I was googling breast cancer in Appalachia after reading Peat's statement below, and I found it very strange. Rural Appalachians did have the lowest cancer mortality as Peat stated, but then after 1995 they had the highest rates. Any ideas how they could go from lowest to highest?
"Since the "normal science" in these authoritarian settings is dedicated to evading the truth, it becomes almost a guide to where to look for the truth. It's sort of analogous to the "mystery" of why breast cancer mortality is lowest in the poorest part of the U.S., Appalachia, and highest in the richest regions: the medical industry goes where the money is, taking death with it. Science, like health, thrives on the neglect of the corrupt industry."
I found this info today:
Results: Rural Appalachians had the lowest cancer mortality rates in the country in the 1970s, but the disparity had reversed direction and they had the highest rates after 1995.
http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e12632
"Since the "normal science" in these authoritarian settings is dedicated to evading the truth, it becomes almost a guide to where to look for the truth. It's sort of analogous to the "mystery" of why breast cancer mortality is lowest in the poorest part of the U.S., Appalachia, and highest in the richest regions: the medical industry goes where the money is, taking death with it. Science, like health, thrives on the neglect of the corrupt industry."
I found this info today:
Results: Rural Appalachians had the lowest cancer mortality rates in the country in the 1970s, but the disparity had reversed direction and they had the highest rates after 1995.
http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e12632