Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Press Press

The PSA storm

BMJ 2002; 324 doi: (Published 16 February 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:431

Rapid Response:

Wilkes & Yamey - please learn a new tune

Yamey and Wilkes continue to insist that they are the injured parties
in this discussion but continue to use the same tired arguments. They see
conspiracy at every turn and continue to malign those that disagree with

You have called this a DEBATE yet use the podiums that you own to
selectively quote and promote your sad stories of harm and being compared
to Nazi's and others - who by the way also controlled the press outlets
and chose to publish half-truths and exaggerations. Like those cads sixty+
years ago the light of truth and truly free speech opens the eyes to a
public ready, willing and able to make an informed decision when presented
the full story.

A challenge to a true debate on the subject of early detection of
prostate cancer was issued publicly weeks ago (including in the BMJ) and
yet not a single word from either Yamey or Wilkes has been heard. Why? I
personally offered to pay for this true debate (defined by all but
apparently the BMJ as a two sided discussion) out of my own pocket and yet
for weeks all we have been subject to is the same drivel trying to sway
public opinion to believe that these two fine professionals with the only
truth are being savagely attacked by people too stupid to understand that
they are pawns of "a very wealthy and powerful pro-screening lobby that
stands to make money from encouraging men to get tested."

Get off it gentlemen. If you had the power of your opinions and the
strength of your convictions you would not hide behind your corporate
sponsored ivory covered walls and advertiser funded media outlets (which
you conveniently forget to disclose while touting the U.S. citizen tax
supported funding you receive to tell us how we must be protected by you
because we are too ignorant to make an informed decision on our own). Do
the public some good by openly debating two professional colleagues. The
problem is that such a debate would require some professional backbone and
data more recent than 1996. It would also require some dedication to truly
helping men make an informed decision and not simply throwing bombs and
then wrapping yourself in the first amendment.

Instead, you continue to whine and cry foul while basing the motives
of others - the same sleezy tactics you have usedsince day one. Sorry
gentlemen, my six year old does a better job of supporting her decisions
and standing up and supporting her opinion when others disagree.

John Page

Competing interests: No competing interests

17 February 2002
John A. Page