Successful prostate cancer vaccine brings out men’s groups
Friday, April 17, 2009 9:11
This is excellent news for men: Company says prostate cancer vaccine shows promise
To summarize the findings
those treated with the vaccine lived an average of 4 1/2 months longer than those given dummy treatments. After three years, survival was 34 per cent in the vaccine group and only 11 per cent in the other.
I’m a little suspicious of whether the sample size was large enough but assuming for the moment it was this is very exciting indeed. And it’s exciting for everyone, in a a manner that shows that we’re really missing the boat by not better funding prostate cancer research.
Provenge is not like traditional vaccines that prevent disease. It’s a so-called therapeutic vaccine that treats cancer by training the immune system to fight tumours. If approved, Provenge would be the first such treatment on the market.
“This is an exciting result, demonstrating that harnessing a patient’s own immune system can successfully attack prostate cancer,” said Dr. Eric Small, cancer specialist at the University of California at San Francisco. “Now we have more confidence that the initial results we saw were real.”
Provenge is a treatment that is customized for each patient. Doctors collect specialized cells from each patient’s blood. Those cells help the immune system recognize cancer as a threat, much as it would germs that enter the body.
In other words, in finding a treatment for prostate cancer researchers are in fact embarking on a new paradigm in cancer treatment that could be of even wider applicability.
Here’s another interesting element to the article. When the FDA originally delayed approving the vaccine in question:
The decision sparked protests from men’s groups and cancer advocates because the vaccine did prolong survival, which they considered a more important result.
Men’s groups!? Good to know there are men’s groups out there that are at least readily to mobilize on health issues. Health issues - and the poor funding in men’s health - are undoubtedly one of the leading reasons we need a men’s movement.
For more information on projects to raise money for prostate cancer visit an older post
Loading ...
Skepdick says:
April 17th, 2009 at 9:53 am
“I’m a little suspicious of whether the sample size was large enough but assuming for the moment it was this is very exciting indeed. And it’s exciting for everyone, in a a manner that shows that we’re really missing the boat by not better funding prostate cancer research.”
You really are the king of broken logic. The apparent success of this research provides no indication that there have been missed opportunities due to a lack of funding. Perhaps this success indicates that the funding process works nicely and provides resources to competent researchers who are likely to achieve success. You repeatedly harp on this issue even though you have shown no evidence of any bias in the funding process.
Given that this has been raised with you before, and you persist, I can only conclude that you are misrepresenting the issue on purpose. What is gained by this repeated ignorant behaviour?
Valuable Internet Information » Successful prostate cancer vaccine brings out men’s groups says:
April 17th, 2009 at 10:08 am
[...] Original post: Successful prostate cancer vaccine brings out men’s groups [...]
Fraser H. says:
April 17th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Where is your reason Skepdick?
“The apparent success of this research provides no indication that there have been missed opportunities due to a lack of funding.”
It is not logically possible to prove the non-existence of things, which is what you’re suggesting here. There can never be indication that an opportunity has been missed; because if there were then it wouldn’t have been missed. Most reasonable people though tend to believe that more money leads to more research. This model has held true in most things I can think of. This doesn’t preclude the possibility of wasting money, of course, but if you want to learn something you have to spend.
You should be more careful if you’re going to call people out for their logic.
Fraser H. says:
April 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
In other news Skepdick has taken over as CEO of NASA and promised a manned mission to Mars while slashing NASA’s budget by 75%. When asked how such a feat is possible he replied that he’s only going to “provide resources to competent researchers who are likely to achieve success.”
Skepdick says:
April 17th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Fraser,
My reason is intact. One small success in no way indicates other missed opportunities due to lack of funding. To make that claim one would need to demonstrate a bias in the level of funding. The low level of funding may simply reflect a shortage of viable research projects. That shouldn’t be hard to accomplish if it is true. Justin repeatedly suggests that there is some bias in the way cancer research is funded despite the fact that he has offered no reason to make such a claim.
I’m as happy as anyone that some cancer researcher’s have experienced success, why is it necessary to pollute that good news with whiny nonsense about funding bias?
I will assume from your NASA comments that you would be happy funding homeopathic research into prostate cancer treatments, as you object to any test of scientific merit prior to the disbursement of funding.
Frances Roberts says:
April 17th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
All you have to do is look at the amount of government funding the canadian prostate cancer groups are given compared to canadian breast cancer groups to see the bias in the funding. This is money given directly to the cancer groups, as opposed to specific researchers. However, I do agree when given to specific researchers there is criteria to determine whether the project is credible or not (i believe its called a grant proposal).
Skepdick says:
April 17th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Frances,
A difference in funding is not the same as bias. Bias would be indicated by the government applying different criteria to funding one group compared to another. Where is the evidence of that? Is there some evidence that men’s diseases are systematically underfunded?
Funding might be given out according to the economic impact of a disease. Not many young men get prostate cancer, but a greater number of young women get breast cancer. Funding might be given out for all kinds of reasons, you’d have to ascertain what those reasons are to establish bias. I thought this blog was officially against equality of outcome as an official policy. Perhaps the breast cancer organization merits more funding due to some rational criteria.
I have now idea what the reason is for the difference in funding levels. You can’t claim bias until you make find out the reasons though.
Fraser H. says:
April 17th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
As an observer I see Justin with evidence and with an argument. Skep, you have no evidence or argument. You’re not saying anything one way or another. And you’re not providing any counter-evidence. The only claim yourlve made is that we should be skeptical of Justin’s claim. And that is no problem, always skeptical. And if you’d like to bring evidence, any at all, that shows that prostate cancer is less lethal, has less of an economic impact, is too complex, or otherwise is less deserving of the public’s attention then I would love to hear it.
Skepdick says:
April 17th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Justin has a cherry picked statistic and a whiny complaint. It’s clear that funding isn’t equitable on a per capita (cancer case by cancer case comparison) basis. Then again, Justin’s philosophy seems to be against legislated equity, so what’s basis for complaint does he have? I don’t dispute that different amount of money are provided by the government, but Justin seems to be claiming it is the result of unfairness. What is the basis for that claim? How is cancer funding distributed by the government? Are other cancers funded equally on a per capita basis by the government. It’s time that Justin (or one of his apologists) do the homework or admit they are just being whiny.
You said it Fraser, I’m just expressing my doubt in the face of a repeated claim by someone who has a pattern of making sh*t up (see a recent thread for another example of a dubious and unsubstantiated claim made by Justin). I’m not denying the possibility of bias in the system, I’m just saying that no evidence has been shown here. This is supposed to be a science and rationality blog, no?
Skepdick says:
April 17th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
By the way, Fraser,
With respect to your mission to Mars nonsense, if you want to give money to exploring one planet, shouldn’t you advocate and equal amount to Neptune, Jupiter, etc. After all, a planet is a planet is a planet, isn’t it. Clearly there is some kind of unfairness built into the system so that the Mars advocates are sucking up all the money. It’s just and outrage. Sure, Mars is really the only planet that’s close enough, and the only planet we could rationally expect to colonize, but f*ck all that rationality nonsense. There can be no test other than “equity” in scientific funding! I say we picket the Mars f*ckers right now.
Fraser H. says:
April 18th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Men are a far away planet? What?
Skepdick says:
April 18th, 2009 at 1:13 am
No, just some ventures make more sense than others. You can’t just demand everything be equal, you need to look at the facts and explore the reasons for decisions. It’s important to understand the rational basis on which decisions are taken instead of just being whiny.
Fraser H. says:
April 18th, 2009 at 1:18 am
The point of this blog is to search for issues of equality from a male perspective. You are just some person who Justin hasn’t convinced. I don’t know why you mask swear words to express your doubt. Or are so angry or feel so self-righteous as though you’ve defeated a demon threatening your tiny village.
-
If you think more evidence is needed, then great we all do. Stick around, keep reading. More evidence will come. Maybe we’ll all have to re-evaluate our positions. Maybe you’ll come up with some kick-ass data proving Justin wrong. Nobody is asking you to believe.
-
I have nothing against what you’ve said, it’s just your shut-down-all-discussion method.
-
How about this, just post what sort of evidence would be required for you to think Justin’s claim likely. I can’t promise that I’ll find it, but it would go a long way to making you think you actually want to try to understand the position of this blog rather than just blindly attack.
Fraser H. says:
April 18th, 2009 at 1:21 am
*making me think that you actually want to try…
(I would love an edit feature)
Skepdick says:
April 18th, 2009 at 1:27 am
I have repreatedly asked for evidence, I have repeatedly asked to Justin to define a term as simple as “strategic use of violence”. Justin simply doesn’t respond because there is no response. He’s talking out of his butt, making stuff up.
Earlier in this comment thread I explained the kind of evidence that would be required to make a claim of bias. The best you could come up with is a silly mission to Mars comparison. I am not shutting down any discussion, I am asking for a discussion to start. Discussion isn’t just blurting out BS and having a bunch of sheep agree with you. If you want to make a claim, be prepared at the outset to offer a single piece of evidence to support it.
Fraser H. says:
April 18th, 2009 at 1:38 am
What kind of evidence would convince you of the likelyhood of bias? Half the dollars, similar disease and similar death-rate hasn’t done it (unless you care to dispute those numbers). What kind of evidence would, in your mind, make you think that bias is worth considering?
A Few Things Every Man Should Know About The Prostate | HealthierWays.com says:
April 18th, 2009 at 4:18 am
[...] Equalism Activism » Successful prostate cancer vaccine brings out … [...]
Frances Roberts says:
April 18th, 2009 at 9:04 am
“Funding might be given out according to the economic impact of a disease. Not many young men get prostate cancer, but a greater number of young women get breast cancer.”
This is just blatantly untrue. Both diseases are prevalent in older individuals (and even if they weren’t does that mean a 20 year old’s life is more meaningful than a 40 year old’s). And the incidence and mortality rates for both diseases are roughly equivalent.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Cancer_Prevalence_How_Many_People_Have_Cancer.asp
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Lifetime_Probability_of_Developing_or_Dying_From_Cancer.asp?sitearea=&level=
Skepdick says:
April 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
First of all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are not that similar at all. Off the top of my head (so I could be mistaken about some of these details). Breast cancer happens towards the outside of the body, there are often pretty obvious signs of it early on in the disease. There is a long history (substantial body of knowledge) of trying to treat it. Prostate cancer isn’t obvious at all, moves extremely slowly and in many cases the treatment of choice is to not treat it at all. Breast cancer can affect women when they are relatively young and productive, prostate cancer tends to get you when you are older. Breast cancer can be treated without disrupting the tissue near it that much (in some cases), you can’t do very much with the prostate without causing all kinds of other issue for the patient.
So, the numbers of people affected are really the only similarity.
Next, you can’t just compare these two cancers, you’d have to look at how the government funds all cancers, better yet, all diseases (there is nothing special about cancer). If you could show that all diseases were funded by the number of people affected, but that prostate cancer wasn’t, you’d have the foundation of an argument. Furthermore, you do have to look at the existing body of knowledge about a disease and the amount of viable research that’s proposed. There is a limited amount of money, there has to be a rational way to divide it up. If you could show that a similar number of proposals were submitted for research, but that more breast cancer projects were accepted, you’d have some kind of foundation for a claim of bias. These situations are very complex, and the ham-fisted use of a single virtually meaningless statistic offers no insight at all. It’s just a whiny political ploy to get attention.
Frances Roberts says:
April 18th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Both cancers affect the majority of individuals when they’re over the age of 40 (I believe there’s a less than 5% chance of breast cancer affect an individual under the age of 40).
Skepdick says:
April 18th, 2009 at 11:20 am
But Frances,
Untreated breast cancer in a 45 year old woman will kill her pretty fast. Untreated prostate cancer in a 45 year old man will often drag on for decades and might not even be the eventual cause of death. You can find all the incidental similarities you like, but the fact is the diseases are not that similar.
Frances Roberts says:
April 18th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The fact that both diseases have similar mortality rates would seem to disprove that idea.
Fraser H. says:
April 18th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Frances’ links are pretty compelling… Similar prevalence of the cancer and similar death rate.
Skepdick says:
April 18th, 2009 at 11:44 am
The fact that both diseases have similar mortality rates, even though prostate cancer has been so unfairly underfunded, suggests prostate cancer isn’t as serious a disease to begin with. With all those resources, the best science hasn’t been able to lower the mortality rate below that of prostate cancer, maybe we need to give even more money to breast cancer.
All of these silly statistics lead to nothing more than a superficial comparison of the two diseases and a bunch of facile arguments. Even if both diseases have the same mortality rates, if one of them takes 30 years to kill you and the other 18 months, I’d say they aren’t the same kind of disease. The diseases themselves are different and the history of our knowledge of each disease is different.
For instance, from Wikipedia:
“However, many men who develop prostate cancer never have symptoms, undergo no therapy, and eventually die of other causes. This is because cancer of the prostate is, in most cases, slow-growing, and because most of those affected are over the age of 60. Hence, they often die of causes unrelated to the prostate cancer, such as heart/circulatory disease, pneumonia, other unconnected cancers, or old age.”
And:
“Breast cancer may be one of the oldest known forms of cancerous tumors in humans. The oldest description of cancer was discovered in Egypt and dates back to approximately 1600 BC. The Edwin Smith Papyrus describes 8 cases of tumors or ulcers of the breast that were treated by cauterization.The writing says about the disease, “There is no treatment.”[58] For centuries, physicians described similar cases in their practises, with the same conclusion. It was not until doctors achieved greater understanding of the circulatory system in the 17th century that they could establish a link between breast cancer and the lymph nodes in the armpit. The French surgeon Jean Louis Petit (1674–1750) and later the Scottish surgeon Benjamin Bell (1749–1806) were the first to remove the lymph nodes, breast tissue, and underlying chest muscle…..”
Skepdick says:
April 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
So, just for the record, the argument being proposed here is that irrespective of the details of the two diseases, the state of the scientific knowledge associated with each disease, etc. funding *equity* should be the goal. Equal outcomes, as determined by the amount of dollars spent, is what you are all advocating for. Interesting. Unbelievably hypocritical, but interesting just the same.
Fraser H. says:
April 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
You’re trying to say that because Ancient Egyptians have seen breast cancer that it is somehow a more … tenacious/virulent/worthy disease? You do realize that different people wrote the Wikipedia article as the prostate cancer article, right? So you can’t really compare the two. You do know that I had to beg you for some sort of back-up to your claim (not that you really have a claim, you’re just attacking Justin’s call for more attention to prostate cancer) and you referenced Wikipedia.
-
If this is the evidence that makes you so sure that prostate cancer isn’t worth more of society’s attention then I’m cool with that. It doesn’t convince me, I consider it flimsy. And it seems to me you have an axe to grind. But if you come up with something a little more convincing I am ready to hear it.
-
American Cancer Society 2005 U.S. Data vs Wikipedia. Tough call.
Skepdick says:
April 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Fraser, you are either an idiot or a complete knob,
I never argued that prostate cancer didn’t deserve more money. All I said is that the simple statistics that have been offered don’t indicate that the system is biased towards breast cancer over prostate cancer. There are all kinds of differences in who is affected, their stage of life, the short term and long term prognosis for each disease as well as the state of scientific research. A simple application of more money to a problem may not have any effect at all. Can you show examples of promising, yet underfunded research? Do the researchers who work on these problems object to the funding strategies in place? Is there some pattern of research funding for other diseases which is broken when it comes to breast cancer and prostate cancer? Have you even looked? Or are you satisfied to find one meaningless statistic and cling to it?
So far, all you can show is that the government spends more money on one thing than on another thing. You have not offered any evidence that explains why that happens or even that it should not continue to happen.
If you continue to make claims in absence of evidence, you are simply a liar.
Fraser H. says:
April 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I said attention, not money. Maybe money too, I’m not in a position to allocate large amounts of money to any kind of research. All I can say is “Hey, maybe this deserves more attention.” The solution may be inexpensive and save people’s lives. I’d love to see blue ribbons on people’s lapel. But I don’t.
-
I’m either an idiot or a knob (and a liar, in a strange twist that I don’t quite understand) so I guess talking to me isn’t worth your time.
-
Maybe you’re right but I’m done talking to you.
Skepdick says:
April 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Ending the conversation is a convenient way to avoid the continued demonstration of the weakness of your position.
In this thread, Justin suggested that one tenuous success indicated that there had been other missed opportunities and you defended him. That’s an absurd and baseless claim.
In the past, Justin has asserted that the differential funding between the diseases is due to discrimination against men. Possible, but no evidence has ever been offered of discrimination.
Finally, you try to pin silly arguments on me that I don’t make. I never once suggested that prostate cancer didn’t deserve more time, attention, and money than it gets. I have consistently objected to the broken logic and ridiculous innuendo on this blog. You seem to be comfortable with both, which raises certain questions. Sadly, you won’t be offering any more answers by the sound of it. I guess you can join Justin in has cowardice, make silly claims, and then hide from them.
Seriously, this is a blog in defense of science and reason?
Frances Roberts says:
April 18th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Skepdick, do you really expect Fraser to continue the arguement with you when you respond with namecalling and condescension?
Skepdick says:
April 19th, 2009 at 2:03 am
I call him what I call him for purposely (or ignorantly, which is why I presented two options) and repeatedly misrepresenting my position. That is an absolutely cowardly tactic in a conversation. His position was untenable from the beginning and he chose to hide behind obfuscation and misrepresentation. Do I expect him to continue? Not really, I doubt he has the character for an honest debate.
Kate says:
April 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Skepdick is not required to provide any alternate “claim” in order for his criticism of Justin’s point(s) to be valid. S/he provided valid objections to Justin’s post and introduced areas of concern that Justin DOES have an obligation to address in order for his comments to be credible. Skepdick certainly did not say that prostate cancer is not deserving of more attention and/or funding, but merely raised an objection to the claim that prostate cancer is being systematically underfunded due to gender biases simply because less money goes to prostate cancer research. S/he pointed out that this one statistic alone is not satisfactory proof to make that conclusion and gave a few reasons why.
Fraser turned SD’s point into something that it isn’t (e.g. prostate cancer should not receive more attention), required that s/he provide some alternate claim for his/her points to be valid, criticized his/her use of Wikipedia and insisted that s/he has an axe to grind. These all indicate a weak argument or a lack of arguing skills.
Skepdick wins this one.
Fraser H. says:
April 20th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Kate, are you joking?
Fraser H. says:
April 20th, 2009 at 1:27 am
I suppose not. Well, in my defense, I never insisted that Skepdick had an axe to grind, I merely suggested it. Also yes I did criticize the use of Wikipedia, in light of evidence from a stronger authority.
-
I’m willing to give you that it is not necessary to provide a counter-claim inorder to attack an argument. But this to me seems like a overly formal point. Skepdick was never saying that Justin was wrong, and the evidence of the mortality rate and funding levels has never been disputed. I can’t understand how someone could look at that and not consider that evidence of bias. Certainly not the strongest evidence ever, but it is still evidence. You and Skepdick haven’t brought anything except a wikipedia article and thought-experiments.
-
So:
1)would you like to show me where I did insist that Skepdick has an axe to grind
2)Argue that quoting wikipedia is worthwhile and something that skeptics do (personally I don’t think it should be anything more than a starting point.
3)show me who gave you the authority to determine winners in this comment-thread?
Les says:
April 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
This topic seemed to have ended a while ago - but as I’m just reading it now I feel the need to comment. I have to agree with Skepdick and Kate here. Using only statistics to try and prove any point is, well, pointless. I certainly am not saying that prostate cancer doesn’t deserve more funding and/or attention than it gets, but I agree that these statistics certainly don’t prove that there’s a gender bias. Yes Fraser, maybe the stats are a good reason to investigate the issue, but there could be so many reasons for this discrepancy aside from bias.
We all have our high horse whether we choose to mount it or not (wow, that sounds kinky).
I also wanted to point out that no one mentioned the issue about this research leading to possible advances in treating other types of cancers - this seems to be presented as a good reason to press the idea that it’s been underfunded. Ummm, maybe I’m missing some point of logic here, or perhaps it’s just my lack of scientific knowledge about biology/medicine, but how do we know that all research of various cancers doesn’t advance the possible treatment of all other cancers? Is there any proof or evidence that breast cancer research hasn’t in fact provided knowledge to advance prostate cancer reasearch? I know this doesn’t really affect the bias issue, but it is a consideration overall.
I think my biggest issue is that so many of Justin’s points are based on numbers and statistics, but never deal with investigating WHY these statistics exist - assumptions are just made so that these stats can “prove” his point. I’m in no way saying that I think most of his points are invalid, I just don’t think the proof is always there, nor do I think the issues are always visited with a well-rounded point of view.
That said this is a blog, which is essentially about opinion and discussion and it’s an admirable achievement to take a stance and try to do something about it. Far too many people see what they believe to be wrong and do nothing about it (that’s why most of you eat meat - sorry, I had to
150cc mopeds says:
May 2nd, 2010 at 11:32 am
That was a excellent article,I just now subscribed to your rss feed.