Matteson man who survived prostate cancer spreading the word about early detection
Andrin 'AJ' Jones got some scary news when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, but his experience has pushed him to try to make a difference in other men's lives now that he's a survivor.
Jones, a 62-year-old retired Air Force veteran, counts himself lucky that his cancer was caught early enough that it had not spread, so that surgically removing his prostate in 2023 left him healthy. So he wants to spread that good fortune to others by spreading his story about how early testing leads to better outcomes.
'My prognosis was excellent because the biopsy showed the cancer was still contained within the walls of my prostate,' said Jones, who lives in Matteson with his wife, also an Air Force veteran. 'Because of early detection, it had not yet metastasized, the risk level was low to intermediate. I was so thankful for that.'
His journey with prostate cancer started in May 2022, when Dr. Lance Wallace, his internist at Specialty Physicians of Illinois, LLC, ordered a full panel of screening labs, including a prostate specific antigen test. That test revealed he had an elevated level of that antigen in his blood.
After Wallace saw the test result, he waited a few months to recheck the labs, but they were higher. So he referred Andrin to Dr. James Siegert, a urologist and urological surgeon, also with Specialty Physicians of Illinois, LLC, and practicing with Franciscan Health Olympia Fields, who redid the labs to watch for a trend in elevations.
He did the biopsy several months later and found Stage 2 adenocarcinoma.
'Of course I was alarmed at the diagnosis, but at the same time, it was a good reality check to encourage men to not ignore any symptoms,' said Andrin.
Andrin said he was given a choice of radiation or surgery and opted for the latter.
Siegert said prostate cancer screening was generally recommended for 50- to 60-year-old men at average risk, but for those at increased risk, such as African-American men or those with a family history, the age recommendation drops to 40 to 45. The screening is not usually recommended for men 70 or older.
'Prostate cancer screening is important because it can help detect cancer early, when it's most treatable and potentially curable,' Siegert said. 'Early detection through a PSA blood test may allow patients to avoid more serious complications down the line and preserve their quality of life.'
Wallace, Jones' primary care physician, also encouraged early screening.
'Like anything, the earlier you catch it, the less treatment will be involved in treating the cancer, and the chance for success is greater,' Wallace said.
Jones said there were a few things that helped him get through the experience, including building a strong relationship with both physicians.
'I'm a person of faith, I trusted God with the situation,' he said. 'I started going for walks in the morning to mentally process things that were going on.
'Along with my wife, family, and church family, that helped me have a good mental perspective,' he said.
No matter how difficult the ordeal was he often reminds himself, 'I had cancer — today I don't.'
'Being honest and open with other men about prostate screening' has provided a source of strength for Jones, he said. He still does that on regular walks with his comrades.
He also teaches classes on the Bible and is an avid hiker and biker.
Siegert said he was struck by Jones' resilience.
'Of the hundreds of men I diagnose and treat for prostate cancer per year, Mr. Jones was unique as throughout his treatment, he maintained a remarkably positive attitude, approaching each step with resilience and hope,' said Siegert. 'Inspired by his experience, he has become a passionate advocate for prostate cancer awareness and early screening, particularly within the African-American and veteran communities, using his voice to encourage others to take charge of their health.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pandemic preparedness ‘dramatically eroding' under Trump, experts say
Amid controversial dismissals for independent advisers and staff at health agencies, alongside lackluster responses to the bird flu and measles outbreaks, experts fear the US is now in worse shape to respond to a pandemic than before 2020. H5N1, which has received less attention under the Trump administration than from Biden's team, is not the only influenza virus or even the only variant of bird flu with the potential to spark a pandemic. But a subpar response to the ongoing US outbreak signals a larger issue: America is not ready for whatever pathogen will sweep through next. 'We have not even remotely maintained the level of pandemic preparedness – which needed a lot of work, as we saw from the Covid pandemic,' said Angela Rasmussen, an American virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. 'But now, we essentially have no pandemic preparedness.' Related: Bird flu reinfections at US poultry farms highlight need for vaccines, experts say 'I'm concerned on a number of fronts,' said Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health. Those concerns include a lack of quality information from officials, weakened virus monitoring systems, and public health reductions at the federal, state and local levels. 'The thing that I am most concerned about is the veracity of information coming out of the health agencies,' Nuzzo said. In the ongoing outbreaks of measles, for example, Robert F Kennedy Jr, the secretary of health and human services, has downplayed the severity of the disease, spread misinformation about the highly effective vaccine to prevent measles, and pushed unproven treatments. 'The communications on measles gives me deep worries about what would happen in a pandemic,' Nuzzo said. 'If a pandemic were to occur today, the only thing we would have to protect ourselves on day one would be information.' The H5N1 outbreak has been plagued by incomplete information, an issue that began in the Biden administration but has amplified under Trump. In Arizona, 6 million chickens were killed or culled at a Hickman's Family Farms location because of H5N1 in May. That's about 95% of the company's hen population in the state. Hundreds of workers, including inmate laborers, are now being dismissed as Arizona braces for egg shortages. We're not testing – it's not that there are no new cases Angela Rasmussen Yet even as H5N1 outbreaks continue to spread on farms and wreak havoc on the food supply, no new bird flu cases have been reported in people for months. 'I am concerned that we may not be finding new infections in humans,' Nuzzo said – and a lack of testing may be the culprit. 'We're not testing – it's not that there are no new cases,' Rassmussen said. The last bird flu case in a person was listed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on 23 February. At that point, at least 830 people in the US had been tested after contact with sick animals. This kind of testing – monitoring the health of people who regularly work with H5N1-infected animals – is how the vast majority of cases (64 out of 70) have been found in this outbreak. But then, several CDC officials overseeing the bird flu response were fired on 1 April. Since then, only about 50 people in the US have been tested after exposure to sick animals – and no positive cases have been announced. It's also been difficult to understand the extent of the outbreak and how the virus spreads among animals. 'We still just don't have a good picture of the scope and scale of this outbreak – we never really have. And until we have that, we're not going to be able to contain it,' Rasmussen said. 'It's extremely bad,' she continued. 'We don't have any information about what's happening right now. The next pandemic could be starting, and we just don't know where that's happening, and we don't have any ability to find out.' We're seeing health departments scrambling. That infrastructure is just dramatically eroding Jennifer Nuzzo Huge reductions in the public health workforce and resources has led to less monitoring of outbreaks, known as disease surveillance. 'Cutting back on that surveillance is leaving us more in the dark,' Nuzzo said. The CDC clawed back $11.4bn in Covid funding in March. This funding was used to monitor, test, vaccinate and otherwise respond to public health issues at the state, local, territorial and tribal level. 'We're seeing health departments scrambling,' Nuzzo said. 'That infrastructure is just dramatically eroding.' International monitoring programs to address outbreaks before they expand across borders have also been cancelled. 'We have taken for granted all of those protections, and I fear that we are poised to see the consequences,' Nuzzo said. Trump's crackdown on immigration also poses a major challenge in detecting cases and treating patients during outbreaks. 'A lot of the people who are most at risk are strongly disincentivized to report any cases, given that many of them are undocumented or are not US citizens,' Rasmussen said. 'Nobody wants to go get tested if they're going to end up in an Ice detention facility.' When cases are not detected, that means patients are not able to access care. Although it's rare for people to become sick with H5N1, for instance – the virus is still primarily an avian, not a human, influenza – this variant of bird flu has a 52% mortality rate globally among people with known infections. Allowing a deadly virus to spread and mutate under the radar has troubling implications for its ability to change into a human influenza without anyone knowing. And if such changes were detected, widening gaps in communication could be the next hurdle for preventing a pandemic, Nuzzo said. 'Communication is our most important public health intervention. People, in order to be able to know how to protect themselves, need to have access to facts, and they need to believe in the messengers. And the communication around the measles outbreaks are deeply eroding our standing with the American people.' Even stockpiled vaccines and other protective measures, like personal protective equipment, take time to distribute, Nuzzo added. 'And flu is a fast-moving disease that could cause a lot of damage in the months it would take to mount a vaccination campaign.' The US government's cancellation of its $766m contract with Moderna to research and develop an H5N1 vaccine also signals a concerning strategy from health officials, Nuzzo and Rasmussen said. Other restrictions on vaccine development, like a new plan to test all vaccines against saline placebos, is 'going to make it extremely difficult to approve any new vaccine' and would 'have a devastating impact on our ability to respond to a potential pandemic', Rasmussen said – especially in a rapidly moving pandemic where speed matters. 'You don't have time for that if this virus causes a human-to–human outbreak,' Rasmussen said. All of these policies mean the US is less prepared for a pandemic than it was in 2020, she said. And it also means there will be preventable suffering now, even before the next big one strikes. 'We are actively making people less safe, less healthy and more dead,' Rasmussen said.
Newsweek
7 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
ChatGPT use linked to cognitive decline, research reveals
Relying on the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT to help you write an essay could be linked to cognitive decline, a new study reveals. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab studied the impact of ChatGPT on the brain by asking three groups of people to write an essay. One group relied on ChatGPT, one group relied on search engines, and one group had no outside resources at all. The researchers then monitored their brains using electroencephalography, a method which measures electrical activity. The team discovered that those who relied on ChatGPT — also known as a large language model — had the 'weakest' brain connectivity and remembered the least about their essays, highlighting potential concerns about cognitive decline in frequent users. 'Over four months, [large language model] users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels,' the study reads. 'These results raise concerns about the long-term educational implications of [large language model] reliance and underscore the need for deeper inquiry into AI's role in learning.' The study also found that those who didn't use outside resources to write the essays had the 'strongest, most distributed networks.' While ChatGPT is 'efficient and convenient,' those who use it to write essays aren't 'integrat[ing] any of it' into their memory networks, lead author Nataliya Kosmyna told Time Magazine. Kosmyna said she's especially concerned about the impacts of ChatGPT on children whose brains are still developing. 'What really motivated me to put it out now before waiting for a full peer review is that I am afraid in 6-8 months, there will be some policymaker who decides, 'let's do GPT kindergarten,'' Kosmyna said. 'I think that would be absolutely bad and detrimental. Developing brains are at the highest risk.' But others, including President Donald Trump and members of his administration, aren't so worried about the impacts of ChatGPT on developing brains. Trump signed an executive order in April promoting the integration of AI into American schools. 'To ensure the United States remains a global leader in this technological revolution, we must provide our Nation's youth with opportunities to cultivate the skills and understanding necessary to use and create the next generation of AI technology,' the order reads. 'By fostering AI competency, we will equip our students with the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to adapt to and thrive in an increasingly digital society.' Kosmyna said her team is now working on another study comparing the brain activity of software engineers and programmers who use AI with those who don't. 'The results are even worse,' she told Time Magazine. The Independent has contacted OpenAI, which runs ChatGPT, for comment.
