Connect with us

Health

Prostate Cancer: Over-Testing and Over-Treatment

Published

9 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

By Bruce W. Davidson 

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.

Author

Bruce Davidson is professor of humanities at Hokusei Gakuen University in Sapporo, Japan.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Sun setting on AHS as first of four provincial health agencies, Primary Care Alberta set to launch

Published on

Primary Care Alberta, the new provincial health agency overseeing and coordinating the delivery of primary health care services, will become operational later this fall.

Alberta’s government is taking action to refocus the health care system so that every Albertan has access to a primary health care provider and timely, high-quality primary health care, no matter where they live.

Alberta’s new primary care provincial health agency, Primary Care Alberta, will create a modern, more responsive and unified health care system that prioritizes patients, empowers front-line health care professionals and helps reduce pressures on the entire health system.

The immediate priority of Primary Care Alberta is to ensure every Albertan has access to high-quality primary care services in all areas of the province, so all Albertans and their families are supported in their day-to-day health needs through every stage of life. The new primary care agency will focus on supporting integrated teams of family physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists to provide patients with the best care possible.

“Standing up Primary Care Alberta is an important milestone in refocusing the health care system to put patients first and give our front-line experts the support they need to ensure Albertans are receiving the care they deserve.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Health

Kim Simmonds, the current assistant deputy minister of strategic planning and performance at Alberta Health, will be appointed as chief executive officer of Primary Care Alberta. Simmonds brings a wealth of public and private sector experience to the role and has extensive experience working with stakeholders across the health care system. She has experience working with clinicians and understands the need for data and evidence-based decision-making when it comes to delivering primary care services to Albertans, no matter where they live.

“If primary care is to be the foundation on which the entire health system stands, every Albertan must have an ongoing connection and trusting relationship with a family doctor or health care team. They must belong to a health home where they are known and where they don’t have to tell their health story over and over again. There is much work to do in Alberta to achieve these goals, and I’m eager to get going to help make it happen.”

Kim Simmonds, incoming chief executive officer, Primary Care Alberta

Modernizing Alberta’s Primary Care System (MAPS)

In 2022, the Modernizing Alberta’s Primary Care System (MAPS) initiative was launched to recommend ways to strengthen Alberta’s primary health care system. Alberta’s government undertook extensive engagement with its primary care providers and stakeholders to develop a guide to strengthen primary health care in Alberta. The MAPS final report recommended creating a single governance structure that supports an integrated team of health care professionals with data sharing within and across sectors.

Improving the coordination and delivery of primary care was also something Alberta’s government heard during provincewide engagement sessions held earlier this year as part of efforts to engage with Albertans and health care professionals on how to refocus the health care system. This made-in-Alberta solution is the first of its kind to be established in a provincial health care system. The agency is a dedicated organization to support governance, oversight, delivery, operation and coordination, a significant step being taken to improve the quality of health care delivery in the province.

Quick facts

  • The Provincial Health Agencies Act enables the transition from one regional health authority, Alberta Health Services (AHS), to an integrated system of four sector-based provincial health agencies: primary care, acute care, continuing care, and mental health and addiction.
  • The agencies will be responsible for delivering integrated health services, ensuring Albertans receive timely access to care regardless of where they live.
  • Some of Primary Care Alberta’s longer-term priorities include:
    • Engaging physicians and providing leadership opportunities to lead their peers through the change process.
    • Incentivizing care models that improve health outcomes and patient experience.
    • Providing tools to primary care providers, such as enhancing the current Find a Doctor website and e-Referral, that benefit both providers and patients.
    • Setting standards for primary care so Albertans have consistent services.
    • Funding primary care networks that bring practitioners together to implement provincial initiatives and address regional needs.
    • Developing chronic disease care models to reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and the health care system.
  • More than 30,000 Albertans have had the opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas directly on the refocusing through in-person engagement sessions, online feedback forms and telephone townhalls.
    • In addition to public engagement sessions, dedicated engagements were held with Indigenous communities, the francophone community and other key health partners.

Related information

Continue Reading

Health

Thinking of taking a flu shot? Read this first…

Published on

From the World Council For Health

It’s not just that they’re ineffective, they also cause harm. Learn about safe alternatives such as Vitamin D, quercetin and zinc.

If you’re of a certain age or demographic and in the northern hemisphere, chances are you’re being invited or encouraged to get a flu vaccine. The claim is that flu vaccines protect you and others from coming down with flu – and that if you do get it, the symptoms will be mild. So, is this true?

Many scientists see the flu shot as an unnecessary measure. For one thing, there’s a big question over whether the flu vaccine even works, particularly for older people, for whom it is recommended. Studies show that the vaccines often do not match the circulating viruses and no significant effects on serious complications or hospitalizations have been demonstrated.

You’d think that vaccinating people against flu would lead to a reduction in deaths from flu. But figures show that this isn’t the case. In fact, even though the number of flu shots given has increased more than eightfold, the number of flu-associated deaths has remained more or less unchanged.

There’s a logical explanation, and it goes like this:

Antibodies are not enough

Flu vaccines, like any other vaccine, primarily rely on the so-called Th2 antibody response. This generates antibodies to help the body fight off the influenza virus once it enters the bloodstream. What vaccines don’t do is impact the first line of defence in the nasal mucosa. This part of the innate immune system does not use antibodies, and it is here where respiratory viruses replicate.

This is why vaccines for respiratory viruses will never prevent infection or the transmission of the disease.

The immune response to vaccinations also decreases with age, which further reduces the already weak effect of vaccination in older people. Studies bear this out. In particular, a 2012 article in the British Medical Journal quoted an independent study that looked at data from 1967 to 2012 and concluded there isn’t strong evidence showing that the flu vaccine consistently protects people. While it does offer some protection for young, healthy adults who usually don’t face serious flu complications, the researchers noted that there is not enough evidence to support its effectiveness for older adults (65 and older), who account for more than 90% of flu-related deaths.

Recent research into the efficacy of flu shots also reveals their limitations

  • In 2020, Anderson et al. showed that influenza vaccination of 60 to 70 year olds in England and Wales had no discernible positive impact on hospitalization or deaths:
  • Another study in Japan reported on 83,146 individuals aged 65 years and followed them up over six years. In 2023, the incidence of hospitalization for influenza did not differ significantly by vaccination and the claimed protective effectiveness against incidence waned quickly after four or five months.
  • Another 2020 study from Anderson and team analysed data covering 170 million episodes of care and 7.6 million deaths. Turning 65 was associated with a statistically and clinically significant increase in rate of seasonal influenza vaccination. However, no evidence indicated that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or mortality among elderly persons. The study points out that estimates were precise enough to rule out results from many previous studies.

This is not just a concern for the elderly but for all those with weakened immune systems, including those undergoing immunosuppressive treatments, or individuals with chronic health conditions. In such cases, the Th2 response may not produce enough protective antibodies to effectively combat the virus, leading to a higher risk of severe illness.

Here’s another reason to exercise caution of the flu vaccine:

Flu vaccines actually SPREAD the virus

Controlled studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) find that people who receive flu shots emit 630% more flu virus particles into the air compared to non-vaccinated people. In other words, flu vaccines spread the flu!

Physicians for Informed Consent has produced this concise summary of facts that you, your loved ones and your doctor should consider before a potential injection.

All this leads to an important next question:

If the flu shot isn’t a good idea, what is?

The flu shots’ limitations make the prevention and treatment of flu with nutritional supplements like Vitamin D, Quercetin, and Zinc more appealing and safe. These supplements not only enhance the immune response but also offer additional antiviral and anti-inflammatory benefits:

Vitamin D protects the lungs and airways – and much more besides

Studies have shown that Vitamin D supplementation can significantly reduce the risk of influenza infections by enhancing the body’s immune response. It works by modulating the expression of inflammatory cytokines and increasing macrophage function, which are essential for fighting off infections.

Moreover, Vitamin D has been found to protect the lungs and airways through the antimicrobial peptide cathelicidin, which has both antibacterial and antiviral properties. Vitamin D supplementation shows promise in reducing the risk and severity of respiratory infections, including influenza. The evidence suggests that consistent Vitamin D intake can lower the incidence of acute respiratory infections, shorten the duration of symptoms, and enhance immune response, particularly in the elderly. These benefits can translate into reduced hospitalizations and deaths due to flu, making Vitamin D a valuable component in flu prevention and management strategies.

Quercetin: a powerful antiviral and zinc’s vital wingman

Quercetin is a flavonoid found in many fruits and vegetables, known for its antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties. It has been shown to inhibit the entry and replication of viruses in lung cells, making it a potent candidate for managing respiratory infections like the flu. Quercetin also acts as a zinc ionophore, facilitating the transport of zinc into cells, which enhances its antiviral effects. Studies suggest that the co-administration of Quercetin and Vitamin C can exert a synergistic antiviral action, further boosting immune response and reducing viral replication

Zinc: helps prevent and reduce infection severity and duration

Zinc is an essential mineral that supports various cellular functions of both the innate and adaptive immune systems. It interferes with the process that certain cold viruses use to multiply, thereby reducing the severity and duration of infections. Zinc is particularly important for the recruitment and activity of neutrophil granulocytes, natural killer cells, and T cells, all of which play critical roles in the immune response. Supplementation with zinc has been supported by evidence showing its effectiveness in preventing viral infections and reducing their severity.

In summary…

The questionable efficiency and safety of the flu vaccine raises important concerns that cannot be overlooked. Alternative approaches such as supplementing vitamin D, quercetin and zinc, are one way to enhance immunity without the risks associated with traditional vaccinations.

Moreover, the potential for the production of IgG4 antibodies as a response to the vaccine illustrates a complex interaction between immunization and immune system dynamics, where the very act of repeated vaccination may inadvertently lead to a weakened response against certain influenza strains. This effect can also result in the weakening of the immune system in general to fight infections and cancer. This highlights the need for continued research and dialogue about the benefits and risks of flu vaccination versus alternative preventive strategies.

As we navigate through flu seasons, it is crucial to remain informed and consider individualized approaches to immune health. Ultimately, a well-rounded strategy that includes lifestyle choices, nutritional support, and an understanding of the science behind flu immunization could empower individuals to make informed decisions that best suit their health needs. The World Council for Health stands for a better way.

Please subscribe to World Council for Health.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

References:

1.     Berndt, Christina: ‘Experten mit den falschen Freunden’, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/staendige-impfkommission-experten-mit-den-falschen-freunden-1.271784. 49 Arbeitsgemeinschaft Influenza: ‘Was ist die AGI?’

2.     http://influenza.rki.de/Arbeitsgemeinschaft.aspx. 50 Robert-Koch-Institut: Epidemiologisches Bulletin, 14.3.2011

3.    http://www.gpk.de/downloadp/STIKO_2011_Bulletin10_110314_Schaetzung_der_Influenza_bedingten_Todesfaelle.pdf. 51 World Health Organization: »List of Members of, and Advisor to, the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency

4.     Committee concerning Influenza Pandemic (H1N1), 2009, http://www.who.int/ihr/emerg_comm_members_2009/en/index.html. 52 Jefferson, T.;

5.     Di Pietrantonj, C.; Rivetti, A.; Bawazeer, G.A.; Al-Ansary, L.A.; Ferroni, E.: ‘Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults’, in: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2010, 7., Art. No.: CD001269, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4.

6.     Wittig, Frank. Die weiße Mafia: Wie Ärzte und die Pharmaindustrie unsere Gesundheit aufs Spiel setzen, 2012Yan J, Grantham M, Pantelic J, Bueno de Mesquita PJ, Albert B, Liu F, Ehrman S, Milton DK; EMIT Consortium. Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jan 30;115(5):1081-1086. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716561115. Epub 2018 Jan 18. PMID: 29348203; PMCID: PMC5798362.

The World Council for Health (WCH) is a grassroots, people-powered, non-profit initiative based in Bath, United Kingdom that seeks to broaden public health knowledge and sense-making through science and shared wisdom.

WCH was founded by Dr Jennifer Hibberd, a pediatric dental surgeon, and Dr Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor and former consultant to the World Health Organization, in September 2021 in response to growing distrust in local, national, and global public health authorities leaving people in fear and confused regarding how to best care for themselves, their families, and their communities.

The World Council for Health has more than 200 Coalition Partners in over 50 countries around the world and is currently in the process of decentralization, having activated more than 25 WCH Country Councils.

Continue Reading

Trending

X