This blog has seen the stats on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Mong mong mong mong mong.
I HATE ANONYMOUS MONG POSTERS. Can't they even remember their own name or have the imagination to make up one?
March 9, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
Well, given that the next election is only three years or so away (and sooner if you believe Cameron)and given that the LibDems now have a taste for blood regarding leaders Ming could be gone in a shorter time than the odds suggest...
March 9, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido, Which odds are you going to lay your bets on then?
To all the anonymous mongs out there people on this message board are more likely to let misunderstandings slide if you post under a name.
That picture isn't far from the truth. Look at who Ming has selected as Shadow Sec for Scotland...
http://www.joswinson.org.uk/news/272.html
Either Ming has gone senile already or he's got so like Flash Gordon that he thinks he can do what he likes in Scotland and get away with it.
March 9, 2006 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous
said...
Hi guido
I hope the dear man is cured, and he may be, but nontheless, to coin a phrase, we should be told. What I said was:
Why is that relevant? Because some years ago, Ming, one of Charlie’s colleagues (sic), was diagnosed with NHL. The prognosis for NHL is not wonderful. On average, the 5-year survival rate for men aged 60-69 with Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is 45% in England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics).
So 45/100
I wish him well. But it should have been in the prospectus
John
March 9, 2006 at 3:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
In regard to Humph's question on the daffs - it's either a pic from some Marie Curie fundraiser, or given that we're talking about an elderly chap's state of health, possibly related to this...
There's more to cancer survival statistics than meets the eye. See this piece by the late, great Stephen Jay Gould, who exceeded an 8-month median survival estimate by a factor of 30, and lived long enough to be killed by something completely different:
Greg is correct; I regret that I do not have the stats to hand to enlarge upon this further.
March 10, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Anonymous
said...
"The use of statistics on this subject is to my untrained eye extremely misleading. The relevant statistics are not the "five year survival rate" - that would have been the relevant statistic 2 or 3 years ago (or whenever he actually went into remission).
More relevant is the chances of survival for a man aged 64 who has already been in remission for 3 years."
Greg, that is a fair, indeed excellent point. And I don't have the survival figures for someone who has already had a 2 year disease free interval, and I don't know where to find them. Intuitively, it must improve the survival rate, assuming he is currently disease free. I hope he is. But do we know?
I think the general point still stands. There was a lot of cant and hypocrisy - and Guido referred to this well - when all those kind, caring LibDems were slithering around talking about Charlie's illness and the good of the party. The fact remains that Ming is not in the first flush of youth (I feel an Oaten joke coming on, but will restrain myself) and had had a recent serious illness. This was airbrushed out of history with the usual British crapulence about having "beaten" cancer.
You don't "beat" cancer prospectively. You get into a good prognosis group and keep your fingers crossed. If it was a low grade lymphoma, he may get away with it. Hope he does. But, as I keep saying, it should have been in the prospectus.
John
March 10, 2006 at 7:11 PM
Anonymous
said...
Fascinating article by David Owen in reported in Blact Triangle about the medical problems of many world leaders, and Owen's view that potential leaders should have a full medical check
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=846
Good stuff
John
March 10, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido,
Sorry to drone on, but I have to return to the excellent article by David Owen. Highlighted by Black Triangle as above, the full article can be found in the rather obscure Quarterly Journal of Medicine here:
It is a fascinating article going from Reagan and Wilson's dementia, to "Did Idi Amin have syphilis?" and "How drunk was Yeltsin....and Churchill.." and so on.
Essential reading.
Owen's conclusion, which whould be sent to Ming, is:
On balance, I believe there should be provisions in place in a democracy to ensure that before voting any candidate for Head of State or Government into office, whether for the first or for subsequent elections, the general electorate should know the results of an up-to-date independent medical examination. Relying on a politician, ambitious for office, to reveal their true health or on their own personal doctor, family or friends is not sufficient. Nor can electors depend on probing journalists or fellow politicians to know the medical condition of a candidate, particularly those who have not already been subjected to the intrusive scrutiny surrounding a Head of State or Government. The Electoral Commission in the UK, on advice from the Royal College of Physicians, could appoint two panels of general physicians and neurologists. Provided the doctors had no medical or personal knowledge of the candidate concerned, two doctors, one from each panel, could be chosen by the candidate. The Electoral Commission could then supervise the content and manner of the publication of their findings.
I trust you will use your huge powers of influence to make this happen
John
March 11, 2006 at 9:45 AM
Anonymous
said...
John - surely it can be left to the free market rather than requiring legislation? If a politician chooses to publish the results of his latest medical examination, he is capable of doing so. If he does not, we can all draw our own conclusions. Why the need for compulsion? The fact that politicians generally don't do so is a strong signal that they don't believe people are very interested - on balance I think they are right.
19 comments:
Good post Guido - your friend Crippen provides further justification of why this issue is a valid subject for online debate as well as satire.
But you are a complete bastard for putting things so bluntly...have a heart..he's an old boy.
Okay, I'll bite. Why the pictures of the little girls and daffodils. Does each litle girl represent a year of whatever remains of Ming's life?
Humph,
Have you seen Ming's new frontbench team?
Five years is almost as long as Charlie...and considerably longer than any recent Conservative Leader ;)
The blog world seems to have suddenly decided all politicians must be exactly 54.
Anonymong,
This blog has seen the stats on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Mong mong mong mong mong.
I HATE ANONYMOUS MONG POSTERS. Can't they even remember their own name or have the imagination to make up one?
Well, given that the next election is only three years or so away (and sooner if you believe Cameron)and given that the LibDems now have a taste for blood regarding leaders Ming could be gone in a shorter time than the odds suggest...
Guido,
Which odds are you going to lay your bets on then?
To all the anonymous mongs out there people on this message board are more likely to let misunderstandings slide if you post under a name.
Waiting for them to put it up on Betfair...
"New LibDem frontbench team"
That picture isn't far from the truth. Look at who Ming has selected as Shadow Sec for Scotland...
http://www.joswinson.org.uk/news/272.html
Either Ming has gone senile already or he's got so like Flash Gordon that he thinks he can do what he likes in Scotland and get away with it.
Hi guido
I hope the dear man is cured, and he may be, but nontheless, to coin a phrase, we should be told. What I said was:
Why is that relevant? Because some years ago, Ming, one of Charlie’s colleagues (sic), was diagnosed with NHL. The prognosis for NHL is not wonderful. On average, the 5-year survival rate for men aged 60-69 with Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is 45% in England and Wales 1991-95 (Cancer Survival, National Statistics).
So 45/100
I wish him well. But it should have been in the prospectus
John
In regard to Humph's question on the daffs - it's either a pic from some Marie Curie fundraiser, or given that we're talking about an elderly chap's state of health, possibly related to this...
Sure it's not a picture of NEW Plaid?
http://www.plaidcymru.org/
There's more to cancer survival statistics than meets the eye. See this piece by the late, great Stephen Jay Gould, who exceeded an 8-month median survival estimate by a factor of 30, and lived long enough to be killed by something completely different:
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/gould
Greg is correct; I regret that I do not have the stats to hand to enlarge upon this further.
"The use of statistics on this subject is to my untrained eye extremely misleading. The relevant statistics are not the "five year survival rate" - that would have been the relevant statistic 2 or 3 years ago (or whenever he actually went into remission).
More relevant is the chances of survival for a man aged 64 who has already been in remission for 3 years."
Greg, that is a fair, indeed excellent point. And I don't have the survival figures for someone who has already had a 2 year disease free interval, and I don't know where to find them. Intuitively, it must improve the survival rate, assuming he is currently disease free. I hope he is. But do we know?
I think the general point still stands. There was a lot of cant and hypocrisy - and Guido referred to this well - when all those kind, caring LibDems were slithering around talking about Charlie's illness and the good of the party. The fact remains that Ming is not in the first flush of youth (I feel an Oaten joke coming on, but will restrain myself) and had had a recent serious illness. This was airbrushed out of history with the usual British crapulence about having "beaten" cancer.
You don't "beat" cancer prospectively. You get into a good prognosis group and keep your fingers crossed. If it was a low grade lymphoma, he may get away with it. Hope he does. But, as I keep saying, it should have been in the prospectus.
John
Fascinating article by David Owen in reported in Blact Triangle about the medical problems of many world leaders, and Owen's view that potential leaders should have a full medical check
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=846
Good stuff
John
Guido,
Sorry to drone on, but I have to return to the excellent article by David Owen. Highlighted by Black Triangle as above, the full article can be found in the rather obscure Quarterly Journal of Medicine here:
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/5/325?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=owen&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1090010125573_333&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=qjmed
It is a fascinating article going from Reagan and Wilson's dementia, to "Did Idi Amin have syphilis?" and "How drunk was Yeltsin....and Churchill.." and so on.
Essential reading.
Owen's conclusion, which whould be sent to Ming, is:
On balance, I believe there should be provisions in place in a democracy to ensure that before voting any candidate for Head of State or Government into office, whether for the first or for subsequent elections, the general electorate should know the results of an up-to-date independent medical examination. Relying on a politician, ambitious for office, to reveal their true health or on their own personal doctor, family or friends is not sufficient. Nor can electors depend on probing journalists or fellow politicians to know the medical condition of a candidate, particularly those who have not already been subjected to the intrusive scrutiny surrounding a Head of State or Government. The Electoral Commission in the UK, on advice from the Royal College of Physicians, could appoint two panels of general physicians and neurologists. Provided the doctors had no medical or personal knowledge of the candidate concerned, two doctors, one from each panel, could be chosen by the candidate. The Electoral Commission could then supervise the content and manner of the publication of their findings.
I trust you will use your huge powers of influence to make this happen
John
John - surely it can be left to the free market rather than requiring legislation? If a politician chooses to publish the results of his latest medical examination, he is capable of doing so. If he does not, we can all draw our own conclusions. Why the need for compulsion? The fact that politicians generally don't do so is a strong signal that they don't believe people are very interested - on balance I think they are right.