Survival stats are skewed because technological advances have detected cancer earlier than they used to. In the past they used to only detect things when they were terminal, so the survival rate was much lower. But now they can detect things much earlier and so the survival stats are misleading. The stats would have been the same back then if they had the technology to detect things early as now. But it's good in the sense of process of elimination, we know that the big 3 treatments are largely ineffective- chemo, radiation, and surgery. If they did cancer would be a thing of the history books, like polio or the bubonic plague.

It's a [i]research[/i] hospital. The money doesn't get wasted just because a kid dies. Those kids are likely going to die from a rare disease, so St. Jude's basically gives them free healthcare for participating in data collection and experimental treatment. Kids' bodies change and heal faster because they are still growing and developing, so there's more value in studying them for cures. The samples collected from those kids, even if they die, will be useful to science for years.

Not all of the children at st judes die! That would be such a bad hospital!

Because you've contributed so much to the conversation...

So explain how they managed to raise the survival rate of childhood cancer from 2% to 85%. Don't talk about things you have no clue about please. It makes you look incompetent.

Sorry. I misinterpreted. [i]~ CannibalSausage [/i]