Prostate cancer and the three kinds of lies….lies, damned lies, and statistics! Facts from the American Cancer Society but nothing about death. What?

empty pockets has never held anyone back....only empty hearts and empty heads can do that.

Yes that’s my dog Chloe licking the grill as the coals are heating up in the green egg as Penelope enviously looks on. Yes I did put the grill grate back on the egg and then cooked a pork  tenderloin on it. Yes it did not bother me or mine a bit. How about you? I sent  this picture to the nurse manager of my Ambulatory Surgery Center and she was aghast. “That picture  was so wrong,” she said.

Relative Survival Percentage for prostate cancer at five years is 99%. What in the hell does that mean?

So…in the following article the RSP given by the “epidemiologist’s” at the American Cancer Society is 99% for prostate cancer. Why in the world did I go to the trouble of treating my prostate cancer? What was I thinking? A 1% of dying of prostate cancer and I went through the surgery and leaking urine for three months? What was I thinking? Or…could it be that the statistics are misleading? Is an epidemiologist different from a urologist in how he would view prostate cancer?

Why in all the statistics and facts that follow there is no reference to the people who die of prostate cancer? The 25,000 a year in the US. How is 25,000 dying   and 250,000 diagnosed equal only 1 %?

Warning!  With a National Health Care Program like ObamaCare health decision will be based on the epidemiologist’s view of disease and not that of the doctors. Please search my blog for references of Otis Brawley…and you will understand the mindset of an epidemiologist. His views are reflected in the following article…leaving the reader to “drop his guard” about prostate cancer not be checked. Perfect! The ACS is not an advocate of screening. Why? Because of Statistics.  ObamaCare and the ACS…their plan is beginning to infiltrate the unsuspecting media’s reporting of prostate cancer. Question for the congressman…why treat your cancer at all? 1%…are you kidding me?

How many people have you known that have succumbed to breast cancer? I just lost a friend to breast cancer who was diagnosed at age 42 and died two weeks ago at 45 after a prolonged course of surgery, chemo and the painful progression of one treatment after another that just did not quite measure up to the aggressiveness of her disease. Well..we see that the Relative survival is 89%. Does that match what you know or have experienced about breast cancer? Hell no! So…take what you read with the proverbial grain of salt, suspect national health care, suspect the AMA and the ACS. I don’t know what in the hell is going on with these organizations but the vaunted reputation that I had of them is quickly eroding and I suspect that they are selling out to government related interests.

Ps…I have been a member of the AMA since I was a medical student in the eighties. I have stopped my membership when they supported ObamaCare. They are so out of touch with the practicing MD it is ridiculous. I suspect that the majority of the doctors that go and vote for stuff are somehow employed by government entities like military hospitals, VA  hospitals, the CDC, hospitals and other doctors that have some tie to the government till. Ie…voting their pocket book not the interests of medicine.

So now you know…I am opposed to a national health care program and furious that all those government doctors went to the white house in white lab jackets and posed with Pres. Obama. They did not represent me…the people voting in the AMA don’t represent me, nor do they represent the majority of doctors in the US.

Luckily for the government…the media falls right in line and spews out the ACS epidemiology view of both prostate cancer and breast cancer. What’s next? Using RSR to justify who the government feels should have treatment and who and how much is paid for medical services…..far fetched?  Check out Canada and the UK…..

Podcast on the following article and “statistics”

Congressman John Barrow To Undergo Treatment For Prostate Cancer Media Announcement Says “Full Recovery” Expected Congressman John Barrow By WAGT Staff Published: June 21, 2011 »Washington, D.C. —

Congressman John Barrow, from Georgia’s 12th district, will be treated for early stage prostate cancer, according to a media release. Because the disease was caught early, Barrow’s spokesman says a full recovery is expected. Congressman Barrow’s treatments will begin in July and he’s not expected to miss any votes. Here’s the full release from Congressman Barrow’s office: U.S. Congressman John Barrow (GA-12) announced today that he has been diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer, a condition that will affect one in six men during the course of their lifetime. Barrow will undergo radiation therapy to treat the condition, and his doctors expect a full recovery. The disease was discovered during a routine screening as part of Barrow’s annual physical exam. “Cancer is something you never want to hear your doctor say,” said Congressman Barrow. “But I’m very lucky to be living in an age of early detection and effective treatments. The good news is that the doctors expect a full recovery, and the therapy will not affect my ability to work.” Barrow is under the care of Dr. Donald Bridges of Rockville, Maryland. The radiation therapy will begin in late-July and extend into the August Congressional recess, which will prevent Congressman Barrow from missing any votes. According to the American Cancer Society, nearly 99 percent of those diagnosed with prostate cancer have a five-year relative survival rate. “Figures like this give everyone with prostate cancer good reason for hope,” Barrow said. “One reason why this number is so high is because more and more men are getting regular prostate screenings. Early detection is the key to beating this disease. Routine prostate screening probably saved my life, and it could save yours.” The Mayo Clinic advises that there are a number of lifestyle choices that can help reduce the risk of prostate cancer, such as: eating moderate-sized portions at every meal; eating food low in saturated fats; maintaining a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grain; drinking alcohol in moderation; getting the FDA daily recommendation of vitamin D; and regularly engaging in moderate exercise.

FACTS ABOUT PROSTATE CANCER: Over the course of a lifetime, men have a 1 in 6 chance of developing prostate cancer (American Cancer Society). From 1999-2005, the 5 year relative survival percentage of prostate cancer was 99 percent (American Cancer Society).

In 2010, there were 217,230 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States, 6,380 in the state of Georgia (American Cancer Society).

In 2008, there were approximately 2,355,264 men alive in the United States who had a history of cancer of the prostate (National Cancer Institute).

9 Replies to “Prostate cancer and the three kinds of lies….lies, damned lies, and statistics! Facts from the American Cancer Society but nothing about death. What?”

  1. Dr. McHugh,
    “What was I thinking? Or…could it be that the statistics are misleading? Is an epidemiologist different from a urologist in how he would view prostate cancer?”
    What’s misleading about these statistics is the fact that they do not represent anything about the quality of “Relative Survival.” After all, the 99% RSP number is great, period, so why try to fix something that is not broken? In fact, even if it were true that the RSP number remained high after all prostate screenings and treatments were curtailed — as Dr. Brawley suggests — the quality of that “Relative Survival” would undoubtedly diminish. But epidemiologists and government doctors do not seem to care about quality, only quantity. As for yourself, I am sure you knew the numbers when you were diagnosed and that “relative survival” was NOT your goal. You wanted to be cured; to not become, five years down the road, a “relative” survivor hanging on by a thread as your untreated cancer progressively destroyed your quality of life. The premium practicing physicians place on the quality of longevity is simply not important to a government facing bankruptcy.


  2. Dear Dr. McHugh,

    You probably already know: Page 1 of below site notes the same 5 year survival rate of 99% that Congressman Barrow’s news release trumpets. His staff/ACS might go to p. 2 for a little dose of accuracy/reality/truth. Page 2 sez that of the group I am in (distant), 2 of 3 men will be dead within 5 years of diagnosis.

    Certainly agree with their statement “Early detection is the key to beating this disease.” Rather wish I had a better education about prostate health/screening ten or eleven years ago! You have said that education is the key to acheiving greater early detection. Amen.

    Thanks for the Diaries and dogs! A balm. Rich G.


    Prostate Cancer Survival Rates Based on Stage
    The stages of prostate cancer play a role in prostate cancer survival rates. Based on historical data:

    •91 percent of prostate cancer cases are diagnosed while the cancer is still confined to the primary site (localized stage) or after the cancer has spread to regional lymph nodes or directly beyond the primary site
    •5 percent of prostate cancer cases are diagnosed after the cancer has already metastasized (distant stage)
    •4 percent of prostate cancer cases had staging information that was unknown.

    The corresponding 5-year relative prostate cancer survival rates were:

    •100 percent for localized or regional

    •33.3 percent for distant

    •79.5 percent for unstaged


  3. Dr. McHugh,
    Doesn’t the 99% RSP number INCLUDE all the prostate cancer patients who have been treated as well as those who have not? And doesn’t the 99% number reflect that a certain percentage of those who have been treated have survived because of that treatment, meaning the RSP would go down if screenings etc. were curtailed? And, if these statements are true, then wouldn’t decreased screenings etc. decrease not only the quality of relative survival but also the number of patients surviving in the first place? Is my take on this correct? Please comment.


  4. Statistics? tricky! Epidemiologists what can I say as I am one? We, epidemiologists, need to take a reality check frequently.
    National health care is an abomination and a discredit to the hippocractic oath. having worked in England, Norway and Canada under this system I am definitely unimpressed.


  5. Prostate health. To screen or not to screen, that is the question.

    My answer, an angry scream, YES!

    ( no expert as I’ve only been at this 7 years (since diagnosis, PCa-D4 – incurable.)
    The govt. Task Force sez no, that was & is the local GP recommendation. I do not recall in reading of the Task Force decision, or in the many media articles that have discussed PCa, that there has been a truthful warning: if a man does not receive adequate screening for whatever reason, the penalty can be a slow, painful, premature death, if he/his doctor wait & act on symptoms alone and find they are late – the cancer has spread from the prostate gland. Oh yes, (palliative) standard treatment will be offered, which includes castration that will then cause the macho man emotional distress AND a debilitating host of side effects. . I obviously believe the possible “penalty” for not screening should be shouted from the rooftops. Swan gripe. RG


  6. why they say 25,000 die a year from prostate cancer then they turn around and say they dont even die from the cancer wdf do they die from then? natral causs bs…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s