Billy Connolly Health

[smcc]

Can't recall the source, but it is not that we are diagnosed with it, not that it is acknowledged as a symptomatic condition, which is what your quotes and the link are concerned with... but that bodies examined post mortem have been shown to have the disease, in situ but not aggressive.

As I noted, we'll nearly all die WITH it, but not because of it.

Are you really suggesting that everyone who dies undergoes a post mortem examination? In my professional experience most death certificates are written without the benefit of a PM.

[bluto]

Are you really suggesting that everyone who dies undergoes a post mortem examination? In my professional experience most death certificates are written without the benefit of a PM.

I'm suggesting nothing. Merely passing on a bit of information that I picked up during 18 months of avid interest in the subject.

Are you suggesting that such an investigation could NEVER have been attempted and that no such observation could have been made, simply because YOU have some tangential experience and yet, astonishingly, you don't know about this?!

You must be very important. You must be right.

[bluto]

I hate pandering to nit-pickers who won't do their own research, smcc...

But just by googling 'prostate cancer' Wikipedia offers the following which (while not giving the 99% I was quoting and STILL assert) lets you see that autopsy figures DO appear to substantiate my original point.

"Prostate cancer is very uncommon in men younger than 45, but becomes more common with advancing age. The average age at the time of diagnosis is 70.[14] However, many men never know they have prostate cancer. Autopsy studies of Chinese, German, Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other causes have found prostate cancer in 30% of men in their 50s, and in 80% of men in their 70s.[15] "

The point being that at a certain age we may all have PC but though it is not necessarily life threatening, it should always be addressed sooner rather than later.

A well-intentioned point that your professionally-experienced cavilling may well distract from and thus diminish.

[oaksoft]

I'm suggesting nothing. Merely passing on a bit of information that I picked up during 18 months of avid interest in the subject.

Are you suggesting that such an investigation could NEVER have been attempted and that no such observation could have been made, simply because YOU have some tangential experience and yet, astonishingly, you don't know about this?!

You must be very important. You must be right.

He's perfectly justified scientifically in asking for some proof of your rather high estimate.

Quoting wikipedia is laughable.

Edited October 3, 2013 by oaksoft

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Are you really suggesting that everyone who dies undergoes a post mortem examination? In my professional experience most death certificates are written without the benefit of a PM.

My interpretation of this was that bluto was talking of only when a post mortem had been undertaken. In 99% of cases where they examined (is that the correct term?) the prostate.

Only my interpretation mind...

[FTOF]

Given that only approximately 8% of all deaths undergo an autopsy, I'd be intrigued to find out how they know for a fact that 99% of all men die with prostate cancer.

Also, one recent study from The journal of cancer, indicates that between 40% - 35% of the 320 subjects studied had a prostate tumour. Even then only 50% of those would have been treated as being cancerous to some degree.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52553590/t/more-evidence-not-all-prostate-cancers-need-treatment/

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/05/jnci.djt151.short

I realise that this is only one study, but there doesn't seem to be a wealth of anything approaching scientifically reliable information that is readily available.

Edited October 3, 2013 by FTOF

[bluto]

He's perfectly justified scientifically in asking for some proof of your rather high estimate.

FAIRY NUFF.

Quoting wikipedia is laughable.

ASS-ININE.

Given that only approximately 8% of all deaths undergo an autopsy, I'd be intrigued to find out how they know for a fact that 99% of all men die with prostate cancer.

Also, one recent study from The journal of cancer, indicates that between 40% - 35% of the 320 subjects studied had a prostate tumour. Even then only 50% of those would have been treated as being cancerous to some degree.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52553590/t/more-evidence-not-all-prostate-cancers-need-treatment/

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/05/jnci.djt151.short

I realise that this is only one study, but there doesn't seem to be a wealth of anything approaching scientifically reliable information that is readily available.

The wiki thing I quoted gives figures for various nations. If we all live to a ripe old age, then it suggests that my original suggestion is valid.

I neither recollect nor give a damn about where I read (or was told) that. (And I have read and heard a lot... ). It seems to be to be a credible statistic - and a heartening one, despite the nit-pickers and gainsayers, above.

I could quibble about your comment. Dunno where your 8% of all deaths figure comes from. Only the uk ..? Nepal? The US? The uk, I guess....

As I assume the Journal of Cancer mentioned is , I assume, uk-centric, too. But there would be nothing achieved by questioning it. I have tried to put it into a context where it works and I'm ok with that.

oaksoft wouldn't understand: it's about trying hard not to be small-minded.

Edited October 4, 2013 by bluto