Comments on: The Great PSA Scam http://biohermit.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-great-psa-scam/ Healing Cancer with Alternative Knowledge Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:45:23 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Random T. http://biohermit.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-great-psa-scam/#comment-156 Random T. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:56:10 +0000 http://biohermit.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-156 This is very up-to-date information. I think I'll share it on Digg. This is very up-to-date information. I think I’ll share it on Digg.

]]> By: leah cohen http://biohermit.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-great-psa-scam/#comment-149 leah cohen Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:39:13 +0000 http://biohermit.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-149 I am the wife of a man who has prostate cancer and write a blog about this disease for a nonprofit organization (prostatecancerblog.net). I think you are on the right track in writing this, because orthodox medical practitioners don't always do the right thing, especially with PC patients. I am constantly railing against overtreatment. And I advise men with low-grade PC to avoid invasive treatments at all cost, and also, to take a course of antibiotics before they take any action to rule out infection as a cause of elevated PSA. But I must tell you that this story is much more nuanced than it seems. I support screening, but only *with proper education*, preferably by a doctor who doesn't stand to gain, such as a urologic oncologist (because early pts aren't referred to them). The PSA test absolutelly *does* pick up aggressive cancers, like the one my husband has (diagnosed at 53). In fact, Dr. Stamey, limits his conclusions to men with the lowest PSA levels, 1-10. Men are diagnosed with much higher PSA levels than that (in the 1,000s), and at that stage PSA levels do correlate with disease progression, although it is by no means a perfect measure. If you cut screening altogether, you are effectively handing a death sentence to these people. Fully one third of patients diagnosed with PC are *under 65*, so that the death rates Dr. Stamey quotes don't apply to them. Many men in their 40s and 50s get significant PC and die OF it, not WITH it. (Take a look at prostatecancerinfolink.net's "Younger Men" group.) And believe me, dying of prostate cancer which has spread to the bones is not the way you want to go (has been voted the worst cancer death). About the DRE as a diagnostic tool: By the time a man has a palpable growth it will almost certainly be too late to do anything about it. Incidentally, the USPTSF advice against PC screening was limited to men *over 75*. For younger men they don't take a position but instead advise the patient to discuss the pros and cons of PSA testing with his doctor. Finally, there are weak points in Dr. Stamey's arguments. For example, the doctor does not offer a credible answer to the question of why there has been a significant reduction in prostate mortality since PC screening began. He lamely asserts that, since so many men at risk have already been tested, the worst cancers must have been caught early, before they could kill. This is abject nonsense, because even today, 20 years after the inception of PSA testing, only 50% of men over the recommended age actually get tested. And the rates are even lower among blacks, who are more susceptible. Your heart is in the right place, and I agree with you 100% that men should not "gamble with their organs" (thanks for the line). Treatments for PC can indeed be brutal, and if you have buyer's remorse you're out of luck. We have a shared goal, so do take a look at my blog. Leah F. Cohen "Living With Prostate Cancer" prostatecancerblog.net A project of Malecare I am the wife of a man who has prostate cancer and write a blog about this disease for a nonprofit organization (prostatecancerblog.net). I think you are on the right track in writing this, because orthodox medical practitioners don’t always do the right thing, especially with PC patients. I am constantly railing against overtreatment. And I advise men with low-grade PC to avoid invasive treatments at all cost, and also, to take a course of antibiotics before they take any action to rule out infection as a cause of elevated PSA. But I must tell you that this story is much more nuanced than it seems.

I support screening, but only *with proper education*, preferably by a doctor who doesn’t stand to gain, such as a urologic oncologist (because early pts aren’t referred to them). The PSA test absolutelly *does* pick up aggressive cancers, like the one my husband has (diagnosed at 53). In fact, Dr. Stamey, limits his conclusions to men with the lowest PSA levels, 1-10. Men are diagnosed with much higher PSA levels than that (in the 1,000s), and at that stage PSA levels do correlate with disease progression, although it is by no means a perfect measure.

If you cut screening altogether, you are effectively handing a death sentence to these people.

Fully one third of patients diagnosed with PC are *under 65*, so that the death rates Dr. Stamey quotes don’t apply to them. Many men in their 40s and 50s get significant PC and die OF it, not WITH it. (Take a look at prostatecancerinfolink.net’s “Younger Men” group.) And believe me, dying of prostate cancer which has spread to the bones is not the way you want to go (has been voted the worst cancer death).

About the DRE as a diagnostic tool: By the time a man has a palpable growth it will almost certainly be too late to do anything about it.

Incidentally, the USPTSF advice against PC screening was limited to men *over 75*. For younger men they don’t take a position but instead advise the patient to discuss the pros and cons of PSA testing with his doctor.

Finally, there are weak points in Dr. Stamey’s arguments. For example, the doctor does not offer a credible answer to the question of why there has been a significant reduction in prostate mortality since PC screening began. He lamely asserts that, since so many men at risk have already been tested, the worst cancers must have been caught early, before they could kill. This is abject nonsense, because even today, 20 years after the inception of PSA testing, only 50% of men over the recommended age actually get tested. And the rates are even lower among blacks, who are more susceptible.

Your heart is in the right place, and I agree with you 100% that men should not “gamble with their organs” (thanks for the line). Treatments for PC can indeed be brutal, and if you have buyer’s remorse you’re out of luck.

We have a shared goal, so do take a look at my blog.

Leah F. Cohen

“Living With Prostate Cancer”
prostatecancerblog.net

A project of Malecare

]]> By: Tim Roop http://biohermit.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/the-great-psa-scam/#comment-139 Tim Roop Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:22:43 +0000 http://biohermit.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-139 I read your article. I went through a pre-screen in late September. I was referred to someone else that said they also felt a lump. I was sent to the hospital where they took a biopsy and a week later I was told that from 11 biopsis, 3 of them came back positive for prostate cancer. One was 40% and the other two were 10%. My Gleason was: 3+3=6. Detected PSA: 2.6 Clinical State 1 (Tic) . Can you give me any direction with this? Thanks again, Tim I read your article. I went through a pre-screen in late September. I was referred to someone else that said they also felt a lump. I was sent to the hospital where they took a biopsy and a week later I was told that from 11 biopsis, 3 of them came back positive for prostate cancer. One was 40% and the other two were 10%. My Gleason was: 3+3=6. Detected PSA: 2.6 Clinical State 1 (Tic) . Can you give me any direction with this?
Thanks again,

Tim

]]>