PC WILL COME BACK

>> I am skeptical of anyone who is "absolutely certain" of anything they cannot prove.  My guess:  genetics is important; diet is generally very important for health and probably has some relevance for prostate cancer. <<

like shakespeare said about protesting too much.  and i agree with your guesses.

ed  

English Alf, thanks for the hilarious but true reference to the tobacco smoke enema. Have to figure out how to bring that up in a conversation.

Zen9 and ChrisR, this is first I've heard of the Gleason score having changed in 2005. Did a quick search and didn't find a reference. Do you have one.

Regarding genetics and other factors: A couple months ago I heard a talk by Craig Venter of the Craig Venter Institute, which was the first group to sequence the humane genome. He said that in general any given drug can affect people differently--one group experiences a benefit, another group is largely unaffected, and another group has some bad effects. The drug is the same; it's the genetic differences among people that lead to the different responses. So in the (far?) future, your genetic makeup will be taken into account, and custom medication will be tailored to your individual genes. This was partly speculative, but the general idea is plausible. I think if your medication is going to be custom-tailored, then the rest of your lifestyle could be too--diet, exercise, whatever. Interesting to think about where this could go.

DJ

 

DJBearGuy,

Here is the article.

http://www.nature.com/nrurol/journal/v7/n3/full/nrurol.2010.9.html

When you look at what they call Pattern 3 now, it looks like what Pattern 2 used to look like before 2005.  But, I think the real difference between Pattern 3 and Pattern 2 is that 3 shows some cell infiltrating into the the muscle stroma and Pattern 2 does not do this.  Otherwise, they appear to be similiar in their differentiation.  That is why I asked Epstien if Pattern 3 of today was comparable to Pattern 2 of before 2005.  I wanted to know if I needed to interpret older studies as if I were a Pattern 2.  He said "To some extent I was right."

I agree with you Zen9

"The people who participate on this board are not even close to being a scientific cross-sample of all men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer."

Also, none of us here has exposure to a large number of PCa cases like the research institutes do from whom we read the studies, not to mention some of them have been doing this for 35-40 years longer then any of us have.

Post Edited (ChrisR) : 11/28/2010 10:44:32 AM (GMT-7)

DJ- Custom tailoring meds to the individual is exactly the idea behind Provenge and it's not-quite-ready-yet cousin, Neuvenge.

Zen9:

Your post is confusing. The points you made (#1, #2 in your post) seem to be more statements of facts. Hard to disagree with it.

I don't quite see where you are going with your opening parenthetical remark. David seems to think you are questioning the DNA/hereditary link. I think maybe you are saying the link is clear and obvious, since you are also stating facts that to me are somewhat obvious in #1 and #2.

Can you perhaps clarify?

Mel

"Prostate Cancer is in my genes, and therefore I can't do anything about it, and so stop bothering my and let me go back to my steak and ice cream!" Well, actually, you can change your genes through changes in diet, exercise and lifestyle.  Prostate cancer research has identified more than 500 genes which can be affected, and in fact they found that with a PC diet and very basic exercises: ·          Genes with beneficial effects, including some tumor-suppressing genes, became more active.   ·       Genes with deleterious effects, including some cancer-promoting genes, were switched off.   I particularly liked one of the researcher’s comments: "People say, 'Oh, it is all in my genes, what can I do?'  That's what I call genetic nihilism .   This [diet and exercise] may be an antidote to that. Genes may be our predisposition, but they are not our fate ."   [emphasis added by me]   It’s truly baffling to think about what men will subject themselves to (surgery, radiation, chemical/hormone treatment, combinations of these) to stop or slow their cancer growth while not undertaking the less radical steps that are within their direct control to slow their cancer growth and prolong life…like diet, nutrition, exercise, etc.   One cannot reverse the sands of time, but you should realize that every major oncologist who is considered a PC-expert (and you should be aware that your typical oncologist in Mayberry’s Community Hospital is not a PC-expert; you may need to look outside "the box") has diet as part of their program…this alone should tell us something important.   I also liked how Dr Samadi said it:  "Lifestyle choices are the best course of action in preventing prostate cancer or other disease."   Words we can all live (longer) by!

Actually, Alf, Dr Samadi was probably referring to both situations.  Samadi is a well known PC surgeon, but he is also undoubtedly aware of his distinguished colleague at UCSF, PC-expert Dr Pete Carroll, who ran a trial which looked at the following: ·          Start with a group of men with biopsy-verified PC who would agree to forego conventional treatments for at least one year. ·          Check each participant’s PSA…the “ before ” number.   ·          Split the group randomly into two equivalent groups.   Ask one group to make significant diet/lifestyle changes, and ask the other group not to make any changes.   ·          Check each participant’s PSA again after one year…the “ after ” number.  Compare to the " before " for trends.     So, all of the men in the study already had prostate cancer .   THE RESULT:  (i) The control group that was asked to not make changes in their diet & lifestyle saw their PSA predictably increase.  (ii) The PSA of the study group decreased.  Since these men already had prostate cancer, their goal was to control ...they demonstrated that it was not too late for their diet & lifestyle changes to be effective .  What diet & lifestyle changes were the study group asked make?  They cut red meat & dairy, ate lots of fruits vegetables, whole grains.  Stress reduction through yoga-based stretching, meditation and relaxation exercises for an hour per day.  Exercise by walking 30 minutes at a moderate pace 6 days per week. The other interesting finding in the study was that it was NOT, "All or nothing'?"   The study found that there was a direct correlation between the degree of lifestyle change and the inhibition of prostate tumor growth.  The more you do, the better; but it's not "all or nothing." Hope that helps clarify that Samadi's comment applies across the board... Here's the important point to ponder, and especially to the point of the original posting in this thread...prostate cancer will NOT return for everyone, and there ARE things you can do to stack the odds in your favor AGAINST it returning for you.  Diet, exercise and lifestyle changes will NOT prevent a PC recurrence for EVERYONE, but it certainly will help prevent it in some, and it will certainly NOT PREVENT RECURRENCE in anyone who doesn't lift a finger for change.  It still amazes me: It’s truly baffling to think about what men will subject themselves to (surgery, radiation, chemical/hormone treatment, combinations of these) to stop or slow their cancer growth while not undertaking the less radical steps that are within their direct control to slow their cancer growth and prolong life. Post Edited (Casey59) : 11/28/2010 3:18:33 PM (GMT-7)

..

After reading all your input,  it is clear that pc will come back sooner or later.

I think that we need to enjoy every day of our life.

Don't you see what a fearsome statement this is !   Someone reads these threads, and presumes that he IS doomed.

Now - I admit that I know nothing of the situation with the writer's condition, but to come here and make a statement that cure is not possible , is plain WRONG.

What a strange thread.

 One guy here deems himself CURED after having surgery in May 2010.

 Another is convinced that specific dietary choices will totally cure PC while other choices will enflame it.

 It sure must be nice to be so sure, despite no definitive supportive results.

 Thank goodness people here are honest and report what IS, not what they would LIKE IT to be.

 If we can't get the whole range of information here, then this site would be useless.

 We need a lot of support, but not phoney support.

 

I will NEVER really consider myself cured of anything..

In another thread, people got all hot and bothered over the futility of having PSA readings and operations, and declared that statistics were effectively statements of fact that could not be argued against.

Well my doctor quoted ME that if I had an RP, then I WOULD have a 95% chance of complete cure.

In that other thread, there was insistance that I had a 4% chance that I would die of PC.

 

This is indeed a very dark place, if the attitude is "We give compassionate support here and we are Honest and tell it how it IS , but no phoney support "

 

Well   BULLDUST  --  Cure IS very possible, if the PC is Dx'ed early and if the RP is successful in removing all the cancer, and then we can adjust our lives to help ensure that any CTC's are killed off and we live long lives, and up until we step in front of a different bus !

 

If some think that being honest is to agree that  "... PC WILL come back one day, sooner or later  ",  Then   " under the bus with that negative thought and those thinkers "

UNLESS -     your treatment has gone so far and you still have increasing PSA etc. then YES, you must be honest as to the likely future..

 

PS - I totally changed my diet by switching from MEAT to FISH and eating fresh vegies and taking special supplements , and my PSA started to FALL, prior to the RP..

I considered that if the surgeon could quote a 95% guarantee of cure via RP, then if I continued the diet and removed the cancer itself then I should be pretty sweet !

.

.

Post Edited (BuiDoi) : 11/28/2010 8:51:53 PM (GMT-7)

q, thanks for the heads up, but I'm sticking to my guns on this. I've read the critics of the book, and on this site as well, and my attitude has not changed. I know it sounds too simple, too good to be true, that simply changing our lifestyle can provide us with long-term health, but 'The China Study' by Dr. Campbell, proves it is possible.

Dr. Ornish writes of the book "Everyone in the field of nutrition science stands on the shoulders of Dr. Campbell, who is one of the giants in the field. This is one of the most important boks about nutrition ever written--reading it may save your life." Dr. Campbell is hardly a 'new age shyster' as you accused him of being.

I'm with Casey:

"prostate cancer will NOT return for everyone, and there ARE things you can do to stack the odds in your favor AGAINST it returning for you. Diet, exercise and lifestyle changes will NOT prevent a PC recurrence for EVERYONE, but it certainly will help prevent it in some, and it will certainly NOT PREVENT RECURRENCE in anyone who doesn't lift a finger for change."

The China Study is a long book with hundreds of quoted research studies to back the author's main premise that animal protein is harmful and whole foods are helpful to our health. Before you acuse the author of being a 'new age shyster', I have to ask you, did you read the book, the entire book? We have a multi-billion dollar industry making us sick with its products and another billion dollar industry trying to make us well. Does anyone think there might be some criticism of a book that basically sheds the light of truth on both industries? (Food business and medical business).

To my brothers: I didn't mean to come off as some kind of cocky, self-assured know it all, because God knows, I'm not. After re-reading my posts in this thread, I can see why some of you jumped all over me. This does not mean I didn't mean what I wrote, I just should have either kept it to myself, or said it a little differently.

peace!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR9Nit-3VDg

I think there are too many unknowns in all this to be able to draw accurate conclusions. One major factor is that not all cases of PCA are equally aggressive, and many are simply not aggressive at all.
Consider:
If a guy has a bad cancer in him that is say going to come back after five years if he doesn't do anything different then you could imagine that he might be able to delay trouble returning till say 6 years by changing his lifestyle, but there might be another guy with a less nasty cancer that isn't going to come back for 30 years regardless of what he does in the meantime.

So, if you opt to change your diet and don't have a recurrence you can never actually be certain that it was because you changed your diet, you may have just had a less nasty type of cancer all along.

Alf

Dave, I agree that the negativism in some threads is disheartening. Unfortunately, that even led me to use the site’s “ignore” feature due to one particular member's over-the-top obnoxiousness, but that change (made back in about September) has made my time here much more tolerable. The “ignore” button is actually the “thumbs down” icon which is located in the upper right-hand corner of each post. The feature is there for a purpose...

Daveshan- You nailed it. ....................Kev

To All:
Rules, guys and gals, remember the rules....be very careful