Recognizing junk science to prevent health robbery
#1. The prostate cancer label is HIGHLY misleading.
- NOT everything called a prostate cancer actually behaves as a cancer.
- Most so-called prostate cancers will not impact you.
- Only the 15 percent or so of high-grade prostate cancers are potentially deadly.
- Only high-grade prostate cancers demand detection and treatment.
#2. There are NO signs or symptoms for early high-grade prostate cancer.
- There are no urinary symptoms specific for early high-grade prostate cancer.
- The digital rectal exam (DRE) or prostate exam is highly unreliable.
#3. PSA screening does NOT save lives.
- PSA-based screening FAILS to save significant numbers of lives.
- The PSA (prostate specific antigen) is NOT specific for prostate cancer and highly unreliable with a false-positive rate of 78 percent.
- PSA screening has led only to countless men being overtreated and injured.
- Alternative biomarkers such as PSA derivatives (like the percent free PSA), PCa3, “score” tests, genome and urine tests are NOT foolproof — the PTEN test is an immunohistochemistry assay that tries to estimate the aggressiveness of cancer cells found on a biopsy specimen.
#4. The ultrasound-guided 12-core prostate needle biopsy is HIGHLY risky, HIGHLY unscientific and HIGHLY unreliable.
- The so-called standard 12-core ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy is risky and highly unreliable as it samples blindly and randomly only about 0.1 percent of the prostate.
- This irrational biopsy study leaves you in the dark with respect to what’s going on in the 99.9 percent rest of the prostate.
- This unsafe biopsy is associated with many complications including death, septicemia, osteitis pubis, ischiorectal abscess, UTIs, prostatitis, epididymitis, orchitis, difficulty voiding, blood in the urine and semen and, erectile dysfunction.
#5. Biopsy/pathology, imaging and staging interpretations are NOT reliable or reproducible.
- The biopsy report and it’s Gleason grading and scoring assessments are neither reliable nor reproducible because of errors of observation and inadequate knowledge.
- All prostate biopsy studies should undergo a second opinion from a recognized expert in prostate pathology.
- Imaging and radiological studies such as CT scans and bone scans are highly insensitive for small amounts of cancer spread and prone to observer error.
- Trying to determine the stage of a particular cancer using either the A,B,C,D staging or TNM method, is highly unreliable.
#6. A non-contrast MRI by an EXPERT is the best prostate cancer screening tool.
- Expert radiologists – doing about 1000 non-contrast prostate MRIs per year – are capable of diagnosing PI-RADS 4 or 5 areas only (indicative of high-grade prostate cancer) and ignoring the bogus Gleason 6 disease.
- Only PI-RADS 4 or 5 areas are targeted for biopsy under real time MRI.
- Random prostate biopsies are NOT part of a well conducted MRI study.
- “Fusion” MRI studies are inaccurate for detecting high-grade cancer.
#7. The Gleason 3+3=6 “cancer” does NOT behave as a cancer.
- The Gleason 6 “cancer” FAILS to act as a cancer on both clinical and molecular biology grounds and should NOT be labelled as a cancer.
- The G6 pseudo-cancer does NOT require detection or treatment.
- Surgeons treating patients for G 6 disease are guilty of malpractice.
- Patients treated for G6 disease are survivors of the treatment and NOT survivors of their bogus cancer.
#8. Prostate cancer is NOT “cured” by robotic surgery.
- The toxic prostate cancer surgery FAILS to save significant numbers of lives and is associated with endless COMPLICATIONS.
- There may be a SEMBLANCE OF CURE if studies include patients with the bogus Gleason 6 cancer and or, treat other subjects with testosterone suppression.
- NO treatment has a similar 10-year survival to someone who HAD treatment.
- The 15-year survival is estimated to be about 96 percent REGARDLESS of the type of treatment.
- Neither PSA screening nor “treatment” – focal or radical – have altered the annual U.S. death rate of 30,000 from high-grade prostate cancer.
Recent articles concerning prostate cancer deception.
You will recall from the articles “Unreliable PSA-based Screening Prostate Cancer Hoax Part 1”, “Unreliable Biopsy & Imaging Reports Prostate Cancer Hoax P.2”, the “Prostate MRI study, Prostate Cancer Hoax P.3”, the “Treatment Deception. Prostate Cancer Hoax. Part 4”, the “Robotic Deception, Prostate Cancer Hoax. P.5” and, “Orchestrated Deception, Prostate Cancer Hoax P.6” that most everything in the prostate cancer arena is a hoax and based upon JUNK SCIENCE – including,
- Prostate Cancer Awareness, September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month and Do Blue.
- Informed consent and shared decision-making. After suitable fear mongering by the physician the patient is easily railroaded towards a treatment of the physician’s choice. This is especially worrisome since there is no objective evidence that any treatment option – focal or radical – saves lives.
- “Standard practice”, “established practice”, “standard of care”, “gold standard”, “minimally-invasive”, “cut-to-cure” “responds best to surgery”.
- Prostate cancer statistics as the Gleason 6 pseudo-cancer is included.
The many warnings concerning prostate cancer deception.
- There are numerous lawsuits linked to surgeons and hospitals regarding robotic prostatectomy.
- The FDA’s MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) site has recorded many issues regarding robotic prostatectomy.
- The USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) has expressed deep reservations about the PSA-based screening program and the treatment of screen-detected cancers because “the benefits do not outweigh the harms”. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/prostate-cancer-screening
- Authors Dr. Otis Brawley (formerly of the American Cancer Society), Dr. A. Horan, “The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam” and, R. Ablin PhD. and, R. Piana, “The Great Prostate Hoax” have all recorded in glaring detail not only the many dangers associated with prostate cancer screening and the surgical treatment of prostate cancer but, questioned its effectiveness as well as the impact of financial conflicts-of-interest surrounding the prostate cancer industry.
- Even the robotic device-maker is fully aware of the dangers of their tool.
Ablin, R., and Piana R., “The Great Prostate Hoax”.
Barrett, S., and Jarvis, W., “The Health Robbers”.
Eban, K., “Bottle of Lies”.
Klotz, L., “Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer”.
Horan, A., “The Big Scare” and “The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam”.
Mikovits, J., and Heckenlively, K., “Plague of Corruption”.