Talk:Lung cancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Lung cancer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 18, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
August 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
September 29, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Chart (lag-time)[edit]

The chart showing a rise in cigarette use followed by a rise in lung cancer in US males [1] is misleading because it does not show other countries where there is no such time lag , such as in Sweden for example [2][3],. While these sources (both obtained from my blog) may not be considered a good enough to appear on this lung cancer wiki page, the data used are publicly available data. The lung cancer statistics are obtained from the WHO [4] and the cigarette statistics obtained from P N Lee Statistics and Computing [5]. Anyone can check these data and see that Sweden had its male lung cancer epidemic at the same time as the US despite the fact cigarette use became popular in the US decades before Sweden.

The current chart should be removed as it misleading because it is contradicted by publicly available data from reputable sources.

References

82.23.33.195 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.33.195 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that blog is not a sufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a good source though http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/18/21_Supplement/S1/F33.expansion.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not arguing that my personal blog is a sufficient source, I am arguing that the publicly available data referenced on my blog is reputable and contradicts the fallacy that lung cancer epidemics follow rises in cigarette use with a fixed time lag.
The source you have provided is also contradicted by publicly available data. Smoking prevalence remains high in the former soviet union [1][2] and yet lung cancer rates fell inline with countries such as the US at the same time.[3]
The chart is misleading and contradicted by data provided (verifiable by anyone) and should be removed.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.33.195 (talkcontribs) 10:52, 14 May 2016‎ (UTC)
You are making arguments in which you interpret primary sources, and you are asserting your interpretation should prevail over the interpretation made in reliable secondary sources. That is not how Wikipedia works. You need to bring reliable sources that make the same interpretation as you, that are stronger than our current sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The secondary source that the chart in question comes from is an archive engine [1] and the link that it is reported to come from is no longer active [2]. The text of the archived source makes no reference to primary sources or any other source and unlike the chart in question and makes no reference to male lung cancer rates in the US. It is therefore, arguably, weak secondary evidence. I am not asserting that my interpretation should prevail over the interpretation made in the secondary source. I am asserting that the emperical evidence available on the reliable primary sources contradict what is available on the unreliable archived secondary source and that any moderator from Wikipedia or any other person can verify that the numbers from primary sources contradict the source from the archive (see Sweden & US for example). Surely there are exceptional circumstances where the available primary empirical evidence is so strong and that the interpretation of the data is such a trivial exercise that the secondary evidence could be discarded on the grounds that it is clearly misleading?

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.33.195 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You are interpreting the data you used in your website; when you say "asserting that ..." you are saying that you interpretation of your collation of data should outweigh the interpretation in the chart provided by a 'major health authority, the strongest kind of secondary sources we have in the medical field, per WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. Also you are performing a kind of peer review and per WP:MEDASSESS we don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The chart seems to need a far more reliable source since it is not clear if it is based on real or hypothetical data to illustrate the term 'lag-time'. How have they measured cigarette consumption in males specifically ? Are we sure it is based on USA data ? Surely we can replace this with something from a peer reviewed journal review ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Prognosis[edit]

This section seems to focus on the gloomy prognosis for the average case, typically detected at phase IV. By comparison, if detected at phase I the 5-year survival is better than 55%.[1] Shouldn't this be discussed? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)