HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

I'll drop out the ODOT discussions

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic locked
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 8/22/2013 5:37 AM (GMT 0)
I certainly hope that folks will know I never attacked anyone personally about the ODOT discussion. I can't say the same the other way towards me but that's ok. I knew it wasn't a popular decision to state my feelings about it. But so be it.

For the sake of this website I won't comment further on ODOT here. Y'all do what you want by my case has been made and overwhelming rejected. Most here do not believe in over diagnosis as existing. (Comment removed - 142)

I care about these things and that's my final word.

Please accept my apology if you were "offended" by my position. I never intended to offend anyone. In fact I don't find the discussion offensive or irrational. But I will disengage at least for now.

Peace to all...

Tony

Post Edited By Moderator (142) : 8/22/2013 12:42:38 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 8/22/2013 5:59 AM (GMT 0)
I think a case can probably be made for both sides of the argument. In the end, though, I suppose the "error on the side of life" would probably prevail.

But you are right that there can be overdiagnosis if the indicators are not serious enough to justify a biopsy, etc. Perhaps PSA readings, if not alarmingly high, should not be taken at face value and should be taken in conjunction with a previous reading to identify any velocity, etc.

In any event, I was never offended and I think it is actually a healthy discussion. It is like the value of Pi, though -- it has no resolution. LOL

Chuck
Posted 8/22/2013 10:15 AM (GMT 0)
That is unfortunate Tony. Although I have not commented in the recent threads I have followed them closely. I have been disappointed to see that many who have been treated cannot put that aside and rationally and unemotionally examine a different approach. Maybe the thought that " perhaps I was too hasty" is unbearable. If you and others withdraw then only the one view will prevail.

Post Edited (BillyMac) : 8/22/2013 6:07:38 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 8/22/2013 10:38 AM (GMT 0)
Tony - you're good - we're good. No harm no foul.

You just keep posting what you want, when you want.
Posted 8/22/2013 10:59 AM (GMT 0)
Tony, I sense your frustration. I can just say that you clearly did not personally attack anyone during the various debates and I see no reason that anyone should be offended. Those comments from others that were overly offensive towards you I tried to edit before I went out to dinner last night. For the most part the discussion was hot but reasonably civil.

This is an emotional topic for lots of folks...how's that for an understatement! However, I see no reason you should drop out of any discussions. It's true that, at least on this site, your opinion is in the minority. However, being a minority position does not mean that it is wrong or should not be heard. What Steve said...

Jim
Posted 8/22/2013 11:07 AM (GMT 0)
Tony, don't apologize for standing your ground. I see the case for over treatment. I honestly do, but less informed folks might take that to an extreme that could prove unwise.

The discussion needs to continue.

FWIW, I haven't read anything yet that offended me. I've seen lots of personal attacks on Teh Intarwebz. It's mostly keyboard bloviation when people get their ire up over a comment.

If I disagree with a position, I'll come right out and say it, but I try not to be personally offensive about it. There are ALWAYS 2 sides to an issue. It's not all or nothin'.

We be jammin'.
Posted 8/22/2013 12:18 PM (GMT 0)
Davidg, this whole post was intended to be inflammatory/pick a fight. I deleted it. Enough please.

Jim

Post Edited By Moderator (Tudpock18) : 8/22/2013 6:21:25 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 8/22/2013 1:15 PM (GMT 0)
Davidg, let's please have some back and forth email discussions.

Thanks,

Jim
Posted 8/22/2013 1:20 PM (GMT 0)
Tud - you are not being a good moderator.

Tony said:

"Most here do not believe in over diagnosis as existing. (I removed a comment from the original post, so also here - 142) "

I don't accept that statement and find it offensive and one that requires clarification. You will not let me post the following which I will continue to post until you ban me if this is how you choose to run the board.

"Tony - Saying that most men here do not care if other men are over treated is in fact a personal attack on the character and morals of most men here. How can you not see that? It's comments like that that I find offensive. Perhaps you can see my position on that."

Please stop playing God and let Tony answer the question.

Post Edited By Moderator (142) : 8/22/2013 12:45:37 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 8/22/2013 1:24 PM (GMT 0)
Davidg, thank you for rephrasing your question to Tony. And, as always, I'm happy to accept constructive criticism about my moderating.

Jim
Posted 8/22/2013 1:28 PM (GMT 0)
Tony - first off if I personally attacked/offended you than I apologize. I will still stand my ground however, as you will as well. Let's just call it the "Immovable Object" and the "Unstoppable Force" and leave it at that!

I do have to say that IMHO you were very much out of line with your comment "(I removed this comment from the original post, so also here - 142)"

Now THAT was a completely unnaceptable comment, and no matter how p!$$&d off you are that others aren't agreeing with you - that was uncalled for. Surely you can see that, can't you?

Post Edited By Moderator (142) : 8/22/2013 12:46:27 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 8/22/2013 1:32 PM (GMT 0)
Tony, I'm trying to understand why you would bail out of these discussions, but I'm having a hard time comprehending.

I've read all your comments here, and I also have read your blog on more than one occasion, and I have a lot of respect for you as a man and as a cancer survivor.

But, why would a prostate cancer advocate bail out of a discussion because some folks disagree with some of his positions?  Isn't the role of an advocate to represent ALL prostate cancer survivors?  I would think it would be important to an advocate to immerse himself in the various opinions (even the (possibly) wrong ones) that are current in the prostate cancer community.

I indirectly mentioned a while ago that I would really like to see a thread explaining exactly what the role of a prostate cancer advocate involves.  Clearly, it's not an elected position, so whom does an advocate represent?  How does one become an advocate?  What does an advocate do at AUA meetings, or ASCO meetings, or other meetings of that sort?  Who pays his travel expenses?  Many questions about what sounds like an interesting role in life.

That you would choose to avoid these discussions is disturbing to me.  It's also disturbing to me if you're being personally "attacked," though I honestly have never done that myself, nor have I seen others doing it. 

Let's face it, the definition of "overtreatment" offered in a separate thread is Orwellian at best and is bound to disturb people who think language has consequences.  Tall Allen gave the definition as "Overdiagnosis is defined as the detection of a prostate cancer that would have remained undetected during life in the absence of screening." 

 

Speaking as someone with nearly a Ph.D. in English, that's some of the most convoluted language I've seen recently.  It's also illogical.  Of course people react to something like that.  Just consider:  if a cardiac stress test shows a problem in my heart, but I ignore the doctor's advice for treatment and go on to live to "natural death," such a definition would be called "overdiagnosis," even though it accurately detected a physical problem.  That's ridiculous.

I hope you'll stay.  Can't imagine why you'd bow out.  But, of course, it's your call.

 

Posted 8/22/2013 1:52 PM (GMT 0)

A Yooper said...


I do have to say that IMHO you were very much out of line with your comment "And many here do not care if a patient is over treated."

I'm willing to chalk it up to frustration and let him further explain it, but I'm not too worked up over it. If we didn't care, we wouldn't even be participating in these discussions.

I see plenty of mischaracterization of opposing viewpoints in internet discussions. It'll blow over.
Posted 8/22/2013 1:54 PM (GMT 0)
Tony withdrew from the conversation for the wrong reason.

Fact is the threads have run their course. People have expressed valid points and counter points. I can clearly see both sides have merit.

It appears no one is going to change their oopinion, as all are dug in on what is an emotional issue that will not be solved with logic.

Finis, until the disussion surfaces again in future.

LupronJim
Posted 8/22/2013 2:05 PM (GMT 0)
Tony - when did you ever back away from a good fight? I for one, have never felt "offended" by anything you said. And I have not ever flamed you for anything you ever said.

You need to stand by what you believe, you always have in the past. And I respect that attribute in a person's character.

I think in this thread, perhaps because of personal frustration, you overstated a particular point.

It's totally unfair, to say the majority here don't care if a person is over treated. That's putting words into people's mouth, unlike you.

It's fairer to say that most here acknowledge that OT does take place. But few care to define it, and fewer can offer any physical steps to curb it.

On the OD side, that's been a much harder sell for you. Part of your problem with that, is in connecting it to OT. Many see OD as a possibility, but not willing to link it to OT.

Plus, you are preaching to the choir here. Almost everyone here, has already had the benefit of screening and diagnosis, and the majority have had the benefit of treatment(s).

Your message would be more "sellable" if you trying to reach men prior to diagnosis, or early after diagnosis, but not to the mindset of people like we here at HW PC.

But if you believe in your heart what you are trying to teach now, then so be it, follow your conviction on it. You don't need either our approval or permission to do so.

Or, if there is any inner doubt deep inside your mind, you know, the private part of your thinking, then perhaps you need to examine and reflect the whole subject of ODOT, and resolve that doubt, if it exists.

No one is against you here, you are like a "founding father" here, and people respect that. But you should appreciate the passion shown by members here in refuting what they consider to be unsound advice. However, no one has the right to call you names or flame you in the context of this forum.

Finally, perhaps its time for everyone to take a break on the whole ODOT debate. Yes, I believe in the "big tent " approach, but this subject has been on the front burner for months here, and I think you would have to admit, that few, if any one's opinions have been changed. Might best fall in that category of "agreeing to disagree". Starting new threads on this subject probably won't help, unless new information, data, or solutions can be brought forward for discussion.

David in SC
Posted 8/22/2013 2:08 PM (GMT 0)
davidg -

I don't understand how you can keep flaming moderators here with immunity out in the open?

That puts you in violation of the rules of the forum.

Tud is a great moderator, you are fortunate he has been showing great patience with some of what you post and with you calling him down in public.

You owe him an open apology, since you chose to flame him in public.

david in sc
Posted 8/22/2013 2:08 PM (GMT 0)
I hear ya’, brother.

(This entire paragraph takes shots at members, so I'me deleting it as flaming - 142)

But for now, I'm with you...

Peace.

Post Edited By Moderator (142) : 8/22/2013 12:49:49 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 8/22/2013 2:11 PM (GMT 0)
The only personal attack made on this thread was made by Tony. It was a very offensive thing to say. That is a fact.

My question to Tony over that statement was a fair and legitimate question. Deleting it wa snot good moderating in my opinion. Not noticing it and admitting it (you Purg) is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.
Posted 8/22/2013 2:24 PM (GMT 0)
You know the rules, davidg, if you have a problem with any moderator, you take it off line via e-mail or by phone.

david in sc

9. Be respectful of moderators in both the forums and any private communications.
Posted 8/22/2013 2:29 PM (GMT 0)
phone? I'm 43, we text and do so in symbols.

Thanks for your concern, David. Still waiting for your email response about that invisible thing you accused me off last week. I trust you got my email with my question. I'll be checking my inbox for your reply.
Posted 8/22/2013 2:51 PM (GMT 0)
Have no idea of what you are talking about, got no e-mail from you. And what question are you referring to? I don't recall not answering anything you ever asked of me. I love how you always use the "age" card, not only in 99% of your posts, but even on something simple like this. People even 15 years old actually still make phone calls. I found that an amusing remark. I may be 61 years old, but have been dealing with high tech IT stuff since 1980. How old were you in 1980 again?

david in sc
Posted 8/22/2013 2:51 PM (GMT 0)
Tony, please don't drop out of the ODOT discussions. You -- along with Casey59, Tall Allen and John T -- are to willing back up your position with data on the latest medical and scientific findings on this disease. On the other hand ralfinaz also supports his position with data and I respect his view. (comment removed, general flaming - 142)

Post Edited By Moderator (142) : 8/22/2013 12:51:25 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 8/22/2013 3:06 PM (GMT 0)
I decided to not even read the ODOT discussions because I knew it would break down into weirdness and not add an value to my life.

Right now I am looking through the forum for newcomers that need our help.

really, people. chill out.
Posted 8/22/2013 3:18 PM (GMT 0)
The use of "many" and "some" in some posts in this thread indirectly offends members, and as I see it is intentional. I also am concerned with the open disrespect for moderators. No, we don't get special treatment, but when acting as a mod, there is a rule, already cited.

This thread, overall, breaks several rules.

So it is locked. Not because of the OP or the subject, just everything that followed.

I have edited a number of the posts, mostly as overly generic, but pointedly intended for certain individuals, comments that if aimed at a named member would be flaming, so aimed at all, still flaming.

Post Edited (142) : 8/22/2013 12:53:59 PM (GMT-6)

✚ New Topic locked