alan meyer

Fox Chase Cancer Center Oct 6, 2004 Do prostate cancer patients not at
high risk need long-term hormone therapy with radiation?


I hate the ambiguity in the conclusions here. First they say
the patients don't need "long-term" HT. Then they say the
purpose of their study was to see if "radation alone" does
the job.

Why did they say "long-term"? Why not say no HT at all,
which is what their study seemed to show?

Professors are right to be concerned about concluding too much -
more than their data implies. But I wish they wouldn't throw in
caveats with no regard for how it makes their conclusions
appear self-contradictory.

I bet these guys put in the caveat because of the recent
widely read study that said HT does help RT work better.
They don't know what to make of the fact that their
conclusions contradict the other study. So they punt.

Isaac Newton wouldn't have published a conclusion like
that. Where are our modern Newtons? We sure need
them.

Alan