Prostate cancer risk factor claims - a discussion

The TruthAboutCancer website is really the UNtruth about cancer… The ‘experts’ on this website are not leaders in the research of the medical fields they seem to have opinions of, and generally are part of the multi-billion dollar vitamin supplement industry. Their views or opinions support their business interests. If one google searches each of the ‘expert’, one will see what the real agenda is. Each one sells/markets products which happen to support their views on diseases.

Here are some examples from the start of the ‘expert’ list:

Dr Rath
Dr Axe
Dr Blaylock
Dr Mercola

and the list goes on. It is interesting that these conflict of interests/vested interests are not disclosed on the TruthAboutCancer website. It is likely that if this same website was Australian, it would be required to make such conflicts of interests/vested interests very clear, so that the ACCC is not breached. Especially the Ethical duties prohibit professionals from acting to promote their own self interest.

I think it is quite sad that these sort of websites bring false hope to those with cancer, and are really only set up to enable the filling of pockets, profiting from others misfortune.


Just a reminder to those viewing this thread, you should contact a legally qualified medical practitioner before making any health related decisions :thumbsup:.


I’m sure that you understand about reference to authority to substantiate one’s position. This can be in a discussion, or to show that you have the background to do a job, etc.

I read the note about the author with interest:
Suresh Nair is a health writer with more than 15 years of experience as a practicing laboratory scientist. He is also a former copy-editor and project manager at a medical communications company. Suresh has written hundreds of articles on health, alternative health, fitness, and nutrition as well as various other medical and clinical topics. As a scientist (with a PhD in Molecular Neurobiology from UPenn), his articles are always thoroughly researched and have a sound scientific basis.

If he has the experience and knowledge he has claimed he would surely know that when writing something that claims to be “thoroughly researched and have a sound scientific basis”, everything should be backed up by references to validate the information. There isn’t one reference in the article so the claims about the contents being “thoroughly researched and have a sound scientific basis” are not valid.

I think the disclaimer at the bottom of the page says it all:
""The Truth About Cancer® and The Quest For The Cures™ are registered Trademarks of TTAC Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: The content of this website is based on research conducted by TTAC Publishing, LLC, unless otherwise noted. The information is presented for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose or prescribe for any medical or psychological condition, nor to prevent, treat, mitigate or cure such conditions. The information contained herein is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a doctor or qualified healthcare professional. Therefore, this information is not intended as medical advice, but rather a sharing of knowledge and information based on research and experience. TTAC Publishing encourages you to make your own health care decisions based on your judgment and research in partnership with a qualified healthcare professional.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The information on this website is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.""

In other words the disclaimer says the article has no value as medical advice, go and see a qualified health professional.


Not another quacky website?!

Just as a side note, most men who develop prostate cancer die with it - not of it.


Prostate Cancer in Australia is the third largest cause of death by any cancer at 7.2% of all cancer deaths. If considering sex distinction then Breast Cancer deaths among women raise their rate to 14.9% of all female cancer deaths but if death by Breast Cancer is taken as combined it drops to 6.5% of all cancer deaths. If Prostate Cancer is adjusted to only Males the rate is 12.7% of all Male cancer deaths. These figures are based on 2017 data but it is fairly similar for all years from about 2014, there has been higher mortality rates in the early 90’s and earlier. 2018 estimated mortality is 3,500.

It also ranks third in the US, In the UK approx 47,000 men are year are diagnosed with it and about 11,000 a year die from it. 1 in 4 men of African descent get prostate cancer and usually at an earlier age than other males.

By numbers in Australia it ranks this way for cancer deaths in 2017

Lung                                    9,021
Colorectal (Bowel)                      4,114
Prostate                                3,452
Breast (M & F combined)                 3,114
   Breast (F only)                         3,087
   Breast (M only)                            27
Pancreatic                              2,915

Also just like with females and increased Breast Cancer risk the BCRA gene mutations are linked to Prostate and Breast cancer in men. “At the present time, genetic evaluation guidelines for prostate cancer primarily focus on BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing. The overall risk of prostate cancer has been reported up to 3.8-fold for men who carry BRCA1 mutations and up to 8.6-fold for men who carry BRCA2 mutations. BRCA2 mutations are also associated with more aggressive prostate cancer features.” (

“Men who carry germline mutations in the BRCA2 gene have a higher risk of developing breast carcinoma than men in the general population. Men who carry germline mutations in the BRCA1 gene may also be at a higher risk for breast carcinoma, but this association is not as well established. We evaluated the risks of developing breast carcinoma for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the US population based on data from 1939 families with 97 male subjects with breast carcinoma that were collected from eight centers across the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Genetics Network. At all ages, the cumulative risks of male breast cancer were higher in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers than in noncarriers.” (