Close X
Get more out of
by joining the site for free
Free 17-point plan to great health
Twice weekly e-news bulletins
Access to our News, Forums and Blogs
Sign up for free and claim your
17-point plan to great health
Free 17-point plan to great health

Twice weekly e-news bulletins

Access to our News, Forums and Blogs

If you want to read our in-depth research articles or
have our amazing magazine delivered to your home
each month, then you have to pay.

Click here if you're interested
Helping you make better health choices

What Doctors Don't Tell You

In shops now or delivered to your home from only £3.50 an issue!

July 2020 (Vol. 5 Issue 5)

A malignant mystery

About the author: 

A malignant mystery image

I recently underwent a radical prostate tomy in Athens

I recently underwent a radical prostate tomy in Athens. It was successful, and I praise the Greek surgeons. But was it necessary? When in the US I had decided to have a check up, since a recent PSA count had been rather high. I had no symptoms except an occasional urge to urinate more frequently. The biopsy report, sent to me in Athens, noted five slides showing benign prostate hyperplasia and one showing "a single focus of adenocarcinoma".

The Athens surgeon (Edinburgh trained) recommended immediate surgery. "Watchful waiting" was discouraged. So was a second biopsy: "Even if we found a negative, we would have to honour the findings that show adenocarcinoma." It was done. But when the gland was examined in the lab, there was no sign of malignancy. Was it possible that the biopsy removed the single speck of carcinoma? "Possible, but not likely," I was told.

I had the surgeon write to the US clinic. They sent the slides, with a letter from the pathologist saying the rest of his department had reviewed them and all had "independently agreed" his finding.

I began to feel borderline suspicion. Members of the same department that's not what I call independent. Someone told me about the American Medical Association, and the fear of claims being brought. The chief pathologist at the Athens hospital reviewed the slides, and found no malignancy whatever. On his own initiative, he sent them to the professor of pathology at the University. The finding: the same.

"Claims" was not my intention. But I wanted to understand. The Athens pathologist suggested an eminent US specialist, who agreed to review the slides. I sent them with nothing to identify their source, apart from the accession numbers (sent at his request). When he returned them, he enclosed a letter not to me, but to the US clinic, and the very pathologist involved!

The letter backs up the clinic's finding and adds: "If follow up becomes available I would appreciate your letting me know." In other words: "If this bloke gives you any trouble, I'm on your side!"

Am I being overly suspicious? I don't believe so. After hearing a few stories about the AMA, it all smacks of collusion. A L, Athens.

Fighting gmc to the last image

Fighting gmc to the last

Yeast link with fertility image

Yeast link with fertility

You may also be interested in...

Support WDDTY

Help support us to hold the drugs companies, governments and the medical establishment accountable for what they do.


Latest Tweet


Since 1989, WDDTY has provided thousands of resources on how to beat asthma, arthritis, depression and many other chronic conditions..

Start by looking in our fully searchable database, active and friendly community forums and the latest health news.

Positive SSL Wildcard

Facebook Twitter

© 2010 - 2020 WDDTY Publishing Ltd.
All Rights Reserved