The Danger of Early Detection for Cancer:The Pinking and PSA'ing of America

For the last month America has been draped in pink as the breast cancer awareness movement has colored everything (NASCAR, pro sports teams, the White House) in its trademark hue. (Who's going to refuse to be part of breast cancer awareness month?)

The movement's efforts hit the news big time this week when a Washington, D.C., TV station aired a segment of a 28-year-old woman doing a self-exam on her breasts. Because the TV station waited until the last two days of the breast awareness month-long campaign to air the segment, and because it was aired during the first two days of the TV sweeps/ratings period, MSNBC's "Dr. Nancy" Snyderman asked on her (barely watched) TV show whether the segment was a ratings ploy (would be interesting to know how many males viewed the segment on female breast self-exam, right?) or a legitimate breast awareness piece. She had two medical "experts" respond, both of whom agreed it was probably a ratings ploy and should have been done on a 50-plus-year-old woman instead of a 28-year-old since the older demographic is much more vulnerable. (You decide why the segment used a 28-year-old rather than a 50-year-old—no offense, ladies.) The segment is on YouTube, but I'm not posting it here because it does require an 18-or-older sign-in since it shows nudity. The "exam" is very brief and non-offensive, and the majority of the piece is taken up with the interview between Snyderman and her two guests -- yada yada yada. Here is the YouTube link if you want to watch the segment and hear the interview.

Understand that the following question was NEVER at issue in the interview: Is there real value in mammographies (for women) and PSA tests for men when it comes to early detection of cancer? The prevailing opinion is YES -- women should get a mammography and men should have PSA tests regularly. Those tests have created a $20 billion industry in America -- for the tests ALONE -- not counting the additional billions spent on surgeries to "remove the early-detected cancers before they spread."

That was the prevailing public opinion until October 21, 2009—a little over a week ago—when Dr. Otis Brawley (who has never had a PSA test), chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, told The New York Times (reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle), "We don't want people to panic, but I'm admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated."

As usual, Dr. John McDougall is on the case. He has written a thorough piece on the fallacy that early detection tests have reduced the rates of cancer, and why—especially the fact that many doctors now make lots of money from the screening industry. Dr. McDougall explains cancer cell growth (multiplication) rates and why cancers have always metastasized (spread to other body parts) long before they are detectable by current screening methods. Because the pre-screening gospel has been spread so thoroughly in our lifetimes, every man and woman who has considered having a mammography or PSA test should read his article so as to have a realistic understanding of what these tests can and can't accomplish.

I find it amazing that the chief medical officer of the ACS has never had a PSA and "doesn't desire one," and yet most of the doctors who support his organization have pushed for these tests for years. Dr. McDougall also asks and answers the questions, "How should the American medical establishment say 'I'm sorry' to the huge number of women who have lost breasts and men who have lost physical intimacy due to unnecessary surgeries? And how could the $20 billion currently spent on screening be better spent?"

Here are the last three paragraphs of Dr. McDougall's article, the whole of which can be found on his newsletter website here:

Human traits of greed and dishonesty have prevailed. Righteousness and giving are also human traits and now is the time for these two to triumph. $20 billion (the same amount that is currently spent on annual screening for breast and prostate cancer) should now be spent annually doing the right things for saving people from cancer, the unreliable tests, and the harmful treatments. Physicians, screening clinics, hospitals, medical associations, and medical societies must be forced, under the penalty of law if necessary, to tell the truth: Their testing does more harm than good.

Furthermore, they should be made to spread the good news about diet and cancer. Presently the American Cancer Society’s dietary messages for cancer prevention are, for women to “…stay at a healthy weight throughout your life and avoid gaining too much weight,” and “men who eat a lot of red meat or high-fat dairy products appear to have a slightly higher chance of getting prostate cancer. These men also tend to eat fewer fruits and vegetables. Doctors are not sure which of these factors is responsible for raising the risk.” These are downright timid messages about the importance of a healthy diet.

The truth is breast and prostate cancer are caused by the rich Western diet full of beef, chicken, cheese, milk, and oils, and contaminated with powerful environmental cancer-causing chemicals. A sizable share of that $20 billion must be spent on advertising, education, and subsidy programs to bring about monumental changes in our eating. The American Cancer Society needs to put meaning behind their apology by enthusiastically spreading the message that a starch-based diet with fruits and vegetables is fundamental for cancer prevention and good health.

P.S. To get Dr. McDougall's monthly newsletter, you can subscribe using the "Signup" link on the newsletter homepage. Mary McDougall's monthly vegan recipes make the newsletter doubly worthwhile—like these from the current newsletter. (All the recipes from previous newsletters are archived and easily printed.)