Fwd: [S-A] PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer- Another Scam?

[Guest guest]

" Misty L. Trepke "

Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:17:18 -0000

[s-A] PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer- Another Scam?

 

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..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

<http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/06/10/the_depths_of_decei

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

 

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info