I wanted to share this very insightful piece written by Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana over the mis-use of the PSA test as it has all the hallmarks of another great deception, that of the PCR test.
So to begin with, who is Richard Ablin?
Richard J. Ablin is a professor of pathology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, the Arizona Cancer Center, and BIO5 Institute. He is the scientist who discovered PSA in 1970. Since his discovery, Ablin has been a vocal critic of the widespread use of PSA as a screening tool for prostate cancer.
For over three decades, Ablin has publicly denounced mass PSA screening as a public health disaster. He has consistently argued that PSA is not cancer-specific and therefore cannot serve as an accurate test to detect prostate cancer. Despite facing opposition from many in the medical community, Ablin has continued to advocate against routine PSA screening, arguing that it leads to overdiagnosis, unnecessary procedures, and significant harm to men's quality of life.
Analogy
Imagine you're the owner of a large orchard filled with thousands of apple trees. You know that some of these trees might have a disease that could potentially kill them, but it's rare - only about 3% of your trees will actually die from this disease. The rest will live out their natural lives, disease or not.
Now, a salesman comes to you with a new "revolutionary" test that he claims can detect this disease early. He suggests testing all your trees regularly. It sounds great at first, but there's a catch:
The test often can't tell the difference between healthy trees, trees with harmless spots, and trees with the actual deadly disease. In fact, it's wrong about 80% of the time. When the test says there's a problem, you're forced to cut off large branches from the tree to check if the disease is really there.
For every 1,000 trees you test, you might save one tree from dying of the disease. But in the process, you'll unnecessarily damage hundreds of healthy trees. Many of these trees will never produce apples again, some will be permanently stunted, and a few might even die from the damage caused by your well-intentioned but overzealous pruning.
What's worse, the salesman and the pruning company are making a fortune from all this testing and pruning, which costs you millions every year. They're so invested in this process that they resist any suggestion to change it, even when other orchard experts start to question its value.
This is essentially what's happened with PSA screening for prostate cancer. The test, like our hypothetical orchard test, is often inaccurate. It has led to millions of men undergoing unnecessary biopsies and treatments, which frequently result in life-altering side effects. All of this for a disease that, in most cases, would never have caused them harm. Meanwhile, the medical industry has profited enormously from this process, creating a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo despite mounting evidence of its flaws.
The book's main message is a call to recognize this situation for what it is - a public health disaster driven more by profit than by sound medical science - and to advocate for a more measured, evidence-based approach to prostate cancer detection and treatment.
You can read the full article here.
In the introduction, I made reference to the PCR deception which we covered back in November 2022 and you can read this here.
Is there a pattern emerging within our modern medical establishment? It seems so.
Identify a test or process that can be corrupted and brought to market under the guise of early prevention, knowing full well it will produce a high level of false positives. This in turn triggers over-diagnosis, leading to unnecessary interventions that will produce side-effects and require on-going treatments. All whilst the positive outcomes [claimed] are marginal at best.
Who wins? certainly not the Patient.
Where else have we witnessed a high level of false positives recently?
Where else have we witnessed a test or process unable to identify whether the presence of something is benign or harmful?
Where else have we witnessed the Scientists who discover these tests/processes being ignored or denigrated because their warnings go against the narrative?
No one can confidently provide informed consent for any medical procedure if they are not given all the facts and it seems common practice at the moment to hide certain information if it’s likely to impact profits.
These conflicts of interest must be rooted out of the medical profession for any element of trust is to be restored.
We are entering a period of enlightenment in all areas right now but none more so than in medicine, so we will endeavour to keep abreast of all such revelations as and when they occur and bring them to you through these pages.
The strings of the puppet-masters must be cut.
We live in hope!