Looking in from the outside, it’s easy to imagine the scientific method working well to allow our knowledge to improve steadily. But, more often than not, the results may have several possible interpretations, and sometimes, there’s doubt about whether the results have been fixed to give the maximum advantage to the manufacturer of the drug under test. Sadly, there’s a serious lack of independent research producing unambiguous results. Against this background, we have the results of a trial into the use of a drug to prevent men from developing prostate cancer. A group of men were gathered together. They had either tested positive for Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) or they had a positive biopsy confirming a growth. Over a four year period, these men were given either a drug or a placebo with there being 23% fewer confirmed cases of cancer in the drug group. On the face of it, this sounds like really encouraging news. All the more so because, a similar study with a different drug claimed a 25% reduction in the number of confirmed cancers. If drugs can prevent the development of prostate cancer, this reduces the need for surgery and the risk to erectile function. Obviously, removing the need for surgeons to start cutting away the soft tissues around the groin, enables men to maintain their sexual activity levels.

Unfortunately, both studies are controversial because they were either run by or funded by the manufacturers. Once manufacturers are involved in the design and supervision of the research, there’s a conflict of interests. There will be direct financial benefits if the drug on trial is shown as safe and effective. Millions of research and development money will be lost if drugs are found ineffective or actively dangerous. The more recent study was "supported" by the manufacturer and four of the scientists were employed by the manufacturer. Other members of the team were paid for consultancy or lectures. Not surprisingly, both studies are being used to encourage doctors to prescribe both drugs for tumor prevention. In fact, neither drug has FDA approval for this use. A doctor would be going "off label", i.e. experimenting on you.

The two problems with this area of research are simply put. There’s reasonably good evidence that both these drugs reduce the size of benign growths. Thus, whatever might have developed in the test group could have been benign and nothing to worry about. Secondly, the link between higher levels of PSA and the growth of tumors is not yet confirmed. Indeed, the fact that PSA levels fall does not remove the danger of a growth and men who think otherwise may go undiagnosed until the cancer is far advanced.

As it stands, the new research may encourage more doctors to prescribe either drug as a preventative measure. Since prostate cancer develops with age, the idea of being able to prevent or slow its growth is attractive. Anything that avoids surgery and the risk of erectile dysfunction is to be encouraged. If the knife cuts a little too far, it does not help to buy cialis. No erectile dysfunction drug can repair cut muscles. Obviously, the use of cialis as the tumor is developing maintains sexual activity for a long period of time. Some men hope to die of old age before they need to have surgery. But, overall, it’s better to prevent the cancer if you can.