According to the researcher who discovered prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA screening for the general population is a terrible idea; the false positive rate is 78%! This is information that all men should have access to!!
Conditions Expert Dr. Otis Brawley Chief Medical Officer,
American Cancer Society
Dear Charles,
Prostate specific antigen is a blood test that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for following the response to treatment and progression of diagnosed prostate cancer. It is also approved for diagnostic use in men who have symptoms that might be prostate cancer. Ironically, it is most commonly used to screen asymptomatic men for prostate cancer. It is not FDA-approved for screening. Its use as a screening test has been the subject of some controversy for nearly 20 years.
Part of the controversy was no study had shown that prostate cancer screening saved lives until last year. It clearly diagnosed a lot of cancer, and many experts thought it saved lives, but this was not certain. Two long-term clinical trials were published in the spring of 2009. One showed that screening does reduce the risk of prostate cancer death by 20 percent after about 10 years of follow-up. The second study did not verify this finding. Both studies did show that screening diagnosed a lot of men, who even though they had prostate cancer, it was a disease that was not a threat to their life. Without screening, these men would never have been bothered by the disease. The study that showed a lifesaving benefit, also showed that 48 men had to be treated for prostate cancer to save one life. Treatment for prostate cancer can have significant side effects, including include urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction and even death.
In response to these trials, the American Urological Association, the European Association of Urology and the American Cancer Society (for which I work) have all issued statements recommending that men be informed of and understand the complexities of screening which include the known risks and the potential for benefit before they undertake screening. Men really should have a good conversation with a physician who understands the issues and then make a decision for themselves about screening. Most professional organizations discourage mass screening as the necessary teaching and understanding cannot be assured.
Some of the risks of prostate screening include the false positive rate. The false positive rate is the number of men with an abnormal PSA, who do not have cancer. For some years a cutoff of 4.0 ng/mL was used. A prostate biopsy was done on men with a PSA greater than 4.0. In a large case series 7.6 percent of men over age 50 had a PSA over 4.0 and 25 percent of men with a PSA over 4.0 had prostate cancer.
Recent studies have shown that a large number of men have prostate cancer even though they have a PSA less than four. Indeed, in one study in which men with PSAs less than four were biopsied anyway, 15 percent had prostate cancer. Even when we consider a normal PSA as being 2.5 ng/mL, a significant proportion of cancers will be missed. We desperately need a better test to find the disease.
In a large long-term study of "normal risk" American men over 55 years of age, 28 percent were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Half were diagnosed because of an abnormal screening test over a seven-year period. Half were diagnosed by biopsy after having a normal screening test annually for seven years. An abnormal screening test in this study was considered a PSA over 4.0, a rise in PSA of 1.0 ng/mL in one year, or an abnormal digital examination of the prostate. In addition to the PSA level at a blood draw, change in PSA over time and digital examination of the prostate are commonly used in prostate screening.
This study demonstrates that we also need a test that can tell us the cancers that need to be treated because they are a risk to the man's health and those that need to be observed. In the study in which 28 percent of men were diagnosed with prostate cancer (half due to an abnormal screen). Scientists estimate that only 3 percent of these men would have died of prostate cancer. There is not a good test to figure out who needs to be cured and who did not need to be cured.
There are several online sources for more information and decision tools to help men decide if they want to be screened for prostate cancer. In addition to those linked above, Informed Health Choice can help you decide whether to have a PSA test.
PHILADELPHIA -- Cancer screening tests can frequently produce false positive outcomes that may result not only in anxiety but also additional economic costs as well, according to research conducted by scientists at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Mich., and published in the December issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
Among 1,087 individuals participating in a cancer screening trial who received a battery of tests for prostate, ovarian, colorectal and lung cancer, 43 percent had at least one false positive test result, according to Jennifer Elston Lafata, Ph.D., director of the Center for Health Services Research at the Henry Ford Health System and the lead author on the study.
"As new cancer screening tests are developed it is important to consider not only their potential clinical benefits, but also their potential for adverse effects," said Lafata, director of the Center for Health Services Research at the Henry Ford Health System. "One such adverse effect is the medical care costs associated with false positive cancer screening test results. Although such costs are often overlooked, we've shown they can be quite substantial."
Specifically, men who incurred a false positive result for either prostate, lung or colorectal cancer averaged $1,171 in additional medical care expenditures compared to men with all negative screens. More than half, 51 percent, of the men in the study had at least one false positive test.
For women, 36 percent had false positive screening results. Women with a false positive screen for ovarian, colorectal or lung cancer experienced $1,024 more in follow-up medical care expenses compared to women with all negative results.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and is part of a larger trial of the effectiveness of screening for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancers.
"The results of this smaller study add to the growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of understanding not only the likely benefits of cancer screening, but also how the accuracy of screening tests impacts patients and medical care expenditures, and thus the overall cost-effectiveness of different screening alternatives," Lafata said.
"Although the clinical evidence for the use of these and many other new screening tests is still being developed, many such screening tests are already widely used in practice thereby resulting in what can be substantial additional medical care costs without known benefits."
Henry Ford Medical Group researchers who collaborated with Lafata in the study included Janine Simpkins, M.A., Lois Lamerato, Ph.D., Laila Poisson, M.S., George Divine, Ph.D., and Christine Cole Johnson, Ph.D.
###
Founded in 1907, the American Association for Cancer Research is a professional society of more than 24,000 laboratory, translational, and clinical scientists engaged in all areas of cancer research in the United States and in more than 60 other countries. AACR's mission is to accelerate the prevention and cure of cancer through research, education, communication, and advocacy. Its principal activities include the publication of five major peer-reviewed scientific journals: Cancer Research; Clinical Cancer Research; Molecular Cancer Therapeutics; Molecular Cancer Research; and Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. AACR's Annual Meetings attract more than 15,000 participants who share new and significant discoveries in the cancer field. Specialty meetings, held throughout the year, focus on the latest developments in all areas of cancer research.
Story Source:
The above post is reprinted from materials provided by American Association For Cancer Research. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Cite This Page:
http://news.cancerconnect.com/false-positive-results-are-common-with-cancer-screening/
The risk of obtaining a false-positive result from screening for prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer is high and becomes cumulatively higher with ongoing screening—after 14 screening tests, the cumulative risk of a false-positive is 60.4% for men and 48.8% for women, according to the results of a study published in the Annals of Family Medicine.[1]
Cancer screening has become an important component of preventive care because cancer is most treatable when caught in the early stages of development. In many instances, screening has been shown to reduce mortality from cancer; for example, regular screening with Pap smear has significantly reduced the death rate from cervical cancer in the United States. However, it is unclear whether screening for other types of cancer reduces the mortality rates, as evidence indicates that some slow-growing cancers are being overdiagnosed; in such cases patients would often die of other causes before the cancer started causing symptoms. As a result, there is some controversy over the frequency and interval of cancer screening.
The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial is a randomized, controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening on disease-specific mortality. The study included 68,436 patients aged 55 to 74 who were randomized to receive screening or usual care. Participants received up to 14 screening tests over the course of three years. For women, the tests included vaginal ultrasounds, chest X-rays, sigmoidoscopies to examine the colon, and measurement of an ovarian cancer marker called CA-125. Men underwent chest X-rays, digital rectal examination, sigmoidoscopy, and measurement of a prostate cancer marker called PSA.
After four screening tests, the cumulative risk of a false-positive result was 36.7% for men and 26.2% for women. After 14 tests, the cumulative risk for a false-positive result jumped to 60.4% for men and 48.8% for women. Furthermore, the cumulative risk of undergoing an unnecessary invasive biopsy procedure based on the results of a false-positive screening test was 28.5% for men and 22.1% for women.
The high rate of false-positives does not mean that all screening is "bad"; however, it indicates one of the risks of consistent, long-term screening. It is important to understand both the risks and benefits of screening and to make informed choices about preventive care.
Reference:
[1] Croswell JM, Kramer BS, Kreimer AR, et al. Cumulative incidence of false-positive results in repeated, multimodal cancer screening. Annals of Family Medicine. 2009; 7: 212-222.
Copyright © 2015 CancerConnect. All Rights Reserved.
| Subject: | Multi-D News Fwd: ARE FIRES SET INTENTIONALLY? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:21:10 -0400 |
| From: | Peter.Renee Mazza <rivierapizza@yahoo.ca> |
Warning! Article is "inflammatory" in content...
Sunday, August 23, 2015
UN Seen Starting Fires in North Central Washington
Friday, August 21, 2015
I just received a report from an eye witness that watched a White Colored UN Helicopter land on a mountain near Republic Washington and 2 men got out and started a brush fire.
This eye witness (Infantry Veteran) also sighted another odd looking aircraft fire a light beam into the woods and a forest fire erupted shortly afterwards.
These reports are spot on when it comes to location of the fires and are identical to reports of other fires starting across Washington State I have received.
Basically: These fires are being started by US and UN aircraft.
Washington State is under attack by the United Nations and United States Corporation and since the US Nationals Forests currently belong to the government of China, they are technically AT WAR with China and thus (According to the original and 2nd treaties signed) at war with the entire "BRICS Set Of Nations."
Please remember that the UN Lucifer Trust folks stated several times in the last two months they intend to "Turn up the Heat."
I have a personal friend who makes a very inexpensive Non-Toxic Biodegradable product that you can spray on either grass or trees that prevents them from burning and he was told to "Stay The HELL Away From Us:" by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Procurement Officer.
They want you dead.
One last note - I studied Fire Weather Behavior at UC Berkeley and fought fires in Forestry for 7 years with my last assignment as the Commander of an Army Reserve Fire Camp.
Until about three years ago, ALL fire weather was completely predictable.
With all the spraying by the 60th Air wing out of Fairchild Air Force Base, the 9/10th Air wing out of Omaha and Evergreen Aviation, the fires will now get very hot very fast and there is little prospect for rain.
If the Governor of Washington had any guts, he would shoot down the planes starting the fires, buy the product to stop the fires, and force down the jets spraying chemicals to block the rain.
If he had any guts - and was not a flaming coward.
(((Please Pray (Visualize) that those burning up Washington State are destroyed immediately)))
--------------------------------------
The News You Need
Dr. William B. Mount
PS - It is hard to write with the number of jets flying in and out of McCord Air Force Base right now -
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
An open letter to the citizens, politicians, and regulators of the UK and the rest of the EU about the hazards of genetically modified crops
We are writing as concerned American citizens to share with you our experience of genetically modified (GM) crops and the resulting damage to our agricultural system and adulteration of our food supply.
In our country, GM crops account for about half of harvested cropland. Around 94% of the soy, 93% of corn (maize) and 96% of cotton grown is GM.1
The UK and the rest of the EU have yet to adopt GM crops in the way that we have, but you are currently under tremendous pressure from governments, biotech lobbyists, and large corporations to adopt what we now regard as a failing agricultural technology.
Polls consistently show that 72% of Americans do not want to eat GM foods and over 90% of Americans believe GM foods should be labeled.2 In spite of this massive public mandate, efforts to get our federal3 and state4 governments to better regulate, or simply label, GMOs are being undermined by large biotech and food corporations with unlimited budgets5 and undue influence.
As you consider your options, we'd like to share with you what nearly two decades of GM crops in the United States has brought us. We believe our experience serves as a warning for what will happen in your countries should you follow us down this road.
GM crops were released onto the market with a promise that they would consistently increase yields and decrease pesticide use. They have done neither.6 In fact, according to a recent US government report yields from GM crops can be lower than their non-GM equivalents.7
Farmers were told that GM crops would yield bigger profits too. The reality, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, is different.8 Profitability is highly variable, while the cost of growing these crops has spiraled.9 GM seeds cannot legally be saved for replanting, which means farmers must buy new seeds each year. Biotech companies control the price of seeds, which cost farmers 3-6 times more than conventional seeds.10 This, combined with the huge chemical inputs they require, means GM crops have proved more costly to grow than conventional crops. Because of the disproportionate emphasis on GM crops, conventional seed varieties are no longer widely available leaving farmers with less choice and control over what they plant.11
Farmers who have chosen not to grow GM crops can find their fields contaminated with GM crops as a result of cross pollination between related species of plants12 and GM and non-GM seeds being mixed together during storage.
Because of this our farmers are losing export markets. Many countries have restrictions or outright bans on growing or importing GM crops13 and as a result, these crops have become responsible for a rise in trade disputes when shipments of grain are found to be contaminated with GM organisms (GMOs). 14
The burgeoning organic market here in the US is also being affected. Many organic farmers have lost contracts for organic seed due to high levels of contamination. This problem is increasing and is expected to get much bigger in the coming years.
The most widely grown types of GM crops are known as "Roundup Ready" crops. These crops, mostly corn and soy, have been genetically engineered so that when they are sprayed with the herbicide Roundup® – the active ingredient of which is glyphosate – the weeds die but the crop continues to grow.
This has created a vicious circle. Weeds have become resistant to the herbicide, causing farmers to spray even more. Heavier use of herbicides creates ever more "superweeds" and even higher herbicide use. A recent review found that between 1996 and 2011, farmers who planted Roundup Ready crops used 24% more herbicide than non-GMO farmers planting the same crops.15
If we remain on this trajectory with Roundup Ready crops we can expect to see herbicide rates increase by 25% each year for the foreseeable future.
This pesticide treadmill means that in the last decade in the US at least 14 new glyphosate-resistant weed species have emerged,16 and over half of US farms are plagued with herbicide-resistant weeds.17
Biotech companies, which sell both the GM seeds and the herbicides,18 have proposed to address this problem with the creation of new crop varieties that will be able to withstand even stronger and more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba. However it is estimated that if these new varieties are approved, this could drive herbicide use up by as much as 50%.19
Studies have shown that the increased herbicide use on Roundup Ready crops is highly destructive to the natural environment. For example, Roundup kills milkweeds, which are the key food source for the iconic Monarch butterfly20 and poses a threat to other important insects such as bees.21 It is also damaging to soil, killing beneficial organisms that keep it healthy and productive22 and making essential micronutrients unavailable to the plant.23
Without healthy soil, we cannot grow healthy plants.
Other types of GM plants, which have been engineered to produce their own insecticide (e.g. "Bt" cotton plants), have also been shown to harm beneficial insects including green lacewings24, the Daphnia magna waterflea25 and other aquatic insects,26 and ladybugs (ladybirds).27
Resistance to the insecticides in these plants is also growing,28 creating new varieties of resistant "superbugs" and requiring more applications of insecticides at different points in the growth cycle, for instance on the seed before it is planted.29 In spite of this, new Bt varieties of corn and soy have been approved here and will soon be planted.
GM ingredients are everywhere in our food chain. It is estimated that 70% of processed foods consumed in the US have been produced using GM ingredients. If products from animals fed GM feed are included, the percentage is significantly higher.
Research shows that Roundup Ready crops contain many times more glyphosate, and its toxic breakdown product AMPA, than normal crops.30
Traces of glyphosate have been found in the breastmilk and urine of American mothers, as well as in their drinking water.31 The levels in breastmilk were worryingly high – around 1,600 times higher than what is allowable in European drinking water. Passed on to babies through breastmilk, or the water used to make formula, this could represent an unacceptable risk to infant health since glyphosate is a suspected hormone disrupter.32 Recent studies suggest that this herbicide is also toxic to sperm.33
Likewise, traces of the Bt toxin have been found in the blood of mothers and their babies.34
GM foods were not subjected to human trials before being released into the food chain and the health impacts of having these substances circulating and accumulating in our bodies are not being studied by any government agency, nor by the companies that produce them.
Studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate, however, show worrying trends including damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities, and even tumors.35
These scientific studies point to potentially serious human health problems that could not have been anticipated when our country first embraced GMOs, and yet they continue to be ignored by those who should be protecting us. Instead our regulators rely on outdated studies and other information funded and supplied by biotech companies that, not surprisingly, dismiss all health concerns.
This spin of corporate science stands in stark contrast to the findings of independent scientists. In fact, in 2013, nearly 300 independent scientists from around the world issued a public warning that there was no scientific consensus about the safety of eating genetically modified food, and that the risks, as demonstrated in independent research, gave "serious cause for concern."36
It's not easy for independent scientists like these to speak out. Those who do have faced obstacles in publishing their results, been systematically vilified by pro-GMO scientists, been denied research funding, and in some cases have had their jobs and careers threatened.37
Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system.
This control extends into areas of life that deeply affect our day-to-day well-being, including food security, science, and democracy. It undermines the development of genuinely sustainable, environmentally friendly agriculture and prevents the creation of a transparent, healthy food supply for all.
Today in the US, from seed to plate, the production, distribution, marketing, safety testing, and consumption of food is controlled by a handful of companies, many of which have commercial interests in genetic engineering technology. They create the problems, and then sell us the so-called solutions. This is a closed cycle of profit generation that is unequalled in any other type of commerce.
We all need to eat, which is why every citizen should strive to understand these issues.
Americans are reaping the detrimental impacts of this risky and unproven agricultural technology. EU countries should take note: there are no benefits from GM crops great enough to offset these impacts. Officials who continue to ignore this fact are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.
We, the undersigned, are sharing our experience and what we have learned with you so that you don't make our mistakes.
We strongly urge you to resist the approval of genetically modified crops, to refuse to plant those crops that have been approved, to reject the import and/or sale of GM-containing animal feeds and foods intended for human consumption, and to speak out against the corporate influence over politics, regulation and science.
If the UK and the rest of Europe becomes the new market for genetically modified crops and food our own efforts to label and regulate GMOs will be all the more difficult, if not impossible. If our efforts fail, your attempts to keep GMOs out of Europe will also fail.
If we work together, however, we can revitalize our global food system, ensuring healthy soil, healthy fields, healthy food and healthy people.
Did You Know…that cancerous cells can actually revert to a healthy state within 24 hours when treated with a special protocol consisting of DMSO and colloidal silver? Nicknamed "The Overnight Cancer Cure," the DMSO/colloidal silver protocol was invented and refined by a member of the Independent Cancer Research Foundation. This protocol was designed specifically to transform cancerous cells into healthy cells — fast.
Read More:
http://www.tbyil.com/Colloidal_Silver_Cancer_Miracle.htm
Did You Know…that cancerous cells can actually revert to a healthy state within 24 hours when treated with a special protocol consisting of DMSO and colloidal silver? Nicknamed "The Overnight Cancer Cure," the DMSO/colloidal silver protocol was invented and refined by a member of the Independent Cancer Research Foundation. This protocol was designed specifically to transform cancerous cells into healthy cells — fast. · Dimethyl Sulfoxide: Compound that Doctors Are Calling a Medical Miracle · Colloidal Silver: An Alternative to Antibiotics · New Drug-Resistant Bacteria Created From Antibiotic Abuse Could Be Deadly Original article source: http://undergroundhealthreporter.com/colloidal-silver-a-wonderful-miracle-for-cancer#axzz2EkVZ3ffK My notes: This is a great article and I agree that the combination of DMSO and colloidal silver is a great one for getting rid of existing cancer - and I intend top share this article widely. Nevertheless, regardless of whether I agree with Webster's theory, I totally agree with DMSO and colloidal silver being a very powerful tool. See also these articles, which explain the rational behind much of my suggested protocol:
Colloidal Silver a Wonderful Miracle For Cancer Patients
by Danica Collins
Underground Health Reporter
The theory behind the DMSO/colloidal silver treatment is that cancer is caused by a specific microbe that gets inside healthy cells and causes them to become malignant. The protocol draws heavily from the work of Dr. Royal Rife, who researched the relationship between cancer and microbes extensively in the early 20th century.
DMSO: A "Wonderful Medical Miracle"
DMSO, or dimethyl sulfoxide, is a by-product of the wood industry. Don't be fooled, though, by such humble origins. Even doctors say this liquid is a "wonderful medical miracle." Shortly after WWII, chemists discovered that DMSO has the ability to dissolve almost anything and to carry any dissolved substance along with it. It's so powerful, in fact, that it's often used as an industrial solvent. Remarkably enough, it's also completely safe for human use.
DMSO can penetrate areas in the body unreachable by any other means. It moves so rapidly though cell membranes that it has been nicknamed "water's alter ego." Within the cell, DMSO changes the structure of water molecules and — most importantly — increases cell permeability. That means the cell membrane is more easily penetrated. Cell permeability is key to how DMSO works in tandem with another miraculous healer: colloidal silver.
Colloidal Silver: A Gifted Microbe Assassin
Colloidal silver has a special talent for killing microbes and keeping them out of your bloodstream. Since several types of cancer spread through the release of microbes, killing microbes is key to halting cancer and supercharging your immune system. However, ridding the body of cancer-causing microbes poses
challenges because very few substances can penetrate the interior of a cell. As long as the microbes are within a cell, they are:
1. Extremely difficult to reach;
2. Prevent the cell from returning to its normal state
This is where DMSO becomes so valuable. With its ability to increase cell permeability, DMSO can carry the colloidal silver into the interior of your cells, where cancer microbes dwell. Once carried through the cell wall by DMSO, the colloidal silver can destroy microbes lurking within.
This Formidable Duo "Targets Cancers Cells Like a Guided Missile".
DMSO and colloidal silver work so potently in combination that R. Webster Kehr, author of the original guide to the treatment protocol, described the duo as "designed by a higher power to target cancer cells like a guided missile."
The protocol also helps convert cancer cells into normal cells. According to the online version of Kehr's guide: "The cancer cells will actually be able, within 2 or 3 weeks, to restore their Krebs Cycle and Electron Transport Chain and become normal, differentiated cells again. Thus, there is zero debris from dead cancer cells or broken-apart DNA. That is why the treatment is so effective so fast."
How to Use the Protocol
According to natural health practitioners, the 2 components of this protocol must be taken in certain quantities and at specific times. Several books on the treatment have been published, and details on the regime are readily available online. The protocol can be found at the Independent Cancer Foundation, Inc.'s website: http://www.New-Cancer-Treatments.org. In his guide, Kehr notes that because the protocol can be tricky, especially in the beginning stages, it's best to have a second person study the treatment to ensure you are following it correctly. It is advisable to keep that in mind when considering whether this treatment is right for you or a loved one who suffers from cancer.
Further Related Reading:
Two points I would like to make, though:
First of all, I do not agree with Webster Kehr about virtually all (or even most) cancer being caused by a single microbe (the h. pylori microbe, according to Webster). While various microbes may play a role in the development of cancer I think that Dr. Marc Swanepoel comes much closer to the actual causes of cancer in this article:
http://www.tbyil.com/Rational_Cancer_Theory.htm
Secondly, I would not recommend that anyone rely on DMSO and colloidal silver as a sole treatment for cancer if for no other reason because I feel that a good anti-cancer protocol should address more than merely getting rid of existing cancer. I feel very strongly that one must adapt a comprehensive anti-cancer lifestyle that addresses diet, nutrition, stress management, liver health and more AND, most importantly, addresses the root causes of cancer which allowed it to gain a foothold in the first place: which is likely a combination of toxins and poor cellular terrain caused by cells which have not been properly nourished, cleansed, hydrated and oxygenated. Thus my suggested comprehensive anti-cancer protocol which has had an estimated success rate of over 90%:
http://www.tbyil.com/anticancer.htm
http://www.tbyil.com/Oleander_Cancer_Discussion.htm
