Quantcast

«

»

Apr 29 2013

An uncomfortable truth – Men don’t like prostate exams

It’s a test that both doctors and patients fear, the dreaded rectal examination. It’s one of those social taboos that we do not understand. Why would anyone want to put their fingers “up there” and what could they possibly tell from that.
In women, it can be used to palpate structures much like a vaginal exam. In some cases it can be used to drain fluids that have accumulated within the body cavity.
In men however it has a more prognostic role. The prostate is the male uterus, it’s function is mildly secretory and in the maintainance of sperm counts. However with age comes a lack of use (it’s been indicated that masturbation helps. Gentlemen… go nuts) and with lack of use comes fibrosis. Fibrosis thickens the tissue and makes it difficult to urinate, it’s like compressing a hosepipe in the middle.
Prostate cancer screening is vital however logic needs to be applied to any cancers detected. The issue being that a lot of prostatic cancer tends to not require treatment and the treatment causes loss of sexual function and increase in frequency of urination which needs to be weighed up carefully prior to treatment.
Obviously some people don’t get the message

(NaturalNews) Don’t let anyone from the cancer industry lie to you about PSA screening: The test is completely bogus and offers zero improvement in your lifespan. That’s the conclusion from a 20-year study that followed over 9,000 men. After 20 years of follow-up, guess what the results were? No significant difference in the rate of death between those screened for prostate cancer versus those who weren’t.

There is an increase though. The point being that the lovely people at Natural News are not using this angle to spread the idea of regular tests when you are checked up by your doctor, but to state that all cancer testing is bunk.
 

a bogus test used to exploit men’s fear and recruit them into unnecessary and potentially harmful cancer treatments.

 
Prostate cancer kills men, it’s a real nasty piece of work because the price of treatment is sexual dysfunction. Men are often visually stimulated by seminal ejaculation and the lost of the prostate means that this does not occur.
But put it this way, I would pick life over no sex or atleast try and work on that hang up.
The study they are quoting is this
The research shows that prostatic cancer still occurs, and the amount of people saved is minuscule and can be statistically insignificant. However this is compared to a population already receiving prostate screening. Most socialist medical care systems do check quite regularly in their above 50 male population. Prostate gland growths tend to cause difficulty in urination and pretty much the moment someone complains about difficulty you check for any issues regarding the prostate. Often the issue is that prostate cancers affect people post 70 years of age and it’s not really worth removing it since the mortality rate is quite high.
However it doesn’t stop natural news from asking questions retarded questions and making insane statements about medicine.
However I do leave you with this

Isn’t that quackery to keep using something that doesn’t work while marketing it to patients as if it did work? It’s not just false advertising — it’s bad medicine! And if it were being done in any other industry, someone would probably get arrested.

If you sold a car that turned out to be a lemon and didn’t run, you could be sued. If you sold a financial product but completely misrepresented it to your customers, that would be considered criminal fraud.”

Yes it is Mike Ranger. Yes it is.

5 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Argle Bargle

    Mike Ranger should be recognized as an expert on quackery and medical fraud, since he indulges in both.

  2. 2
    Randomfactor

    The prostate is the male uterus,

    For real, or metaphorically? I had always wondered what the equivalent female structure would be…

  3. 3
    chrislawson

    If you were submitting this as an essay in my medical school, you’d get a great big fail. I’m not saying this to defend Natural News, which is complete horseshit, but your understanding of the problems of prostate screening are appallingly bad.

    1. Avoiding prostate testing has nothing to do with doctors not wanting to do an unpleasant test. We do unpleasant things all the time. We lance boils, we swab wounds, we excise necrotic tissue. Christ, even using diathermy gives an awful barbecue smell that I still can’t get used to after years of exposure. But I don’t avoid these things just because I don’t enjoy them.

    2. Prostate screening is unsupported by the literature. It is also advised against by the WHO, the USPSTF in America, the NHS in the UK, the PHA and the NHMRC in Australia, and just about every public health/epidemiology group in the world. I’m not going to go into the reasons here, but if you want to learn the basics, check out this joint statement by the Australian Cancer Council and the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (PDF).

    3. Since the 2 socialised medical systems I’m most familiar with (the NHS in the UK and the Australian Medicare system) do not recommend routine prostate screening, I’d be keen to see your counter-examples.

    4. I don’t think you understand male sexuality very well — while it’s undoubtedly true that *some* men enjoy the visual stimulation of witnessing their own ejaculation, it is far from essential to the vast majority of men, and more importantly, many men who have had their prostates removed will still ejaculate because even without the prostate there is still the initial bolus of sperm from up the vas deferens and there will usually be fluid from the seminal vessels. Some men even have variable orgasms, sometimes with ejaculate and sometimes “dry”.

    For god’s sake, if you’re going to get stuck into Natural News at least get your own medical science right.

  4. 4
    gshelley

    I don’t know about appallingly bad, but certainly incomplete.
    There were two really large studies a couple of years ago that showed minimal benefits for prostate screening. However, as noted, there were problems in that the control group wasn’t “no screening”. It is very well know that the PSA test is a very poor diagnostic test for aggressive prostate cancer, but it is really the best we have at the moment. A positive prostate test does not mean that you have cancer, and if the following biospy shows cancerous cells, it does not mean that it will ever cause problems. However, the combined papers suggest strongly that on average, a person who has the PSA test, then gets the biopsy and treatment is slightly more likely to survive (I can’t remember the actual figures, but from memory, it is not far off 1000 people would need to be tested and several hundred biopsied to save one life)
    It is a very complex area, but
    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/07/health/la-he-cancer-psa-test-20110307
    seems a pretty good summary

  5. 5
    Adi

    This seriously frightened me and I feel for those men, truly. It’s a bitter truth, no one would like to lose their sex tool, sexual dysfunction is unacceptable…. thanks for sharing this article, informative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>