Another great work of verification from FactCheck.org. Focused, factual, well sourced research on an important topic.

This is superior to several of the FactCheck stories I've seen, because (1) the "fact" it debunks (prostate cancer survival rates) is essential, not peripheral, to the central argument being made in the radio ad and (2) the "fact" is clearly inaccurate, not simply a perspective that some people do not share. Good job, FactCheck - keep it up.

Yes, in a concise fashion, it explains how you can misuse statistics for political purposes if you have an inclination to do so, and do not know the first thing about the methods of epidemiology.

This is a complicated subject and clearly the candidate has not 'done his homework'. The article fails in two regards. After carefully dismantling Giulani's statistics, the tone of the article grows negative. The article was more compelling without the 'bogus' as well as dwelling on the mislabeling of the UK versus England results. That's not an uncommon mistake for many US citizens to make. The second shortcoming of the article is the author's inability to address the big picture. The big picture on this subject is treacherous to portray so I'm probably being too critical here - but the big picture is left unclear (at least to me) at the end of the article.

We need more of this. We need media who will investigate and question everything -- from the White House to the campaign trail to Congress to local officials and politicians. This is the kind of journalism that will keep 'em honest. It also could have kept us out of wars.