Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

The Top 10 Medical Myths

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

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

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...