This forum is for the discussion of anything to do with Prostate Cancer. There are only four rules:
No fundraisers, no commercials (although it is OK to recommend choices of treatment or medical people based on your personal research; invitations to participate in third-party surveys are also acceptable, provided there is no compensation to YANA);
No harvesting e-mail addresses for Spam;
No insults or flaming - be polite and respectful at all times and understand that there may be a variety of points of view, all of which may have some validity;
Opinions are OK, but please provide as much factual evidence as possible for any assertions that you are making
Failure to abide by these simple rules will result in the immediate and permanent suspension of your posting privileges.
Since this is an International Forum, please specify your location in your post.
Yes, Stranger, I agree that both articles made good reading.
I have always been careful not to use my specific case to endorse the avoidance of surgery or any other conventional treatment, because I am a study of one - an individual and what suits me and my diagnosis may well not suit others and their diagnoses. That is why I merely encourage others to be aware of all options, including if appropriate Active Surveillance, pointing them towards articles like this ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE FOR FAVORABLE RISK PROSTATE CANCER: What Are The Results, and How Safe Is It? rather than using my story.
What my journey does demonstrate beyond any argument is that the doctors who said I would be dead in three to five years were incorrect and that while some men may die within this time frame, I was not one of them.
I think you're correct in not using your case to support your journey. But since I've watched your case with great interest I can point out the courage you've shown and the fact the emerging evidence supports your path. So on the odd occasion I will bear your flag for you.
The "Japanese immigration" effect is an ever present opener on papers about nutrition and cancer (that applies to Chinese and Koreans as well). http://www.moffitt.org/CCJRoot/v14n1/pdf/78.pdf
It should neither be ignored nor overrated. Maybe nobody has ever looked at other nationalities because their eating habits don`t differ that much or are just not interesting enough.
The fact that the Japanese have the highest life expectancy and proportionately more centenarians than any other industrial nation indicates though, that there is more to the Japanese diet than meets the eye.
Although Japanese physicians as a rule don`t tell their patients that they have cancer and inform their spouses or relatives instead, I don`t think that they try to interfere with cancer statics. But PCa especially is still a stigma and best concealed. However, as PCa is on the increase (probably due to a change in eatings habit and contamination of fish), there is more and more information in the media and on TV on the subject and a growing awareness.
Stomach cancer incidence is decreasing in Japan. It was especially high in the northern part of the country and apparently caused by a high consumption of salted pickles and fish. Information campaigns by the government and media have been very effective in bringing about a change in eating habits and a lower incidence of stomach cancer in that part of the country. The Japanese love to do what they are told by the authorities.
John,
Scientifically validated studies on nutrition and cancer as a whole are hard to come by, as studies are usually financed by the pharma industry and they won`t touch anything that isn`t patentable. And whenever a study is not to their taste, they soon publish a contradictory paper and everyone is confused. Nutrition is like a huge puzzle, every single fruit, vegetable or edible substance being a piece of it. To include all and making a study over one or two decades is simply not feasible, it can only be made retrospectively. So studies investigate the effect of a single substance on cancer. All we can do ist integrate cancer suppressing substances thus found in our diet, and exclude those that are stimulating cancer growth. And if we know, that cancer cells require glucose and healthy cells oxigene for their energy generation, it stands to reason that we avoid food rich in carbohydrates and thus glucose. So it is everybody`s choice. People with a systemic disease who will finally be confronted with a helpness medial establishment, can only gain by making the obvious choice. The ones with successful surgery need not concern themselves with a radical diet.
Had I depended on evidence based therapy alone I probably wouldn`t be around anymore. Docetaxel is evidence based and therefore induced for castrate resistant PCa with an average additional benefit of two months or so, at the cost of a damaged immune system and severe side effects, which in fact means that about 2/3 of patients don`t benefit at all. No thanks. I rather take my chance keeping a diet of food that I believe beneficial to me (after a thorough search of pros and contras).
