I'm not "ignoring data". Regardless of whether "data" says PSA testing saves lives or not, our experience (and the experience that matters most to our family) is that PSA testing gave my DH a chance that he wouldn't otherwise have had. READ the experiences of so many men on this forum. My husband is still playing with our grandchildren. That's what matters most to me, and I suspect to most of the folks on this board.
Would you prefer that all the folks on this forum who had no risk factor, but who were diagnosed due to a routine PSA test, perish so that G6 folks and their doctors don't have to be responsible for their own medical decisions?
Again, used wisely, PSA is a useful TOOL. The proof may be anecdotal, but it's here, on this forum, if you only care to look. If and when there is something better, then by all means, let's use it. Until then, it takes a lot of......something....... to suggest that even one life should be lost for a lack of a $40.00 screening test.
RandyJoe, the largest number of men "who were diagnosed due to a routine PSA test"
, according to the data, were 3+3 and in fact were never at risk of dying from PC. Second largest group, 3+4, again, vastly never at risk.
PC has a very long "lead time." That simply means that out of the percentage (10%) of men diagnosed with PC who eventually die from PC, early detection has allowed them to know that they have PC for a very long period of time...but there is no "cure" for the rare strains of killer PC.
I am thankful for the advancements in aggressive PC treatments which have added months (on average) to many men's lives...many amongst the small percentage.
I've not suggested that "one life should be lost for a lack of a $40.00 screening test
." But I've pointed out that the scientific data does not support the notion that routine mass screening saves lives.