Hi Curtis,
   I think that guy will do whatever the flavor of the month is! I just try
to advocate ..... GET TESTED!!! ...... If you want to talk about it, I'm
there,too. But get tested and catch it early, like I did. I don't think that
I can save lives, but sure want to give everyone a chance of having the best
outcome of PCa. I explain the first step is a simple blood test. You can't
imagine how many grown men don't know what a prostate is or that a simple
PSA could be the begining to a journey that we all have been on, here! Keep
up the good work and spread the word! I know that I will!

Lee

 Curtis my experience tells me that this guy either didn't hear right,
heard what he wanted to hear, or made his own decision based on several
options. Logic tells me that no doctor would say such a thing.

Hi Curtis, it looks like we have a lot of work to do.  My wife
received a magazine yesterday from Johns Hopkins entitled "Advanced
Studies in Medicine" (Volume 3, Number 7 - July/August 2003)and I was
interested in a nine page article entitled "Issues in Prostate Cancer:
An Update and Review of Screening and Treatment Options".  I was very
disappointed to see that the thrust of the article was directed to
older patients for whom watchful waiting is a viable option with no
mention that watchful waiting is not a viable option for someone in
his 40s.  They cite studies that show people live as long without
treatment as with, etc., etc. which is true for patients in their 70s
and 80s but nowhere is there mention that virtually all untreated
younger patients will die of PCa without treatment.  One of the few
references to younger men was when they stated "studies" indicate a
cut-off PSA of 2.5 is appropriate for younger men.  Unfortunately, the
very next sentence states:  "However, the total serum PSA test, when
used alone, is not specific for only prostate cancer ---" which
downplays the whole PSA thing.  They did mention the value of PSA
velocity and that it is especially useful with the lower PSA scores.
The article does do a good job of discussing treatment options,
staging, etc., but if I had read this article back in May before my
biopsy I would have used it to reinforce my denial, not run that day
to get the biopsy.

I think we can do quite a bit to help our cause by educating our own
doctors.  When I had a PSA of 3.6 at age 58, my doctor told me not to
worry, "as long as it's below 4.0 you're OK" even though I had had a
PSA of 2.8 just a year earlier.  In his defense, he did insist I get a
biopsy when my PSA hit 4.9 at a time when I was convinced PSAs were of
no value, nothing but false positives, etc..  Now, after my case, he's
using PSA velocity to screen patients for biopsy, not just PSA.  My
wife also works with doctors (some of them personal friends of ours)
who are now, thanks to me, taking lower PSA values a lot more
seriously.

Incidently, the article mentioned above cited the Walsh et al
statistics regarding side effects of surgery where Walsh claims "86%
reported normal sexual function" at 18 months post-surgery where other
physicians report typically about a 50% success rate with both nerve
bundles spared.  My urologist told me before my surgery that Walsh
includes in his "successes" patients on Viagra and anyone else who can
get it up by any means whereas other studies do not.  Apparently Walsh
would be right down there with the rest of the pack if he excluded his
Viagra patients.

Dave Perry