Test Buster

[Guest guest]

" HSI - Jenny Thompson " <hsiresearch

HSI e-Alert - Test Buster

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:44:26 -0500

 

 

 

HSI e-Alert - Test Buster

 

Health Sciences Institute e-Alert

****************************************************

January 25, 2006

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

" At present the one certainty about PSA testing is that it causes harm. "

 

That quote comes from a British Medical Journal editorial published

almost three years ago. And yet some doctors and many men still

consider the prostate specific antigen test to be a reliable predictor

of prostate cancer.

 

Chris Hiley, M.D., of the UK Prostate Cancer Charity recently told BBC

News that further research is needed to " definitively assess the value

of the PSA test. "

 

Let's put that another way, and be very clear so that every man

understands what's at stake: A PSA test should not be used as a basis

to proceed with invasive procedures that often do more harm than good.

 

-----------

Half & half

-----------

 

PSA is a protein that's naturally produced by the prostate gland.

Prostate tumors typically cause an over-production of PSA, so when a

blood test reveals an elevated level of the protein, it's a red flag

that warns of possible cancer. And if elevated PSA were ONLY caused by

cancer, then we'd be talking about a truly reliable test. The problem:

PSA levels also raise when the prostate becomes infected or when a

benign enlargement occurs.

 

A new study from the Yale School of Medicine underlines the folly of

assuming that the PSA test is anything close to a gold standard for

prostate cancer detection.

 

As reported in the most recent issue of Archives of Internal Medicine,

Yale researchers compared the medical records of about 1,000 subjects;

half the men had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and died between

1991 and 1999, and half were men of the same age, chosen at random.

 

After researchers analyzed cases in which subjects had undergone PSA

testing and/or digital rectal exam (DRE), they reported that " a

benefit for screening was not found " in PSA testing and all-cause

mortality.

 

Even more surprising, when PSA tests were combined with DREs, the

results were actually worse.

 

-----------

Fluctuation factor

-----------

 

The Yale researchers concluded that the results of their study " do not

suggest that screening with PSA or DRE is effective in reducing

mortality. "

 

So are these tried and " true " methods of checking for prostate cancer

worthless? Not at all. But like any tools, their value depends on how

they're used.

 

Healthcare pioneer William Campbell Douglass, II, M.D., has referred

to PSA tests and their follow up biopsies as " the mainstream's

slash-and-burn approach to prostate cancer. " But the slashing and

burning isn't caused by the test; it's caused by doctors who react

inappropriately to the test.

 

When PSA is elevated, many doctors recommend a biopsy of the prostate;

a painful procedure that can result in bleeding and infection. But

evidence shows that a great number of these biopsies are completely

unnecessary.

 

In the e-Alert " Screen Pattern " (7/24/03), I told you about a Memorial

Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center study in which researchers tested the

reliability of a single PSA result. Over a 4-year period, five blood

samples were collected from nearly 1,000 men over the age of 60. More

than 20 percent of the subjects were found to have PSA levels that

would have prompted many doctors to recommend a biopsy. But half of

those men had follow-up tests with normal PSA levels.

 

The Sloan-Kettering conclusion: A single test that shows an elevated

PSA level should be followed with additional screenings to monitor PSA

fluctuation.

 

This research backs up another study I told you about in the e-Alert

" Under the Knife, Under the Gun " (7/23/02). Doctors at the Fred

Hutchinson Cancer Research Center estimated that PSA screening

resulted in an over-diagnosis rate of more than 40 percent.

 

Men take note: Never trust a single PSA test, and never EVER allow a

doctor to perform a biopsy based on a single test.

 

****************************************************

 

....and another thing

 

Our guy nailed it!

 

This past August I told you about the case of a five-year-old boy with

autism who was treated with chelation therapy at a Pittsburgh, PA,

clinic. Shortly after his third session of chelation the boy died of

apparent cardiac arrest.

 

Whenever fatalities are associated with a non-drug therapy that's not

officially sanctioned by the FDA, we always hear rumblings about the

unregulated dangers of treatments that don't conform to mainstream dogma.

 

Last summer's tragedy was no exception. But was the therapy really at

fault?

 

In the e-Alert I sent you about this incident ( " Quicksilver " 8/30/05),

HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D., pointed out that the boy's death

might be due to the type of chelation used. Some types, he said, are

more risky than others.

 

And that was right on the money. Last week, Mary Jean Brown, M.D.

(chief of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Centers for

Disease control and Prevention) announced that " without a doubt " the

boy's death was caused by medical error: the wrong type of chelation

was used.

 

After examining the autopsy report, Dr. Brown determined that low

blood calcium stopped the boy's heart.

 

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Dr. Brown noted that

the doctor had probably intended to give the child Calcium Disodium

EDTA. Instead, the doctor administered another type of chelation with

a very similar name: Disodium EDTA. The result: Too much calcium was

removed from the boy's system, causing his heart to stop beating.

 

The boy's blood calcium level was less than 5 mg. Dr. Brown described

that as an " emergency event. "

 

Chelation was first developed in the 1940s by the U.S. Navy to treat

lead poisoning. In addition to lead, chelation purges other heavy

metals when the chelating agent binds to metals and removes them from

the body through urination. Chelation also binds with mineral deposits

and is often used to treat arterial disease by removing plaques from

artery walls.

 

To Your Good Health,

 

Jenny Thompson

 

*******************