2 Comments

Keep it coming Dr. Vorstman; hope is to stimulate discussion. To each of your distractors or supporters who remain silent, individual and organization alike, this IS the preferred forum to be heard with instant international exposure and possibility of acclaim. Your participation is crucial! Worse, in your absence you know that!

Expand full comment

So with respect to Rick Steves' prostate cancer journey - let's sort fact from fiction.

> urinary and sexual symptoms are not early warning signs of prostate cancer.

> the prostate exam is no more reliable than a coin-toss.

> the PSA or prostate specific antigen has a 78% false positive rate and is a highly unreliable test. The specific label is a bare-faced lie as it is not specific for the prostate or for prostate cancer and, it's so-called limits of 0 to 4 as being normal are made up and meaningless. In fact, most prostate cancers are detected because the PSA was raised by the BPH and not the cancer buried within the prostate. Even urologists’ own studies showed that PSA testing failed to save significant numbers of lives. It's hardly surprising that the PSA test doesn't even meet the criteria for being a successful screening test - despite the misguided FDA approval.

> the ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy is a highly unreliable test as it samples blindly and randomly 0.1% of the prostate leaving practitioners clueless about the 99.9% rest of the prostate - many prostate cancers are multi-focal.

> staging of prostate cancer using CT scans and bone scans is highly unreliable.

> many prostate cancers take 40 years from the time of mutation to reach one centimeter in size

> the Gleason 6 is a bogus cancer because it's biological pathways for cancer development and spread are inactive.

> the robotic device for robotic prostatectomy (or the open radical prostatectomy) was never scientifically evaluated for safety and benefits but simply rubber-stamped as approved by the FDA.

> urologists’ own studies have shown that prostate cancer surgery fails to save significant numbers of lives - in fact at 15 years, no treatment had similar survival rates to those who had surgery or radiation - check that again - no treatment had similar survival rates but without all the complications of treatment.

> radical prostatectomy is a bad operation for three main reasons. First, it's not a good cancer operation as some 11 to 48% of patients will have a positive margin or residual cancer and some 20 to 40% will have a biochemical recurrence due to residual cancer cells within 10 years of surgery. Second this operation is associated with probably more complications than any other operation an third, this so-called treatment has failed to save significant numbers of lives.

> radical prostatectomy is about the only procedure (whether open or robotic) that prepares patients and their wives or partners for bad outcomes with shared decision-making, detailed informed consents and preoperative counseling programs for the inevitable limp and leaking complications.

> not only is prostate cancer awareness a gigantic hoax and failed to save significant numbers of lives but the program leads countless men (and their partners) to deception and serious harm.

Expand full comment