Prostate biopsies cab be avoided quite often

Prostate biopsies have been recommended when the PSA (Prostatic
Specific Antigen) gets higher.

However, there are many conditions beside prostate cancer that heighten
the PSA, being the most frequent urinary infections, tumors, cysts,
stones, sexual activity, transrectal exams and specially the prostate
biopsy.

If they want you to have a prostate biopsy taken because your PSA is
high you should first find out what is heightening your PSA and try
solve it. If they can solve it and the PSA normalizes, there will be no
need to perform any biopsy.

C.A.D. Color Prostate Ultrasound with Urosonography detects most
conditions heightening the PSA and make the prostate biopsy
unnecessary.

More information at:

http://www.drgdiaz.com/prostate/prostatebiopsy.shtml

Dr Gonzalo Díaz

Dr. Diaz,

Your posting, and your website make a number of statements that
go against the current scientific consensus regarding the
diagnosis of cancer. I would like to see some evidence for your
approaches.

Would you please answer the following questions:

1. How accurate is conventional biopsy in detecting prostate
cancer?

You have said that biopsies only sample 1% of the prostate and
therefore "there are 99% chances of not detecting cancer."
(This statement would, of course, only be true if the cancer
only occupied one percent of the prostate, and if the the
biopsy needle were inserted completely randomly.)

You have also said in the same paragraph, "the cancer
detection rate was 29% on the first biopsy (Dr. Roehl's
report published in the June issue of The Journal of
Urology)".

Besides the obvious contradiction with the previous sentence
in the same paragraph, I have checked the table of contents
page for the Journal of Urology for the June issue. There is
no article listed by Dr. Roehl. Would you please give a
full citation for the article you are citing.

2. What are the chances of detecting cancer with your technique?

Has a study been done that correlates color ultrasound with
biopsy that shows that the ultrasound technique is better than
the biopsy technique?

Would you please give us the citation to that study?

3. What are the chances of spreading cancer with needle biopsy?

You state that biopsy causes "Needle track seeding:
implantation of malignant cells".

Is this a problem inside the prostate? If a man has prostate
cancer in parts of his prostate and cells are seeded into
other parts of the prostate, will this increase the danger of
his cancer? Will it change treatment outcomes? What are the
chances of translocated cancer cells being viable after
translocation?

Is there a danger of metastasis outside the prostate due to
needle biopsy?

There have been studies done of this. My reading of the
studies is that the danger is not zero, but is close to it.

Can you give some citations to back up your concerns and
explain the magnitude?

4. Is there more danger of missing a cancer because biopsy is
avoided, than there is of spreading a cancer by needle track
seeding?

5. What is the magnitude of the other biopsy risks that you cite?

You claim dangers of septicemia, hepatitis, AIDS, and many
other things due to prostate biopsy.

Can you tell us how many men have gotten, for example, AIDS
from prostate biopsies?

6. How much pain are we talking about?

I had a prostate biopsy with no anaesthesia of any type. It
was uncomfortable. It would not be my favorite way to spend
an afternoon. But I would not choose an inferior method of
diagnosis because of the pain of biopsy.

Other members of this group have had local anaesthetics for
biopsy. You say these don't work, but various patients have
said they do.

7. What is the cost of your color ultrasound?

You state that biopsies cost about $1,000. I don't know
because mine was paid for by insurance. How much do you
charge for color ultrasound?

8. Is your method approved by insurance companies?

If a patient has an elevated PSA, will insurance pay for a
color ultrasound instead of a biopsy?

I am sending this both to your email address and to the
alt.support.cancer.prostate newsgroup where you posted your
advertisement.

Please respond to the newsgroup so we can all see your answers.

Thank you very much.

Alan Meyer

Alan Meyer wrote:

> Dr. Diaz,
> Your posting, and your website make a number of statements
> that go against the current scientific consensus regarding the
> diagnosis of cancer. I would like to see some evidence for
> your approaches.

Probably something was lost in the translation. <g>

La biopsia de próstata es peligrosa
soc.culture.peru -

La biopsia de próstata es peligrosa
soc.culture.venezuela -

La biopsia de próstata es peligrosa
soc.culture.argentina -

La biopsia de próstata es peligrosa
soc.culture.peru -

La biopsia de próstata es peligrosa
soc.culture.puerto-rico -

La biopsia de próstata es peligrosa
soc.culture.colombia -

NICK wrote:
>
> Probably something was lost in the translation. <g>

When I wrote my set of questions to Dr. Diaz I hadn't even
noticed that he was operating out of Columbia. I had the
probably false idea that there might be some authorities that
would go after him for his quackery, and the silly idea that
he might be embarrassed to be promoting such BS.

But of course Dr. Diaz couldn't care two cents worth about
the fact that anyone knows he's a quack.

Don Quixote move over, Alan wants to take a shot at that
windmill.

Alan