Guiliani’s controversy

/, Tools for Activists/Guiliani’s controversy

Another news story today that impacts the prostate cancer community is, Rudy Guiliani’s quote in an ad about survival for prostate cancer. I just got a note from a friend in the UK. They are very disturbed by his statement.

In a New York Times article today they say, Britain’s health secretary complained on Thursday about an advertisement run by Rudy Giuliani, saying the U.S. Republican presidential candidate had maligned Britain’s health care system with bad statistics…..

Britain’s Health Secretary Alan Johnson said Giuliani’s figures were wrong and the survival rate under Britain’s National Health Service was in fact much higher.

“The British NHS should not become a political football in American presidential politics,” Johnson told The Times newspaper.

“Our rate of prostate cancer survival is actually much higher than has been claimed. The latest data show a survival rate of over 70 percent and rising.”

A health department spokesman said the latest figures from Britain’s Office of National Statistics showed a five-year survival rate of 74.4 percent for prostate cancer.

To read the entire New York Times article click here.

As advocates we need to know the facts. We may be questioned by individuals in the community. We may be questioned by the media. Learn the facts at this article on Click here for the article.

By | 2017-10-19T10:58:57+00:00 November 1st, 2007|Activism, Tools for Activists|2 Comments

About the Author:


  1. Rick Ward November 2, 2007 at 1:10 am

    1. When linking to an article (“To read the entire New York Times article click here.”) it is imperitive that you give the correct link:

    2. With the ending of the first paragraph “bad statistics…..” the omission of part of the article is signaled; this is commonly represented by “bad statistics . . . .”

    3. The ommitted paragraph is material to the sense of the blog item, IMO:

    In the radio ad, Giuliani, who has suffered prostate cancer, said the U.S. survival rate for the disease was 82 percent, but the survival rate in Britain was just 44 percent “under socialized medicine.”

    4. Presuming to report bears the responisbility to at least get the spelling of the subject’s name correct: Giuliani NOT Guilliani

    5. If you are interested in setting the statiscal record straight the corresponding 5-year US survival rate to compare with the 74.4% British rate is 99.4% [SEER Cancer Statistical Review 1975-2004, Table XXIII-5 PROSTATE CANCER (Invasive)– 5-YR PERIOD SURVIVAL RATES YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS: 1996-2003], which itself is at odds with the citation of 98.4 attributed to NCI from the SEER 17 region overall 5-year relative survival rate for 1996-2003.

    As is apparent, much of what can be said statistically depends on what compilation one uses, and there can be many.

  2. Jim Waldenfels November 3, 2007 at 11:15 am

    I was disappointed by candidate Giuliani’s comment with its careless use of the facts. I had thought he had a much better grip on the nature of prostate cancer and would be sincerely supportive of prostate cancer advocacy and education. Instead, he in effect is fostering the “one-size-fits-all” approach to prostate cancer, which is a poor approach. I do not believe he will be truly supportive because it is clear he does not know much about the disease. I would like to say more, but I’ve written a letter to the editor of the Washington Post about its story of his news and am under restrictions on what I can say elsewhere.


Leave A Comment