CancerDefeated.com
  • Home  / 
  • Articles
  •  /  Warning to Men on Drugs for Enlarged Prostate: They’ve been Linked to Cancer!

Warning to Men on Drugs for Enlarged Prostate: They’ve been Linked to Cancer!

By Lee Euler / August 21, 2013

Some of the latest news about some popular prostate drugs links them to cancer.  If confirmed true, it’s disastrous news indeed, because about half of all men in their sixties have enlarged prostate (BPH), and as many as 90 percent of men in their seventies and eighties suffer from it.

American men are bombarded day and night with commercials urging us to take prescription drugs for BPH, and millions have heeded the call.

Are we in the middle of a massive health catastrophe? Let’s take a look.  I also have some good news about BPH and cancer, and you don’t see much of that, so keep reading!

Continued below. . .

Read This Only if You
Want to Double Your Testosterone
Without a Prescription

Doctors won’t tell you this because they don’t know. . .

But all you need to double your testosterone level is a two-nutrient combo that you can buy over-the-counter.

Your cost per day? About two bucks.

Give your body these two foods and it will do the rest.

Compare that to about $6,000 a year — $16 a day — for doctor-prescribed testosterone that actually damages your own body’s ability to make the testosterone you need to be a man. . .

Get all the details here

In June 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued an official warning1 about an increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer linked to the drugs finasteride (Proscar) and dutasteride (Avodart).

They even went on to update the Warnings and Precautions section of labels for this class of drugs known as 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (alpha blockers).

Just so you’re clear on some of the brand names, Avodart, Jalyn, and Proscar are approved to treat symptoms of prostate swelling — benign prostatic hyperplasia or BPH.

And small doses of another drug, Propecia, are approved to treat hair loss in men. Propecia and Proscar are both brand names for finasteride.

Dunno about you… but I’d think twice before swallowing anything that’s sporting the “may cause cancer” label! I think I’d rather go bald, or deal with the frequent urination caused by BPH.

Now if you have a taste for irony, you’ll love this: Just a few months before this announcement, the FDA put the kybosh on plans to market these drugs as ones that could help PREVENT prostate cancer!

For a change, Big Pharma got a much-needed smackdown in December 2010.

GlaxoSmithKline, maker of dutasteride (brand name Avodart), wanted to add language to the label indicating the drug’s ability to reduce prostate cancer risk in men who:

•Had a prior negative biopsy, and
•Have an elevated PSA.

Instead, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 17-0 that GlaxoSmithKline’s dutasteride and Merck’s finasteride should NOT be used to prevent prostate cancer. Why?

They said the drugs had been linked to a higher incidence of high-grade tumors. At least now we’ll be spared a barrage of commercials claiming these drugs are cancer answers.

The FDA decided that any benefits seen in the reduction of less-risky tumors were outweighed by the development of more life-threatening cancers is some subjects.

Despite the risks from these drugs, many men still take them when seeking relief from a swollen prostate. Here’s why…

Are you battling a bulging prostate?

Here are a few key facts to know about your prostate gland:
•It’s about the size of a walnut and located just under your bladder

•It surrounds part of the urethra—the tube that carries urine from the bladder and out of the body

•Thousands of prostate cells supply fluids that are part of semen

•The prostate has two major growth spurts — during puberty and in your young manhood

A healthy, mature prostate should remain the size of a walnut. At most, a healthy prostate may grow to the size of a small plum.

But if your prostate grows much bigger than that (as most do, the older you get), then you can experience serious discomfort and problems with urination.

What’s worse, an overgrown prostate can put the squeeze on nerves that help control your erections. This can make it difficult—if not impossible—to perform sexually.

But here’s a good question (and one I’ve often wondered about): Does BPH mean you’re at greater risk of cancer? Not necessarily…

BPH doesn’t mean cancer

Keep in mind that the “B” in BPH stands for “benign.” It means the growth is non-cancerous. Scientists have not been able to determine for sure whether prostate swelling is a precursor to prostate cancer.

All the same, BPH symptoms can mimic those related to malignant abnormal cell growth, such as:
•Slow or weak urine stream

•Pushing or straining to begin passing urine

•Blood in your urine caused by straining to void

In time, these problems can cause your bladder to become more irritable… to contract even when it only has a small amount of urine… and give you more frequent and sudden urges to pee. No doubt you’ve seen those commercials with older men dashing for the nearest restroom all day long, or getting up several times a night to urinate.

It’s annoying. But it’s not cancer.

And here’s more good news if you’re experiencing any of these symptoms…

Dangerous drugs are NOT your only option!

Prescriptions for BPH drugs can be expensive and may produce unwanted side effects such as headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and even sudden fainting. A large number of men also report a loss of sex drive, and some say it doesn’t come back even after they stop taking the drug.

We covered this simmering scandal in our Special Report Maximum Manhood. If I say so myself, every man over 40 should read this report. It not only covers the dangers of prescription BPH drugs, but it goes over all your natural treatment options.

The report also covers testosterone supplements (natural AND prescription) in greater depth than any other publication you can find. It just so happens that getting your testosterone up may bring you relief from BPH and the never-ending trips to the bathroom. Click here to learn more.

I would avoid taking BPH drugs. And in fact I DO avoid it. I’m in the midst of trying the most widely recommended natural solutions for BPH. No success so far, I have to tell you. But I do know they work for some men. They’re worth a try. And meanwhile I’m going to keep looking for one that works for me.

Maximum Manhood covers the natural BPH solutions in depth, but here are some of the best-known ones:

  • Saw Palmetto— According to the American Family Physician Journal, many studies have proven saw palmetto remarkably effective at shrinking an enlarged prostate.  No guarantees, but some men do have success with it.
  • Selenium—Dr. Larry Clark of the University of Arizona headed a landmark 10-year study which showed selenium reduced abnormal cell growth in the prostate by a remarkable 63 percent.
  • Nettleeliminates up to 86 percent of prostate symptoms!  According to the University of Maryland Medical Center, Urtica dioica—or stinging nettle—has been called a natural finasteride for slowing prostate cell growth. I haven’t tried this yet, but it’s on my list.
  • Pumpkin seedsreduce prostate-enlarging DHT!  According to Prevention magazine, the phytosterols in pumpkin seeds may help shrink the prostate. These seeds contain chemicals that prevent testosterone from changing into DHT. High levels of DHT are associated with an enlarged prostate.

There are a number of high-quality supplements that contain some or all of these (and many other natural substances) to help keep your prostate growth in check.
Switching quickly to another subject, prostate cancer and other cancers may be partly due to something we put on our lawns and gardens, and that’s in a lot of the foods we eat. If you missed this important news last Wednesday, scroll down and read it now.

There are a number of high-quality supplements that contain some or all of these (and many other natural substances) to help keep your prostate growth in check.

Switching quickly to another subject, prostate cancer and other cancers may be partly due to something we put on our lawns and gardens, and that’s in a lot of the foods we eat. If you missed this important news last Wednesday, scroll down and read it now.


This Secret Hustle has Cancer
Doctors Rolling in Dough

Have you heard about the “chemotherapy concession?”

The term refers to the scheme that enables some cancer doctors to make a boatload of money by prescribing certain chemotherapy drugs. It raises the question, “Is my doctor prescribing me the drug that’s best for me, or the one that gives him the highest profit margin?”

Well, we know the answer. . .keep reading. . .

Continued below…

Improve your hearing without implants or surgery

Most people think that hearing loss is a part of aging and that they have to live with it. They tend to believe the only way out is to wear hearing aids or undergo invasive implant surgery.

They are wrong! New breakthrough studies have unlocked the powerful secret that helps relieve ringing in the ears and improves your hearing even if you’re 70, 80 or 90 years old!

The best news is that your hearing can start to improve in as little as 7 days.

To know more about this amazing secret, Click Here.

Unlike other specialists, oncologists who prescribe chemotherapy can profit directly from prescribing certain drugs if they administer treatments in their offices. It only works for an oncologist who has an independent practice. Those employed by hospitals can’t enrich themselves this way. In those cases it’s the hospital that’s reaping massive profits.

But the profiteers in private practice can buy the drugs at wholesale prices, then bill Medicare or private insurance for whatever they can get—and pocket the difference.

You’ve heard the expression “cutting out the middle man”? That’s exactly what the independent oncologist does. He or she is acting as your doctor and your pharmacy at the same time.

A New York Times article 1 about these de facto drug-company kickbacks features a quote from Ari Straus, the chief operating officer of Aurora Healthcare Consulting. The group focuses on helping doctors increase their profits.

Straus told the Times that in 2002 many physicians were earning upwards of $1 million per year on drug sales alone!

The General Accounting Office studied federal payments for cancer drugs in late 2001. The GAO determined that, on average, doctors got discounts as high as 86 percent on some drugs! They pay fourteen cents and charge the cancer patient a dollar.

Having observed for some years how the medical system operates, my guess is that many doctors prescribe the chemotherapy drugs that pay them the highest profits, not those that are best for the patient — and certainly not those that are a bargain for the patient.

This is sometimes justified by telling the patient the drug is brand new and represents some kind of improvement. New drugs, still under patent, are the most expensive ones. But it’s a well-known fact that few new drugs are any better than off-patent drugs that have been around for years.

The proof for the claimed “improvement” may be that cancer patients in clinical trials survived just a few more weeks than the control group that received an older, cheaper chemo drug. Most of the time, the so-called improvement is bogus, because the system permits drug companies to cook the results in a variety of ways.

Crazy Markups

A study published in the journal Health Affairs2 gives an example of the crazy markups in the case of breast cancer patients.

Researchers from the University of Michigan and Harvard University found that just increasing a doctor’s reimbursement by ONE DOLLAR resulted in the use of chemo drugs that cost $23 more!

In other words, the doctors in this study are willing to see you or your insurance company billed a much higher amount as long as they get an extra buck or two out of it.

You can be sure that many oncologists jump on the bandwagon of running an in-office pharmacy for profit. But your average thinking person probably would want to know…

Does anyone else smell a conflict of interest?

Imagine the problems the “cancer concession” creates for a doctor who’s supposed to be helping patients decide if they should undergo chemotherapy at all… or if they should continue a treatment that doesn’t appear to be working… or if they should choose an off-patent drug instead of the newest, most expensive one…

Because the profit margins vary widely, the greediest doctors focus on prescribing medications with the highest margins.

Medicare attempted to crack down on the practice in 2005 by changing the markups they would pay for the drugs.

Prior to 2005, Medicare paid a markup of 20 percent to 100 percent on many drugs. And private insurers were willing to pay even higher markups! (A 100 percent markup means half of what you’re paying for the drug goes into the doctor’s pocket, while the other half goes to the drug company.)

The 2005 Medicare reforms capped drug reimbursement at only 6 percent above the average price of the drug paid by all doctors. If successful, this would mean the doctor is passing on the drugs to you at just a little bit above his cost.

This change caused the overall amount that doctors billed Medicare for injectable drugs to fall by 6 percent—that is, from $10.6 billion in 2004 to $10.3 billion in 2005.

But many private insurers continue to pay higher markups.

Because of the Medicare cutbacks, some doctors decided to suspend office treatments in favor of sending patients to hospitals for chemotherapy.

This might sound like a minor adjustment, but the added commuting time and expense can be far more than an inconvenience for a person battling a life-threatening cancer diagnosis. Personally I’d rather get the chemo infusion in a private office — as long as the doctor isn’t price-gouging.

But at least the 6 percent Medicare markup cap has put the kybosh on the outrageous charges, right?

In a perfect world, maybe this would be true. But the reality is…

New study links chemotherapy prescriptions
with rising cancer costs!

The findings of the University of Michigan and Harvard University study were confirmed again by a 2012 study from researchers at University of California, Los Angeles.

The study, published online December 26th in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,3 confirms financial incentives continue to exist for some US oncologists in the prescribing of chemotherapy drugs.

The study was led by Jennifer Malin, MD, PhD at UCLA, who is also medical director of oncology at the managed care company WellPoint.

The authors stated that profits from the chemotherapy concession represent about 65 percent of revenue in a typical oncology practice, effectively “dwarfing the income from evaluation and management.”

The authors recommend shutting down this profit source completely.

They said one workaround solution could be to develop “specialty pharmacy programs” that work with payers to supply clinics with drugs. This would effectively eliminate the current “buy and bill” process.

But the researchers acknowledge the challenges involved in implementing such programs.

These include managing storage and administration of the drugs, as well as “concerns about waste if site-of-care laboratory testing indicates that the drug should not be given.”

Despite the challenges with eliminating the chemotherapy concession, many folks concerned about skyrocketing medical costs would welcome the idea of eliminating outrageous profits to doctors who capitalize off of the medical misery of others.

Hospitals have their own scam
to profit from the suffering of cancer patients

The government permits hospitals to engage in a practice that’s similar to the one in private oncology. What’s more, this “340B” program has been vastly expanded under Obamacare.

340B was originally meant to help about 90 hospitals to buy drugs to treat the poor. Under the program, drug companies are forced to sell the hospitals drugs at 25 to 50 percent off. As government programs have a habit of doing, the program has expanded to 1675 hospitals and has become one of the biggest boondoggles in medicine.

In the words of the Wall Street Journal (July 31, 2013), “The arrangement gives 340B-qualified hospitals a big incentive to search for patients and prescribe a lot of drugs. The costlier the drugs, the bigger the spread. So expensive cancer drugs are especially appealing.”

The article cites one hospital that purchased $54.8 million in drugs under the discount program and sold them to patients for $131.8 million for a profit of $76.9 million. The hospital’s total profits from ALL diseases and injuries was $190 million. This means cancer patients are paying a large portion of the bills for the entire health system.

This government program is such a goldmine, eligible hospitals are buying up private oncology practices as fast as they can. Just since the passage of Obamacare, hospitals have acquired 400 oncology practices, according to the Wall Street Journal article. “Acquiring a single oncologist and moving the doctor’s prescriptions under a hospital’s 340B program can generate an additional profit of $1 million for a hospital.”

The hospital conglomerates are rushing to buy up so-called “satellite pharmacies” for the same reason. They want to get their hands on the chemotherapy profits.

The overhead in a hospital is higher than in a private doctor’s office, so the same chemotherapy costs the patient something like $6,500 more. That means an additional $650 in copays for many patients, plus other expenses.

Before consenting to undergo chemotherapy in a hospital OR a private practice, you should ask yourself, “Are they doing this because it’s good for me or because it’s good for them?”

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

The suffering of cancer patients pays their bills

The conventional medical industry has no incentive to look for alternatives to chemotherapy and radiation, or to find a “cure” for cancer (as they always claim they’re trying to do.) They depend on the profits from cancer. They live off of those dying people.

A “cure’ would be a disaster for them. Just remember that when you read those hopeful news stories about some gene therapy or whatever that holds out hope for a cure. To be sure, some exciting research is going on at the genetic and molecular level, but the “cure” (if any) is always years away and involves highly exotic and speculative technology that will probably cost a fortune if it’s ever FDA approved.

One line of research they’re all excited about involves designer viruses — genetically modified microbes designed to kill a particular type of cancer cell while leaving the patient unharmed. Naturally, Big Science pours money into this sort of thing, while visions of Nobel prizes dance in the heads of the researchers. Little thought is given to the possible dangers of these man-made, Frankenstein microbes.

Meanwhile, there are promising herbs and phytonutrients that could be validated for a few hundred million dollars out of the hundreds of billions wasted on chemotherapy.

Like Us on FacebookKindest regards,

Lee Euler, Publisher


Footnotes from 1st article:1Food and Drug Administration. 2011. FDA Drug Safety Communication: 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) may increase the risk of a more serious form of prostate cancer. Retrieved online at
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm258314.htmFootnotes from 2nd article:

1Berenson, A. 2007. Incentives limit any savings in treating cancer. New York Times. Article retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/business/12cancerpay.html?ei=5070&en=1b49d9a0efe3c01
e&ex=1189828800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1375294016-nXvdqDd76rnghq/yTjq//Q2Jacobson, M. et al. 2006. Does reimbursement influence chemotherapy treatment for patients? Health Affairs. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.437 Health Aff March 2006 vol. 25 no. 2 437-4433Malin, J. et al. 2012. Medical oncologists’ perceptions of financial incentives in cancer care. Journal of Clinical Oncology. Abstract available at
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/early/2012/12/26/JCO.2012.43.6063Additional resources from 2nd article:

Abelson, R. 2003. Drug sales bring huge profits, and scrutiny, to cancer doctors. New York Times. Available online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/us/drug-sales-bring-huge-profits-and-scrutiny-to-cancer-

doctors.html?pagewanted=all&src=pmCancerWire. 2006, April. Oncologists profit on chemotherapy drugs they prescribe to cancer patients. Available online at
http://www.mesothel.com/asbestos-cancer/mesothelioma/chemotherapy/alimta/alimta_profit.htm

Friedman, B. 2010. Academic oncology and the chemotherapy concession. Lab Soft News. Available online at
http://labsoftnews.typepad.com/lab_soft_news/2010/09/academic-medicine-and-the-oncology-concession-1.html

Mulcahy, N. 2013. A call to eliminate the chemotherapy concession. Medscape Medical News. Available online at
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777034

About the author

Lee Euler

Hi I'm Lee Euler, I’ve spent over a decade investigating every possible way a person can beat cancer. In fact, our commitment to defeating cancer has made us the world’s #1 publisher of information about Alternative Cancer Treatments -- with over 20 books and 700 newsletters on the subject. If you haven't heard about all your cancer options, or if you want to make sure you don’t miss even one answer to this terrible disease, then join our newsletter. When you do, I'll keep you informed each week about the hundreds of alternative cancer treatments that people are using to cure cancer all over the world.

Click here to add a comment

Leave a comment: