[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cancer clusters
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: cancer clusters
> Epidemiology works best with exposures that have a
high (> 2-3) relative
> risk for a given outcome, like E. coli
(currently big news here in
> Colorado), HIV for AIDS and tobacco smoke
for lung cancer. Most of
> those have been identified, or are so
rare they aren't much of an issue
> for the public. Classic epi
techniques are less useful for exposure
> with low relative risks (between
1 and 2) or where exposure is very
> rare. Good
epidemiologists know this and focus where they can do good.
> Bad
epidemiologists know this and use it to milk the system (this
> generally
only works for a little while) or for political reasons.
>
>
Cancer (and other disease) clusters occur randomly, and epidemiologists
>
know this as well. But until a cluster is thoroughly investigated,
how
> confident should we be that we are witnessing a collection of
random
> events, and not a true outbreak of preventable
disease?
Are you suggesting that some epidemiologists might be
exploiting public
cancer phobias for their own
monetary gain? My goodness!
When it comes to epi studies on low-dose
radiation effects, such
exploitation has continued for a long time and still
seems to be going strong.