On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 16:12:31 -0700, Casa de perritos felices
> wrote:

>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 “in
>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.
>
>
> “Still, 3.8 percent is a small number,” he observes. “Nevertheless,
>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, “American
>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 “watchful waiting.” Keep
>an eye on the cancer, but don’t 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 “the test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As
>I’ve been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can’t
>detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can’t distinguish between
>the two types of prostate cancer — the one that will kill you and the
>one that won’t. “
>
>
>> 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.

Then die.