How does one distinguish between supplements that reduce PSA as opposed to masking PSA?

DjinTonic said...

Buddy Blank said...
[but="DjinTonic"]Keep in mind that big Pharma is not interested in discovering that a natural compound works against PCa!

This sounds exactly like something the convicted fraudster Kevin Eubanks, who wrote the book Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know about, and is now doing time at the Federal Prison Camp Montgomery in Alabama, would say.

_______________________
Yes it does! But I am trusting there is a difference in value between his book and peer-reviewed medical journals. I look at my succesful PCa treatment as an investment that I might be able to protect by preventing or slowing recurrence. I'm willing to take larger doses of some foodstuffs that have promise rather than learn in a decade that I should have been taking them. It's all risk/benefit analysis. To each his own.

Djin

.....................................................................................................................................
I more or less agree with your approach and statements here, Djin. Also, on the concept that saying something like "Keep in mind that big Pharma is not interested in discovering that a natural compound works against PCa!" is the type of statement that has landed some fraudster in jail, I can't help but ask: Does any one actually think that a large pharmaceutical company would actually be interested in proving that any natural substance might reduce demand for their mega buck products? Perhaps they do, perhaps they have a desire to go out of business? I suppose it is possible.

Interesting to see this thread pop back up again.

The OP is actually a really, really good question--and the short answer is (Probably) no. The only way I could think of to prove it either way would be to closely monitor a bunch of men, and give them frequent biopsies to verify the presence or absence of cancer as their PSA wandered up and down.

I present myself as a cautionary tale. If my PCP and my diagnosing Urologist had not looked beyond my PSA numbers, I might well have gone on for several more years, and my 3+4 across the whole gland could easily have morphed into an 8 or 9, and I'd be one of the guys in the always on edge crowd instead of the 5yrs+ of non-detect crowd with no adverse side effects.

I think there is a clear distinction between the never or not-yet diagnosed, and the post-treatment use of supplements or meds as they relate to PSA. For the never or not-yet diagnosed, PSA is only one of several measures that work together to lead to a diagnosis of PCa. Post treatment, it becomes much more valuable--it is the first marker to indicate that the cancer is back. I suspect that the supplement or medication question is also distinct. Pre-treatment, PSA is a check-engine light, if you will. Something interesting is happening, let's pop the hood and see what we see. A PSA lowering supplement or drug might delay the hood-popping until something really bad happens.

Post treatment might well be different. Post-treatment, dietary changes, supplements, etc might all work to delay the onset of metastatic disease--not just in PCa, but in other cancers as well. In those cases, for those individuals, I see less risk in reality: you've already been treated, you're aware of what could be happening, you're keeping an eye on things--and, in reality, you're trying to stay as healthy as you can for as long as you can--and a better diet is a part of that.

Djin I've zero interest in your conspiracy theories re: Big Pharma. I find them offensive. You won't get anywhere attempting to push them on me.

Once more time: I've zero interest in discussing conspiracy theories re: Big Pharma. In my book, they're to be ridiculed, and exposed as the frauds they are.