liar - He was saying that being "wrong" about facts is not lying unless there is a deliberate attempt to deceive. He was using Viola Lee's misstatements (if they were in fact misstatements) as an example of how misstatesments made byGuiliani (if those were in fact misstatements) are not lies.

He's saying that people accuse others (especially people they disagree with) of being liars without any proof that there was an attempt to deceive. And he's right.