Wisconsin MILK
July 5, 2017
Daily DIGG 07 JUL 2017
July 7, 2017

I just finished reading a study (of a 1991 study) that re-examined some of the facts about PROSTATE CANCER.  Boring reading for those of us who like the novel format of love and suspense.  I want discuss the way these “findings” make sure the money keeps coming in for research and NO money will ever be spent on the (why’s, when’s, and how come’s) for studying prostate health.

First …the general consideration of overall good health.  Most studies qualify instead of quantify.  This leads to a conclusion of same day…same problem.  Here is an example.  Respond to the statement: “studies show that good health improves your ability to prevent cancer.”  Really?  Someone spent money on this?  Most likely a food manufacturer with an agenda.  OBTW you…will never know their real agenda.  Reading the WI milk words might help.

Second …the study group is well defined and the numbers are manipulated to factor out important physical world facts.  “The RR (relative risk) is adjusted for age.”  And my favorite, “current analysis does not predict future outcomes.”  This topic could go on forever.

And finally third … even when the numbers indicate a good result, there is caution.  During advanced stage cancer, when two consulting adults, agree to a plan I am thinking caution is not one of the line items in the contract.  In America, health payments go up because there is always a third party that signs the contract.  It is “the (three is)company” that pays for the plan.  In America, that means all parties take a “cut out of the contract.”  Here is the example.  Go visit the insurance building down town.