“I am a 59 year-old white male, 8 months post-op. My cancer was found by accident…I was enjoying life, sexually active…now, I work hard not to piss on myself when I exercise…and despite all the suction devices and Viagra…my life as a man is non-existent. I really wonder if this is all I have to look forward to until I die.” Anonymous, posted on MD Junction – Prostate Cancer Support Group (quoted from The Great Prostate Hoax)
A cancer diagnosis can be a whirlwind of emotions and lead to a devastating change in your life. This is obvious.
The more horrible thing to realize is that the diagnosis could very well be WRONG. (And this is why so many deny it either consciously or unconsciously.)
If diagnosis is flawed, all that pain and suffering is for nothing. As someone that has watched people go through chemo, radiation and surgery, that pain and suffering is large.
If necessary, then absolutely it could be worth it…
But what if it isn’t necessary? What if there is only downside?
This is not medical advice. Instead, it stems from my philosophy of natural healing, of scientism and the techno-determinism that spawns from it. It stems from actually following the science (and the money) to see where those truthfully lead.
The previous article on the prostate looked at the fallacy of PSA screening. Here we dive deeper into the next steps that would often follow a high number from such a test.
A high PSA test will often lead to a biopsy of the prostate tissue itself. After a biopsy the prostate cells are looked at and given a Gleason score. This is a SUBJECTIVE measurement of how cancerous the cells are.
That means it is prone to interpretation and error.
Dr. Jonathan Oppenheimer, a pathologist, said,
“The process is clearly not working to find slow-growing tumors, which we should be calling neoplasms not cancer. For instance, by calling the 3 + 3 = 6 Gleason score ‘cancer’ pathologists are doing a disservice to patients, by scaring them into having conditions treated that will not harm them.”
Is this tissue a 3 or a 4? Sadly, it depends on the doctor you ask and when you ask them!
One study found “[T]he reproducibility of the Gleason score is poor during iterative analyzes by the same or by other pathologists…Gleason himself reports an intra-observer reproducibility of only 50% in the case of re-reading of the slides. Inter-observer reproducibility varies from 22% to 37%.”
That’s a bit technical. Let me give that to you in plain English. The same doctor looking at the same slides would only give it the same rating half of the time. If you take it to another pathologist (a second opinion) they’ll give it the same rating less than one quarter to slightly more than one third of the time.
So let me get this straight. PSA screening is like flipping a coin. Based on a positive there, you’re likely to get a biopsy that will yield a Gleason score that is worse than flipping a coin.
And they call this science! Yet this is only diagnosis. If you think that’s bad, wait ‘til you get to treatment…
Once cancer is found, very often surgery has been recommended. Radical prostatectomies, where the “cancerous” prostate is removed, leave many men incontinent and impotent. These are some devastating side effects, and while they may be preferable to death, basing this surgery on flawed procedures means most men are suffering needlessly.
Part of the difficulty has to do with the prostate being surrounded by nerves and blood vessels. It is no easy thing to remove (compared to say a gall bladder which is a relatively easy surgery), not without collateral damage. Dr Ablin writes,
“Nerves that control erections pass across and adhere fully to the prostate gland. Separating this nerve bundle has been compared to peeling wet tissue paper from a surface. No matter how skilled the surgeon is, there is always a certain amount of nerve damage during a radical prostatectomy, resulting in various degrees and duration of impotence.”
There are also various non-surgical treatments, some of which similarly leave men impotent, this time from chemical castration.
Dr. Ablin writes,
“[D]eprive the prostate of testosterone and the cancer becomes dormant. It works, but only temporarily. And despite minutely low testosterone levels, the cancer progresses and the terminal phase of the disease stakes its claim on the body. The men become what are known as castration-resistant and their survival is about two to three years.”
Even if it works, you’re deprived of testosterone. If that doesn’t sound fun, you’re right.
Again, if this is necessary to treat a fast growing and deadly cancer, then it may be worth it. But how many false positives will suffer the devastating consequences of such treatment?
“[I]n most cases not treating prostate cancer may [be] the best course of action,” says Dr. Ablin. He says “that men got swept into the ‘early detection leads to a cure’ psychic tsunami.”
Yet the facts of the matter are that most of the “cancers” caught aren’t even a problem.
And it is on this last part that I’ll end with. It’s true for prostate cancer as well as other cancers.
The USA has the most expensive and most advanced medical care out there. And yet we very often have the very worst outcomes of any industrial nation. Sometimes non-industrial nations beat us out. This is because technology does not equal good health. In fact, often times it’s directly the opposite.
Cancer treatment is typically looked at in terms of five-year survival rates. And here we can have fun with statistics.
My mother for instance, survived her initial cancer. She lived about nine years when the cancer came back and killed her. But the treatment was a success in terms of five-year survival rates. She survived…even though she didn’t.
A BMJ study, discussing PSA screening, states,
“Why is an increase in survival from 44% to 82% not evidence that screening saves lives? For two reasons. The first is lead time bias. Earlier detection implies that the time of diagnosis is earlier; this alone leads to higher survival at five years even when patients do not live any longer. The second is overdiagnosis. Screening detects abnormalities that meet the pathological definition of cancer but will never progress to cause symptoms or death (nonprogressive or slow-growing cancers). The higher the number of overdiagnosed patients the higher the survival rate.”
You see, all those “cancers” the PSA screening and Gleason scores find make the cancer industry look good. Most of them would be fine to leave untreated. But if treated, the person survives just like they would have. And, viola, you have yourself a cancer success story.
Very few people are any wiser because everyone involved has fallen into the trap of not knowing what would have happened without the interventions.
Most older men have prostate cancer. Lifetime risk of prostate cancer for men 50+ is 42%. Yet risks of dying are only 2.9%. And risks of it even being clinically significant (as in having any symptoms) is only 9.5%.
In other words, most men will not have any problems as a result of prostate cancer. For these people zero treatment is the best bet. For these people no falling prey to the false positives of our diagnostic tests is the best bet.
“Everyone in cancer is always looking for ways to detect disease. Along comes the PSA test and it just ran ahead of the evidence. The mantra ‘early detection saves lives’ became an unquestioned truth. But nothing in medicine should be unquestioned, and PSA is a good example of that. The test just took on a life of its own,” said Oliver Sartor, MD, from Tulane Cancer Center.
The mantra of Western medicine seems to be “If it saves one life…” and they’re willing to sacrifice ten lives to obtain that goal.
I know some of our customers have suffered through this process in one way or another. I’m sorry if that is the case. Coming up soon, more details on why this is the case and, most importantly, the alternatives and fixes that are available. we’ll cover what you can do about it.
P.S. Here are some herbs and natural methods that help the prostate to function normally as it should.