I am not doctor so none of this is medical advice, merely reporting in the public interest. Professor Bruce Davidson has a piece which discusses the supposed limitations of prostate PSA tests, as well as the great fear over prostate cancer. I did not know that Richard Ablin, the pathologist who invented the PSA test for the prostate had written a book outlining the limits of this test and its misuse in diagnosis: Richard Ablin and Ronald Piaana, The Great Prostate Hoax (St. Martin's press, New York, 2014). The PSA test has a high false positive rate that has led to men going into fear, and worse, as the blurb for the book says: "Every year, more than a million men undergo painful needle biopsies for prostate cancer, and upward of 100,000 have radical prostatectomies, resulting in incontinence and impotence. But the shocking fact is that most of these men would never have died from this common form of cancer, which frequently grows so slowly that it never even leaves the prostate. How did we get to a point where so many unnecessary tests and surgeries are being done? In The Great Prostate Hoax, Richard J. Ablin exposes how a discovery he made in 1970, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), was co-opted by the pharmaceutical industry into a multibillion-dollar business. He shows how his discovery of PSA was never meant to be used for screening prostate cancer, and yet nonetheless the test was patented and eventually approved by the FDA in 1994. Now, doctors and victims are beginning to speak out about the harm of the test, and beginning to search for a true prostate cancer-specific marker."
Obviously, this information is not to put men off from getting treatment; discuss everything with your medical practitioner and then make your own informed decision, as in every health issue.
https://brownstone.org/articles/prostate-cancer-over-testing-and-over-treatment/
"The excessive medical response to the Covid pandemic made one thing abundantly clear: Medical consumers really ought to do their own research into the health issues that impact them. Furthermore, it is no longer enough simply to seek out a "second opinion" or even a "third opinion" from doctors. They may well all be misinformed or biased. Furthermore, this problem appears to predate the Covid phenomenon.
A striking example of that can be found in the recent history of prostate cancer testing and treatment, which, for personal reasons, has become a subject of interest to me. In many ways, it strongly resembles the Covid calamity, where misuse of the PCR test resulted in harming the supposedly Covid-infected with destructive treatments.
Two excellent books on the subject illuminate the issues involved in prostate cancer. One is Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers by Dr. Mark Scholz and Ralph Blum. Dr. Scholtz is executive director of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute in California. The other is The Great Prostate Hoax by Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana. Richard Ablin is a pathologist who invented the PSA test but has become a vociferous critic of its widespread use as a diagnostic tool for prostate cancer.
Mandatory yearly PSA testing at many institutions opened up a gold mine for urologists, who were able to perform lucrative biopsies and prostatectomies on patients who had PSA test numbers above a certain level. However, Ablin has insisted that "routine PSA screening does far more harm to men than good." Moreover, he maintains that the medical people involved in prostate screening and treatment represent "a self-perpetuating industry that has maimed millions of American men."
Even during approval hearings for the PSA test, the FDA was well aware of the problems and dangers. For one thing, the test has a 78% false positive rate. An elevated PSA level can be caused by various factors besides cancer, so it is not really a test for prostate cancer. Moreover, a PSA test score can spur frightened men into getting unnecessary biopsies and harmful surgical procedures.
One person who understood the potential dangers of the test well was the chairman of the FDA's committee, Dr. Harold Markovitz, who decided whether to approve it. He declared, "I'm afraid of this test. If it is approved, it comes out with the imprimatur of the committee…as pointed out, you can't wash your hands of guilt. . .all this does is threaten a whole lot of men with prostate biopsy…it's dangerous."
In the end, the committee did not give unqualified approval to the PSA test but only approved it "with conditions." However, subsequently, the conditions were ignored.
Nevertheless, the PSA test became celebrated as the route to salvation from prostate cancer. The Postal Service even circulated a stamp promoting yearly PSA tests in 1999. Quite a few people became wealthy and well-known at the Hybritech company, thanks to the Tandem-R PSA test, their most lucrative product.
In those days, the corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the medical device and drug approval process was already apparent. In an editorial for the Journal of the American Medical Association (quoted in Albin and Piana's book), Dr. Marcia Angell wrote, "The pharmaceutical industry has gained unprecedented control over the evaluation of its products…there's mounting evidence that they skew the research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer." She also authored the book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.
A cancer diagnosis often causes great anxiety, but in actuality, prostate cancer develops very slowly compared to other cancers and does not often pose an imminent threat to life. A chart featured in Scholz and Blum's book compares the average length of life of people whose cancer returns after surgery. In the case of colon cancer, they live on average two more years, but prostate cancer patients live another 18.5 years.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, prostate cancer patients do not die from it but rather from something else, whether they are treated for it or not. In a 2023 article about this issue titled "To Treat or Not to Treat," the author reports the results of a 15-year study of prostate cancer patients in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only 3% of the men in the study died of prostate cancer, and getting radiation or surgery for it did not seem to offer much statistical benefit over "active surveillance."
Dr. Scholz confirms this, writing that "studies indicate that these treatments [radiation and surgery] reduce mortality in men with Low and Intermediate-Risk disease by only 1% to 2% and by less than 10% in men with High-Risk disease."
Nowadays prostate surgery is a dangerous treatment choice, but it is still widely recommended by doctors, especially in Japan. Sadly, it also seems to be unnecessary. One study cited in Ablin and Piana's book concluded that "PSA mass screening resulted in a huge increase in the number of radical prostatectomies. There is little evidence for improved survival outcomes in the recent years…"
However, a number of urologists urge their patients not to wait to get prostate surgery, threatening them with imminent death if they do not. Ralph Blum, a prostate cancer patient, was told by one urologist, "Without surgery you'll be dead in two years." Many will recall that similar death threats were also a common feature of Covid mRNA-injection promotion.
Weighing against prostate surgery are various risks, including death and long-term impairment, since it is a very difficult procedure, even with newer robotic technology. According to Dr. Scholz, about 1 in 600 prostate surgeries result in the death of the patient. Much higher percentages suffer from incontinence (15% to 20%) and impotence after surgery. The psychological impact of these side effects is not a minor problem for many men.
In light of the significant risks and little proven benefit of treatment, Dr. Scholz censures "the urology world's persistent overtreatment mindset." Clearly, excessive PSA screening led to inflicting unnecessary suffering on many men. More recently, the Covid phenomenon has been an even more dramatic case of medical overkill.
Ablin and Piana's book makes an observation that also sheds a harsh light on the Covid medical response: "Isn't cutting edge innovation that brings new medical technology to the market a good thing for health-care consumers? The answer is yes, but only if new technologies entering the market have proven benefit over the ones they replace."
That last point especially applies to Japan right now, where people are being urged to receive the next-generation mRNA innovation–the self-amplifying mRNA Covid vaccine. Thankfully, a number seem to be resisting this time."