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.
Thanks for your post Alan - your wise and balanced words are always welcome.
You say in part I was wondering if you thought about whether or not your past ADT use might be giving you a falsely aggressive Gleason score? and indeed i have had the same thought occur to me, especially in the light of the recent study showing that the 'high grade' men in the Proscar study have not fared as badly as other high grade men.
I am preparing anote for my doctors asking a number of questions (this to keep down the time in our appointments and the points I want to make regarding the GS9 histology are these:
1. When ADT was first introduced as a neo-adjuvant therapy for surgery, a number of well known doctors (inlcuding as my memory serves me, no less a person than Patrick Walsh) declined to operate on men who had ADT on the grounds that in those pre-Da Vinci days the structure of the cells in the gland made it difficult for them to idetntify tumours and to ensure that their margins were safe.
2. Then came the Proscar study to which you allude and the statements regarding the possibiity of changed cellular stuctures. It is a nice coincidence that the secondary study was only published last week which on the face of it seems to show no greater risk for any of the Proscar men.
3. Yet another study published two weeks ago suggested that in many (or perhaps most) cases Gleason Scores tended NOT to advance over the years.
4. Given these broad brush insights into some fo the oddities of the Gleason Scoring system, is there a possibioity that my previous ADT sessions altered the structures of the cells - after all there is no direct evidence that these are behaving like the aggressive GS9 cells that are so dangerous. On the contrary, the apprently indolent way in which the cells have grown point to them more ikely being GS6 or 7a still.
I don't know how he will react to this - hopefully it will not be seen as a challenge, but a seeking after knowledge at the feet of the guru.
As to the baking soda protocol. I recall looking that up some months ago but found nothing to convince me that there was any real value in it or that it was any different from all the other protocols that are bandied around. Interestingly enough there are four men on the Yana site who used, or considered using the protocol. Two live in foreign climes. The men are:
AS for intermediate risk PCa in middle age men. Attention Terry!!
The last time we crossed swords, I said I would be back in five years. Unfortunately given your change of circumstance ( yes I have been watching), perhaps it is timely to have this discussion now.
I was very sad to read of your disease progression with metastasis now being clearly evident, and of course you now having to be dealt with them using conventional medicine.
In light of your now verified progression and knowing what is ahead of you (GS 5+4), are you still willing to sing the praises of AS for middle age men with potentially curable intermediate risk PCa?
As always I wish you good passage on your journey.