Treatment after Radiation as Primary Therapy.

No Ken it is neither logical nor factual.

SRT after surgery is always more difficult and potentially damaging than initial radiation and follow up radiation.

Why? Because after surgery you have no prostate and the other organs, mainly bladder and large intestine, change to fill in that void. Then if you have to have SRT you are radiating those organs and thus more significant side effects.

When you radiate the prostate, you are primarily radiating the prostate and minimizing damage to the other organs. If you have to do another ablation (brachytherapy, CRYO, HIFU, NanaKnofe, etc) it will be more focal to the remaining prostate and again do less to the surrounding organs than SRT would do.

Most people equate SRT with initial radiation therapy and that is simply incorrect. They are significantly different because of the anatomical changes that surgery causes and that is one of the reasons that men can expect worse side effects from SRT than from radiation as an initial treatment.

Great win....go Mets (the baseball kind?)

Jack, yes the baseball kind. 😱

newspeak...brilliance and hubris a parasitic nightmare breeding maggots...which ironically is not that bad in that it can save lives...maggots that is ...riddle me that...

JNF said...
So let’s illustrate the void.

.....No wonder why SRT is tricky, not guaranteed to be effective and toxic....as the statistics and studies confirm.

Excellent and accurate description, Jack. My single biggest concern, not that much can be done about it. Back to...faith.

Ya gots to love this thread...I know I'm learning a lot...hows a bout y'all...rhetorical question...you touched the fingertip of healingwell with this one Pratoeveryman...just remember what I said about praise and stuff....As I told a co worker back in the day...champ today...chump tomorrow...ain't it da trute...

InTheShop said...
The never ending thread. Just when you think it's dead, it starts up again.

Sorta like prostate cancer.....

WeightLoss said...
Being in the 18th century Hume had no knowledge of Science or Mathematics as we know it, hence it would be impossible for him to comment on what we call "scientific reasoning" today. His idea of Science isn't the same as our Science in the 21st century, which involves inductive reasoning when we create theories but also deductive reasoning and mathematical induction to generate truth and fact.

What an odd thing to say! Do you imagine that modern science and math suddenly appeared in the past few years? Scientific reasoning began with Francis Bacon who established the scientific method of empirical observation and hypothesis testing in the early 1600s. Kepler, at about the same time, derived the mathematical equations governing the motion of planets. In the 1660s and 1670s, Leibniz and Newton developed calculus. Newton published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687, which laid out all the laws of mechanics that are very much in use today.

Hume (1711-1776) was a polymath with a very good understanding of math and science. As a skeptic and an empiricist, he argued (as Aristotle had, btw) that the only knowledge we can be certain of is produced by analysis or deduction. He believed that all knowledge is empirical, and anything that isn't observable is nonsense. Induction, he argued, required a leap of faith that what was observed would always be observed. He said that the best we could do is arrive at the probability that what was observed would continue to be observed (this idea would be central to quantum mechanics two centuries later). He went further- he argued that we cannot be certain of cause and effect - events that are adjacent in time need not be causally related. This is a logical fallacy we call "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781) responded to Hume that humans have innate unobservable qualities, such as perceiving the world as continuous in time and space, that allow for the knowledge of causation. Karl Popper, in the 20th century, agreed with Hume about the flaw at the heart of inductive reasoning. He put forth the view that an inductively reasoned theory can never truly be proven, but it can be falsified. His views are widely accepted - in all scientific research today, we seek to disprove the null hypothesis (that there is no relation) rather than prove that a positive relation exists.

I am really glad I started this thread......I hope it continues to eternity.....no matter what your point of view...I think it elucidated ..... some very useful information, I mean opinions...and a few useless ones.....IMO....Dots borrowed from logoslidat....😜

Nkinney, do you realize that you posted these exact words 3 days go, on page 1 of this thread?😂😂😂

😂😂😂 nice post, Jim.

Hey, we all need to have a sense of humor about this stuff, as a complement to serious discussion. Otherwise, we'll all go crazy.

I had a feeling, but wasn't sure

I needed a break from a critique I'm researching (totally unrelated to PC, but very much related to the philosophy of science), so I'll take up JNF's challenge to keep this thread on life support.

I thought I'd bring up medical theories of cancer that seemed "logical" to someone at some time. The internet is full of them, but my favorite (because I wrote about it in Thaw's Hammer) is this one:

In 1902, a Scottish embryologist, John Beard, noticed that the trophoblastic cells of the placenta are as invasive as cancer cells. He inductively reasoned that all cancers have their origin from those original placental cells. He believed that errant cells are released into the fetus, are distributed in all organs, but are held in check by pancreatic enzymes. It seemed logical to him that loss of pancreatic enzyme activity is responsible for all cancers, and that those enzymes can cure all cancers. Interestingly, abiraterone works by inhibiting adrenal enzymes, so perhaps he wasn't that far off.

Of course, what seemed logical to our primitive ancestors was that evil spirits caused disease. Hippocrates thought that imbalance of the 4 humors caused disease, and thought it quite logical that black bile in certain organs caused cancer. That was the prevalent logic from about 400 BC until about the scientific revolution. While those scientists couldn't find evidence for black bile at the root of cancers, they did find a lot of swollen lymph nodes. So the lymph theory of cancer, that the fermentation and degeneration of lymph caused cancer, became the most reasonable explanation in the 1700s and held sway for 150 years. The first cellular theory of cancer appeared in the mid-1800s. At first it was reasoned that "blastemas" budded cancer cells. Other 19th century theories reasoned that cancer cells arose from chronic irritation, trauma, bacteria, yeasts, fungi, protozoa, and even nematode worms.

Allen has inspired me to do some worming:
Malignant Worms
Sushi Parasite
OK, so they don’t cause cancer, but at least they get their moment in the spotlight.