Rudy's Prostate Palooza!
The best and worst of quality journalism is on display in the New York Times' coverage of Rudy Giuliani's repeated claim that his chance of surviving prostate cancer in the U.S. was 82 percent, compared to the 44 percent it would have been "under socialized medicine" in England -- you know, the kind of commie docs that Hillary wants to force on us 9/11 manly-men.
Here are some words that, in a reality-based world, where reason rules, where science isn't merely a politicized pomo plaything, would apply to Rudy's 82 vs. 44 claim: falsehood, untruth, lie, deception, whopper, fiction, bamboozlement. (The same could be said of his "socialized medicine" fearmongering, but let's set that aside for now.)
The reason Giuliani's statement is a lie is that the five-year survival rate from prostate cancer in Britain is actually 74.4 percent.
Now here's how close the editors of the New York Times dare to come to saying that Rudy's wrong: "Giuliani's Oft-Cited Prostate Cancer Statistic Is in Dispute." You know, like Existence of Holocaust [Evolution, Elvis] Is in Dispute.
The reporter on the story, Julie Bosman, valiantly does everything she can within the he-said/she-said straitjacket of prestige journalism -- covering "both sides" of the story, but (I'm guessing) silently hoping that readers with an IQ higher than lichen will figure out what side of this "dispute" they should come down on.
She cites an authoritative source for the 74.4 percent: Britain's Office for National Statistics.
Then she notes that Giuliani's 44 percent comes from "a publication of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research organization." Presumably our dog-whistle ears are supposed to hear "conservative" as "partisan" rather than "cautious," and "research organization" not as "think tank," but as "Republican front."
But then a Giuliani spokesperson says the article appears "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." (Yeah, and I'm Marie of Rumania.)
But then the reporter notes that the Manhattan Institute journal article's author is an advisor to the Giuliani campaign. She quotes him admitting that his statistic was seven years old, "crude," and came from a report of the Commonwealth Fund, which she identifies as "a nonprofit group." And she quotes a Commonwealth Fund statement saying that its research had been misused: "Five-year survival rates cannot be calculated from incidence and mortality rates, as any good epidemiologist knows."
But then -- demonstrating the bizarre notion of "balance" that the Times has been mau-maued by Fox into exhibiting -- she quotes the Giuliani spokesperson's dismissal of the Commonwealth Fund's statement, "saying that the group had 'an ideological bias.'"
Which leaves us to decide for ourselves whether it's the "conservative research organization" or the "nonprofit group" that is a "highly respected think tank" or has "an ideological bias." Presumably, brainy Times readers, schooled in critical thinking, remembering to "consider the source," will be able to read between the lines and draw the correct conclusion.
This is the very best that the prestige mainstream media can do. "Cancer Statistic Is in Dispute" is the inevitable, pathetic ribbon that the Times wraps this package in. But it's sure not the way a New York tabloid might cover it, if it were inclined to give Hizzoner the razzing he deserves: "RUDY TO TRUTH: DROP DEAD." Or perhaps, more concisely: "RUDY FULL OF CRAP!"
Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mister Giuliani might possibly be comparing 2 different statistics: UK survival rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer when they were aged over 80 and USA survival rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer at any age. Either that or he's using very old data.
There's an interesting bar chart at the base of this page showing UK survival rates dependent on age diagnosed http://inf
Oh and - by the way - in the UK, poor people die faster than rich people
Hah! I'm Marie of Rumania! Love the Dorothy Parker reference.
Queen Marie was the first person given the key to the city of New York by Jimmy Walker, another corrupt NYC mayor. He had the good grace and conscience (or smarts) to resign office and leave the country rather than run for president.
The real news here is not Rudy's fabricated numbers. Its that although prostate cancer kills roughly the same amount of people annually as does breast cancer, and twice as many as AIDS, it receives only about 25% of the funding from the National Institutes of Health as the other two. But that's a politically incorrect thing to say. No wonder the research is so weak regarding this disease, and the unreliable PSA the only test given, that scares the hell out of men and proves next to nothing.
If the millions currently spent by US pharmaceutical companies on TV advertising were instead devoted to research we might all be in better health.
Health for profit is the current state of affairs in the US.
I suggest commentators Google, “lancet oncology cancer survival rates” for a starter. After 50 years of socialized medicine the UK not only lags the US but it also lags the rest of Europe.
Then Google, “lancet cancer survival rates US.” This headline about sums it up: Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States. If you read enough articles you will find that the US data includes both insured & uninsured.
" "under socialized medicine" in England -- you know, the kind of commie docs that Hillary wants to force on us 9/11 manly-men.
I wish.
But she is pushing warmed over bush health care.
Mandatory private health care even.
A boondoggle for the insurance companies which pay Hillary's bribe/campaign money.
Sorry, Rudy, but you need to update your buzzwords. That "Socialist" dog won't hunt anymore. Try ... um ... that "terrorist medicine" they have in Moslim countries. Yeah, that's the ticket. Hillary's Osama Care. No one in their right mind wants that.
It does not matter what you say. Idiots like Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and Hanity rule the media. They think Guiliani walks on water they can not get enough of him. Yesterday in the debate Russert was quoting Guiliani without ever questioning his facts. The problem is media not the politicians.
No. The problem is the people who take the word of the media as truth, without bothering to checks the facts, research the information, and then make an intelligent decision based on truth.
Yes, the media is at fault also, but it's the people who cast the votes that put these liars, cheats, and thugs in office and, I might add, keep them there.
John Kerry had succesful prostate Cancer surgery DURING HIS CAMPAIGN.
But bet that less than 1% of Americans even know he had it at all...BECA
The 1100 Republican Think Tanks have replaced rational thingking with Rationalization.
And Rudy on Charlie Rose about forign policy, proved himself to be another TYPICAL dum dawgy Republican that their dum dawgy base loves so much.
Cancer survival rates in the UK are much worse than the rest of Europe (which also has socialized medicine). This is a major concern in the UK.
According to the London Independent, 8-22-07, overalll cancer survival rates in England 52.7 per cent for women and 44.8 per cent for men.
http://fin
WrongDiagn
Survival rate for Prostate Cancer: 56-65% survival rate for prostate cancer in the UK 2001.
http://www
Guiliani has reached such a point of desperation in his quest for the nomination, that he will assoicate himelf with and/or say or do anything!
His Party's 'base' has a cumulative IQ of a Richter Scale: 0-10 and therefore his pronouncements may work with them, but he is surely setting himself up for disaster in the General Elections, IF he even reaches that point ...
What the hell is a "pomo plaything?"
actually, Marty, my brain most often translates "conservative" as "lying scumbag lower than whale shit".
Heh. Yours too, huh?
And I thought it was just my translation!
Hmmm...see
On Rudy....an
And then we might also ask why Rudy chose the UK as his basis of comparison. Answer: because the UK has the lowest 5 year survival rates for ALL cancers of any country in Western Europe. Since all of these countries have socialized medicine in one form or another, why not comparison to, say, Germany? Well, here's why: "RESULTS: Overall, 5- and 10-year relative survival rates were approximately 99% and 95%; that is, excess mortality compared with the general population was as low as 1% and 5% within 5 and 10 years following diagnosis, respectively. Two-thirds of patients were diagnosed with well or moderately differentiated localized/regional prostate cancer, and among these patients, 5- and 10-year relative survival rates were above 100% (indicating the lack of any excess mortality) at all ages."
America, with the "greatest medical system in the world," can't touch this.
If every conservative lost their health insurance, or their ability to pay for health care, tomorrow, they'd be the first in line demanding a handout, trampling women and children in the process. Like Jon Stewart said, "a 'moderate' conservative is sick, or knows someone who is."
I've been to Iceland, which has "socialized" health care (like a "socialized" police force, schools, fire department, coast guard, library system) and they have a longer life expectancy than we do.
Let's take the focus momentarily away from Rudy's prostate/lying problems to the exquisitely tortured reporting by the Times, our newspaper "of record." We all ought to write the public editor about its refusal to call a source by its name and identify it by its affiliations. Would any Times reporter ever quote Huffington Post or MoveOn or the Nation and not add "left wing" or at the very least "liberal"? "Progressive" seems to stick in their keyboards.
Good point. Also, in the age of Google, why doesn't a legitimate reporter simply take the time to consult the many sources of information about 5 year survival rates? I have done a little research this morning to enlighten myself and I think it's been quite illuminating. For example, I think I know why Rudy chose the UK as his socialized medicine example. I think I know why he used "gross" figures (all prostate cases, instead of breaking it down by stage of detection). I think I know why, in other words, he deliberately misled the public in making a specious argument, and there is no reason why a full-time reporter could not have enlightened herself in the same way.
Not to mention had this been breast cancer and a male reporter had been as lax about the figures there would have been screaming about how women's diseases are never given the attention that male afflictions are.
The use of the word "socialized" is used to make it appear that it is inefficient and dangerous while in actuality it gives more bang for the buck! I love it when they hype the word "free" health care. As the woman from Canada said, "free my ass! I pay for it with my taxes!" Every so called "entitlement" program in the US comes from tax dollars since the government is not a business, would that they'd take a more professional tack in some areas. Nice how the Republicans are so worried about our money that they want to be frugal with it and see that it isn't wasted and yet they give away millions in corporate welfare, none for the poor tho! And they don't mind spending hundreds of billions for death and destruction which kills off their potential customers but hey, who needs them? They can't afford our shiney killing toys anyway!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
