hypo
I completely understand , if you read my post, that it is a very small population would get male breast cancer. .
I know you have said this and you are quite right, we concur here.
However, if you think that any statistic cannot be manipulated to say what you want then you need to take a statistic course. Statistics, I don't care how scientifically one obtained them, should only be used as a guideline and not a fact
.
Of course statistics can be manipulated, I am perfectly aware of this, but I feel you are turning the discussion somewhat into a discussion purely about statistics and whilst they may form part of the discussion to be fair this is not a thesis on statistics.
Whilst any statistic can be manipulated if the source is in question we should not assume that every source of statistics is corrupt or lacking legitimacy.
The statistics I have laid out come from two eminent sources the second concurring with the first after a period of nine years (a long time in medicine) and the two sources are from differing backgrounds and continents. We have absolutely no reason to question the primary source that originated the statistics or the secondary source that corroborated them.
As you know statistics range from the vital, to the banal and irrelevant, at there best they help this world of ours to turn providing vital information for decision makers.
To say that simply that statistics can be manipulated and to leave it in the air like that implies that ALL statistics are less than useless and that is not so; perhaps something has come across wrong/is missing from your original intent.
The original post here is a good example. Of course 40% of gyne sufferers don't have male breast cancer or we would be dropping like flies. But the statistics were manipulated to make someone believe it. The statistics you quoted on
.
Good to see that you know this is incorrect; you are quite right to put it the way you have, we would indeed be dropping like flies if the statistics are presented were true.
It would mean breast cancer would be the biggest killer of men in the US, whereas reality tells us that it is thankfully is a very rare condition in men.
However I must say once again, this is not an example of a misleading statistic, or rather not in the way you seem to think.
This is an example of the source of the statistic making a VERY obvious and frankly stupid mistake that inadvertently misleads and scares many men with gynecomastia who happen to read it (a good example of the pitfalls of the internet).
I corrected the statistic and explained how it was originally framed from the research; this source has taken that statistic, misunderstood it and quite simply bogged it. It is a mistake of such simplicity and on such a grand/extravagant scale that it is blatantly obvious that it is not the work of manipulation, but rather error.
It is in fact 29% of all gynecomastia sufferers have an underlying causative condition.
Cirrhosis/Liver problems 8%
Primary Hypogonadism 8%
Testicular Tumor 3% (corrected)
Secondary Hypogondism 2%
Hyperthyroidism 1%
Renal Disease 1%
Others 6% (this is the title as they are many causes that add up to less than 1% each)
You can't say its a fact. Only that out of people that have been tested. In reality, this problem has not been well tested. Most men are so embarrassed that they don't see a MD about problem so the population sample for any statistical data is very limited therefore putting any info in question. However, like I have said before, it is a good guideline only.
It is based on a very large number of men that have been presented to endocrinologists with varying degrees of gynecomastia and taken to be representative of the relative frequencies of causes of the condition.
Both the sources investigating the condition are highly respected within their relative fields and I see no reason to doubt the statistics presented, though I acknowledge that in any given control group their will be a deviation from that presented. But that is why these statistics are framed under the heading “The Relative Frequencies”.
I think the statistics are a very good guide or at least the best we have to my knowledge and research of material that has been available for the last 20 years.
I don’t think we are at loggerheads at all, the difference between us has been one of emphasis and the intent of that articles statistics and nothing more.
We have become bogged down in the statistics like I said, disappointingly so;
The REAL point surly has to be that the BIGGEST causes for concern for the man in the street with gynecomastia are unfortunately being overlooked or at least not being afforded enough due consideration by physicians and some endocrinologists, many of who seem almost obsessed with the RARE and unlikely cause that we have been discussing.
Topic: Doc says 40 percent of Gynos get Breast Cancer (Read 6399 times)
Similar Topics
