HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Thoughts on the hormonal axis and prostate cancer

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 2/19/2013 5:23 PM (GMT 0)
I just finished putting some thoughts together about the hormonal axis and prostate cancer that might be of interest to some of the HW members. The subject is a complex one and there is some unavoidable medical jargon for lack of more understandable language. Sorry about that. In my thoughts many issues remain unanswered. Included are comments about the Gat/Goren hypothesis as to the cause of prostate cancer. The article can be read at the AZ website at: tinyurl.com/a6x5wbr

RalphV
Posted 2/19/2013 7:09 PM (GMT 0)
Ralph,

Lots of interesting stuff there. Lots of out-of-the-box thinking.

If you are open to one editorial suggestion, the first half makes it appear that your main subject will be Ed Friedman's two models and when I get to the Gat/Goren hypothesis I lost some time trying to fit it into the context of the two models. It would help to give the section on Friedman's models a heading to bring it parallel with the Gat/Goren section (something like "Two models of prostate cancer" ) and to change the Gat/Goren heading to something like "The Gat/Goren Hypothesis: a different theory"
Posted 2/19/2013 7:33 PM (GMT 0)
Peter,
Good suggestion. The reason that happened and like you said that last part about Gat/Goren doesn't seem to fit is because it was added in disregard of the two models. The Gat/Goren discussion here has been carried by men with BPH. The hypothesis as the cause of PCa has been totally ignored. It was my poor choice in a try to promote a discussion. Thanks.

RalphV
Posted 2/19/2013 8:00 PM (GMT 0)
Ralph,

I'm not trying to talk you into taking out the Gat/Goren hypothesis. The idea that the cause of (at least some) prostate cancer is physiological, as opposed to metabolic -- that it is, in effect, a plumbing problem -- is so refreshingly out-of-the-box that I'd love to see a calm discussion of the evidence that seems to support it. It just jangles a bit with the two models and your article needs a bit more framework to indicate that you are talking about interesting theories that can't neatly be reconciled.
Posted 2/19/2013 9:23 PM (GMT 0)
Peter,
I already made some changes. The Gat/Goren part remains. It is further down in the article under a different heading. A better fit I think. I feel that their hypothesis has been ignored by practitioners.
The procedure seems to work for men with BPH and patients with hypogonadism by eliminating the backflow of free testosterone bathing the prostate gland. If it works for those, why not in reducing the risk of PCa. Thanks.

RalphV
Posted 2/20/2013 1:46 AM (GMT 0)
Great paper...again...

Thank you for all you do kind sir. I will post this on our LV site as well...

Tony
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply