> the word “CANCER” can be VERY UNSETTLING
BUT the word “CANCER” CAN HAVE SEVERAL MEANINGS FROM NONCANCER BEHAVING TO SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS
> MOST PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THAT MANY “CANCERS” DO NOT BEHAVE CANCEROUS
> the word “CANCER” is a NON-SPECIFIC and GENERIC label which simply describes an uncontrolled growth of cells where potential for spread varies from insignificant to significant
> the word “cancer” FAILS TO INDICATE THE CELLS REAL POTENTIAL FOR SPREAD
NOT ALL CANCERS ARE EQUAL
MANY PROSTATE CANCERS and THYROID CANCERS
(and some other cancers) BEHAVE NONCANCEROUS
> labelling a disease as a “cancer” is significantly troubled by the subjectivity involved in the recognition of any disease as a “cancer” simply labelling a disease as a “cancer” is grossly incomplete, lacks definition and is an absolute disservice to patients as this “cancer” label can misrepresent severely the true state of affairs of this particular disease
> the POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A CANCER (MALIGNANCY) CAN BE INFERRED ONLY by its SUBJECTIVE PATHOLOGICAL GRADE which MAY determine AGGRESSIVENESS.
For prostate cancer, AGGRESSIVENESS is defined by a SUBJECTIVE (approximate) system whereby cells which appear “cancerous” under the microscope are “graded” and then two subjective grades are added to produce a subjective GLEASON SCORE
RELIABLE BIOMARKERS TO REMOVE SUBJECTIVITY ISSUES ARE STILL AWAITING DISCOVERY
> the pathological diagnosis of a disease like PROSTATE CANCER and the subjectivity associated with CELL GRADING CAN VARY BETWEEN PATHOLOGISTS
In fact, if the same pathologist is given the same biopsy slides 3 months later, he may provide you with a different grade.
Because of this considerable subjectivity concerning a prostate cancer diagnosis, all prostate needle biopsy slides should be forwarded to a nationally recognized reference laboratory for validation as this GRADING DETERMINES DISEASE MANAGEMENT
No man should consider a potentially high-risk treatment based upon a possible misinterpretation of grade.
Furthermore, there exists considerable potential for conflicts of interest when the treating physicians and/or pathologists share in your treatment revenue
> PROSTATE CANCERS are divided into 2 categories basically:
the VERY COMMON LOW-RISK Gleason 6 (3+3) prostate “cancer” and,
the LESS COMMON HIGH-RISK prostate cancer
NOT ALL PROSTATE CANCERS ARE EQUAL
only high-risk prostate cancers demand treatment but NOT with surgery
> MOLECULAR BIOLOGY and CLINICAL DATA have ESTABLISHED CLEARLY that the GLEASON 6 (3+3) PROSTATE “CANCER”
LACKS THE CHARACTERISTICS and THE BEHAVIOUR OF A CANCER:
* the cells graded as a 3 in the Gleason score 6 (3+3) prostate disease have none of the
protein alterations to make these cells behave cancerous
* the Gleason 6 has NO metastatic potential
* the Gleason 6 is NOT a health-risk
* the Gleason 6 does NOT behave like a cancer
* the Gleason 6 does NOT need treatment focally or through whole gland
* the word “cancer” for Gleason 6 prostate disease is a MISNOMER
* labelling the Gleason 6 a “cancer” is totally UNJUSTIFIED
> many “cancers” like the GLEASON 6 (3+3) PROSTATE “CANCERS” NEED ONLY
MONITORING THROUGH ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE
NO TREATMENT whether FOCAL therapy or WHOLE gland treatment is needed
> labelling a disease as a “cancer” when it clearly fails to behave like a typical cancer is a
great disservice to patients.
The “cancer” label makes urological surgeons utter ignorant speak like ”get it out before it
spreads”, perform risky evaluations and then perform misguided, self-serving treatments such
as the toxic radical surgery/robotic prostatectomy for ZERO HEALTH BENEFIT
> such UNNECESSARY TREATMENT (OVERTREATMENT) of noncancerous behaving
“cancers” like the Gleason 6 prostate “cancer” is patently DECEPTIVE and leads to
GREAT PATIENT HARM AND MASSIVE SQUANDERING of PRECIOUS HEALTHCARE DOLLARS along with ZERO PATIENT BENEFIT
> the damning USPSTF report regarding PSAs and prostate cancer screening underscored once more the lack of merit to wholesale PSA screening as well as the significant incidence of great harms and the insignificant numbers of lives saved from the treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer.
This well known article should have been a source of great embarrassment to urologists worldwide
> all of the great concerns and problems associated with the unnecessary treatment (overtreatment) of the non-cancer behaving Gleason 6 disease can be levelled directly at the urologists promoting the ill-conceived radical surgery/robotic prostatectomy as alluded to in the USPSTF report.
This toxic and misguided surgery simply creates crippled survivors of the surgery and NOT survivors of their cancer. The Gleason 6 (3+3) prostate “cancer” never needed any treatment.
> along with the mislabelling of a disease as a “cancer” when it clearly fails to behave like a cancer are the self serving but disingenuous physician representations of “standard of care” and “gold-standard” as well, the charades concerning “prostate cancer awareness month” and “prostate cancer screening” are associated clearly with zero health benefits
> what is needed to protect patients from being made vulnerable and exploited after diagnosis with a noncancer behaving “cancer” (such as the Gleason 6 prostate disease) and then being overtreated are:
* a disease label other than “cancer” for the “cancers” which FAIL to behave cancerous
* a need to develop highly reliable biomarkers which can IDENTIFY ONLY
REAL and SIGNIFICANT CANCERS NEEDING EARLY DETECTION AND TREATMENT
For prostate cancer, the importance lies in detecting only validated grade 4 cells/tissue as in
4+3 or greater and therefore, high-risk Gleason scores.
Fundamentally, many cancer screening programs expose patients to great risk and zero health benefit because of the dreadful confusion between diseases labelled as “cancers” but behaving noncancerous and real and significant cancers.
Till physicians decide to create a word or term other than the word “cancer” for noncancer behaving “cancers” and which will then reflect accurately the true nature of their noncancer behaving “cancers”, millions of patients will continue to be deceived and exploited because of this misnomer.
You can learn more about the many pitfalls in the prostate cancer industry by visiting
Dr Bert Vorstman’s website,
or, his blogs at,
or, contact him at 877 783 4438 or at email@example.com