Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (typos)
(More statistical nonsense: reply)
Line 29: Line 29:
 
==More statistical nonsense==
 
==More statistical nonsense==
 
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample?  You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45).  Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger.  Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself.  [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample?  You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45).  Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger.  Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself.  [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Bongabill, you're clueless.  The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease.  I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have.  You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
  
 
==An example of why this is falacious reasoning==
 
==An example of why this is falacious reasoning==
Line 37: Line 39:
  
 
Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true.  So what's wrong with the reasoning?  Selective sampling, that's what's wrong.  And which is what you're doing in this article.  [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 
Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true.  So what's wrong with the reasoning?  Selective sampling, that's what's wrong.  And which is what you're doing in this article.  [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response.  Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 13:35, 4 May 2008

Solved?

There may be a solution to this, the average age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. StatsMsn 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. StatsMsn 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia is not limited to liberal medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--Aschlafly 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. StatsMsn 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is repeated and explainable links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.

- AndrasK 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

A Demonstration

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [1] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. StatsMsn 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! IndianaJ 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

More statistical nonsense

When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. Bongabill 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of Hollywood certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical liberal style in trying to intimidate.--Aschlafly 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

An example of why this is falacious reasoning

  1. The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[2].
  2. Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
  3. Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
  4. Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. Bongabill 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)