Avoid Prostate Cancer Screening—Both Useless and Harmful

by Heidi Stevenson

13 July 2009

Prostate cancer strikes fear into the hearts of men. The medical establishment has fanned this fear, using it to push their profitable tests and treatments—in spite of precious little genuine information to document any significant benefit for these invasions. Now, there's finally been a look at the issue by mainstream medicine—with predictable results: Prostate cancer tests are harmful. They detect cancers that aren't there. They detect cancers that will cause no health problems. They miss cancers that are aggressive; in fact, these are the ones most likely to be missed! They result in health and life damaging treatments. They do not improve life expectancy.

There are two tests for prostate cancer, the traditional digital rectal examination (DRE) and the newer prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Of all men in the world, American men are at the greatest risk for developing this disease. Or, perhaps the medical system, which has managed to have the vast majority of men get the PSA test, is simply finding more cases. If so, it isn't doing any good.

Common Medical Wisdom

Common medical wisdom has assumed that early cancer detection means that patients have a better chance for survival. However, with very few exceptions, this has not been documented. According to the paper, "Screening for Prostate Cancer"⁽¹⁾, one of three outcomes must be realized for screening to be considered successful:

• It must reduce the risk of death from prostate cancer or
• Reduce suffering caused by prostate cancer or
• Reduce health care costs.

None of these outcomes has been clearly documented. There have been many studies that purport to show such results, but when looked at carefully, they are generally flawed, often by limiting the subjects studied. For example, studies often cite that prostate cancer mortality in the US declined with the advent of PSA testing, an apparently significant finding. However, mortality rates from prostate cancer also declined in the UK during the same time period—but there was little screening; in fact, it was discouraged. It's highly questionable whether there's any cause-and-effect between PSA testing and prostate cancer mortality.

A study comparing outcomes of men in Washington and Connecticut who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1987 and 1990 was also revealing. The Washington men were 5.2% more likely to submit to the radical treatment of prostate removal and to be treated with radiation. They were also somewhat less likely to be treated with hormones. There was virtually no difference in outcomes in terms of deaths attributed to prostate cancer. It should also be noted that the study did not include death rates from other causes. Since the treatments for prostate cancer involve life-threatening drugs and radiation, it's hard to believe that deaths blamed other causes wasn't actually higher among the aggressively tested and treated Washington men.

PSA Screening

We tend to think of PSA screening tests as pass or fail. That's how they're generally presented by doctors. In truth, they're far from that. The point at which the prostate-specific antigen level in the blood is considered positive for cancer is quite arbitrary. Further, it does not provide any indication for whether the cancer has metastasized or is aggressive.

But, it's worse than that. The cancers that are most likely to be lethal are the most aggressive ones. The standard cut-off for a doctor to tell a patient that he probably has prostate cancer is a PSA level of 4.0 nanograms per milliliter. The majority of lethal prostate cancers exist in men whose PSA levels are under the test threshold of 4.0!

Think about that for a moment. You are more likely to have aggressive and lethal prostate cancer if your doctor tells you that your test results are negative!

Prostate Cancer Testing = Scam

Most men die with—but not of—prostate cancer. Prostate cancer can be deadly; of that there is no doubt. However, the vast majority of cases are not life threatening and may never produce symptoms. The issue here is whether PSA screening, especially when done routinely, makes any sense. The evidence says it does not. If lives are not saved, yet life quality is lessened and lives are cut short as a result of routine screening, it makes no sense to let a doctor do it. The only beneficiaries are the doctors, the labs, and the pharmaceutical companies that produce the test kits.

If you're unlucky enough to be diagnosed with cancer that would have been benign—the most likely outcome, though one you'll likely never know—then you'll probably find yourself turned over to the cancer industry. You can expect to be injected with horribly toxic drugs and subjected to aggressive prostate-removal surgery, with all the risks that entails, and find your life both shortened and made less satisfactory. Such a deal!