 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / February 2004Prostate Cancer statistics and Cures: A Sham and Duping of millions of men
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ovu720pka9t6vpkq0iq4n3g82j2n0farh4@4ax.com>... > On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 02:58:24 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium > <a_plutonium@dtgnet.com> wrote: (huge snip) > You are right that ordinary prostate tests are not conclusive. If the > doctor feels an enlarged gland, that does not at all mean cancer. > Similarly, an elevated PSA (prostate specific antigen) blood test is > not a certain diagnosis. However, the combination is a sign. In my > case, the doctor felt an actual lump in the prostate, a much worse > sign. The real diagnosis is biopsy, which is not a very pleasant task, > so you don't want to do that unless the probability of cancer is > really significant. I share with you some concerns about the way that > medicine is practiced. However, when a pathologist says there are > malignant cells in the microscope slide, that is not a question of > health policy -- it is a question of my own real state of being! The > university hospital I went to, and the staff physician on salary, had > no particular reason to try to push me into surgery. Seldom is there a human disease that is easy to manipulate to make it look as though it is science when in fact it is commercial money. Prostate cancer is that disease. It has risen in the last 50 years not because it is a true rise but because it is a sham. There are many things that go wrong with the prostate gland such as Benign Hyperplasia BHP which scares men when they get it into thinking they have cancer. And when they go to a doctor who is more interested in making money than in the "Truth of the matter". Then you have a situation that is rife for the overdiagnosis of prostate cancer and the pick-pocketing of millions of men. I suspect that if True diagnosis of prostate cancer had been only performed for the past 50 years that prostate cancer would now not be the 2nd or 3rd most common cancers but would instead be only the 26th common cancer. I suspect that for every 10 cases diagnosed as prostate cancer in the past 20 years that only 1 of those was truly a cancer and the other 9 were merely a means of the Medical community of getting more money then needed. Where is Mr. Tommy Thompson and the Health and Human Services Agency of the USA government when you need them to probe this issue? Surely anyone can see that prostate cancer rates have gone skyrocketing but does that reflect true reality. Surely anyone can see that there is a huge gulf between testing for cancer and really having cancer. I believe there are millions of American men perhaps as high as 10 million American men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and have been told that they are "now cured". But that they were duped all along because they simply never had prostate cancer and that they merely paid a handsome sum of money for a bogus treatment. Prostate Cancer is a perfect disease for hucksters to run sham practices. So perfect that the duped men who think they had prostate cancer and feel they are now cured. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ovu720pka9t6vpkq0iq4n3g82j2n0farh4@4ax.com>... >> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 02:58:24 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots >of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies You are entitled to your opinion. How valid it may be is another story, entirely. All I can say is that I am a professional biologist and the pictures from the biopsy of my own prostate gland sure looked just like the pictures of malignant cells in the textbooks! My personal physician was salaried, on staff at a clinic at a major university medical school, as was the pathologist. Neither one had anything to gain by diagnosing cancer when cancer was not present. I am very content to be "duped" into thinking I am now at least in remission after both a prostatectomy and then, with a steady rise in PSA level less than five years post-surgery, radiation treatment. Some people argue that every male might get prostate cancer simply by living long enough. In fact, probably 1/5 of all men are likely to be diagnosed with the disease. The real question is the extent to which the cancer represents a real threat to life and health. For some 30,000 men in the United States each year, it is a fatal threat. I don't think they thought of it as huckstery. > You are entitled to your opinion. How valid it may be is another > story, entirely. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 30,000 men in the United States each year, it is a fatal threat. I > don't think they thought of it as huckstery. Hi Richard, I am scheduled to have my prostate examined, so I do not yet know whether I have just BHP or cancer. I have loads of unanswered questions. However, one line of thought occurs to me that why should this small organ pose so much mischief upon the lives of so many men and an organ that contributes little to nothing to the welfare of men over age 50. I do not know if a prostatectomy performed on a noncancerous man at age 50 guarantees no future prostate cancer and obviously guarantees no future BHP. So I wonder if all men lined up at age 50 and all had a prostatectomy that all these men can thenceforth live the rest of their lives with never a single worry about their prostate. If that is true, then I think the Medical Profession ought to commit itself to having a perfuntory prostatectomy performed on every male who wants it at age 50. So that at age 50 a man easily walks into a hospital and like an appendix has it removed. I hate to think that this current condition of mine if it is BHP will be something I have to deal with every year for the rest of my life plus the threat that the prostate goes cancerous. Has anyone worked out the advantages and disadvantages of having a wholesale and wholescale nationwide prostatectomy for any male starting at age 50 where you show up at a hospital and regardless of present condition of prostate, will remove it. I cannot argue against the fact that 30,000 males die every year from prostate cancer. That is a hardcore fact. But that rate disagrees with the rate reported of males diagnosed as having prostate cancer and being cured. Anyone have the data as to how many males each year are diagnosed as having prostate cancer? Richard, is there some agreement in the numbers of people diagnosed as having lung cancer and the number of people who die per year from lung cancer. Say for example 5 million diagnosed to have lung cancer per year and say 4-6 million die that year because of lung cancer. Whereas with prostate cancer, say 30,000 die per year but that 10 million are diagnosed each year to have the cancer. Such a divergence suggests to me that the Diagnosis is largely erroneous where millions of men are told they have prostate cancer when in fact they do not. I believe your prostate cancer is genuine Richard because of the biopsy is science proof. But I think most prostate cancer diagnoses falls far short of biopsy to prove cancer, and those I am afraid are duping and what I call commercial medicine where perhaps a doctor needs a few thousand more dollars for a Mercedes and then the next 5 male patients get the news that they have prostate cancer when in reality they do not. Or where a Hospital that needs to meet quarterly earnings reports can easily make up the dollar profit by telling the next 20 male patients having some problems down there that they have cancer. I believe the Medical Community should get together and evaluate the advantages of having every male who reaches the age of 50 to be able to go into a hospital at a cheap price and have his prostate gland removed with no questions asked. Is the Prostate Gland more like a Appendix and poses only a threat to a quality life after age 50. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Earlier today I had written: > Richard, is there some agreement in the numbers of people diagnosed as > having lung cancer and the number of people who die per year from lung [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me that the Diagnosis is largely erroneous where millions of men are > told they have prostate cancer when in fact they do not. I just wonder whether there is some country in Europe where the rate of death per year due to prostate cancer is equal to the rate of newly diagnosed prostate cancer. In other words, say for instance that in Sweden (forgive me for picking on Sweden) the yearly death rate of prostate cancer is 10,000 males and also that in Sweden the yearly reported new cases of diagnosed prostate cancer is about 10,000 or say 11,000 or 12,000 but roughly equal to 10,000. Now in the USA, suppose the yearly death rate is 30,000 males from prostate cancer, but in the USA the yearly new diagnosed cases of prostate cancer is 5 million males. You see, in my mind, that given time that the death rate should be about equal to the rate of newly diagnosed of prostate cancer. And the fact that in the USA there is such a huge discrepancy between the numbers of men dead from prostate cancer compared to the number of men newly diagnosed as having prostate cancer is so large of a discrepancy that I would tend to think that there is about 4,970,000 cases of men diagnosed as having prostate cancer when in reality they really do not have prostate cancer. Given time, the rate of deaths should converge with the rate of newly diagnosed. If they diverge wildly indicates to me that there is alot of sham medicine practices going on, what I call Commercial Medicine where men are told they have prostate cancer when in reality they do not. Please forgive the above numbers for I do not know the proper numbers. The above were only used as an example to get at my point. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >Given time, the rate of deaths should converge with the rate of newly >diagnosed. >If they diverge wildly indicates to me that there is alot of sham >medicine practices going on, what I call Commercial Medicine where men >are told they have prostate cancer when in reality they do not. By that reasoning, there are tens of millions of bogus diagnoses of influenza every year, because most people thus diagnosed don't die of it. Similarly most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die of it. Either they are successfully treated and cured, or they die of something else before the prostate cancer kills them. Since prostate cancer has its highest incidence in the elderly, and it's usually a slowly progressing disease in this group, the latter is common. Often treatment can slow down progression or cause remission for years, until the patient dies of some other condition. I suggest you let your doctor decide if you have BPH (common in men your age) or prostate cancer (much less common). If the latter, I suggest you get treatment for it rather than use the rationalization above to convince yourself the doctor just wants to rip you off. > >Given time, the rate of deaths should converge with the rate of newly > >diagnosed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > influenza every year, because most people thus diagnosed don't die > of it. I said "over time". Cancers are statistical stable diseases over long stretches of time. Flu comes spasmodically, some year a big batch and most other years barely nothing. With stable diseases such as cancers then the number of people dying from prostate cancer is closely connected with the number of people newly diagnosed for prostate cancer. I guess you failed to understand my Sweden versus USA comparison. That because Prostate Cancer is a statistically stable disease, that if you get a country overseas or get many countries overseas where the yearly death rate of prostate cancer is in close agreement with the newly diagnosed cases for prostate cancer for that year. Yet in the USA where the death rate yearly is 30,000 compared to 1 million diagnosed for that same year indicates more that the Medical Profession of the USA is more in tune to commercial medicine of ripping off money rather than being scientifically factual about the true cases of prostate cancer. It is likely that in the USA, some drug company or hospital will claim to be able to spot prostate cancer in males at age 40 and if any male takes their test for a mere $2,000 and thus the newly diagnosed cases of prostate cancer in the USA shoots from 1 million newly reported cases to 2 million newly reported cases. You see, the point I am making is that the USA Medical Profession is too god awfully focused on moneymaking then they are focused on "true medical science". Prostate Cancer diagnosis is to judgemental and too opinion and not enough hard core factual data. Prostate cancer in science reality is a rather minor and uncommon disease for older men. But because the Medical Profession has found easy testing for this disease, they have overblown this disease. All one needs to do is to compare European countries with their rates of prostate cancer to that of the USA to show that prostate cancer has become too much of a Commercial Moneymaker Medicine. > Similarly most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die of it. > Either they are successfully treated and cured, or they die of Stop for a minute and think about the Logic I have outlined above. If many countries have about the same rate of death from prostate cancer yet the USA the only country that has newly diagnosed per year of prostate cancer that is far out of whack from European countries indicates that the USA Medical system is too greedy for money and not mindful enough of true medical science. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> >Given time, the rate of deaths should converge with the rate of newly >> >diagnosed. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >stretches of time. Flu comes spasmodically, some year a big batch and >most other years barely nothing. So average the flu diagnoses and deaths over as long a period as you like. The point is that neither influenza nor prostate cancer have a 100% mortality rate, and an increasing discrepancy between diagnoses and deaths is more likely to be due to better diagnosis and treatment than fraud. Note, also, that cancers are not particularly "statistically stable". A hundred years ago, lung cancer was rare, now it's common. A better example is cervical cancer, which was a major killer fifty years ago, but is now usually diagnosed early and successfully treated, so while the incidence is still high, the mortality is low. Cervical cancer is still a significant cause of mortality in poor countries where medical care is less available. Prostate cancer is mainly a disease of the elderly. As medical care and other factors improve, more people will live to an age where this condition is common, and the incidence will increase. >With stable diseases such as cancers then the number of people dying >from prostate cancer is closely connected with the number of people >newly diagnosed for prostate cancer. Not necessarily. Better diagnosis and treatment will increase the gap between incidence and mortality. Since prostate cancer is most common in the elderly, many patients will die of other causes before succumbing to it, which increases the discrepancy. >I guess you failed to understand my Sweden versus USA comparison. That >because Prostate Cancer is a statistically stable disease, that if you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >than being scientifically factual about the true cases of prostate >cancer. Well, do you have any actual number from "countries overseas"? I suspect your closest agreement will be in poor countries where prostate cancer isn't usually diagnosed until it's advanced to an untreatable stage. >It is likely that in the USA, some drug company or hospital will claim >to be able to spot prostate cancer in males at age 40 and if any male >takes their test for a mere $2,000 and thus the newly diagnosed cases >of prostate cancer in the USA shoots from 1 million newly reported >cases to 2 million newly reported cases. Go ahead and make stuff up to "prove" your point. >You see, the point I am making is that the USA Medical Profession is >too god awfully focused on moneymaking then they are focused on "true >medical science". > >Prostate Cancer diagnosis is to judgemental and too opinion and not >enough hard core factual data. And your evidence is? Perhaps you can tell us how prostate cancer is diagnosed and treated, why these methods are a big conspiracy and scam. While you're at it, you can explain why you're the only one to notice. >Prostate cancer in science reality is a rather minor and uncommon >disease for older men. But because the Medical Profession has found [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of prostate cancer to that of the USA to show that prostate cancer has >become too much of a Commercial Moneymaker Medicine. If you had some actual numbers for these vague European countries (Sweden? Croatia?) you might be able to develop an argument. Most countries have tumour registries. You should be able to find some numbers. >> Similarly most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die of it. >> Either they are successfully treated and cured, or they die of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >indicates that the USA Medical system is too greedy for money and not >mindful enough of true medical science. Do you have some actual data that suggests that in European countries the incidence of prostate cancer is low and the mortality from it is high? I didn't think so. If you find data that contradicts your "Logic", will you post it here? I challenge you to discover the rates of diagnosis and mortality from prostate cancer and post them in this newsgroup. A URL will be adequate. The WHO site might be a place to start. Your present argument works on this basis: - If the moon is made of green cheese nobody should starve. There's plenty of cheese to eat. - People are starving. - Therefore the corrupt, venal, self-serving scientists and engineers at NASA are conspiring to starve people by refusing to send cheese mining equipment to the moon, just so they can profit from misery. - This proves the moon is made of green cheese. > > You are entitled to your opinion. How valid it may be is another > > story, entirely. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Hi Richard, Thanks to Richard I promptly went to a physician to check out this irregularity of early morning urinations of 3 runs. I had an examine and a PSA done and the results are 1.79 ng/mL where normal is anywhere between 0.0 and 4.0 ng/mL. But during the physical an oddity arose in that checking my bloodpressure it was read at 156 whereas in 1985 after getting out of the Navy it read 90. Yes 90 which seems abnormally low and so the Navy doctor measured it twice. I feel I do not have any problems with my heart and will never have any problems with my heart because my parents never had heart disease. Although my mother died of lung cancer at age 48. What I suspect is that the measuring of blood pressure in the cold of winter and on a day when I am shivering is the cause of 156 reading. I know that blood is thicker in the wintertime to compensate for the coldness and I love coldness for I sleep in frigid rooms. So the heart needs a higher pressure to move that blood in winter. But when I was in the Navy in San Diego with its heat and warm climate the blood need never become thick. So I wonder if people who are measuring blood pressure compensate for the fact that blood thickness varies during the year and where one lives. However, I have been gaining weight where I was 140 lbs for the majority of my life, I have gained 17 lbs and weigh 157 lbs and beginning to see a distended gut. So what I have done is begun a fasting to last until my weight drops to 140 lbs and then fast until it drops to 135 lbs. I got out of the doctors office last Tuesday and had to eat up the food in my refrigerator and freezer that would spoil while fasting such as the salads. And now they are gone so today begins the day wherein I eat nothing for about a week until my weight drops to 140 lbs. Plus I exercise each day with activity plus do 50 pushups and 50 situps. I think the other alternative of a daily regimen of eating pills to lower blood pressure is a stupid regimen for not only does it cost more money but it never attacks the problem that is inciting the heart with the increase in body weight. Question for Richard Norman or others (do not know if Richard is still reading). I wonder about MR-- or CATScans or those other machines that are like X-rays of the body. I wonder if it would be wise to have one of those machines check out my entire body on a yearly bases to look for cancers or anything else wrong with the body. I do not know their cost. I do not know whether they are "accurate and thorough". I get the feeling that physical exams are just not thorough enough even supplemented with PSA tests or other tests. So I am thinking that these MR-- or CATScans done yearly would provide the thoroughness and accuracy that I seek. Question: Are these MRI-- and CATScans more thorough and accurate than having body X-rays performed? I realize X-ray exams are harmful and MRIs benign. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Your thought processes truly defy logic, my friend. > But during the physical an oddity arose in that checking my > bloodpressure it was read at 156 whereas in 1985 after getting out of > the Navy it read 90. That was almost twenty years ago! I'll bet a *lot* of us wish we were as healthy today as we were twenty years ago. Sadly, wishing won't make it so. > I feel I do not have any problems with my heart and will never have > any problems with my heart because my parents never had heart disease. How's this? You definitely have atherosclerosis. I can tell you that without knowing anything about you. Why? Because the process begins at *birth* (yes, autopsy studies prove it), and progresses at a varying rate depending on many factors (commonly referred to as "risk factors"). If you have hypertension (and a single value isn't diagnostic...it should be repeated at least once, on a different day), then your risk of a cardiac event is dramatically higher than if you were normotensive (with an average blood pressure in the 130/80 range or lower). > What I suspect is that the measuring of blood pressure in the cold of > winter and on a day when I am shivering is the cause of 156 reading. I > know that blood is thicker in the wintertime to compensate for the > coldness and I love coldness for I sleep in frigid rooms. Um...no. Where did you get that idea, anyway? Blood viscosity ("thickness") is not variable with temperature. Your body temperature is a constant 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, with no appreciable variation relative to ambient temperature (except, of course, at extremes...neither of which you will encounter at anywhere near room temperature). Regardless, ambient temperature (within tolerable limits) has no effect on blood pressure. You can forget that theory, unless you just like making things up because they make you feel better. > However, I have been gaining weight where I was 140 lbs for the > majority of my life, I have gained 17 lbs and weigh 157 lbs and > beginning to see a distended gut. Bing! Now you're onto something. That, and the passage of a couple of decades probably accounts for your difference in blood pressure between now and 1985. > I eat nothing for about a week until my weight > drops to 140 lbs. Plus I exercise each day with activity plus do 50 > pushups and 50 situps. Crash dieting is stupid; you'll lost water and muscle mass, which will absolutely do you more harm than good. Situps and pushups are not aerobic, and will not improve your "heart health". > I think the other alternative of a daily regimen of eating pills to > lower blood pressure is a stupid regimen for not only does it cost > more money but it never attacks the problem that is inciting the heart > with the increase in body weight. On that, we agree. However, your regimen is equally stupid. Do yourself a huge favor. Stop making excuses and inventing bizarre sci-fi theories to explain your problems. Get yourself on a balanced, healthy diet (no fads, please), and get off your butt and do some aerobic (cardiovascular) exercise at least 30 minutes per day, three or more days per week (work up to this if you're starting from scratch). Get your weight down. Your blood pressure, cholesterol, and general well-being will improve...guaraneteed! Cost: nothing. Note that if this doesn't do the trick, then some medications can definitely help decrease your risk of early death from cardiovascular disease. See your doctor for all the details. > Question for Richard Norman or others (do not know if Richard is still > reading). I wonder about MR-- or CATScans or those other machines that > are like X-rays of the body. I wonder if it would be wise to have one > of those machines check out my entire body on a yearly bases to look > for cancers or anything else wrong with the body. At this point in time, there is no "body scan" that can rule out all disease. Throwing your money away on tests with no proven benefit (and lots of pitfalls) is stupid, plain and simple. That being said, there are plenty of people around who have more money than sense, hence the big business that is unreimbursed diagnostic testing (whole body CT and such). Do these tests *occasionally* find something early enough for intervention to make a difference? Once in a blue moon. That doesn't justfiy their use on a widespread basis, however. More details here: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/XHP/MPDaXrayST.html > What I suspect is that the measuring of blood pressure in the cold of > winter and on a day when I am shivering is the cause of 156 reading. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the fact that blood thickness varies during the year and where one > lives. You are confusing blood with motor oil. HMc > You are confusing blood with motor oil. > > HMc No. There is a simple test. Take anyone who lives in Minnesota in the middle of winter who gets a cut and his blood is very thick and slow to flow. Now go to Australia in the hot places in the middle of summer and cut yourself, and the blood is very watery, fast flowing and not as red as the Minnesotan. When measuring blood pressure, the tests should compensate for these starkly varying environment conditions. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies P.S. I have neglected to edit and revise my Science website of www.iw.net/~a_plutonium for about 5 years now and need to do that so I will cut down on my Internet postings for much of this year. >> You are confusing blood with motor oil. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and cut yourself, and the blood is very watery, fast flowing and not > as red as the Minnesotan. This *might* be observed with *capillary* blood (which is what you see when you cut your finger). Capillaries (the tiny blood vessels in your skin) expand and contract in response to (among other things) ambient temperature, thus you might bleed a bit more slowly in the cold when your capillary bed is constricted. However, this in no way reflects what's going on in the larger vessels, which are where blood pressure is measured (commonly the brachial artery in the arm), and it does not reflect the viscosity of your blood (which again, does not change with temperature). So, again...BZZZT! Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. ;-) >> > You are entitled to your opinion. How valid it may be is another >> > story, entirely. [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots >of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies My advice has not particular value since I am not clinically trained. I strongly advised you to see a doctor just in case your frequent urination was caused by something really serious. I assume you discussed that with your physician. Frequent urination is certainly not rare in older men! Your results indicate no prostate problem. I assume a digital exam was also done to evaluate the size of the gland..Also your doctor would indicate to you whether he (she?) thought your blood pressure needed medical attention. Blood does not "thicken" in the cold. All sorts of factors, including the temperature, but also including physical activity and mental state affect blood pressure. Clinical people do, in fact, know how to evaluate these things. A history of elevated pressure with repeated measurements over time and a variety of conditions would be handled rather differently than one isolated high measurement when your medical history indicates no prior problem. Getting MR or CAT scans done just as a routine exam is NOT ordinarily recommended. Having periodic physical exams (including periodic PSA tests) IS generally recommended. That would include tests for occult fecal blood and sigmoidoscopy /colonoscopy after a certain age. The question is partly a cost-benefit analysis. Is the cost and the effort and the risks (CAT scans do expose you to X-ray radiation) worth the benefit of finding something serious? Generally, if you have no particular complaints and your physician doesn't find anything unusual in a routine exam, it is not and you shouldn't bother further. The most important thing is to get a physician you can trust and don't try to second guess the medical profession. > >> > You are entitled to your opinion. How valid it may be is another > >> > story, entirely. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > The most important thing is to get a physician you can trust and don't > try to second guess the medical profession. That's if you have no clue. Most dr only know things that are more or less common or very obviously wrong and send for more testing or specialist. If someone have mind over matter(food ;) ), then smaller potion of food with enough vegetable and vitamin without iron is probably best. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.