The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed critical flaws in the medical establishment, prompting individuals to take charge of their health decisions through diligent research. The era of relying solely on medical professionals for guidance has proven inadequate, as practitioners may share misinformation or have biases. This trend of compromised medical advice isn’t a new development, as illustrated by the controversial history surrounding prostate cancer testing and treatment. A closer examination of this history underscores systemic issues that continue to plague modern medicine, echoing the missteps witnessed in the COVID crisis.
The excessive and often misguided prostate cancer testing practices, particularly the PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen) test, serve as a significant example. The works, “Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers” by Dr. Mark Scholz and Ralph Blum and “The Great Prostate Hoax” by Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana, elaborate on these problems. Richard Ablin, a key figure in the PSA test’s development, has emerged as a vocal critic of its misuse. Despite the FDA’s awareness of the test’s high false positive rate—estimated at 78%—routine PSA testing became rampant. This led to an influx of unnecessary biopsies and surgical procedures, fueling what Ablin terms a “self-perpetuating industry” that has harmed countless men.
Dr. Harold Markovitz, the FDA committee chairman who oversaw the PSA test’s approval process, expressed his reservations regarding its implementation, highlighting the risk of subjecting men to painful, often unnecessary procedures resulting from false positives. However, his concerns were ultimately sidelined as the medical community embraced PSA testing as essential for prostate cancer screening. This move opened lucrative avenues for urologists and amplified the testing’s popularity, despite its foundations being riddled with risks and lack of empirical backing.
It is crucial to contextualize prostate cancer’s threat compared to other forms of cancer. Prostate cancer is typically slow-growing, and many men diagnosed live for years without succumbing to it. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that mere 3% of cancer patients die specifically from the disease over a 15-year period, suggesting that aggressive treatment may be unnecessary. Instead of improving outcomes, surgical procedures like radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy show marginal statistical benefits. In fact, both options entail serious risks including death, incontinence, and impotence, reinforcing the argument against overtreatment.
Sadly, the pressure on patients from urologists to undergo immediate surgical intervention remains prevalent, often accompanied by alarming predictions of imminent death if they opt for observation instead. This parallels the similar intimidation tactics seen during the push for COVID-19 vaccinations. Various urologists perpetuate a culture of fear, convincing men that they have no choice but to proceed with potentially harmful treatments. This troubling nurse of urgency disregards significant evidence advocating for “active surveillance” as a safer and more rational approach.
Finally, recent commentary draws stark comparisons between the pervasive issues in prostate cancer treatment and the disproportionate responses to the COVID-19 crisis. As medicine continues to evolve, embracing innovation must come with demonstrated efficacy over existing practices. The current push, particularly in Japan for next-generation mRNA vaccines, raises concerns regarding safety and effectiveness. In light of the evidence surrounding PSA screening and treatments alongside the COVID-19 response, it becomes imperative for patients to remain vigilant, informed, and proactive in their healthcare choices to safeguard their well-being against excessive medical interventions that may do more harm than good.