Cancer and Prostate Archives

PSAs? Worth anything except for making money for the system? Archive in cancer.

If the tests are not 100% reliable, then it makes it all the more
important to do all the things that we know are important to stay
health and well... Including when one does become ill to treat it
naturally to resolve the situation rather than use allopathic,
suppressive medicine that could possibly drive the condition futher
down and deeper into a person...
Other comments?
Misty L. Trepke
http://www.searching-alternatives.com

PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer - Another Scam?

"...there is no proof that the use of the PSA blood test to screen
symptom-free men will spare anyone a prostate cancer death, yet it
is associated with a considerable amount of unnecessary treatment
with after effects that can be both severe and permanent. All of the
treatments for early prostate cancer carry the risk of impotence and
incontinence. In short, cancer researchers do not know whether PSA
screening saves more lives than it ruins...

...The British Medical Journal recently published an article about
how several of the leading prostate cancer survivor organizations
[based in the U.S.] that do a lot of the pushing of screening are
funded by the makers of the PSA screening kits. And, indeed, [these
survivor organizations] do things that the Food and Drug
Administration won't let the manufacturers do--like make promises
that there are only benefits from prostate cancer screening. Many of
these prostate survivor organizations that I'm critical of--that
take drug company money--offer mass screening.

Here is a typical example on how the drug/medical Mafia operate...
Infiltrating consumer bodies and pretending to be altruistic and
concerned citizens Anything to move their agenda forward
regardless of negative consequences on health and welfare community
at large.

...close to 40% of men who undergo a radical prostatectomy will have
a PSA relapse within two years. This means that they had disease
that was outside of the prostate that was not obvious to the surgeon
or the pathologist. It means that if the man lives long enough,
metastatic disease will kill him.

...the more aggressive cancers are less likely to benefit from
screening...

...It bothered me, though, that my P.R. and money people could tell
me how much money we would make off screening, but nobody could tell
me if we could save one life. As a matter of fact, we could have
estimated how many men we would render impotent...

Like my earlier not on
t_mammography.htm>The Depths of Deceit Mammography this is yet
another scheme to milk the unsuspecting...

Chris Gupta
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/09/17/psa_screening_test_f
or_prostate_cancer_another_scam.htm

PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer:
An Interview with Otis Brawley, MD

By Maryann Napoli
(May 2003)

The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test for early
prostate cancer has been surrounded by controversy ever since it was
introduced over 15 years ago. The test can indicate the presence of
cancer, but many men have a form of prostate cancer that will remain
dormant or is so slow-growing that it will never cause symptoms.
Neither this test, nor any other can distinguish which prostate
cancer will become lethal. Furthermore, there is no proof that the
use of the PSA blood test to screen symptom-free men will spare
anyone a prostate cancer death, yet it is associated with a
considerable amount of unnecessary treatment with
aftereffects that can be both severe and permanent. All of the
treatments for early prostate cancer carry the risk of impotence and
incontinence. In short, cancer researchers do not know whether PSA
screening saves more lives than it ruins.

Otis W. Brawley, MD, is the brains behind the ongoing National
Cancer Institute Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, which is designed
to answer questions about the effectiveness of screening and the
causes of prostate cancer. After leaving the National Cancer
Institute, Dr. Brawley became the Director of the Georgia Cancer
Center and Professor of Medicine, Oncology, and Epidemiology at
Emory University School of Medicine. He is interviewed about the
ever-increasing use of PSA screening in the face of so much
uncertainty about its value.

Napoli: Does the popularity of PSA screening concern you?

Dr. Brawley: First of all, I'm not against prostate cancer
screening. I'm against telling people that it is well established;
and that it works; and that it saves lives when the evidence that
supports those statements simply does not exist. I'm a tremendous
supporter of the real American Cancer Society (ACS) recommendation,
which is: Within the physician-patient relationship, men should be
offered PSA screening and should be informed of the potential risks,
as well as the potential benefits and be allowed to make a choice.

Napoli: Do you think fully informing men about PSA screening happens
very often?

Dr. Brawley: I think it rarely happens. Many doctors are uninformed,
and that's a big problem. My great concern is people being misled. I
routinely follow the prostate cancer screening recommendations of 18
organizations in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. The two most
pro-screening recommendations are those of the ACS and the American
Urologic Association. Both of whom say it should be offered to men;
men should be informed of the potential risks and the potential
benefits; and they be allowed to make a choice. The ACS does not
recommend that men of normal risk be offered mass screening. There's
a distinction between what is done within a doctor/patient
relationship at a doctor's office and mass screening.

Napoli: What is the difference?

Dr. Brawley: Mass screening takes place at a booth at a mall where
screening is offered to anyone who comes by and wants screening. In
the last few years, there has been screening on the floor of the
Republican National Convention, health fairs at the mall, [TV]
channel this or channel that will have a health fair with prostate
cancer screening. Yet there is no organization that endorses mass
screening because of the concern that you can't have informed
consent.

Napoli: If policy makers aren't promoting the test, who is?

Dr. Brawley: The British Medical Journal recently published an
article about how several of the leading prostate cancer survivor
organizations [based in the U.S.] that do a lot of the pushing of
screening are funded by the makers of the PSA screening kits. And,
indeed, [these survivor organizations] do things that the Food and
Drug Administration won't let the manufacturers do--like make
promises that there are only benefits from prostate cancer
screening. Many of these prostate survivor organizations that I'm
critical of--that take drug company money--offer mass screening.

Napoli: You were once quoted in The New York Times saying that 30-
40% of men whose cancers appear to have been confined to the
prostate at diagnosis will recur soon after treatment.

Dr. Brawley: Yes, this [brings up] one of the lies perpetrated about
prostate cancer. If you look at the prostate cancer outcomes from a
huge study conducted by the National Cancer Institute, close to 40%
of men who undergo a radical prostatectomy will have a PSA relapse
within two years. This means that they had disease that was outside
of the prostate that was not obvious to the surgeon or the
pathologist. It means that if the man lives long enough, metastatic
disease will kill him.

Napoli: The public is always told that early detection is
lifesaving. How true do you think that is for prostate cancer?

Dr. Brawley: If you have a group of men diagnosed as a result of PSA
screening, 30-40% don't need to know that they have prostate cancer
because it's meaningless in terms of risk to their health. And for
somewhere between 30% and 40% of the men with prostate cancer, no
matter what [treatment is given], the disease is not curable. And
then maybe there are about 20% who actually benefit.

Napoli: And there's no way to know which type of prostate cancer you
have.

Dr. Brawley: That's right.

Napoli: What about African American men, who as a group, are at a
particularly high risk for prostate cancer? PSA testing is thought
to be advisable for them at an earlier age.

Dr. Brawley: The proportion of black men in Rocky Feuer's paper [for
the Journal of the National Cancer Institute] who don't need to know
they have prostate cancer was over 40%, compared to 30% of white
guys. The reason it's higher for black men is that they have so many
other competing causes of death. The other issue is this: It's a
principle of cancer screening that, unfortunately, many of the
advocates of screening just don't comprehend, and that is, the more
aggressive cancers are less likely to benefit from screening. There
are people out there who say we must screen black men because they
have more aggressive prostate cancer. [These screening proponents]
do not realize that they are saying, in effect, because prostate
cancer screening is less likely to benefit black men, then we must
screen black men.

Napoli: You recently published a medical journal article about
informed consent and the PSA test.

Dr. Brawley: Yes, the problem I have is that people are not open and
honest about all the controversies, and this extends to people being
not open and honest about the treatments, once prostate cancer is
diagnosed. Men tend to get railroaded toward radical prostatectomy
or to external-beam radiation, or to seed implants.

Napoli: Since there's no evidence that any one of these treatments
is superior to another or superior to no treatment, for that matter,
where do you suggest men go for unbiased information?

Dr. Brawley: First of all, I think we should tell men what is
scientifically known and what is scientifically not known and what
is believed and label them accordingly. [As for credible sources of
information,] the National Cancer Institute's PDQ treatment
statements at www.cancer.gov are good [call 800/4-CANCER]. So is the
ACS's information. And by the way, we at Emory have figured out that
if we screen 1,000 men at the North Lake Mall this coming Saturday,
we could bill Medicare and insurance companies for $4.9 million in
health care costs [for biopsies, tests, prostatectomies, etc]. But
the real money comes later--from the medical care the wife will get
in the next three years because Emory cares about her man, and from
the money we get when he comes to Emory's emergency room when he
gets chest pain because we screened him three years ago.

Napoli: You're saying that screening creates long-term customers.
So, did Emory Healthcare decide to go ahead with the free PSA
screening on Saturday?

Dr. Brawley: No, we don't screen any more at Emory, once I became
head of Cancer Control. It bothered me, though, that my P.R. and
money people could tell me how much money we would make off
screening, but nobody could tell me if we could save one life. As a
matter of fact, we could have estimated how many men we would render
impotent...but we didn't. It's a huge ethical issue.

http://www.medicalconsumers.org/pages/newsletter_articles.html#PSAScr
eening

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Remanufactured Ink Cartridges & Refill Kits at MyInks.com for: HP $8-20. Epson $3-9, Canon $5-15, Lexmark $4-17. Free s/h over $50 (US & Canada).
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=6351
http://us.click.yahoo.com/0zJuRD/6CvGAA/qnsNAA/OnSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
searching-alternatives-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

If the tests are not 100% reliable, then it makes it all the more
important to do all the things that we know are important to stay
health and well... Including when one does become ill to treat it
naturally to resolve the situation rather than use allopathic,
suppressive medicine that could possibly drive the condition futher
down and deeper into a person...
Other comments?
Misty L. Trepke
http://www.searching-alternatives.com

PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer - Another Scam?

"...there is no proof that the use of the PSA blood test to screen
symptom-free men will spare anyone a prostate cancer death, yet it
is associated with a considerable amount of unnecessary treatment
with after effects that can be both severe and permanent. All of the
treatments for early prostate cancer carry the risk of impotence and
incontinence. In short, cancer researchers do not know whether PSA
screening saves more lives than it ruins...

...The British Medical Journal recently published an article about
how several of the leading prostate cancer survivor organizations
[based in the U.S.] that do a lot of the pushing of screening are
funded by the makers of the PSA screening kits. And, indeed, [these
survivor organizations] do things that the Food and Drug
Administration won't let the manufacturers do--like make promises
that there are only benefits from prostate cancer screening. Many of
these prostate survivor organizations that I'm critical of--that
take drug company money--offer mass screening.

Here is a typical example on how the drug/medical Mafia operate...
Infiltrating consumer bodies and pretending to be altruistic and
concerned citizens Anything to move their agenda forward
regardless of negative consequences on health and welfare community
at large.

...close to 40% of men who undergo a radical prostatectomy will have
a PSA relapse within two years. This means that they had disease
that was outside of the prostate that was not obvious to the surgeon
or the pathologist. It means that if the man lives long enough,
metastatic disease will kill him.

...the more aggressive cancers are less likely to benefit from
screening...

...It bothered me, though, that my P.R. and money people could tell
me how much money we would make off screening, but nobody could tell
me if we could save one life. As a matter of fact, we could have
estimated how many men we would render impotent...

Like my earlier not on
t_mammography.htm>The Depths of Deceit Mammography this is yet
another scheme to milk the unsuspecting...

Chris Gupta
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/09/17/psa_screening_test_f
or_prostate_cancer_another_scam.htm

PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer:
An Interview with Otis Brawley, MD

By Maryann Napoli
(May 2003)

The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test for early
prostate cancer has been surrounded by controversy ever since it was
introduced over 15 years ago. The test can indicate the presence of
cancer, but many men have a form of prostate cancer that will remain
dormant or is so slow-growing that it will never cause symptoms.
Neither this test, nor any other can distinguish which prostate
cancer will become lethal. Furthermore, there is no proof that the
use of the PSA blood test to screen symptom-free men will spare
anyone a prostate cancer death, yet it is associated with a
considerable amount of unnecessary treatment with
aftereffects that can be both severe and permanent. All of the
treatments for early prostate cancer carry the risk of impotence and
incontinence. In short, cancer researchers do not know whether PSA
screening saves more lives than it ruins.

Otis W. Brawley, MD, is the brains behind the ongoing National
Cancer Institute Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, which is designed
to answer questions about the effectiveness of screening and the
causes of prostate cancer. After leaving the National Cancer
Institute, Dr. Brawley became the Director of the Georgia Cancer
Center and Professor of Medicine, Oncology, and Epidemiology at
Emory University School of Medicine. He is interviewed about the
ever-increasing use of PSA screening in the face of so much
uncertainty about its value.

Napoli: Does the popularity of PSA screening concern you?

Dr. Brawley: First of all, I'm not against prostate cancer
screening. I'm against telling people that it is well established;
and that it works; and that it saves lives when the evidence that
supports those statements simply does not exist. I'm a tremendous
supporter of the real American Cancer Society (ACS) recommendation,
which is: Within the physician-patient relationship, men should be
offered PSA screening and should be informed of the potential risks,
as well as the potential benefits and be allowed to make a choice.

Napoli: Do you think fully informing men about PSA screening happens
very often?

Dr. Brawley: I think it rarely happens. Many doctors are uninformed,
and that's a big problem. My great concern is people being misled. I
routinely follow the prostate cancer screening recommendations of 18
organizations in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. The two most
pro-screening recommendations are those of the ACS and the American
Urologic Association. Both of whom say it should be offered to men;
men should be informed of the potential risks and the potential
benefits; and they be allowed to make a choice. The ACS does not
recommend that men of normal risk be offered mass screening. There's
a distinction between what is done within a doctor/patient
relationship at a doctor's office and mass screening.

Napoli: What is the difference?

Dr. Brawley: Mass screening takes place at a booth at a mall where
screening is offered to anyone who comes by and wants screening. In
the last few years, there has been screening on the floor of the
Republican National Convention, health fairs at the mall, [TV]
channel this or channel that will have a health fair with prostate
cancer screening. Yet there is no organization that endorses mass
screening because of the concern that you can't have informed
consent.

Napoli: If policy makers aren't promoting the test, who is?

Dr. Brawley: The British Medical Journal recently published an
article about how several of the leading prostate cancer survivor
organizations [based in the U.S.] that do a lot of the pushing of
screening are funded by the makers of the PSA screening kits. And,
indeed, [these survivor organizations] do things that the Food and
Drug Administration won't let the manufacturers do--like make
promises that there are only benefits from prostate cancer
screening. Many of these prostate survivor organizations that I'm
critical of--that take drug company money--offer mass screening.

Napoli: You were once quoted in The New York Times saying that 30-
40% of men whose cancers appear to have been confined to the
prostate at diagnosis will recur soon after treatment.

Dr. Brawley: Yes, this [brings up] one of the lies perpetrated about
prostate cancer. If you look at the prostate cancer outcomes from a
huge study conducted by the National Cancer Institute, close to 40%
of men who undergo a radical prostatectomy will have a PSA relapse
within two years. This means that they had disease that was outside
of the prostate that was not obvious to the surgeon or the
pathologist. It means that if the man lives long enough, metastatic
disease will kill him.

Napoli: The public is always told that early detection is
lifesaving. How true do you think that is for prostate cancer?

Dr. Brawley: If you have a group of men diagnosed as a result of PSA
screening, 30-40% don't need to know that they have prostate cancer
because it's meaningless in terms of risk to their health. And for
somewhere between 30% and 40% of the men with prostate cancer, no
matter what [treatment is given], the disease is not curable. And
then maybe there are about 20% who actually benefit.

Napoli: And there's no way to know which type of prostate cancer you
have.

Dr. Brawley: That's right.

Napoli: What about African American men, who as a group, are at a
particularly high risk for prostate cancer? PSA testing is thought
to be advisable for them at an earlier age.

Dr. Brawley: The proportion of black men in Rocky Feuer's paper [for
the Journal of the National Cancer Institute] who don't need to know
they have prostate cancer was over 40%, compared to 30% of white
guys. The reason it's higher for black men is that they have so many
other competing causes of death. The other issue is this: It's a
principle of cancer screening that, unfortunately, many of the
advocates of screening just don't comprehend, and that is, the more
aggressive cancers are less likely to benefit from screening. There
are people out there who say we must screen black men because they
have more aggressive prostate cancer. [These screening proponents]
do not realize that they are saying, in effect, because prostate
cancer screening is less likely to benefit black men, then we must
screen black men.

Napoli: You recently published a medical journal article about
informed consent and the PSA test.

Dr. Brawley: Yes, the problem I have is that people are not open and
honest about all the controversies, and this extends to people being
not open and honest about the treatments, once prostate cancer is
diagnosed. Men tend to get railroaded toward radical prostatectomy
or to external-beam radiation, or to seed implants.

Napoli: Since there's no evidence that any one of these treatments
is superior to another or superior to no treatment, for that matter,
where do you suggest men go for unbiased information?

Dr. Brawley: First of all, I think we should tell men what is
scientifically known and what is scientifically not known and what
is believed and label them accordingly. [As for credible sources of
information,] the National Cancer Institute's PDQ treatment
statements at www.cancer.gov are good [call 800/4-CANCER]. So is the
ACS's information. And by the way, we at Emory have figured out that
if we screen 1,000 men at the North Lake Mall this coming Saturday,
we could bill Medicare and insurance companies for $4.9 million in
health care costs [for biopsies, tests, prostatectomies, etc]. But
the real money comes later--from the medical care the wife will get
in the next three years because Emory cares about her man, and from
the money we get when he comes to Emory's emergency room when he
gets chest pain because we screened him three years ago.

Napoli: You're saying that screening creates long-term customers.
So, did Emory Healthcare decide to go ahead with the free PSA
screening on Saturday?

Dr. Brawley: No, we don't screen any more at Emory, once I became
head of Cancer Control. It bothered me, though, that my P.R. and
money people could tell me how much money we would make off
screening, but nobody could tell me if we could save one life. As a
matter of fact, we could have estimated how many men we would render
impotent...but we didn't. It's a huge ethical issue.

http://www.medicalconsumers.org/pages/newsletter_articles.html#PSAScr
eening

Re: PSAs? Worth anything except for making money for the system? Archive in cancer.

Re: PSAs? Worth anything except for making money for the system? Archive in cancer.

Re: PSAs? Worth anything except for making money for the system? Archive in cancer.