On 11/24/2017 3:57 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:17:52 -0700, Casa de perritos felices
> > wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2017 11:42 AM, wrote:
>>> On 24 Nov 2017 15:08:40 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-11-24, graham > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My point in raising the subject is that all you guys who post here
>>>>> should get a regular check-up and PSA test. And ladies, persuade your
>>>>> husbands to do the same!
>>>>
>>>> I recently read a book written by the inventor of the PSA test. It
>>>> was a book exposing how the US mecical community has highjacked the
>>>> PSA test for it's own greed and the test is no longer truly valid.
>>>> This from the inventor! After reading this book, I know I will never
>>>> get a PSA test.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/03/the-doctor-who-invented-psa-test-calls-it-a-profitdriven-public-health-disaster-why-this-is-good-new/>
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>
>>> Written by a **** with no medical credentials whatsoever.
>>> http://www.healthbeatblog.com/about-maggie-mahar/
>>>
>>
>> Tepid shoot the messenger, got a beef with that she reported?
>
> She made no point other than pandering to the cheapskates.

I hate it when you go off on another of your "I know everything" rants.

READ and LEARN:

"Tuesday, the New York Times ran an Op-ed by Richard J. Ablin, the man
who invented the prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) test which is widely
used to detect signs of early-stage prostate cancer. Ablin, who is
now a research professor of immunobiology and pathology at the
University of Arizona College of Medicine and the president of the
Robert Benjamin Ablin Foundation for Cancer Research, reveals that €œin
approving the procedure, the Food and Drug Administration relied heavily
on a study that showed testing could detect 3.8 percent of prostate
cancers, which was a better rate than the standard method, a digital
rectal exam.


€œStill, 3.8 percent is a small number,€� he observes. €œNevertheless,
especially in the early days of screening, men with a reading over four
nanograms per milliliter were sent for painful prostate biopsies. If the
biopsy showed any signs of cancer, the patient was almost always pushed
into surgery, intensive radiation or other damaging treatments.€�

Prostate cancer is a tricky disease because the cancer grows so slowly.
A great many men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer will die of
something else€”long before the symptoms of the cancer catch up with
them. As Ablin points out , because PSA testing is pervasive, €œAmerican
men have a 16 percent lifetime chance of receiving a diagnosis of
prostate cancer, but only a 3 percent chance of dying from it.€�

This is why, in many cases, doctors recommend €œwatchful waiting.€� Keep
an eye on the cancer, but dont treat it unless there is evidence that
it is growing.

30 MILLION MEN, $30 BILLION DOLLARS €“LITTLE OR NO REDUCTION IN MORTALITIES?

Ablin has been frustrated by the widespread use of the test. Each year,
he notes, some 30 million men undergo PSA testing, at a cost of $30
Billion. Yet €œthe test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As
Ive been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing cant
detect prostate cancer and, more important, it cant distinguish between
the two types of prostate cancer €” the one that will kill you and the
one that wont. €œ


> I've known
> several men who succumbed to prostate cancer simply because they were
> too cheap to go for a ten second exam... and it's a rather inexpensive
> procedure, costs no more than a walnut sized dollop of K-Y on a latex
> glove. Most any GP will perform the exam during a regular office
> visit but it's best to have it performed by someone who has had
> special training for the procedure, which is why I go to a urologist.
>
> So according to you it's best to forego any exams/testing and simply
> wait until the cancer has progressed to the point of no return.
> Prostate cancer when discovered early on is is very curable. No
> medical procedure is 100% but why forego an inexpensive exam and test
> and instead risk certain death. And in most cases the exam will
> simply discover an enlarged prostate (very common in men over 50) and
> and instead choose to suffer problems urinating and forego sexual
> pleasure (an enlarged prostate prevents ejaculation). An enlarged
> prostate is easily remedied with Rx meds... those OTC meds advertised
> on TV are fakes, they cost a lot more than the Rx meds and don't work.
> But aside from that topic it's much more important to discover cancer.
>
> Any guy looking to marry a doctor choose a Urologist, that gal will
> know more about your equipment than you will ever know. The very
> first thing Dr. Linda did was test me for ED, she gave me a very clean
> bill of health for that issue, actually she didn't need to do any
> manual manipulation, a view down her blouse at her C cup cleavage was
> all that was necessary, and I told her so... I can still imagine her
> hand squeezing and tugging on me. Other than the fact that I'm old
> enough to be her father I'd ask her to marry me... I'm thirty years
> her senior, I can be her grandfather. However I have a problem
> getting over the fact that every day she handles more pee pees than a
> geisha. My next appointment with Dr. Linda is Sept. 7, 2018.
>

"Moreover, the benefits of treatment are uncertain. Last year, The New
England Journal of Medicine published results from the two largest
studies of the screening procedure, one in Europe and one in the United
States. The results from the American study that over a period of 7 to
10 years, screening did not reduce the death rate in men 55 and over.
The European study showed a small decline in death rates, but also found
that 48 men would need to be treated to save one life. €œThats 47 men
who, in all likelihood, can no longer function sexually or stay out of
the bathroom for long,€� Albin adds, referring to the fact that
treatments can lead to long-term incontinence and/or impotence.

He acknowledges that €œProstate-specific antigen testing does have a
place. After treatment for prostate cancer, for instance, a rapidly
rising score indicates a return of the disease. And men with a family
history of prostate cancer should probably get tested regularly. If
their score starts skyrocketing, it could mean cancer. But these uses
are limited. Testing should absolutely not be deployed to screen the
entire population of men over the age of 50, the outcome pushed by those
who stand to profit.€�

"Indeed, €œdrug companies continue peddling the tests and advocacy groups
push "prostate cancer awarenes€� by encouraging men to get screened.
Shamefully, the American Urological Association still recommends
screening. But slowly others in the medical community are responding to
the research. The American Cancer Society now urges more caution in
using the test and the American College of Preventive Medicine has
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine
screening."

Inevitably, the posts drew some irate responses from readers who were
sure that they, their husband, or their uncles life had been saved by
PSA testing. The truth is that once a patient is treated for
early-stage prostate cancer there is usually no way of knowing whether
he would have been one of the very few who might have died of the
disease if he had not been treated€“ or one of the many who would have
died of something else, long before the diseases caused problems. If
they hadnt been tested, those men would never have known that they had
prostate cancer. But once treated, few want to admit that the treatment
might have been unnecessary, particularly if they wind up coping with
life-changing side-effects. Human beings will do anything to avoid regret.

At this point, I believe the answer is to make sure that patients are s
given full information about the risks and benefits of PSA testing and
treatments for early-stage prostate cancer before making a decision as
to whether they want the test. I have written about €œshared
decision-making€� programs that help men decide whether they to go ahead
with the test €”and whether they want treatment if they are diagnosed here."