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

Comments

[charlietuna11]

IF YOU BELIEVE ANY THING RUDY SAYS,THAN YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT WET STREETS CREATE RAIN.YOU ALSO MUST BELIEVE WERE WINNING IN IRAQ,WE DON'T TORTURE,WE DON'T RENDITION, WE DON'T SPY ON AMERICANS AND THAT THE DECIDERS INTELLIGENCE IS UNRIVALED.­..

[cliveohclive]

please stop yelling.

thank you.

[maddogbitesback]

I have to yell. It hurts when I beat my head on a brick wall.

[Shake-A-Spear]

Take it as a given: NEVER take statistics tossed out by ANYBODY at face value, and especially by Rudy. Maybe it's true that the after effects of his prostate disorder predisposed him to a superfluity of bullshit. Statistics show this happens in 36.2% of cases.

[Driver125]

Hmmmmmm. It's hard to know if you are a so-called 'Liberal' who to root for on the Republican side. Which one of the clowns stands the best chance of losing? Just now I think I'm behind (against-f­or...I'm all confused) Mitt the most. This under-done piece of bread dough is so transparent that he makes me want to see if there is a big wind-up key stuck in his back somewhere. If not for the people of Mass. you couldn't have convinced me that even Americans could be so stupid as to vote for this 'automaton' and I'd still want to see it in a general election.
Rudy is the one that concerns me. It's not so much anything that he says. To me it's all just bizarre nonsense anyway. What worries me is that he really knows how to sell that garbage to the slabs of meat who pass themselves off as American voters. He's just the kind of Huckster they know and are familiar with. They have been hustled by guys like this for their whole lives. It's comfortable and familiar to them. It would be too much to expect them to reject him for being the fool that he is. Let's pray that they reject him over some nonsense like cross-dressing or abortion, because at this point I think he is the only one who could hustle what's left of the Republican Party into a victory.

[ParacleteofKavorka]

You're right about Rudy selling garbage. He should work doing infomercials. He does that rapid fire BS pretty well.

[TheHandyman]

You have every right to be worried. 67% of all the Republicans and 26% of all Americans still think Bush is the best ever in spite of the facts? How scary is that? If they lived in Afghanistan they would be Taliban and if the lived in Iraq they would be Al Queda. Instead they live here. Can we pay them to relocate?

[wldnswmmr]

From the American Cancer Society: "Overall, 99% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer survive at least 5 years. Ninety one percent of all prostate cancers are found while they are still within the prostate or only in nearby areas. The 5-year relative survival rate for these men is nearly 100%. For the men whose cancer has already spread to distant parts of the body when it is found, about 32% will survive at least 5 years."

It would appear to this fairly discerning reader that the survival rate is crucially dependent on stage of detection. I would surmise that ready access to healthcare which is not dependent on having health insurance (or not) would play into this calculation, and that some additional sifting of the data would be necessary to determine the meaning of the relative 5 year survival rates in the two countries.

[TheDoomed]

Funny thing is that he had cancer when he was in office. Wouldn't he have had government run health care at the time? Just asking.

[BobHiggins]

As he has done on every subject under the sun, from his 911 "heroics" to his foreign policy experience, once again, Rudy is lying his ass off.

Bob Higgins
http://worldwide-sawdust.com

[godlessclif]

We went through this Republican canard thing before with AIDS stats.

Slate article
http://www.slate.com/?id=2098
Bill Bennett is a busy man, but even he has access to the back of an envelope. A moment's thought might have suggested a few simple test calculations. Suppose he assumes--wildly pessimistically, given current incidence data--that half the gay male population is destined to catch the AIDS virus and die of it. The actual average age of AIDS patients at death has been about 40. (Presumably protease inhibitors will extend average longevity, but that will only increase Bennett's difficulty­.) For the number 43 to be the true average death age for the entire population of gay males, HIV-negative gay men would, on average, have to keel into their graves at 46. Looked at another way, if even half the gay male population stays HIV-negative and lives to an average age of 75, an average overall life span of 43 implies that gay males with AIDS die at an implausibly early average age (11, actually).

[godlessclif]

Bill Bennett said, "Gays unhealthy life style takes 30 years off their life span dying at an average age of 43."

[Mormondude]

I'll still take 82% over 74%, anytime.

Even the best counterargument you can make still fails to refute the point Rudy is making.

[godlessclif]

In America 46 million people will not live to have
prostate problems because they will die from not having health insurance.

[Mormondude]

LOL, so now being uninsured is a death sentence?

Interesting new angle. So fighting for univeral health insurance isn't about socialism, it's really just a stay of execution.­..

[kurttrail]

And what the source of his 82% figure?

Do you know, or are you just taking a politicians word for it?

[Mormondude]

The fact that Marty didn't quibble about it is good enough confirmation for me.

[Vernondelray]

I'll take 74% over 0%, which is probably closer to the survival rate for those without health insurance. Obvioulsy our friend Mormondude has health insurance. I say good for him, I have a rather weak plan, but at least its something. It didn't save a colleague and friend of mine that passed from prostate cancer on the 23rd, however. I guess he fell in the 18%.

[Cosimo]

Um, wrong. Can you please have your facts straight before making such inane comments. You can't even compare the two statistics because in the U.S. system men are screened using the PSA test far more actively than they are in the U.K. and we treat many more "cancers" - based on an elevated PSA - than they do in the U.K. Many of these cancers would never even result in symptoms, yet alone kill. The prostate cancer MORTALITY rates - that is, the rate of people dying each year, not those who "survive" for 5 years after being diagnosed -- in the U.S. have not budged for the past few decades.

In the U.K., they do not screen as heavily and when they find rising PSA levels, they are not as aggressive with treatment. There are no data that show whether one approach is actually more effective than the other.

But, back to the main point of the post, Rudy's ad is a big fat lie, intentionally relying on old, dubious data to make a failed point.

You may go now.

[Camarosc35]

This is why I am so worried about the future of this nation, when a political candidate can play to not only his base but wavering Independents with such nonsense and actually be a viable presidential contender. Also, the role of the media as a check on such propaganda has been nearly muted; I have lost respect the New York Times for articles such as this, also. It should not be the case that the reader must employ critical thinking, but that done by the writer in the interest of fair and impartial journalism, first. At a Mitt Romney fundraiser at an Italian restaurant in the North End in Boston, Giuliani was the featured guest. Romney has been groomed for a presidential run by the Bush camp. Do you all see a pattern here?

[Wilson33]

Wow, you hate Rudy almost as much as you hate Bush!

Should be interesting when he wins the presidency, you might not make it through.

I hear Canada is a nice place to live.

[im10ashus]

Wow! What world are you living in? Ghouliani will never be president. Ever. He's living a pipe-dream based on his "9/11" days. He did nothing on 9/11 except wander the streets looking confuwsed and he does nothing now about 9/11 except make substantial amounts of money from 9/11. Maybe YOU should move to Mexico. I hear they treat morons real good down there.

[kurttrail]

Yeah, reply to the conservatives strawman!

[kurttrail]

Nothing in the article is hateful of Guiliani.

You might try comprehending what you read, but it's quite obvious that you are lacking in "critical thinking." Marty is dissing the NYT, for being so gutless as not to report the truth as the truth, instead it gives equal time to utter BS.

[starboymikey]

I hear Canada is a nice place to live.
__________­__________­__________­__________

Yes, it is. Beautiful, in fact. My wife is Canadian and we'll be retiring there about the time Rudy takes his "oaf of office."

See you when you come up to buy your meds at an affordable price. With any luck you won't get busted carrying your Paxil back across the border.

[coolmaiden]

Typical lousy conservative argument: "if you don't like this country go to Canada!" Yes, you actually can love this country AND point out things that are very wrong here. You and Newt did it non-stop all through the '90s. And yes, Rudy does suck almost as much as Bush. Thank God the rest of the country is figuring that out.

[TheHandyman]

In all of my sixty odd years I have never heard a real patriot tell anybody that if they don't like their country that they should leave it. Only someone who was a quitter would leave and not try to undo the harm that those people who say to leave are doing and only someone who hated their country and their fellow man would not want them to stay around and make it better.