Thank you for your response. My question centers upon your opinions that there are no effective diagnostic and treatment options for men with PCa. In that case, what is the patient to do today?
Waiting for advances in diagnosis and treatment programs that demonstrate measurable clinical outcomes of care does not serve as a viable alternative for many with this disease.
While I do not disagree that the current state of diagnosis and treatment may not serve the best interest of PCa patients in all instances what do we do ?
Howard, I appreciate your maintaining the right to print what you deem to be relevant to the subject. While there may controversy from time to time, it is important that we have access to information that pertains to PCa and the various opinions concerning this disease, how to manage it and how not to.
In regard to the column that contained the controversial remarks pertaining to the practice of urology and that relationship to PCa, when they concluded with their criticisms they failed to mention what are men with PCa supposed to do. If nothing in their opinion works, what then is the answer?
Hey Rich - it's not an opinion. Almost nothing in the prostate cancer narrative can withstand the challenge - where's the irrefutable and reproducible data supporting that particular recommendation? We don't have an answer yet. We desperately need to develop tests and treatments for high-grade prostate cancer where there is irrefutable and reproducible data for saving significant numbers of lives. Still searching.
I was diagnosed at 57 via PSA then got sucked intonthe sales pitch. Refused Gadolinium dye but had another scan and needle biopsy via perimium. 8 months later I am suffering pain from scar nodules. I rejected hormones and am now on a protocol covering diet after cancer cachexia, Ivermectin and Mebendazole. Got very ill lost weight but easing up again. Using blood tests to monitor any progress. Haemorrhoids bad so hope to find a solution.
Loved the "urolological-industrial complex." I have always distrusted the medical establishment and considered it a 'license to steal' in so many ways. No, it isn't pandemic, but 'doctors' are not gods and absolutely not geniuses across the board. The best way to deal with them is with an attorney, but don't get me started on that profession.
Guilty as charged - although not thrilled that information exchanged in privatel emails was quoted without permission. That's a bit below the belt from an august journo but no complaint to the Ethics Committee will follow.
Here's an extract from my response to Howard....
"Active Surveillance has to be qualified. We both agree but can't yet come up with an acceptable term.
While it's less important for you, AnCan has to guide men to the right group. We want to avoid gents who are on active surveillance post surgery/RT and intermittent hormone therapy attending our 'AS' group and speaking about their experience. So to say... "Still, he needs to stop calling the AS approach “Pre-treatment Active Surveillance.” needs context.
Like you say, I've learned a new appreciation for men in early AS - I think that's the term I largely use now. I'd like to think I am one of its loudest advocates, behind you. Especially to Big Pharma."
Prostate cancer advocacy has long wrapped itself in the language of “empowerment,” “education,” and “patient-centered care.” In reality, much of it has devolved into a rigid orthodoxy enforced by professional gatekeepers who mistake control for leadership, censorship for responsibility, and compliance for wisdom.
You published, with full disclaimer, a provocative column by Dr. Bert Vorstman and investigative journalist Ron Piana. Their piece dared to question whether the prostate cancer industry is, in many ways, a house of cards built on flawed science, profit motives, and institutional cowardice. Predictably, that was enough to trigger a full-blown meltdown. It is. Rick Davis responded not with debate, but with threats: take the column down or “the consequences won’t be pretty.” This wasn’t a concern for patient welfare. This was a tantrum by someone terrified that patients might start asking inconvenient questions. The same Rick Davis who built his platform on peer-to-peer dialogue is now trying to dictate which peers may speak.
This isn’t about patient confusion. It’s about power, ego, and the defense of a fragile, deeply conflicted medical-industrial complex. It seems that Ancan, through its Master's Voice, adopts the infantilizing posture of "protection," as if grown men facing life-altering cancer decisions need intellectual babysitters to filter information for them. That is not advocacy. That is control. Patients don’t need protection from uncomfortable ideas. They need protection from people who believe patients are too weak to hear them.
too much time spent on who Is right and who is wrong. Just keep giving all opinions (medical) and then let the patient do "shared decision making" so that the patient can choose what is right for them..not what is right for some medical journalist, or the so called experts. I do firmly believe that the medical oncologist should be running the process. Let's get back to respecting the patients wishes and not an ego centric expert.
Dr. Vorstman:
Thank you for your response. My question centers upon your opinions that there are no effective diagnostic and treatment options for men with PCa. In that case, what is the patient to do today?
Waiting for advances in diagnosis and treatment programs that demonstrate measurable clinical outcomes of care does not serve as a viable alternative for many with this disease.
While I do not disagree that the current state of diagnosis and treatment may not serve the best interest of PCa patients in all instances what do we do ?
Regards,
Richard
Howard,
I thought the article "What's The Truth aAbout Prostate Cancer" was enlightening.
I hope the medical profession is not focused on profit - but in actually helping us survive and Thrive and
I hope the advances in medicine and imaging will replace or reduce the need for biopsies.
Thanks for the article.
David
Howard, I appreciate your maintaining the right to print what you deem to be relevant to the subject. While there may controversy from time to time, it is important that we have access to information that pertains to PCa and the various opinions concerning this disease, how to manage it and how not to.
Regards,
Richard M.
Good point, Richard.
I asked Dr. Vorstman and Mr. Piana to respond.
In regard to the column that contained the controversial remarks pertaining to the practice of urology and that relationship to PCa, when they concluded with their criticisms they failed to mention what are men with PCa supposed to do. If nothing in their opinion works, what then is the answer?
Richard M.
Hey Rich - it's not an opinion. Almost nothing in the prostate cancer narrative can withstand the challenge - where's the irrefutable and reproducible data supporting that particular recommendation? We don't have an answer yet. We desperately need to develop tests and treatments for high-grade prostate cancer where there is irrefutable and reproducible data for saving significant numbers of lives. Still searching.
I was diagnosed at 57 via PSA then got sucked intonthe sales pitch. Refused Gadolinium dye but had another scan and needle biopsy via perimium. 8 months later I am suffering pain from scar nodules. I rejected hormones and am now on a protocol covering diet after cancer cachexia, Ivermectin and Mebendazole. Got very ill lost weight but easing up again. Using blood tests to monitor any progress. Haemorrhoids bad so hope to find a solution.
Loved the "urolological-industrial complex." I have always distrusted the medical establishment and considered it a 'license to steal' in so many ways. No, it isn't pandemic, but 'doctors' are not gods and absolutely not geniuses across the board. The best way to deal with them is with an attorney, but don't get me started on that profession.
Guilty as charged - although not thrilled that information exchanged in privatel emails was quoted without permission. That's a bit below the belt from an august journo but no complaint to the Ethics Committee will follow.
Here's an extract from my response to Howard....
"Active Surveillance has to be qualified. We both agree but can't yet come up with an acceptable term.
While it's less important for you, AnCan has to guide men to the right group. We want to avoid gents who are on active surveillance post surgery/RT and intermittent hormone therapy attending our 'AS' group and speaking about their experience. So to say... "Still, he needs to stop calling the AS approach “Pre-treatment Active Surveillance.” needs context.
Like you say, I've learned a new appreciation for men in early AS - I think that's the term I largely use now. I'd like to think I am one of its loudest advocates, behind you. Especially to Big Pharma."
Howard, this is your best article you have ever published on The Active Surveillor. You have clearly expressed all sides here. Keep doing what you do.
Prostate cancer advocacy has long wrapped itself in the language of “empowerment,” “education,” and “patient-centered care.” In reality, much of it has devolved into a rigid orthodoxy enforced by professional gatekeepers who mistake control for leadership, censorship for responsibility, and compliance for wisdom.
You published, with full disclaimer, a provocative column by Dr. Bert Vorstman and investigative journalist Ron Piana. Their piece dared to question whether the prostate cancer industry is, in many ways, a house of cards built on flawed science, profit motives, and institutional cowardice. Predictably, that was enough to trigger a full-blown meltdown. It is. Rick Davis responded not with debate, but with threats: take the column down or “the consequences won’t be pretty.” This wasn’t a concern for patient welfare. This was a tantrum by someone terrified that patients might start asking inconvenient questions. The same Rick Davis who built his platform on peer-to-peer dialogue is now trying to dictate which peers may speak.
This isn’t about patient confusion. It’s about power, ego, and the defense of a fragile, deeply conflicted medical-industrial complex. It seems that Ancan, through its Master's Voice, adopts the infantilizing posture of "protection," as if grown men facing life-altering cancer decisions need intellectual babysitters to filter information for them. That is not advocacy. That is control. Patients don’t need protection from uncomfortable ideas. They need protection from people who believe patients are too weak to hear them.
too much time spent on who Is right and who is wrong. Just keep giving all opinions (medical) and then let the patient do "shared decision making" so that the patient can choose what is right for them..not what is right for some medical journalist, or the so called experts. I do firmly believe that the medical oncologist should be running the process. Let's get back to respecting the patients wishes and not an ego centric expert.
In this case there is a right and a wrong, Doc. It's not about egos.
PSA TESTING IS ABOUT INFORMATION NOT TREATMENT.
Every man should test, then we can agree on shared decsion making. PSA testing saves lives.