I am stating what is the almost universally accepted belief of the
urology profession.  Since you are convinced that all urologists are
liars and cheats, that doesn't prove anything as far as you are concerned.

But for anyone else who might be reading this, and that is really to
whom it is directed, I ask the following question.  What is the
likelihood that the entire urology profession is wrong and Mr.
Wadsworth's interpretation of what he has read in a book by a physician
who isn't even board certified in urology is right.  I refer here
specifically to the issue of benign prostatic hyperplasia and how to
treat it.

The question of how to treat early prostate cancer is another matter.
There are those in the medical profession who question whether it is
generally worthwhile treating such cancers by any method, surgery or
radiation, rather than waiting until explicit symptoms develop and then
using hormone therapy to extend life as long as possible.  Everyone
except extremists admits that some men are helped by such intervention
and some men who presently get it would never be bothered by their
cancers during their lifetimes.  Unfortunately, there is no foolproof
way to distinguish between the cases.   The moderate critics of present
treatment guidelines think the cost to the men who don't need the
treatment in terms of side effects or extra worry is too high to make up
for the benefit to those who are cured or have their lives extended.
There are two question here.  One is from the public health perspective
whether to push early detections schemes.  It may be that they are not
"cost effective".  The other question is from the perspective of any
given man whether it is worth his while to have himself tested and then
to treat his cancer if it is detected.   For some men, it is clearly
worth their while.  Because of ethnic background or family history, they
are at much higher risk of prostate cancer, and a chance to cure it or
slow it down is worthwhile on balance.  For older men, who are not
likely to live more than 10 years, it is generally not worthwhile
because even if they do get prostate cancer it probably can be
adequately controlled while they are alive and won't present too much of
a problem.   Other men are somewhere in the middle.

In all of this, it is a matter of trying to change the odds in your
favor after you consider all the factors.   Myself, I opted for testing,
and when my cancer was diagnosed,  I chose to have it treated.  I
understood the odds that the treatment wold fail and that there might be
side effects I didn't like.  But in balance I thought it preferable to
try to avoid advanced prostate cancer, which is not fun at all.  I made
my choice and I have to live or die with it.  So far things have worked
out well.  When other men ask me about it, I tell them what I know, not
leaving out the uncertainties about whether or not they will actually
benefit or if they even need to be treated.  I respect their right to
make their own decisions.

Mr Wadsworth's assertions about all these matters is rather unusual to
say the least.  He thinks there is only one disease.  My advice is to
ignore what he says.

Not everyone experiences those side effects.  It would likely be worth
digging out statistics before making a decision; as an example, I have
been on 0.4mg/day since being seeded Nov. 16, and have found it effective
(I forgot one once and the difference was quite convincing) without any of
the problems mentioned above.