Talk:Lung cancer

src: i.ytimg.com

Video Talk:Lung cancer

Chart (lag-time)

The chart showing a rise in cigarette use followed by a rise in lung cancer in US males is misleading because it does not show other countries where there is no such time lag , such as in Sweden for example ,. 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 and the cigarette statistics obtained from P N Lee Statistics and Computing . 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.

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 and yet lung cancer rates fell inline with countries such as the US at the same time.

The chart is misleading and contradicted by data provided (verifiable by anyone) and should be removed.

-- Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.33.195 (talk o contribs) 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 and the link that it is reported to come from is no longer active . 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?

-- 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)

The misleading chart has been replaced by another misleading chart which is, again, US focused. If the chart has to remain then surely as a matter of impartiality, evidence that shows a massive rise in lung cancer among never-smokers, in the US, during the time period in question should be added. The reader can then be better informed about the theory that the global lung cancer epidemic was driven by cigarette consumption. As the following study states in it's abstract.

"lung cancer mortality rate has risen substantially between 1914 and 1968 among persons who never smoked cigarettes. For white males the relative increase for ages 35--84 years has been about 15-fold; the relative increase for ages 65--84 years has been about 30-fold."

As a matter of transparency I am the same blogger that raised this issue in the first place and this is my blog -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.196.90 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You have been directed to WP:MEDRS several times and you are just ignoring it. Content about health in WP is sourced per MEDRS, and summarizes MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I assumed that the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health" was a reputable source. Does Wikipedia have a policy of excluding all evidence from this source? Or do I have to track down a Journal that publish the same study? Please advise! -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.196.90 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, read WP:MEDRS, and perhaps read it again after that. You have linked to the URL of a PubMed abstract from an article published in 1979. MEDRS specifically suggests secondary sources within the last five years. I can't imagine why you would want to write an encyclopedia using sources that are almost 40 years old. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Lung cancer

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lung cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208170738/http://www.lungcanceralliance.org/special-features/special-focus-on-veterans-and-lung-cancer/lung-cancer-and-wartime-exposure.html to http://www.lungcanceralliance.org/special-features/special-focus-on-veterans-and-lung-cancer/lung-cancer-and-wartime-exposure.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia