Guest guest Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Dear Roger... Thank you for your post... I know, it does sound a little incredible, but I figured the author of this article must have something to support his view... So to learn more about his counter- intuitive position in this matter, I did an internet search regarding the PSA test and any concerns there may be about it. I ran across this article... Again, as always, I am not claiming any position, one way or another, about this posting... Just providing more information about this unusual stance on early detection of cancer through PSA testing. I trust that everyone here is capable of weighing the evidence for themselves and deciding where exactly they want to draw their own personal line in the sand... (For example, I draw my line at microwaves, others may or may not share this point of view.) Once again, thank you very much for letting your voice be heard here at Searching-Alternatives. Be Well, Misty L. Trepke http://www..com Testing, Testing --- (for the complete article please go to: http://www.purewatergazette.net/testing.htm ) By Gene Franks In the great Renaissance novel Gargantua et Pantagruel, Rabelais told of a judge who decided cases by throwing dice. Rabelais approved, reasoning that with the dice the accused had a chance. In the French courts of the day, the accused had no chance at all. In the tribunals of modern medicine, the patient-accused would usually get a fairer shake if dice were the testing method. The doleful inaccuracy of mammography (see Marilyn Kaggen's article on " Breast Cancer, " from our article archive), which can lead to slicing off healthy breasts, is well documented. But women are not the only victims of inaccurate tests. Men get the same raw deal with the much-advertised prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Here is Bina Robinson from the Autumn, 1993 Civil Abolitionist: In 1989, PSA-producer Schering Plough Corporation paid the Burson- Marsteller public relations firm $1.2 million to launch Prostate Cancer Awareness Week and promote the use of the test as a general screening device for detecting the presence of prostate cancer, even though it had been approved only for monitoring. Today 92% of urologists report routine use of the test for men over 50. It costs $50-$80 and produces false positives, leading to further testing, in 20% of the patients. It also produces false negatives in 25% of patients who actually do have prostate cancer. In short, it may be of value to 55% of the patients screened. Economists estimate that screening all American men over 50 would add $28 billion a year to national health care costs. Doctors disagree on whether a test with such a high rate of false negatives and positives should be used routinely, but the decision is being made by patients who request it as a result of the cleverly- contrived Prostate Cancer Awareness Week and the backing of the American Cancer Society. The irony is that detecting of those with prostate cancer cells may not be helpful. A Veterans Administration study of 111 men found no difference in the death rates of those who underwent surgery and those assigned to " watchful waiting. " Dr. John McDougall (Your Good Health, Jan./Feb. 1994) agrees that " there is harm from early detection " of prostate cancer, " mostly because detection leads to treatment. " Prostate cancer, second only to lung cancer as a killer of men, has become a major source of surgeries of questionable necessity and merit. Over a decade ago, before the prominence of the pitifully inaccurate PSA, Dr. Robert Mendelsohn warned: " Surgeons tend to do needle biopsies of the prostate in older men without telling them that in a significant portion of these men, say about 30 percent over the age of 50 and 50 percent over the age of 60, that the biopsy will yield malignant-looking cells which will never become malignant in reality. " Many of the " cancer cures " touted in cancer establishment promotions involve removal of just such " cancers " that were better left alone. (Incontinence and impotence are the frequent " complications " of both surgery and radiation treatment of the prostate.) Even U.S. News and World Report (11-22-93) recommends that some men with prostate cancer would do best to forgo all testing and quotes Dr. John Wennberg of Dartmouth Medical School, who coined the term " watchful waiting, " as saying that prostrate treatment " at best offers limited benefits for most patients " and that some patients, especially older ones, would do best simply to " put the diagnosis of cancer out of their minds, if they can, and perhaps even consider forgoing monitoring. " Prostate Cancer Awareness Week was designed to not let you put it out of your mind. Do you know who sponsors Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM), with its monotonous " early detection is your best protection " slogan? Hint: it isn't a benevolent non-profit group that loves women and wants to protect their breasts. The sole financial sponsor is Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). ICI, a multi-national with sales approaching $30 billion annually, is among the world's largest producers of chlorine- and petroleum-based products (paints, plastics, explosives. pharmaceuticals). ICI founded Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the early 1980s and has spent several million dollars promoting it. ICI approves or vetoes every poster, pamphlet and advertisement used in the campaign. " Not surprisingly, " writes investigative reporter Monte Paulsen, " carcinogens are never mentioned in BCAM's widely distributed literature, " ( " The Politics of Cancer, " Nov./Dec. 1993 Utne Reader.) Certainly a conglomerate that sucks in thirty thousand millions of dollars each year is investing wisely by putting a million or so tax- deductible dollars into a program that covers its corporate ass by blaming the victims of its products for their misfortunes. The implicit BCAM message is always the same: " If you get breast cancer, it's because you weren't a good girl. You didn't get your checkups. " The blame-the-victim strategy, hallmark of the AIDS campaign as well, is a familiar tactic. But for ICI, BCAM is an even sweeter deal since it happens that Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, an ICI spin-off enterprise, is the maker of the leading chemical treatment for breast cancer. Tamoxifen citrate (Zeneca's trade name is Nolvadex), a $500 million per year product, will not cure breast cancer, but is said to slow its progress. (Does this remind you of AZT?) Clearly, " early detection " is a priority, since a woman who detects cancer earlier becomes a Nolvadex customer earlier. But it doesn't stop there. Nolvadex is currently approved only for treatment of existing breast cancers. It is known to cause blood clots, uterine cancer, and liver cancer, but the assumption is that the benefit to women with breast cancer outweighs the risk. Last year, however, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) began a study with 16,000 " healthy " U.S. and Canadian women, half of whom will receive Tamoxifen to see if the anti-estrogen drug will prevent cancer. Dr. Samuel Epstein, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the U. of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago, calls the test " a scientific and ethical travesty " and says that conducting it " verges on criminal recklessness. " The test will cost $70 million taxpayer dollars (almost half of NCI's annual breast cancer research budget) and will, of course, benefit ICI immensely should Tamoxifen-takers have a few fewer breast cancers than the control group. If this should happen, Monte Paulsen concludes, " Nolvadex will become a multi- billion-dollar-a-year drug. Every woman on the planet would be a potential customer. In the meantime, ICI continues to sell almost a half a billion dollars worth of treatment each year for a disease that it may be causing by selling tens of billions of dollars worth of toxic chemicals each year. " -- In , " Roger Kimble " <rzk357@f...> wrote: > > > > THE TOP 10 MEDICAL MYTHS > > 2. Screening for cancer can catch it early and save lives. > <http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/06/10/the_depths_of_decei > t_mammography.htm>Mammograms, > cervical cancer screening and the latest PSA screening have never > been shown to save lives. All screening tests are highly inaccurate. > The latest study of the PSA test shows screened men are more likely > to die (see p 1 0 ) . > This is hogwash. I usually enjoy reading your postings very much, and this is not a " flame " letter by any means. But the above statement is just simply totally untrue. I have prostate cancer and belong to several groups here on the net of men who also have it. The earlier you know about prostate cancer, the better off you are and the better your survival rates. How do you know if you have it? By taking the PSA test and then a biopsy. > > This posting is not information, it is misinformation. > > Roger Kimble > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.