The news was cause for celebration among doctors and politicians. “When we saw the first decline, the number wasn’t that enormous,” Dr. Felice Schnoll-Sussman, a cancer physician at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center said. “But once you start to see a trend like this, it obviously makes you feel like ‘We must be doing something right! ‘”
Is this really a trend? I have not examined the data at all but I seriously doubt it. People (the media even more so) constantly overreact to variation in data. Maybe I am wrong, certainly I should look at the data and see what it says - and I will if I get some time and remember. But I am more confident in my belief this is more overreaction to random variation than in the headlines. Why? Because so often when I do look more closely at the numbers my general observation of overreaction to random variation is confirmed while news reports talk of “trends.” Hopefully I am wrong this time.
Ok, I couldn’t resist and I did a little looking for some data. This is how crazy it is. The press release from the American Cancer Society states:
Ok, that tells you the magnitude of this decline - just over .5%. Ok, that isn’t so crazy, John you curious cat, you might say to yourself. How about this, from the same press release?
That is a higher number than 2004. What about the real and profound trend?
2007 data from the American Cancer Society
Google News shows hundreds of news articles on this topic: U.S. turning the tide in the war on cancer - Bush Hails Drop in U.S. Cancer Deaths - Next up in the battle against cancer
Yes good work is being done to combat cancer. But I sure wish the articles would do a better job of painting a real picture and not talking a fake trends (granted that is just my opinion of what a trend is versus many many others ideas based on the articles they published). The ACS 2007 data report has quite a few interesting charts.
Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog © curiouscat.com 2005-2008 powered by WordPress
Curious Cat Alumni Connections
January 31st, 2007 at 8:18 am
“To me, it supports my contention in my “Cheap, Safe Cancer Drug?” post, though much more effectively and with supporting evidence. But this is my blog so I get to quote whoever I want…”
April 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“Science stories usually fall into three families: wacky stories, scare stories and ‘breakthrough’ stories…”
November 14th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Good scrutinizing there. The data actually is just not that controversial but it’s like the media just made it ‘big’ and the fact that George Bush is there talking about it, it’s like a setup and to some point aims to mislead whoever reads that.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:09 am
“Despite a continuing decline in the cancer death rate from 2004 to 2005, there was an increase of 5,424 deaths (559,312 cancer deaths in 2005 compared to 553,888 cancer deaths in 2004)…”
July 13th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
actually having a 500 year flood actually increases the odds for it happening again (because the data now includes that case which had not been included before)…