(2)New Book: Let Sleeping Dogs Lie?: what men should know before having a prostate cancer test (2)

In another thread, strangely LOCKED because someone decides when discussion stops, we "Investigated" a new booklet which basically said that thirty years ago 4% of men died of PCa and today, the same number die, despite all the treatment being delivered at great expense to the Public and Private Purse.
www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=1951277

The suggestion was made by the writers (working for the NSW Govt. Health Department ??? ) that PSA testing was not worth the Community Expense, because statistics don't lie and no more men are DIE today than 30 years ago..
They make no mention of how many men are SAVED

The booklet was pushed widely on the Internet and on Radio and TV, making one suspicious that there was a reason for the push.


Interestingly, on another web-site , I found reference to some interesting links...

www.flhw.org/

PSA Tests Cut Risk of Prostate Cancer Spreading to the Body Oct 2010
zerocancer.org/news/releases/psa-tests-cut-risk-of-prostate-cancer-spreading-to-the-body/

Prevention Task Force Cancels Nov. Meeting; Would Have Included Prostate Screening Vote
zerocancer.org/news/clippings/prevention-task-force-cancels-nov-meeting/

Now, I am not one for paranoia, nor thinking that governments conspire to control us, but it is clear that both the Australian and the US Governments have PSA testing on their "Cost Reductions" agenda..

Whilst there might be a statistical basis for saying the same percentage of men are dieing of PCa in 2010, it is perfectly obvious that a great many are being saved from PCa, and stopped from dieing, in 2010 and future years, simply because of the use of an initial PSA test.

We ALL need to be vigilant of any Government attempts to limit public access to PSA testing.. Governments need to know that WE will march in the streets if they try us on. Our women will also be there because they will know that breast-Screening will be the next 'cost-reduction' item on the health budget..

I am perfectly sure that most Governments would be happy to think that we men and women with CANCER would become simple 'financial Collateral Damage' and that it would enhance mankind to have us all die off, 'cause we all know that there is a degree of genetics in our conditions.
.
.
A great many are being spared today, of PCa Mets, by the humble PSA test, inconclusive as it might be.

Thanks, Tony for clearing that up..
One wonders why anyone would ever get 'Hostile' over such an issue.

Interestingly, I know of not one man who has been 'processed' to the RP stage, who thinks he did the wrong thing. In fact I know men who are angry that their advisers encouraged then to wallow in the "Watchful-Waiting" stuff, until they could wait No-Longer, and finally undertook an RRP 'just in the nick of time'..
In fact they will NEVER know if that delay has allowed CTC's to find new homes.

[Quote]This is why becoming smart now is critical. There will be nothing worse that making quick decisions to do something today that didn't need to be done

I think this statement sums it up beautifully.. All men need to know the facts and be smart about decisions.. To be honest, I despair as I read so many stories on here, that you wonder "What if they had jumped sooner" ?

If we can't talk about the politics of the disease, here, on this forum, then there is something VERY wrong.
So whilst I can understand a desire for decorum from a forum principally intended for support and empathy for scared and not-so-scared cancer sufferers, we surely must be able to talk about the mechanics and the processes, and the administration of the disease.

I note that I now have Spelling-Checking -- Thanks heaps for activating it..
It does pick up so many silly typos..
.
.

Well, didn't take long this time for things to go south. I deleted several responses, for Rules violation- flaming, arguing and just being disagreeable, etc, etc. This just goes to prove what I said and confirm the necessity of having rules about certain things. My decision to lock the other thread was confirmed here. Guys, be nice, agree to disagree, etc. come on its nearly Christmas, ya know..

There's room for eveyone at the table, so let's both sides not be so provocative..Or this one will be locked also..

Geez, now the line between enforcing the rules (which I strongly support) and random censorship has been crossed in my opinion. What happened to Billy's answers? It wasn't remotely a flame. What happened to mine, when I was suggesting to the party in concern here, that HW was not the place for politics or religion? I was helping you guys by trying to douse a flame in progress.

Enforce the rules, yes, but don't throw the good out with the bad, seen that too many times.

David in SC

David/BillyMac

If/when I delete an offending post, any replies to it stands out unanchored and making little sense, unless you managed to read the post you/they are responding to. So it's making more sense to start fresh. Also, if I drop the offending post, I must drop the replies and rebuttals to it, to keep things even. Sometimes I may go too deep into it, if this is the case, then I'm sorry. If I throw out the bad, and l;eave in the (perceived) good, then I am just as well as taking sides in the argument. It has to cut both ways. I could have taken the time to cut out little words and phrases of you guys posts, but I decided to reset the clock back, so it would make sense to anyone who read it later.

It's easy to throw the word censorship around , but much harder to try to maintain the forum's purpose of support and info. without taking sides or falling into the same trap as those who want to argue or protest. I do not censor for the sake of deleting stuff I disagree with, I do not censor for the sake of providing anyone with a platform. I do delete and edit to keep threads and posts within the rules.

A moderator telling someone this isn't the forum for politics or religion is one thing, another member telling it during a flame fest is just further provocation. Can you tell I am having a really cranky day? I'm gonna go drink my hot cocoa and watch the snow fall.

142,
if I deleted non-offensive stuff, I apologize, seriously. I have found that when a flame war is lurking it is usually best to follow Barney Fife's advice and "nip it in the bud" If I nipped too much, sorry.

To All Involved:
Once hostilities break out, it is best to go back to the time, if there was one, before it started. That way neither side can say the moderators are taking sides or being unfair. Both sides can say we are unfair, but that's alright, that evens out. See, that's why these certain subjects are poison. It just keeps coming back in new threads. I bet we see it reappear again, maybe with the same set of characters, maybe with different ones. Sometimes, like now, we even manage to offend all involved and bystanders too, so that's when the lock function is helpful.

Seriously, all you guys, I take no enjoyment in doing this stuff, and I consider it a failure on my part when one of these things spiral out of control while I trying to correct it. In perfect-land, we all get along famously, agree with everything each other thinks or says, and sing folks songs around the campfire each evening as the sun sets on another perfect day. Yeah, right....

Now that I think about it, just locking threads are probably less problems for us moderators ( and the other uninvolved folks) than trying to referree with edits and deletions.

Purg said: "Enforce the rules, yes, but don't throw the good out with the bad, seen that too many times."

I agree with you, Purg, has happened to me a lot, just not worth trying to help.

The moderators are doing a good job under the circumstances, but vague rules inevitably lead to arbitrary enforcement, even with the very best of intentions.

Happy holidays to all!

Zen9