5 ms·
>The timing is particularly ironic, coming after a decade of particularly rapid progress. The survival advantage conferred by immunotherapy is very meaningful
by throwawaylolx 7y ago
>The timing is particularly ironic, coming after a decade of particularly rapid progress. The survival advantage conferred by immunotherapy is very meaningful
Can you post some resources that support this with numbers?
>this piece is a remarkable sequence of exaggerations, fallacies, cherry-picked data, and hand-waving.
Could you point me to the fallacies and exaggerations in the article?
- mrosett 7y agoThere are a lot of statistical fallacies like this: > The current age-adjusted mortality rate for all cancers in the U.S., 152.4 deaths per 100,000 people, is just under what it was in 1930, according to a recent analysis. The US is a very different population than it was in 1930 in ways that go beyond age. If you want to make a statement like this to point out that changes to lifestyle (e.g smoking/obesity) can totally offset medical progress, then go ahead and make that argument explicitly. But simply citing the headline mortality number to argue "LITTLE NET PROGRESS AFTER 90 YEARS" is unjustifiable. Edit: As far as evidence of efficacy, here's a more-or-less random clinical trial showing a meaningful survival benefit for melanoma patients given ipilimumab (the first cancer immuotherapy): https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00636168?view=results https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00636168?view... Note that ipilimumab is no longer the standard of care for melanoma as pembro has even higher efficacy. There are a lot more trials out there if you're inclined to spend time looking through results.