Scare-tactics, quackery and health robbery –
Prostate cancer surgery is a brutal operation without objective evidence for saving lives, is associated with countless potential complications and has frayed untold numbers of relationships. Instead of guiding patients with scientific facts, the prostate cancer industry imperils patients with a toxic dump of lies, fear mongering and junk science.
Prostate cancer awareness – the real story.
- Prostate cancer surgery is a throwback “treatment” that was conceived in an era when strong-willed surgeons did what they wanted to patients under the umbrella of “saving lives”, no matter how mutilating the event. There was no real informed consent in the early 1900’s and Institutional Review Boards to clear new procedures hadn’t been thought of. Sadly, to fool the public into believing that their risky surgery had been scientifically proven urologists called it standard-of-care.
- In time, the same false standard-of-care label was applied to their refined and rebranded robotic prostatectomy. Regrettably, “refined” applied only to the method of access as the cutting out of the prostate, its many potential complications and lack of scientific evidence for cure had the same miserable results as open surgery.
- Urologists embraced an equally toxic and unreliable prostate cancer screening program using; a PSA (prostate specific antigen) that wasn’t specific and had a 78 percent false-positive rate; a cruel biopsy that sampled randomly only 0.1 percent of the prostate; labelled the Gleason 6 as a cancer when it never behaved as a cancer (see Klotz’s work) and employed pathology and radiology scoring assessments for prostate cancer that lacked reliability or reproducibility simply turbocharged the medical errors and medical cheating.
- Only the 15 percent or so of high-grade prostate cancers are potentially lethal and result in about 30,000 deaths each year in the U.S. Neither the PSA-based screening program or “treatments” have made any difference to this death rate.
- Rampant corporate greed and an absolute failure of the American regulatory apparatus including the Federal Trade Commission’s duty to enforce truth in advertising have failed to protect healthcare consumers.
- Gullible and hopeful patients continue to be exploited with the shock value of a mostly false cancer label and a fraudulent cut-to-cure ideology each time a physician acts on a worthless “elevated” PSA screening test.
Prostate cancer is NOT cured by surgery – urologist’s own studies show that.
Despite the propaganda about prostate cancer surgery being “curative” there is NO objective evidence that this so-called treatment saves significant numbers of lives.
- The PIVOT study (Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial) published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that; “Among men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not substantially reduce all-cancer or prostate cancer mortality, as compared with observation (active surveillance), through at least 12 years of follow up. Absolute differences were less than 3 percentage points (statistically insignificant).”
- Another study tackled by urologists and taken out over 29 years implied that 2.9 years of life was “gained”. However, this study also was hopelessly flawed because it included men with Gleason 6 pseudo-cancer and treated others with testosterone suppression which itself can produce life extension.
- In other words, the “radical prostatectomy did not substantially reduce prostate cancer mortality”. It only provided a semblance of cure while leaving millions in its wake with lifelong debilitating complications.
Does any prostate cancer treatment help?
Not only is prostate cancer treatment not an emergency but there’s some question as to whether treatments lead to any obvious benefits.
- The 10-year survival of prostate cancer generally is estimated to be about 98 percent while the 15-year survival is estimated to be about 96 percent REGARDLESS of the type of treatment.
- Even more stunning is the revelation that NO treatment has a similar 10-year survival to those who were treated.
A short history of the crippling robotic prostatectomy.
- Radical prostate cancer surgery was described over 100 years ago when Dr. H.H. Young at Johns Hopkins published the results of his modified radical prostate surgical “treatment”. Not only did he claim early diagnosis and cure of prostate cancer without any evidence for doing so, but he concluded that “The four cases in which the radical operation was done demonstrated its simplicity, effectiveness and the remarkably satisfactory functional results furnished.” Underscoring a very dishonest conclusion, his first two patients died (one postoperatively and the other after being treated for a complication common to the procedure) while the remaining two men were left with lifelong debilitating urinary issues. Not discussed was the likely additional complication of impotence.
- Regardless of these pathetic results, some urologists aligned with Young’s misguided prostate cancer treatment philosophy and conducted years of unbridled human experimentation trying to “perfect” the surgery and make it less problematic and less deadly. As well, gimmicks such as the nerve-sparing technique attempting to “preserve” erections were described.
- Despite years of trial and error surgery the list of complications associated with radical prostate surgery remained alarmingly great. Among the many other issues sexual and bladder problems were virtually guaranteed. Common complaints included lack of erection, lack of emission, ejaculation of urine (IF ejaculation had been preserved), pain on orgasm, shortened penis, penile pain, numbness, curvature or wasting and leaking because of loss of bladder control. Robotic-specific complications included insufflation-embolism, trocar and positioning injuries, eye injuries and many other problems.
- To deal with the endless “limp and leaking” complications a very profitable prosthetic industry sprang up to make implantable devices. Failures of these gadgets resulted in even more “corrective” surgery, costs and suffering while patients struggled to maintain a relationship with their loved one.
- Because countless men were depressed by the results of prostate cancer surgery both preoperative and postoperative penile and bladder “rehabilitation” counseling programs were established so men could be better prepared to deal with the miserable after-effects of surgery.
- As well, there was a real problem of inability to remove the tumor completely (a positive margin occurs in some 11-48 percent of surgical cases). Also, the handling of the prostate during surgery increased the numbers of circulating cancer cells in the blood.
- When the robotic device came into play in the 1980s it underwent its first low-level clinical studies for gallbladder removal in Mexico. Although the robotic device failed to provide benefits for this surgery it was given an FDA approval anyway.
- Taking advantage of this questionable FDA approval of the device for gallbladder surgery, urologists used the FDA’s 510(K) process to rubber-stamp an approval for use of the tool in prostate cancer surgery. This automatic approval was granted by the FDA despite huge differences between gallbladder and prostate cancer surgery.
- Amazingly, the FDA’s 510(K) process doesn’t require clinical trial data while the competing PMA or premarket approval process does. Not surprisingly, medical device companies and their lobbyists knew exactly how to exploit a corrupt system.
- Not only did conventional or open radical prostate surgery become mainstream purely on the basis of physician mob mentality that it “should work” and without any objective evidence for safety or effectiveness but, the robotic prostatectomy became mainstream in exactly the same way.
- Without supporting scientific evidence for benefit it is not surprising that prostate cancer surgery is actually a danger to your health. And, if you ever wondered whether fiction trumps truth, talk to the wives, partners or girlfriends of these men to get a more realistic report on outcome results for this “treatment”. Never mind that it is medically impossible and an illusion that one can have a prostate cancer cut out and live like you did before this “treatment”. The patients can tell you that but they are much too embarrassed to do so.
- Ioannidis has established clearly that, “most published research findings are false” — because physicians assume their testing and treatment philosophy to be valid and then design their studies around this extraordinary but unfounded bias. Unsurprisingly, most, if not all, prostate cancer studies underscore poor design and false conclusions.
Robotic prostatectomy trickery.
Regrettably, the predatory surgical “experts” offering counsel know exactly how to entrap their victims psychologically with the most outrageous, false and defenseless list of imagined benefits concerning their “minimally invasive” robotic prostatectomy. Even the labels da Vinci, robotic and state-of-the-art were designed intentionally to reassure and deceive. These “high-tech” surgeons will also lead you to believe that you shared in the decision-making and helped to “select” your treatment after exposure to drivel such as:
- Cancers are “best” cut out.
- Radical surgery/robotic prostatectomy can “save” your life.
- Impotence and incontinence may be necessary to “save” your life.
- Treatment is better than “letting the cancer get away”.
- Your disease is contained “so we better get it out quickly”.
- Younger men do “best” with surgery.
- Aggressive tumors respond “only” to surgery.
- Other treatment options have less “success”.
- Your disease is multifocal/bilobar and therefore responds “best” to surgery.
- If other treatments like radiation fail, subsequent “salvage” surgery is difficult.
- You will be a “survivor”.
- Surgery represents “standard of care”.
- Surgery is the “gold standard”.
- Surgery follows medical “guidelines”. Medical guidelines is a term often used to legitimize unproven care.
- If you should believe any of these fairy tales and allow yourself to be fooled into thinking that the misguided robotic prostatectomy is a scientifically proven, “state-of-the-art procedure” that will “save your life”, it is very likely you will be another miserable statistic complaining that you “made the worst decision of your life”.
The many warnings about prostate cancer surgery.
The many dangers associated with open prostate cancer surgery and robotic prostatectomy have been clearly recognized by the legal fraternity, Government oversight agencies and others.
- There are numerous lawsuits linked to surgeons and hospitals regarding robotic prostatectomy and its complications.
- The FDA’s MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) site has recorded many issues regarding robotic prostatectomy despite only about eight percent of actual adverse events being listed there because of the website’s complexity.
- 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”. This most recent update was watered down by urologists and their lobbyists. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/prostate-cancer-screening
- Authors Dr. Otis Brawley (formerly of the American Cancer Society), Dr. A. Horan, “The Big Scare” 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 for prostate cancer surgery as the list of disclaimers grows with every website revision.
The evil betrayal behind prostate cancer screening and surgical “treatment”.
Prostate cancer “information” is a gigantic black hole of physician-led propaganda disinformation and hypocrisy. Urologists’ own studies have shown that:
- PSA-based screening FAILS to save lives. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0810696
- Prostate cancer surgery FAILS to save lives – see links above.
- Yet, some 100,000 men will be railroaded towards robotic surgery each year.
- Those treated for the bogus Gleason 6 cancer are only survivors of the “treatment” and NOT the “cancer”.
- 11-48 percent will have residual cancer or a positive margin.
- 40 percent will be diagnosed with recurrent cancer.
- 29-88 percent will have erectile troubles.
- 66 percent will still leak urine at 6 months.
- Many men will get implants for “limp and leaking” problems.
- Many men will need corrective surgery for implant failures.
- Most men will have counseling before and after surgery.
In addition to the human cost of misguided prostate cancer screening and treatment some urologists will;
- Help squander $1.2 Billion dollars of precious Medicare dollars every three years on older men.
- Blatantly violate the principles of both medical ethics and humanity.
The barbaric “salvage” radical prostatectomy.
- Salvage robotic prostatectomy is a radical whole gland removal of the prostate for recurrent cancer after a previous treatment attempt. Since this surgical “option” has FAILED to save lives when used as an initial treatment it is clearly irrational to suggest that a difficult salvage option or a debulking procedure could be life-saving. Such misguided advice only serves to increase the patient’s complications and misery.
Why PSA-based screening and robotic prostatectomy need to be banned.
- When patients seek help from a doctor they have an absolute right to expect and receive scientifically proven healthcare. Care that is safe and effective, delivered with expertise and fulfilled only when truly needed.
- Lobotomy and radical breast surgery were once also self-anointed by physicians as being standard-of-care but have since been deleted from the medical playbook because of clear and obvious dangers. Unfortunately, there’s just too much money to be made at patient expense to worry about the clear and obvious dangers associated with PSA-based screening and robotic prostatectomy.
- Like most sources of “information” this fake war on prostate cancer makes use of endless misrepresentations, scare-tactics and selective presentation to exploit doubt and preconceived notions just to push an agenda. Milking false hope and false promises, the prostate cancer industry’s “battlefield” is but a crime scene of medical errors littered with untold numbers of mangled men.
- Sadly, some 250,000 people die from medical errors in the U.S. each year. Since urologists’ own studies show that neither PSA-screening or robotic prostatectomy save significant numbers of lives their “early diagnosis” and “cut-to-cure” ideology only adds to this carnage of medical errors. Until scientific FACTS are at hand the healthcare public needs the help of an urgent disaster declaration and a total ban on PSA-based screening and robotic prostatectomy. Only such an act will stop this egregious licensed medical malpractice and cover up, prevent the “spread” of further injury and arrest this colossal public health disaster.
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” and the “Treatment Deception. Prostate Cancer Hoax. Part 4.” that there are very significant concerns about PSA-based screening, ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies, “fusion” MRIs for being able to detect only the 15 percent or so of potentially deadly prostate cancers and, the absence of scientific support for any of the prostate cancer treatment options.
Coming soon. Orchestrated Deception, Prostate Cancer Hoax P.6
Horan, A., “The Big Scare. The Business of Prostate Cancer”.
Ablin, R., and Piana R., “The Great Prostate Hoax”.
Barrett, S., and Jarvis, W., “The Health Robbers”.
Eban, K., “Bottle Of Lies”.
www.HEALTHdrum.com – as-needed, self pay healthcare.
Bert Vorstman BSc, MD, MS, FAAP, FRACS, FACS