Sign up for periodic reports and bulletins
FREE access; FREE of commercials; FREE to use
Posted July 19, 2012: by Bill Sardi
Been saying this for over a decade – surgical removal of a cancerous prostate gland is only problematic and does not increase survival. Years ago a government task force showed that watchful- waiting is preferred over treatment for prostate cancer, but the medical industry worked to abolish that agency and erase that science. Prostate cancer surgery simply makes many men impotent and incontinent.
With roughly 100,000 surgical procedures to remove a cancerous prostate gland every year, and urologists making roughly $300 million to perform the surgery, one wonders if the newly passed Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is going to cease paying for this procedure. Stipulations in the Affordable Care Act state that unproven or disproven medical technologies will no longer be reimbursed by health insurance plans.
According to the latest report, about 8 in 10 prostate operations are for early-stage cancer that would not prolong survival times or decrease the risk for death. Said a different way, 80% of prostate cancer operations are unnecessary. However, fearful men are likely to demand something be done immediately, especially the diagnoses has been freshly announced. If men wait two weeks before deciding what to do, most elect to practice watchful waiting.
Will this new report make much different in what is going on between patient and his urologist in the exam room? Not likely. The doctors’ mind set is to drum up business by performing PSA tests and biopsies, until cancer is found. Many men undergo surgery when they only have precancerous growths that they have had for decades. Most men die with but no of prostate cancer.
Surgery does not address what causes prostate cancer. Nutrients like vitamin D, resveratrol, rice bran IP6, fish oil, do. Fish oil in particular has been shown to reduce the risk for death from prostate cancer by 40%. But will fish oil get penned on the doctor’s prescription pad? Don’t count on it. — © 2012 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.
American Journal Epidemiology First published online: July 10, 2012
Although dietary fat has been associated with prostate cancer risk, the association between specific fatty acids and prostate cancer survival remains unclear. Dietary intake of 14 fatty acids was analyzed in a population-based cohort of 525 Swedish men with prostate cancer in Örebro County (1989–1994). Multivariable hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for time to prostate cancer death by quartile and per standard deviation increase in intake were estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression. Additional models examined the association by stage at diagnosis (localized: T0-T2/M0; advanced: T0-T4/M1, T3-T4/M0). Among all men, those with the highest omega-3 docosahexaenoic acid and total marine fatty acid intakes were 40% less likely to die from prostate cancer (Ptrend = 0.05 and 0.04, respectively). Among men with localized prostate cancer, hazard ratios of 2.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.93, 4.59; Ptrend = 0.03) for elevated total fat, 2.39 (95% confidence interval: 1.06, 5.38) for saturated myristic acid, and 2.88 (95% confidence interval: 1.24, 6.67) for shorter chain (C4-C10) fatty acid intakes demonstrated increased risk for disease-specific mortality for the highest quartile compared with the lowest quartile. This study suggests that high intake of total fat and certain saturated fatty acids may worsen prostate cancer survival, particularly among men with localized disease. In contrast, high marine omega-3 fatty acid intake may improve disease-specific survival for all men.
You must be logged in to post a comment.