When you respond to this garbage, you become part of the problem. These
people would wither on the vine were it not for their enablers....

I.P. Freely wrote:
(snip)

If the biopsy reveals cancer, you've probably caught it very early and
can be cured. It's a win/win scenario unless you count little things
like having a leaky, limp thing ... both unlikely.
I.P.

From: safire@tele-net.com (safire) penned:

This is extremely misleading advice from someone whose physicians
recommended rapid lead infusion (look it up). Read his posts: he's
always arguing with his doctors and tells you he's proud ignoring their
advice. The typical example of an obnoxious patient, that did some web
reading, can't place it in context but thinks he knows better than his
physician. Which probably explains why he has this leaky, limp thing and
many other problems, both mental and physical.
If your biopsy - if you'll have one - reveals cancer it's not at all a
win/win scenario to "cure" it. Depending on your age, psa value, gleason
score and some other factors state of the art advice may very well not
to treat the cancer but watch its development, in your case while you
take tamsulosin. Small non-aggressive, non-life threatening cancers
don't need to be treated. See http://www.nccn.org/ and look for the
treatment guidelines for prostate cancer. You'll see that standard
practice is to apply "expectant management" (i.e.no treatment) for
T1-T2a low (2-6) Gleason Score cancers where PSA < 10 ng/ml.
A couple of months ago someone like you decided not to "cure" the cancer
like IP said you should. A Vietnam like month long bomb attack followed.
Just ignore IP, he's a frustrated grumpy old man.

---------------------------------------------------

=> don't you find it interesting that someone is quoting scripture and
verse while damning a poster for giving their opinion and then ends it
with, "The typical example of an obnoxious patient, that did some web
reading, can't place it in context but thinks he knows better than his
physician. Which probably explains why he has this leaky, limp thing and
many other problems, both mental and physical."?????

i'll stay for facts.  here's the facts.

safire stated, "Small non-aggressive, non-life threatening cancers don't
need to be treated. See http://www.nccn.org/ and look for the treatment
guidelines for prostate cancer."

safire is quoting the guidelines for one organization.  how many
different non profit cancer organizations have guidelines different that
what this organization states?  that's a fact - look it up.  see the
difference.

it is a fact that safire is making a prejudical (look up the word -
prejudice) statement about someone who has never met, hasn't talk to,
does not know the poster's background in this field, nor his medical
expertise.

now, this group is about support, not anti-support.   if you are going
to disagree with what another poster says,  you have the right to do so,
but please remember this............. are you really helping the person
who has been dx'ed with pca and came to this newsgroup looking for help
only to fight a group of people squabbling about who thinks they know
more about prostate cancer or treatments.

but to focus back and  address the facts of this post,  if you go to
http://www.nccn.org/ and go to their disclosure information,  here's
some of what they said....

they admit that some of the people have active relationships with
interested parties such as pharmaceutical companies, medical device
companies, insurance companies, patient advocacy groups and government
agencies.

and they state further that a panel may decide to exclude a panel member
from discussions in areas where s/he may have a perceived conflict of
interest, but that doesn't mean that it will exclude a panel member.

while the concept may be a good one, it is one of many thoughts on what
guidelines should be.

below is part of the NCCN Disclosure of Organizational Relationships for
your reading pleasure......

~ curtis

------

NCCN Disclosure of Organizational Relationships

The development of NCCN information is based upon the independent
evaluation of available scientific evidence integrated with the expert
judgment of leading clinicians. The NCCN is dedicated to the provision
of sound, evidenced-based, authoritative recommendations that serve the
best interests of patients with cancer.
A complete description (Winn, 2003) of the process for the development
of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in OncologyT is available for
review.

Notwithstanding the above, it is critical to all who use the NCCN
Clinical Practice Guidelines in OncologyT, the NCCN/ACS Treatment
Guidelines for Patients, The NCCN Drugs and Biologics CompendiumT,
Task Force Reports and other information products to understand any
potential sources of bias introduced into the development of NCCN
information that is trusted by physicians, patients and other interested
parties.
NCCN Guideline Panel Members contribute their time and expertise on a
pro bono basis. Volunteer contributions from our 750 Panel Members
account for more than 10 thousand hours per year. However, the NCCN
recognizes that as leading experts and faculty members of prestigious
academic cancer centers, most Guideline Panel Members are involved in
clinical research and may have other active relationships with
interested parties such as pharmaceutical companies, medical device
companies, insurance companies, patient advocacy groups and government
agencies. It is important that these relationships be disclosed and
readily available to the end user of the information to incorporate into
that person's decision-making process.

The major components of such disclosure are financial support to
individual panel members by entities outside the NCCN and financial
support to the NCCN itself.

As to Guidelines Panel Members, the NCCN requires at the beginning of
each panel meeting, a disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest,
including, but not limited to, research support, service on advisory
boards or speakers bureaus, consultancies, and equity holdings. A panel
may decide to exclude a panel member from discussions in areas where
s/he may have a perceived conflict of interest. Aggregate panel
disclosures are published with each guideline.

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc

Read again: "can't place it in context".

YouPee admitted twice the past weeks that he ignored his doctor's
advice. That's his business. But suggesting to Fred that, if cancer is
found, he should have it cured is misleading advice because YouPee
doesn't know Fred's conditions, as he hasn't been tested yet. Just as
misleading as his statement that side effects of active treatment are
"unlikely". YouPee and his foot soldiers just won't accept that watchful
waiting or expectant management is, depending on the circumstances of
the patient, a prudent course of action, as is confirmed by all
responsible organizations.

Actually those of the NHS.

how many

Give me one of those "many" representative organizations that claim all
cancers should always be "cured" as YouPee asserts.

 that's a fact - look it up.  see the

Show me.

No I didn't, I gave the general guidelines. Read it again. Read
"depending...". Your "fact" is a lie. YouPee gave individual "advice".

What the hell are you implying? That NCCN is promoting watchful waiting
because some people have a financial interest in that alternative? Is
that why the typical urologist shares YouPee's prejudicial attitude?
Don't you think that's a bit silly? If not, please explain how NCCN
members are conflicted in this case.