I would rather get cancer than a strange man fingering my asshole
you need to get men to go in the first place, offering them is useless unless men get their fingers out their arses and go see a doctor.
The good news is that your chances of developing prostate cancer can be significantly reduced through regular exercise of the prostate.
Which, in a nice way, means ejaculating. Blast away…
In all seriousness though, it’s recommended that men cum at least once (if not two or three times) a week to maintain the health of their reproductive system. Ignore weird online trends about retaining your sperm or wherever. Testosterone levels are basically unaffected by orgasm/ejaculation. Men need to ejaculate at least somewhat regularly for optimal health outcomes.
I had an issue once I was pushing myself in the gym too much, 100 sit ups & 30 press ups as just a warm up 4 times a week.
Turns out I created a very small lesion in my small intestines so be cautious and I recommend even if you do have an issue to get it checked out because it could be serious or something not too serious as what I had.
You would rather be safe than sorry
This is why we need yearly health checks like a lot of other countries. Every year when I go back to Japan I get my health check. Usually takes 3-4 hours total and is pretty comprehensive.
It’s not even that bad just a little uncomfortable and embarrassing.i told everyone I’d been to get fingered off the doc to try dispel some of the taboo around it.
There is no evidence that countries with prostate screening have any better outcomes than those without. It just costs a lot more money with no benefit.
My father asked the GP when he turned 50 about tests, he was told ‘We only test if you show symptoms’. How the hell is that a way to go about it?!
My dad passed away last year at 60 from this. I’ll be going regularly as soon as I’m able.
Overscreening can be harmful. Decisions about screening programmes are based on balancing the risk of cases being missed versus the risk of harm from false positives and finding incidental cases that would’ve otherwise never caused symptoms.
There are lots of reasons why people might have a raised PSA. If you did a postmortem on every man who dies over the age of 70, 1 in 3 of them would have incidental prostate cancer.
I understand why Chris Hoy wants this to be put in place, but it’s not as straightforward as ‘we should screen everybody because it’ll catch cases earlier and that’s always a good thing’.
Men should force the issue and ask for a test. In most cases UK GPs will agree to it. Don’t leave it to the health authorities.
I can totally understand Hoy saying this given his own age, but a 30 year old with prostate cancer could just as easily say they should screen for prostate cancer at 30. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, unless you just offer it to all adult men as a precaution.
Women get breast and cervical screenings. So this makes sense.
**Jon Holmes Says the C-Word, You Might Feel a Bit of a Prick**
I’m of an age where prostate cancer is of concern. Saw a GP a few weeks ago and asked if I could get a PSA test – none of the classic symptoms, but the GP agreed, all tested, nothing of concern noted.
That’s my 4th PSA test during my lifetime, whether specific or part of a broad spectrum blood test.
The GP’s do warn about false positives and negatives, but on balance I think it’s a reasonable approach for me.
But it’s those false results that I think would stop the NHS from introducing a screening program.
You only get flagged for a check is if you have and underlying condition. And for the rest of us folk, it’s FAC U run the gauntlet
For anyone concerned about this, PSA tests are super cheap online
I dunno how much he is worth but if I had that family history and money I would be getting private tests if I could afford it.
Funny how people always say this sort of stuff once it happens to them, but probably couldn’t have given a shit before.
Should be treated like breast cancer for women where it is common and easy to do
My wife has the mutation in BRCA1 which makes her more susceptible to breast cancer. Her grandmother and great grandmother both died of breast cancer. She was told in the past that from age 30 she should get yearly mammograms. Her mum does.
She went to her GP to ask about this and she was effectively sent away. For the cost of a relatively quick and easy check up every year, they are risking the far costlier outcome of later stage cancer treatment.
Some management consultant working within the NHS has worked out that they can “save” money by not doing these screenings as they don’t have to look at the money coming out elsewhere in 5 years time due to missed diagnoses.
The thing is, PSA can be elevated for all kinds of reasons – exercise, recent ejaculation, following a PR exam, etc.
It isn’t a valid screening test for prostate cancer because it doesn’t meet the NHS criteria for a screening programme, due to false positives and false negatives.
Sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer is about 0.93 and specificity is about 0.20. So most people with elevated PSA won’t have cancer.
The problem is that people who promote PSA as a screening test have had symptoms and a PSA, so to them it’s a very black and white perspective that high PSA = cancer caught early.
Mammography is over 90% sensitive and specific, which is why we use it for screening. HPV is also over 90%.
Prostate biopsies aren’t a benign intervention and carry a risk of ED, which increases the more you get. Regular PSA testing (because risk goes up with age, so it isn’t “one and done”) would mean multiple biopsies at a very young age and a high risk of permanent ED. That wouldn’t be acceptable to most, given that prostate cancer is generally something you die with, not of, as it’s generally very slow to progress.
That’s a good move, what would also be a good move it to thoroughly reject the attempts by some academics to rename prostate cancer!
Cancer is a killer and the wording should not be diluted in anyway!
“Doctors are debating whether low-risk prostate cancers should no longer be called cancer, with a group of international experts suggesting many cases are “a normal aspect of ageing” A new paper, co-authored by doctors from countries including Australia, suggests that stripping the emotive word “cancer” from low-grade prostate cancer diagnoses would reduce anxiety and unnecessary treatment.”
I think celebrities need to be careful when speaking about health policy without the evidence to back up their positions.
Widespread prostate cancer screening with a PSA blood test could lead to a lot of false positive results, which would mean lots of unnecessary and painful prostate biopsies which can cause bleeding, infection and even erectile dysfunction. You also have to consider the stress of a false positive test making patients think they have cancer.
What’s happened here, I didn’t think prostate cancer was that bad and that every bloke who lives long enough will basically get it.
I have a relative in his 50’s, he has it and all the doctors have been doing is having him back for yearly tests to see how it’s going. No surgery, chemo, or radio etc. just monitoring.
25 comments
I would rather get cancer than a strange man fingering my asshole
you need to get men to go in the first place, offering them is useless unless men get their fingers out their arses and go see a doctor.
The good news is that your chances of developing prostate cancer can be significantly reduced through regular exercise of the prostate.
Which, in a nice way, means ejaculating. Blast away…
In all seriousness though, it’s recommended that men cum at least once (if not two or three times) a week to maintain the health of their reproductive system. Ignore weird online trends about retaining your sperm or wherever. Testosterone levels are basically unaffected by orgasm/ejaculation. Men need to ejaculate at least somewhat regularly for optimal health outcomes.
I had an issue once I was pushing myself in the gym too much, 100 sit ups & 30 press ups as just a warm up 4 times a week.
Turns out I created a very small lesion in my small intestines so be cautious and I recommend even if you do have an issue to get it checked out because it could be serious or something not too serious as what I had.
You would rather be safe than sorry
This is why we need yearly health checks like a lot of other countries. Every year when I go back to Japan I get my health check. Usually takes 3-4 hours total and is pretty comprehensive.
It’s not even that bad just a little uncomfortable and embarrassing.i told everyone I’d been to get fingered off the doc to try dispel some of the taboo around it.
There is no evidence that countries with prostate screening have any better outcomes than those without. It just costs a lot more money with no benefit.
My father asked the GP when he turned 50 about tests, he was told ‘We only test if you show symptoms’. How the hell is that a way to go about it?!
My dad passed away last year at 60 from this. I’ll be going regularly as soon as I’m able.
Overscreening can be harmful. Decisions about screening programmes are based on balancing the risk of cases being missed versus the risk of harm from false positives and finding incidental cases that would’ve otherwise never caused symptoms.
There are lots of reasons why people might have a raised PSA. If you did a postmortem on every man who dies over the age of 70, 1 in 3 of them would have incidental prostate cancer.
I understand why Chris Hoy wants this to be put in place, but it’s not as straightforward as ‘we should screen everybody because it’ll catch cases earlier and that’s always a good thing’.
Men should force the issue and ask for a test. In most cases UK GPs will agree to it. Don’t leave it to the health authorities.
I can totally understand Hoy saying this given his own age, but a 30 year old with prostate cancer could just as easily say they should screen for prostate cancer at 30. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, unless you just offer it to all adult men as a precaution.
Women get breast and cervical screenings. So this makes sense.
**Jon Holmes Says the C-Word, You Might Feel a Bit of a Prick**
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0020yrm
I’m of an age where prostate cancer is of concern. Saw a GP a few weeks ago and asked if I could get a PSA test – none of the classic symptoms, but the GP agreed, all tested, nothing of concern noted.
That’s my 4th PSA test during my lifetime, whether specific or part of a broad spectrum blood test.
The GP’s do warn about false positives and negatives, but on balance I think it’s a reasonable approach for me.
But it’s those false results that I think would stop the NHS from introducing a screening program.
You only get flagged for a check is if you have and underlying condition. And for the rest of us folk, it’s FAC U run the gauntlet
For anyone concerned about this, PSA tests are super cheap online
I dunno how much he is worth but if I had that family history and money I would be getting private tests if I could afford it.
Funny how people always say this sort of stuff once it happens to them, but probably couldn’t have given a shit before.
Should be treated like breast cancer for women where it is common and easy to do
My wife has the mutation in BRCA1 which makes her more susceptible to breast cancer. Her grandmother and great grandmother both died of breast cancer. She was told in the past that from age 30 she should get yearly mammograms. Her mum does.
She went to her GP to ask about this and she was effectively sent away. For the cost of a relatively quick and easy check up every year, they are risking the far costlier outcome of later stage cancer treatment.
Some management consultant working within the NHS has worked out that they can “save” money by not doing these screenings as they don’t have to look at the money coming out elsewhere in 5 years time due to missed diagnoses.
The thing is, PSA can be elevated for all kinds of reasons – exercise, recent ejaculation, following a PR exam, etc.
It isn’t a valid screening test for prostate cancer because it doesn’t meet the NHS criteria for a screening programme, due to false positives and false negatives.
Sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer is about 0.93 and specificity is about 0.20. So most people with elevated PSA won’t have cancer.
The problem is that people who promote PSA as a screening test have had symptoms and a PSA, so to them it’s a very black and white perspective that high PSA = cancer caught early.
Mammography is over 90% sensitive and specific, which is why we use it for screening. HPV is also over 90%.
Prostate biopsies aren’t a benign intervention and carry a risk of ED, which increases the more you get. Regular PSA testing (because risk goes up with age, so it isn’t “one and done”) would mean multiple biopsies at a very young age and a high risk of permanent ED. That wouldn’t be acceptable to most, given that prostate cancer is generally something you die with, not of, as it’s generally very slow to progress.
That’s a good move, what would also be a good move it to thoroughly reject the attempts by some academics to rename prostate cancer!
Cancer is a killer and the wording should not be diluted in anyway!
“Doctors are debating whether low-risk prostate cancers should no longer be called cancer, with a group of international experts suggesting many cases are “a normal aspect of ageing”
A new paper, co-authored by doctors from countries including Australia, suggests that stripping the emotive word “cancer” from low-grade prostate cancer diagnoses would reduce anxiety and unnecessary treatment.”
[https://archive.ph/20241103184211/https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/what-s-in-a-name-the-push-to-rebrand-the-most-common-type-of-cancer-20241101-p5kn3v.html](https://archive.ph/20241103184211/https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/what-s-in-a-name-the-push-to-rebrand-the-most-common-type-of-cancer-20241101-p5kn3v.html)
I think celebrities need to be careful when speaking about health policy without the evidence to back up their positions.
Widespread prostate cancer screening with a PSA blood test could lead to a lot of false positive results, which would mean lots of unnecessary and painful prostate biopsies which can cause bleeding, infection and even erectile dysfunction. You also have to consider the stress of a false positive test making patients think they have cancer.
What’s happened here, I didn’t think prostate cancer was that bad and that every bloke who lives long enough will basically get it.
I have a relative in his 50’s, he has it and all the doctors have been doing is having him back for yearly tests to see how it’s going. No surgery, chemo, or radio etc. just monitoring.
Comments are closed.