Health
Prostate Cancer: Over-Testing and Over-Treatment
From the Brownstone Institute
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.
Health
Selective reporting on measles outbreaks is a globalist smear campaign against Trump administration.
From LifeSiteNews
Ontario has a larger outbreak than Texas. European cases dwarf the Texas outbreak. But the World Health Organization has launched a travel advisory for the United States.
In the currently ongoing outbreak, there have been about 572 measles cases in Ontario, Canada. This is a significantly larger outbreak than the currently hyped one in Texas, which has about 422 cases. The mainstream media has almost completely ignored the Ontario outbreak – their reporting has only focused on the Texas outbreak.
Ontario’s top public health official, Dr. Kieran Moore, does not recommend mandatory vaccination and says the standard public health measures to limit the spread are working. This is a very reasonable response, yet when Sec. Kennedy says something similar; he is viciously attacked.
It is evident by the mainstream media response to the Ontario outbreak versus the Texas outbreak that this is yet another example of the liberal media/pharma machine harassing Kennedy and President Trump.
However, this reporting has an even more sinister aspect – as the media appears to have taken their lead from the World Health Organization.
The World Health Organization has launched a travel advisory for the United States. See the screenshots below (the first screenshot is from an AI summarizer at BRAVE and the second one is from the WHO website):
But what about Canada’s outbreak? Why isn’t Canada mentioned in the travel advisory? Was it an oversight? Did the WHO release a travel advisory just for Canada?
The answer is that the WHO has not put out a travel advisory for Canada, or Ontario, Canada.
In fact, the AI summarizer at BRAVE is clear that the WHO doesn’t put out travel advisories for individual countries, like Canada… The new normal is that the WHO puts out special advisories only for the United States <insert sarcasm>.
And in fact, a search on the WHO website yields not a single mention of the measles outbreak in Canada.
In fact, the WHO places the 422 measles cases in the United States on par with the earthquake in Myanmar, which may have killed up to 10,000 people, all told.
But somehow the 572 cases of measles in Canada don’t deserve a mention.
But wait – the story gets even more bizarre.
The European Region, which includes central Asia, continues to have a significantly high number of measles cases.
The WHO European Region has a population of approximately 745 million people, and had about 127,350 measles cases last year, or 1 in 5,850 people.
Yet – crickets from mainstream media on this factoid.
Why the outcry over 422 measles in Texas?
Here are some ideas:
- To reduce support for RFK Jr., Trump, and MAHA by the American people.
- To scare parents into vaccinating.
- To increase the money going to public health for vaccine stockpiling.
- To support the liberal left in their obsessive hatred of anything MAHA.
- Because the WHO put out a travel advisory.
In the meantime, the WHO has announced that, despite budgetary cuts, they have a $2.5 billion gap for 2025-2027. WHO Director General Tedros correctly blamed Trump for the deficit. However, what Tedros gets wrong is that this deficit is a well-deserved consequence of years of corruption at the WHO leading to this outcome.
This is how it is done, folks.
This is called retaliation by the World Health Organization against the Trump administration.
Another wrap-up smear in action. The deep state and the globalists are pulling out all the stops to attack Trump and Kennedy via “trumped-up” WHO travel advisories and emergency reports that are then reported on breathlessly and uncritically by mainstream media. The propaganda machine continues unabated.
Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.
COVID-19
Trump’s new NIH head fires top Fauci allies and COVID shot promoters, including Fauci’s wife
From LifeSiteNews
“During the pandemic Fauci’s bioethicist wife, Christine Grady, offered nurses a choice: Get vaccinated, or lose your job,” noted The COVID-19 History Project on X. “Yesterday, she was offered a choice: Transfer to an office in Alaska, or lose your job. What’s fair is fair. Everyone deserves a choice,” explained the COVID watchdog account.
On day one of his new job as head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya removed four powerful agency heads, including Dr. Anthony Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, and others associated with the questionable handling of the COVID-19 shots.
Grady, who had served as chief of the agency’s Department of Bioethics, and other longtime Fauci allies in top posts at the NIH involved in the development and distribution of the untested COVID shots produced by Big Pharma were offered jobs in Alaska and other remote locales far away from the NIH’s sprawling Bethesda, Maryland, complex just outside Washington, D.C.
The purge came amid massive layoffs in health-related agencies under the umbrella of Health and Human Services (HHS), now headed by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement’s founder, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long questioned vaccine safety and American medicine’s focus on treating disease rather than preventing it.
A total of about 20,000 personnel – mostly bureaucrats – or about 25 percent of the HHS workforce have been or will be handed pink slips amid Kennedy’s realignment of the agency.
MAHA critics were quick to call Tuesday’s axing of Fauci confederates as “one of the darkest days in modern scientific history” fueled by Kennedy’s desire to exact revenge on Fauci’s former trusted associates who represent the antithesis of the MAHA movement.
However, the revamping of the federal government’s side of the health industry is no more harsh than the treatment meted out by those formerly in control who, at best, suppressed, and worst, punished those who questioned their iron grip on health-industry regulations and standards.
For years, Kennedy’s critics have dismissed his quest to revamp healthcare and his questioning of the efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA jabs as anti-science, labeling him as an “anti-vaxxer” in order to suppress his messaging.
Dr. Francis Collins – whom Bhattacharya replaced as head of NIH – in an October 2020 email to Fauci condemned Bhattacharya as a “fringe epidemiologist” because he had co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticized harmful COVID lockdown policies.
“During the pandemic Fauci’s bioethicist wife, Christine Grady, offered nurses a choice: Get vaccinated, or lose your job,” noted The COVID-19 History Project on X.
“Yesterday, she was offered a choice: Transfer to an office in Alaska, or lose your job. What’s fair is fair. Everyone deserves a choice,” explained the COVID watchdog account.
“We spend 4X more than Italy on healthcare — and live 7 years less. Dead last in cancer rates. This isn’t science — it’s a system profiting off sick kids,” explained Calley Means, RFK Jr. HHS advisor during an interview with Laura Ingraham following the NIH firings.
“Firing the people who oversaw this? That’s step one,” declared Means.
Other NIH officials who were offered reassignments were Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, who succeeded Fauci as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Clifford Lane, a close Fauci ally who served as deputy director for clinical research at NIAID, and Dr. Emily Erbelding, NIAID’s microbiology and infectious diseases director.
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill
California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline
‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang
‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoCanada Continues to Miss LNG Opportunities: Why the World Needs Our LNG – and We’re Not Ready
-
International19 hours agoGermany launches first permanent foreign troop deployment since WW2
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours agoPoilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoMainstream Media Election Coverage: If the Election Was a NHL Game, the Ice Would be Constantly Tilted Up and to the Left
-
COVID-1918 hours agoMaxime Bernier slams Freedom Convoy leaders’ guilty verdict, calls Canada’s justice system ‘corrupt’
-
International1 day agoFREE MARINE LE PEN!’: Trump defends French populist against ‘lawfare’ charges
-
Health2 days ago
Selective reporting on measles outbreaks is a globalist smear campaign against Trump administration.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoMark Carney is trying to market globalism as a ‘Canadian value.’ Will it work?