This article is why the American Cancer Society will never get another dime from me in my lifetime

TC-LasVegas:

I think you made the correct decision as Forum Moderator in deleting the comment which I objected to earlier.

It baffles me, however, as to why you left my post that quotes the comment! So I deleted the post myself.

Zen9

Post Edited (Zen9) : 10/21/2009 3:15:03 PM (GMT-6)

Zen, and Brad,
Thanks guys. I thought about it Zen. It is a tough call to edit anyone as a moderator. You guys are my friends and fellow combatants of cancer.

Tony

It was either you or me. I was going to post it when I noticed you already had. It is very on topic to a prostate cancer group...

Tony

These are literally life-and-death issues. People have strong opinions and are not going to back down when someone (or an entire horde of posters) disagrees. That's OK, as long as we help TC-LasVegas out by trying to keep it civil.

Let's face it - many people on this board are alive today because we are tough SOB's!

Zen9

I think we can agree that some cancers kill and some don't. Additionally, I think we agree that we can't determine when one has cancer if it is one that will kill or not. I say get tested then you can make a decision that is best for you. My concern is that we are moving closer to a day when someone else will make that decision for us.

Sorry to hear that, Jefnef.

Been dealing with a lot of stricture problems myself since surgery, but instead of incontinence, mine causes painful blockages

David in SC

The issue of whether or not to screen is based on a faulty use of mathematics. The staistics tell us something about the population in general and nothing whatsoever about any individual. While it may be true that increased screening since the advent of the PSA test has not led to an equivalent decrease in advanced cases, the fact is that I was screened and I no longer have prostate cancer.

I don't give a rip what the studies say either pro or con because the conclusions they reach either pro or con have nothing to do with me - or you - or any other individual out there. I suvived prostate cancer and lung cancer for one and only one reason: early detection and aggressive treatment.

Jim

llfeguyd,
It wasn't something I was happy about editing. You have in every other post I have read from you been a very strong core supporter here. While I respect your feelings about the post, left or right wing politics did not matter to me when I edited your comment directed at another member. And your last post stands because you are not singling out a member. I did not edit his post because he did not flame you personally. But if we are going to have an argument in the forum because of politics we are left with doing the best we can as moderators to curb it as it is against the rules.

You were here when I got here and I remember your caring love and support you gave me and so many others. I won't ever forget how wonderful it was to meet you and the others when I came here.

Tony

I have my own story about ACS. Last year as I was organizing one of my charity events I invited them to come out and be a part of it. They politely invited me to the local office and told me that they would participate if I gave them control of the event. I obviously declined and still had several successful events without them. Matter of fact I am hosting a Christian Cancer support group in a couple weeks without them.
I am polite basher aren't I?

thanks for the post
Dale

Well said Tud,
I should have added another bullet item:
5> If doctors won't trust us with the information we get from screening, how can we trust them?

With this announcement, I feel that Brawley's approach is similar to Jack Nicholson's comment in his role in "A Few Good Men" : "You can't handle the truth"...

Tony

Personally, I found very little to disagree with in this article.   Here are many of the quotes (in the order in which they were found) which I agree with, with my comments added after the quote:   ·          “…certain…cancers can come with a real risk of overtreating many small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly”   Agreed, on both points.   One of our responders, Jefnet, has self-identified as one of those overtreated...I'm very sorry to hear, and I'm sure you hope this situation improves for others in the future.    ·          The ACS “…does not advocate testing for all men.”   I don’t either.   Here’s a couple of realistic scenarios.   An 85-year old with congestive heart failure probably and no prior prostate problems would be one example of a man no longer needing testing.   Nowhere does the ACS imply (advocate) that a 50-year old with a family history shouldn’t be tested.   Anybody disagree with these? ·          “…the researchers and others say, they do not think all screening will — or should — go away.”   Agreed.   It seems like some readers have over-reacted, by implying that this article supports elimination of screening as an early detection tool.   It simply doesn’t say that.  I read this more as a "call to action" to support additional research to improve the accuracy of screening. ·          “Dr. Begg said. ‘The fact that population screening is no panacea does not mean that it is useless.’”   Agreed.   It is very useful, and important, and we should not stop using it.   It is not a panacea.   Men do get over-diagnosed & over-treated.  Researchers need to continue to work on developing improved screening techniques.   See final bullet, below. ·          “They are finding cancers that … would never spread and kill or even be noticed if left alone. That has led to a huge increase in cancer diagnoses because, without screening, those innocuous cancers would go undetected.”   Agreed.   This is widely understood and well documented in the medical body of knowledge.   This is the very nature of early detection, and the current imprecise nature of it.   As the bullet above said, “population screening is no panacea.”   ·          “Dr. Brawley said. ‘And we never sat back and actually thought, ‘Are we treating the cancers that need to be treated?’’ ”     That’s a great question, aimed at reducing those who are overtreated.   If 100 men per year are overtreated out of the 200,000 diagnosed in the US, that is a shame but an unfortunate reality with today’s early detection maturity.   We need to continue to push research for better detection that weeds-out those not needing treatment from those that do.   See final bullet. ·          “But finding those insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced…”    Agreed.   The PSA-era numbers support this.  Known fact.  ·          Dr. Esserman hopes that as research continues on how to advance beyond screening, distinguishing innocuous tumors from dangerous ones, people will be more realistic about what screening can do.   Agreed, and amen.   There are some new tools out there making headway into this problem.   For example, look up “Prostate Px”...not promoting this, but it does appear to be a small step forward.   I think that as my son grows into adulthood, genetic testing for PC will become a more significant factor in “ distinguishing innocuous tumors from dangerous ones ”.     If someone here is absolutely resolute in their belief that nobody, absolutely nobody, is being “overtreated,” then I could see how you would disagree with these bullets.   But you would be somewhat out on a limb because overwhelmingly the medical body of knowledge concurs that there is some overtreatment…with ongoing debate among the professionals as to how much treatment is too much treatment (overtreatment).   I haven't heard ANYBODY say that early detection is NOT an incredibly important and valuable tool, but our research professionals should continue to work towards elimination of overdetection that occurs with today’s current state of technology.

Casey I absolutely agree throughout this thread that over treatment for cancer is real. I don't agree that that stopping the search for it is the answer. By limiting screening only to those with high risk you work on the premise that everyone who is high risk knows they are high risk. My case is the perfect example. I was 44 at diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer. I had no risk factors against me at the time. As it turns out, my father now knows he needs biopsy and is likely the gene donar. So I was high risk but did not know it. I should have been screened at age 40.

It makes better sense to screen and educate. As I wrote yesterday on the Infolink, it is in the Mission Statement of the American Cancer Society, to provide education with it's capital. So when have you seen them educate prostate cancer patients? The fact is that they're operating expenses that take up more than 2/3 of the donated moneys, and 80% of what is leftover is used for 3 cancers ~ Breast, Colon, and Lung. While on the other hand, the Prostate Cancer Foundation uses less that a third for operating expenses and 100% of it's remaining fund go directly to prostate cancer research. They do not subscribe to these changes by the ACS.

There are some excellent points made by the ACS article. Patients do always make great decisions after diagnosis ~ namely because they do not always understand that not all cancer is lethal. So the ACS fix? seems like "Don't tell them they have cancer. We don't trust patients with that information."

I would prefer they reread their mission statement and put more emphasis on education.

PS there's more coming on this subject. Last night the ACS released a press release restating their position as it pertains to breast cancer. They stood to lose a lot of donations from that arena and I am certain the phone was ringing yesterday.

Tony