Posted on 10/24/2021 9:17:29 AM PDT by ConservativeMind
I try not to depend on orthodox medicine to keep me alive. They operate to make a profit, not make people healthy.
If they tell people how to prevent disease, they will have to work on something else.
So much more accurate than the old analog version.
Why does it matter? The gov’t should be impartial and do what is right not what they are bribed to do. Once again this type of thinking is what is wrong with america and what is wrong with gov’t and why gov’t should not be allowed to do any research. Leave it up to private industry.
And women spend billions on abortion.
This is nothing new. It’s long been known that prostate cancer is far more deadly when it spreads to other organs.
• Prostate cancer screening with PSA testing is not recommended, although certain groups of men are more likely to undergo testing, according to a review (BMJ. 2018;published online Sept. 5). They looked at five randomized trials with 721,718 men to examine the efficacy and safety of PSA testing for prostate cancer screening. The researchers found that screening probably has no impact on all-cause mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.99; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.01) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.08). Most men are expected to decline screening due to the small and uncertain benefit, and clear harms. However, the likelihood of choosing screening is increased among men with a family history of prostate cancer, of African descent or of low socioeconomic status, and with higher baseline risk of prostate cancer death. For men considering screening, shared decision-making is needed. “Conversations with patients requesting a PSA test should explore their reasons for requesting a test and include evidence-based discussions about possible harms and benefits of PSA testing” write the authors of an accompanying editorial.
It shouldn't but that's how it is. If one group invests in activism and the other doesn't, which group do you think will get the attention?
Once again this type of thinking is what is wrong with america and what is wrong with gov’t and why gov’t should not be allowed to do any research. Leave it up to private industry.
So what are men waiting for? Take some of those billions and invest it in private industry.
And women spend billions on abortion.
They also spend billions on activism, not only in dollars but in effort, which is why they have the right to kill their unborn children. Well that and the fact that most men support abortion.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against routine PSA–based prostate cancer screening for healthy men, regardless of age (Ann Intern Med. Published online May 22, 2012).....”there is moderate certainty that the benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer do not outweigh the harms.” .....For men under the age of 75, the USPSTF previously graded the screening as a “C,” which meant there is at least moderate certainty that the overall net benefit of screening is small......”The D rating says ‘Don’t do it. Don’t even have a discussion with the patient.” .......the scientist who discovered the original PSA, Richard Ablin, PhD, from the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson, told Medscape Medical News that he was “elated.” Dr. Ablin has long argued that the PSA test should not be used for routine screening of healthy men because it is not specific for prostate cancer. He also famously described the testing as a “public health disaster.”
Does PSA screening decrease morbidity or mortality? - No. The authors of a study identified two RCTs that showed no mortality benefit from PSA screening (Ann Intern Med 2008;149:192). A meta-analysis with 390,000 asymptomatic men (age range, 45–80) found that PSA screening was associated with a 46% higher probability of a prostate cancer diagnosis and a 95% higher probability of a diagnosis of stage I prostate cancer, however screening had no effect on prostate cancer–specific or all-cause mortality (BMJ 2010;341:c4543)......the authors did not consider the costs of screening — financial, physical (Ex: aggressive treatment for early disease), and psychosocial (Ex: living with a cancer diagnosis)......the meta-analysis does not rule out a benefit for screening high-risk men (Ex: those with family histories of prostate cancer).
• In a 20-year study on over 9,000 men from Sweden, PSA screening resulted in overdiagnosis but not lower prostate cancer mortality (BMJ 2011;342:d1539).....Men with abnormal DREs and PSA levels >4 µg/L underwent prostate biopsy. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 5.7% of screened men and in 3.9% of controls......However, 2.0% of screened men and 1.7% of controls died from prostate cancer; this difference was not significant.
• At 13 years, still no mortality benefit found in the Prostate cancer screening trial (J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:125).....Numbers of deaths from prostate cancer remain slightly higher in the screening group than in the control group (158 vs. 145 deaths among 38,000 men in each group).....This absence of benefit was noted regardless of age or presence of comorbidities.
• Screening with PSA testing does not lower the risk for death from prostate cancer, according to a 13-year follow-up report from the PLCO trial with 77,000 men aged 55 to 74 (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;published online: January 6)....This finding extends the trial’s 10-year results, which similarly showed no mortality benefit.....The researchers conclude: “There is no evidence of a benefit [from screening]. Indeed, there is evidence of harms, in part associated with the false-positive tests, but also with the overdiagnosis inseparable from PSA screening.”
• A systematic review of the literature for data on results of PSA testing whether routine screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality suggests that it does more harm than good (European Cancer Conference 2013 (ECCO-ESMO-ESTRO). Abstract 1481. Presented September 30, 2013).....PSA testing has not lowered prostate cancer mortality. In the 1980s, before the advent of testing, the incidence of prostate cancer in France was 5%, and disease-specific mortality was 2%. But in the era of testing, he explained, incidence is now 14%. “But the risk of dying did not go up, it is still 2%.” “We are now finding cancers that never would have appeared in these men,” he said, pointing out that upon autopsy, about 70% of men have changes in the prostate that are indicative of cancer, but it is disease that never would have been fatal. For 1 cancer death to be prevented among 1000 men, there would have to be an additional 154 biopsies, of which 9 would require hospitalization for severe adverse events; another 0.2 deaths would result from biopsy complications. Of 35 additional prostate cancers diagnosed, 32 would be low-risk, leading to 12 additional cases of impotence, 2 cases of incontinence, and 1 case of fecal incontinence. There is an 18% prostate cancer–related surgery on men who were older than 70 years. “So if you have prostate cancer, there is little chance of dying from it, yet most of these men are having radical treatment.”
“Guys, please get at least semi-regular check ups to nip this in the bud early. Symptoms do not generally show up until it’s too late.”
They will not test. I had a digital exam a few years back but only because I had something wrong in that region (sacroiliitis)
Note to those who are confused by these statistics:
There is a measurable percentage of men who will be saved by screening
There is also a measurable percentage of men who will die because of screening.
There is also a measurable percentage of men who will never be able to have sex again because of screening.
There is also a measurable percentage of men who will lose all desire for sex, even at young age, making life miserable for them and their partner.
There is also a measurable percentage of men who will be incontinent.
There is proven harm from universal screening across large population....one cannot focus on single case reports of success.
They spend more on abortion. You should be advocating for less gov’t then not more. SMH.
The last time I had a PSA test, the results came addressed to Mrs. AppyPappy
The US Preventive Services Task Force 2017 on Screening for Prostate Cancer:
(JAMA 2017 Apr 11;EPub Ahead of Print)
How have these changed from the 2012 Guidelines? The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) was published, which showed a slight reduction in mortality and the risk of metastatic prostate cancer with PSA screening. Also, active surveillance (before more aggressive therapy is chosen for those at low risk) has increased in use and may result in less harm.
This new information has changed the recommendation from the USPSTF for men aged 55 to 69 years from a D (there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits) to a C (there is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small).
For men 70 years and older, the recommendation remains a D, and screening is not recommended.
An opportunity for shared decision making
Putting the evidence within the context of someone’s wishes and unique risk factors is key. If you have an overweight, African-American 55-year-old man whose father died of metastatic prostate cancer, you may want to discuss this higher risk. For a 55-year-old man at average risk, here are some key numbers to remember.
* If he chooses no screening, his risk of dying from prostate cancer is 0.6%.
* If he chooses screening, his risk of dying from prostate cancer is 0.5%.
* If he chooses screening, there is a 25% chance his PSA will be elevated, which will require an invasive procedure such as a biopsy.
* Of the 25% with a positive PSA test, 10% will have prostate cancer. A large portion of these tumors (20%–50%) will not grow or spread.
* About 65% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer will be treated early with surgery or radiation, and 75% will have significant harms including impotence and/or urinary incontinence.
* The uncertainty lies in predicting who will benefit most from more aggressive therapy where the benefits warrant these risks.
September is Prostate Awareness Month; you guys ever hear about that? Secondly, more men die from prostate cancer than women do of breast cancer. Oh, and September is also Child Cancer Awareness Month - guess that got buried too.
If men are going to spend billions on hookers and next to nothing on activism and prostate cancer research, then what difference does it make what I advocate for?
Thanks for posting.
Huh? Are you sure you’re on the right forum? DemocratUnderground is probably a better fit for your type of thinking.
I don’t see anyone at DU calling on men to take the billions they have for prostitution and spend it on activism and prostate cancer research, but I haven’t been there in years. Have they taken up men’s issues since then?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.