RE: Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

[Guest guest]

Sammy

My opinion is that there are many causes

Diet of the parents could be one.

Diet of ourselves could be another.

Genetics seems to play a part in about 15% of cases

Environmental issues could come into play.

By the way my mum was more or less teetotal

B

Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

I do not feel comfortable with the statement.> Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.As long as there is that perception, there will never be an effective treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat random symptoms. Moreover, as long as there is that perception, there will never be attempts to prevent it. My contention is that prostate cancer is a manifestation of fetal alcohol syndrome. Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. "Three Score and Ten" was the mean life expectation; it is also the mean age of diagnosis for PC. That there is no overlap until very recent times is significant. Strong alcohol was unavailable to young women of child bearing age in times gone by. It is still unavailable in many societies, and in those societies, prostate cancer is much lower than it is in the west. I am not a Reformer or anti-alcohol, I am a realist. I see the great changes (diet, lifestyle, environment) the human race has experienced in the last two hundred years over the period of the Industrial Revolution as central factors, changing the subtle biology of reproduction towards an overall more cancerous state.Maternal alcohol causes fetal estrogen imprinting with damage to the prostatic estrogen receptors (ER beta and alpha) that are involved in triggering fetal sex differentiation. This occurs during a crucial time of male sexual development between 5-10 weeks when the estrogen (ER) and androgen receptors (AR) briefly cooperate to produce rapid branching morphogenesis of the prostatic epithelium. This brief rapid prostatic growth phase gives the male prostate its adult form. However, if an excess of estrogen via maternal alcohol is present, the brief cooperation between ER and AR is extended and the ER does not undergo complete quiescence, as it should do. This means that the prostate is primed to become cancerous in later life. It is not inevitable, just more likely with increased exposure to estrogen (not androgen per se).In the prostate that has been primed (estrogen imprinted) the estrogen receptor still responds to growth impulses. These growth impulses are often associated with estrogen or xenoestrogens introduced by man through diet, lifestyle or environment. Risk factors are so wide and diverse they at first give the impression that prostate cancer is a heterogenous disease with no single cause. But this is because we are already looking at secondary promotional factors and have missed the single most important cause of all, in utero.It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to test. If you want to. Sammyhttp://fitcare.org.uk/index.html> > > hello I heard that eating charred food (from Dr Oz) little peices can> > lodge in your prostate and other places and cause or become a starting> > point for cancer all i can say is OH OH !> > There is not a shred of evidence for such a thing. How would > pieces get from the alimentary canal to the prostate?> > There is some support for the idea that well-done meat contains > certain chemicals formed by the well-done cooking, and that these > chemicals might promote development of prostate cancer (PCA). > Sorry, I disremember what they are, nor the state of the evidence.> > Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.> > Regards,> > Steve J>

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.436 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2742 - Release Date: 03/12/10 19:33:00

[Guest guest]

Sammy.

In regards your hypothesis.

Nahh. I don't think so.

" A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless

found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to

believe. It is guilty, until found effective. "

Teller, Nuclear physicist

Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

>

> I do not feel comfortable with the statement.

>

>> Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.

>

> As long as there is that perception, there will never be an effective

> treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat random symptoms.

> Moreover, as long as there is that perception, there will never be

> attempts to prevent it.

>

> My contention is that prostate cancer is a manifestation of fetal alcohol

> syndrome. Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. " Three Score

> and Ten " was the mean life expectation; it is also the mean age of

> diagnosis for PC. That there is no overlap until very recent times is

> significant. Strong alcohol was unavailable to young women of child

> bearing age in times gone by. It is still unavailable in many societies,

> and in those societies, prostate cancer is much lower than it is in the

> west.

>

> I am not a Reformer or anti-alcohol, I am a realist. I see the great

> changes (diet, lifestyle, environment) the human race has experienced in

> the last two hundred years over the period of the Industrial Revolution as

> central factors, changing the subtle biology of reproduction towards an

> overall more cancerous state.

>

> Maternal alcohol causes fetal estrogen imprinting with damage to the

> prostatic estrogen receptors (ER beta and alpha) that are involved in

> triggering fetal sex differentiation. This occurs during a crucial time of

> male sexual development between 5-10 weeks when the estrogen (ER) and

> androgen receptors (AR) briefly cooperate to produce rapid branching

> morphogenesis of the prostatic epithelium. This brief rapid prostatic

> growth phase gives the male prostate its adult form.

>

> However, if an excess of estrogen via maternal alcohol is present, the

> brief cooperation between ER and AR is extended and the ER does not

> undergo complete quiescence, as it should do. This means that the prostate

> is primed to become cancerous in later life. It is not inevitable, just

> more likely with increased exposure to estrogen (not androgen per se).

>

> In the prostate that has been primed (estrogen imprinted) the estrogen

> receptor still responds to growth impulses. These growth impulses are

> often associated with estrogen or xenoestrogens introduced by man through

> diet, lifestyle or environment. Risk factors are so wide and diverse they

> at first give the impression that prostate cancer is a heterogenous

> disease with no single cause. But this is because we are already looking

> at secondary promotional factors and have missed the single most important

> cause of all, in utero.

>

> It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to test. If

> you want to.

>

> Sammy

> http://fitcare.org.uk/index.html

>

>>

>> > hello I heard that eating charred food (from Dr Oz) little peices can

>> > lodge in your prostate and other places and cause or become a starting

>> > point for cancer all i can say is OH OH !

>>

>> There is not a shred of evidence for such a thing. How would

>> pieces get from the alimentary canal to the prostate?

>>

>> There is some support for the idea that well-done meat contains

>> certain chemicals formed by the well-done cooking, and that these

>> chemicals might promote development of prostate cancer (PCA).

>> Sorry, I disremember what they are, nor the state of the evidence.

>>

>> Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Steve J

>>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> There are just two rules for this group

> 1 No Spam

> 2 Be kind to others

>

> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs

> different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some

> men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not

> choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we

> cannot and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at

> other options.

>

> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

> Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

>> Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.

>My contention is that prostate cancer is a manifestation of fetal alcohol

syndrome. Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. " Three Score

and Ten " was the >mean life expectation; it is also the mean age of

diagnosis for PC. That there is no overlap until very recent times is

significant. Strong alcohol was unavailable to >young women of child bearing

age in times gone by. It is still unavailable in many societies, and in those

societies, prostate cancer is much lower than it is in the west.

<snip>

> It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to

test. If you want to.

Sorry for this bold statement but it sounds like a bunch of quackery. My

mother, a good Christian woman, never touched a drop of alcohol, especially

during her pregnancies. So your “theory” doesn’t’ explain

my cancer and I am willing to be that it doesn’t explain a lot of others

either

.._,___

[Guest guest]

Guys,

Sammy has preached this stuff before. True Believers do preach. If he could point to a peer validated study which proved his hypothesis, it might be worthy of a moment's consideration. But at the moment it is just a bee in Sammy's bonnet. It is an interesting thought, but a wrong one. Nothing in my experience leads me to believe that it stacks up. Like 's, my own case argues against it. I could not have been conceived in a drier county nor to have had a more sober mother throughout or ever after my in-womb development, by the way. To add to that, my late brother had Pca also!

rgds

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Saturday, 13 March, 2010 15:44:18Subject: Re: Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

Sammy.In regards your hypothesis.Nahh. I don't think so."A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective." Teller, Nuclear physicist [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)>> I do not feel comfortable with the statement.>>>

Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.>> As long as there is that perception, there will never be an effective > treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat random symptoms. > Moreover, as long as there is that perception, there will never be > attempts to prevent it.>> My contention is that prostate cancer is a manifestation of fetal alcohol > syndrome. Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. "Three Score > and Ten" was the mean life expectation; it is also the mean age of > diagnosis for PC. That there is no overlap until very recent times is > significant. Strong alcohol was unavailable to young women of child > bearing age in times gone by. It is still unavailable in many societies, > and in those societies, prostate cancer is much lower than it is in the > west.>> I am not a Reformer or anti-alcohol, I am a realist. I see

the great > changes (diet, lifestyle, environment) the human race has experienced in > the last two hundred years over the period of the Industrial Revolution as > central factors, changing the subtle biology of reproduction towards an > overall more cancerous state.>> Maternal alcohol causes fetal estrogen imprinting with damage to the > prostatic estrogen receptors (ER beta and alpha) that are involved in > triggering fetal sex differentiation. This occurs during a crucial time of > male sexual development between 5-10 weeks when the estrogen (ER) and > androgen receptors (AR) briefly cooperate to produce rapid branching > morphogenesis of the prostatic epithelium. This brief rapid prostatic > growth phase gives the male prostate its adult form.>> However, if an excess of estrogen via maternal alcohol is present, the > brief cooperation between ER

and AR is extended and the ER does not > undergo complete quiescence, as it should do. This means that the prostate > is primed to become cancerous in later life. It is not inevitable, just > more likely with increased exposure to estrogen (not androgen per se).>> In the prostate that has been primed (estrogen imprinted) the estrogen > receptor still responds to growth impulses. These growth impulses are > often associated with estrogen or xenoestrogens introduced by man through > diet, lifestyle or environment. Risk factors are so wide and diverse they > at first give the impression that prostate cancer is a heterogenous > disease with no single cause. But this is because we are already looking > at secondary promotional factors and have missed the single most important > cause of all, in utero.>> It is really that simple, and it is a really easy

hypothesis to test. If > you want to.>> Sammy> http://fitcare. org.uk/index. html> >>>> > hello I heard that eating charred food (from Dr Oz) little peices can>> > lodge in your prostate and other places and cause or become a starting>> > point for cancer all i can say is OH OH !>>>> There is not a shred of evidence for such a thing. How would>> pieces get from the alimentary canal to the prostate?>>>> There is some support for the idea that well-done meat

contains>> certain chemicals formed by the well-done cooking, and that these>> chemicals might promote development of prostate cancer (PCA).>> Sorry, I disremember what they are, nor the state of the evidence.>>>> Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.>>>> Regards,>>>> Steve J>>>>>>> ------------ --------- --------- ------>> There are just two rules for this group> 1 No Spam> 2 Be kind to others>> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs > different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some > men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not > choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we > cannot and should not tell other members what to do, other than

look at > other options.>> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply> Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

sammy_bates wrote:

> I do not feel comfortable with the statement.

>

> > Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.

>

> As long as there is that perception, there will never be an

> effective treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat

> random symptoms. Moreover, as long as there is that perception,

> there will never be attempts to prevent it.

I agree that understanding the cause will help with treatment and

help even more with prevention. However, surely you don't really

mean that current treatments only treat symptoms. Neither

surgery nor radiation are aimed at symptoms and, in fact, those

treatments are pretty much only effective in patients who are

still symptom free.

As I understand it, we have pretty strong evidence that cancers

of all types begin in a single cell which then multiplies out of

control. If all of the cancerous cells are successfully found

and removed (the aim of prostatectomy) or are successfully

damaged so that they cannot divide and multiply (the aim of

radiation), then the cancer is cured. That will be true whether

or not we know why that first cell became cancerous.

Furthermore, if the entire prostate is removed, whatever process

caused that first cell to become cancerous cannot cause another

cell to become cancerous because there are no more prostate

cells at all.

And supposing that fetal estrogen imprinting is the exclusive

cause of PCa, how does that affect treatment?

> ... Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. ...

I just don't no what to make of that statement. A web page on

types of cancer at NCI (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/alphalist)

lists 215 types of cancer.

How many of those were " known " in ancient times? Were any of

them?

And what evidence do we have that women didn't drink alcohol in

ancient times? I'm not sure that the Greek or Roman literature

that has survived would indicate that at all. There was even a

Roman God of wine (Bacchus) and a feast in his honor

(bacchanalia) which came to symbolize drunken orgies. There are

a number of accounts of Roman Emperors like Nero and Caligula who

held drunken orgies all the time, with lots of women present, and

as far as I know, there was similar irresponsible behavior in

other sections of both the upper and lower classes. Shouldn't

that have resulted in lots of PCa among Romans?

Given that the most common symptom of prostate cancer is bone

pain, how would the ancients, who had only the most rudimentary

understanding of anatomy and none at all of the causes of

disease, ever associate that with the prostate?

For that matter, did the ancients know what a prostate was?

> It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to

> test. If you want to.

What tests do you propose? pointed out that his mother was

almost a teetotaler. So was mine. I bet that if we asked others

on this group we would find more men who know that their mothers

did not drink alcohol.

Would that count as a refutation of your hypothesis? Would it

count as evidence that there are other causes? Why or why not?

Sammy,

I'm not saying that there is no truth to your argument. There

may be. You have pointed to some scientific evidence for it, and

it looks to my layman's eyes like the evidence you cited is

scientifically valid. There is indeed evidence for some

correlation between alcohol intake in pregnant women and PCa in

their sons. However I don't recall any of the articles you cited

as saying that this is the exclusive cause, or even that we have

proof that this is a cause - only evidence for it.

I applaud your efforts to help men with PCa. I really do. I

also try to do that as do most of the people in this group. Many

of us have put in hundreds or thousands of hours in trying to

help men and their families in whatever way we can. But I don't

think it's helpful to vociferously insist on a certain path when

there is no scientific consensus on that path and when its

implications for treatment are far from clear.

I love your intention to help people. I just wish you'd be a

more flexible in your thinking about how to do that.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Folks please be careful that we talk about the issues and not the person.

As Alan says we must respect Sammy and his efforts, but I'm sure Sammy knows that everyone is a sceptic until the proof is clear to them.

To be fair to Sammy he started by saying that it is his view.

We are all allowed to have a view, theories sometimes lead to breakthroughs.

Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

I do not feel comfortable with the statement.> Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.As long as there is that perception, there will never be an effective treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat random symptoms. Moreover, as long as there is that perception, there will never be attempts to prevent it. My contention is that prostate cancer is a manifestation of fetal alcohol syndrome. Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. "Three Score and Ten" was the mean life expectation; it is also the mean age of diagnosis for PC. That there is no overlap until very recent times is significant. Strong alcohol was unavailable to young women of child bearing age in times gone by. It is still unavailable in many societies, and in those societies, prostate cancer is much lower than it is in the west. I am not a Reformer or anti-alcohol, I am a realist. I see the great changes (diet, lifestyle, environment) the human race has experienced in the last two hundred years over the period of the Industrial Revolution as central factors, changing the subtle biology of reproduction towards an overall more cancerous state.Maternal alcohol causes fetal estrogen imprinting with damage to the prostatic estrogen receptors (ER beta and alpha) that are involved in triggering fetal sex differentiation. This occurs during a crucial time of male sexual development between 5-10 weeks when the estrogen (ER) and androgen receptors (AR) briefly cooperate to produce rapid branching morphogenesis of the prostatic epithelium. This brief rapid prostatic growth phase gives the male prostate its adult form. However, if an excess of estrogen via maternal alcohol is present, the brief cooperation between ER and AR is extended and the ER does not undergo complete quiescence, as it should do. This means that the prostate is primed to become cancerous in later life. It is not inevitable, just more likely with increased exposure to estrogen (not androgen per se).In the prostate that has been primed (estrogen imprinted) the estrogen receptor still responds to growth impulses. These growth impulses are often associated with estrogen or xenoestrogens introduced by man through diet, lifestyle or environment. Risk factors are so wide and diverse they at first give the impression that prostate cancer is a heterogenous disease with no single cause. But this is because we are already looking at secondary promotional factors and have missed the single most important cause of all, in utero.It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to test. If you want to. Sammyhttp://fitcare.org.uk/index.html> > > hello I heard that eating charred food (from Dr Oz) little peices can> > lodge in your prostate and other places and cause or become a starting> > point for cancer all i can say is OH OH !> > There is not a shred of evidence for such a thing. How would > pieces get from the alimentary canal to the prostate?> > There is some support for the idea that well-done meat contains > certain chemicals formed by the well-done cooking, and that these > chemicals might promote development of prostate cancer (PCA). > Sorry, I disremember what they are, nor the state of the evidence.> > Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.> > Regards,> > Steve J>

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.436 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2742 - Release Date: 03/12/10 19:33:00

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.436 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2742 - Release Date: 03/12/10 19:33:00

[Guest guest]

What about the 40-50-year-old Scythian king who

lived during the Iron Age in the steppe of Southern Siberia (Russia)? http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116326527/abstract?CRETRY=1 & SRETRY=0 He died of prostate cancer.

Kathy

From: ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of sammy_bates

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:36 PM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes

PCa)

Strong spirit alcohol (i.e. distilled ethanol)

has only been around for a few hundred years and its use only really took off

with the Industrial Revolution when the demand for its anaesthetising

properties came to the fore.

During pregnancy it only takes a thimblful at the crucial time to make all the

difference.

With such a long latency it is easy to see how prostate cancer only came to be

remarked on in the learned texts around the turn of the 20th century.

Grey does not mention PC malignancy in his famous anatomy book of ~1850 despite

having an interest in the diseases that caused prostate problems of the day

(e.g. tuberculosis).

~~

As for other cancers in ancient times, yes. If you look at the Ebers Papyrus

you will see the mention of various cancers but not prostate cancer. The upper

classes lived into their 80's in Ancient Egypt.

>

> > I do not feel comfortable with the statement.

> >

> > > Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.

> >

> > As long as there is that perception, there will never be an

> > effective treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat

> > random symptoms. Moreover, as long as there is that perception,

> > there will never be attempts to prevent it.

>

> I agree that understanding the cause will help with treatment and

> help even more with prevention. However, surely you don't really

> mean that current treatments only treat symptoms. Neither

> surgery nor radiation are aimed at symptoms and, in fact, those

> treatments are pretty much only effective in patients who are

> still symptom free.

>

> As I understand it, we have pretty strong evidence that cancers

> of all types begin in a single cell which then multiplies out of

> control. If all of the cancerous cells are successfully found

> and removed (the aim of prostatectomy) or are successfully

> damaged so that they cannot divide and multiply (the aim of

> radiation), then the cancer is cured. That will be true whether

> or not we know why that first cell became cancerous.

>

> Furthermore, if the entire prostate is removed, whatever process

> caused that first cell to become cancerous cannot cause another

> cell to become cancerous because there are no more prostate

> cells at all.

>

> And supposing that fetal estrogen imprinting is the exclusive

> cause of PCa, how does that affect treatment?

>

> > ... Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. ...

>

> I just don't no what to make of that statement. A web page on

> types of cancer at NCI (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/alphalist)

> lists 215 types of cancer.

>

> How many of those were " known " in ancient times? Were any of

> them?

>

> And what evidence do we have that women didn't drink alcohol in

> ancient times? I'm not sure that the Greek or Roman literature

> that has survived would indicate that at all. There was even a

> Roman God of wine (Bacchus) and a feast in his honor

> (bacchanalia) which came to symbolize drunken orgies. There are

> a number of accounts of Roman Emperors like Nero and Caligula who

> held drunken orgies all the time, with lots of women present, and

> as far as I know, there was similar irresponsible behavior in

> other sections of both the upper and lower classes. Shouldn't

> that have resulted in lots of PCa among Romans?

>

> Given that the most common symptom of prostate cancer is bone

> pain, how would the ancients, who had only the most rudimentary

> understanding of anatomy and none at all of the causes of

> disease, ever associate that with the prostate?

>

> For that matter, did the ancients know what a prostate was?

>

> > It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to

> > test. If you want to.

>

> What tests do you propose? pointed out that his mother was

> almost a teetotaler. So was mine. I bet that if we asked others

> on this group we would find more men who know that their mothers

> did not drink alcohol.

>

> Would that count as a refutation of your hypothesis? Would it

> count as evidence that there are other causes? Why or why not?

>

> Sammy,

>

> I'm not saying that there is no truth to your argument. There

> may be. You have pointed to some scientific evidence for it, and

> it looks to my layman's eyes like the evidence you cited is

> scientifically valid. There is indeed evidence for some

> correlation between alcohol intake in pregnant women and PCa in

> their sons. However I don't recall any of the articles you cited

> as saying that this is the exclusive cause, or even that we have

> proof that this is a cause - only evidence for it.

>

> I applaud your efforts to help men with PCa. I really do. I

> also try to do that as do most of the people in this group. Many

> of us have put in hundreds or thousands of hours in trying to

> help men and their families in whatever way we can. But I don't

> think it's helpful to vociferously insist on a certain path when

> there is no scientific consensus on that path and when its

> implications for treatment are far from clear.

>

> I love your intention to help people. I just wish you'd be a

> more flexible in your thinking about how to do that.

>

> Alan

>

[Guest guest]

sammy_bates wrote:

> Strong spirit alcohol (i.e. distilled ethanol) has only been

> around for a few hundred years and its use only really took off

> with the Industrial Revolution when the demand for its

> anaesthetising properties came to the fore.

>

> During pregnancy it only takes a thimblful at the crucial time

> to make all the difference.

>

> With such a long latency it is easy to see how prostate cancer

> only came to be remarked on in the learned texts around the

> turn of the 20th century.

>

> Grey does not mention PC malignancy in his famous anatomy book

> of ~1850 despite having an interest in the diseases that caused

> prostate problems of the day (e.g. tuberculosis).

>

> As for other cancers in ancient times, yes. If you look at the

> Ebers Papyrus you will see the mention of various cancers but

> not prostate cancer. The upper classes lived into their 80's in

> Ancient Egypt.

Sammy,

If we assume that the hypothesis is true that taking strong

alcoholic drinks during pregnancy is the cause of PCa, I think we

have to throw out the hypothesis that Grey didn't mention PCa

because it didn't exist in 1850. It seems to me that much more

likely explanations are either that Grey wasn't concerned with

the issue, or that prostate cancer was simply unknown because

medical science had not advanced far enough to recognize it.

Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia article on gin:

" By 1740 the production of gin had increased to six times

that of beer[citation needed], and because of its cheapness

it became popular with the poor. Of the 15,000 drinking

establishments in London, over half were gin-shops. "

and:

" Gin, though, was blamed for various social and medical

problems, and it may have been a factor in the higher death

rates which stabilized London's previously growing

population. "

and:

" The Gin Act 1736 imposed high taxes on retailers and led to

riots in the streets. "

As I understand it, the gin of the time was at least as strong as

contemporary gin, and it was wildly popular in England way before

1850 and drunkenness was more common in 18th century London than

today. The Wikipedia article has a reproduction of Hogarth's

engraving " Gin Lane " showing drunken women on the street with

babies.

Bear in mind, this argument is not to throw out your theory that

fetal alcohol syndrome is a cause of prostate cancer, only that

the fact that PCa is not mentioned in early medical literature is

not an indication of the truth of that proposition.

However I'd also like to know what the evidence is for saying

that " strong spirit " causes the problem but the alcohol in wine

and beer, both well known since early ancient times, does not.

We know that there are plenty of cases of severe drunkenness

associated with just wine and beer. It's obvious that even a

single glass of wine or bottle of beer will result in a much

higher concentration of blood alcohol than a thimbleful of

strong spirit. We should also expect, I think, that it is the

total concentration of alcohol in the blood, and not the

concentration of alcohol in the drink, that is responsible for

its effects on the body.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Sammy,

FYI, Usquebach, literally Water of Life, now commomnly known as whisky has been distilled (ie it is a strong spirit) in Scotland since AD 500. The knowledge of how to distill it was spread throughout Scotland at that time by the Daldriadic travellers. It first appears in official records in Scotland in the Exchequer Rolls in 1494 when 'Eights bolls of malt to Friar Cor wherewith to make Aqua Vitae' I think AD 500 means it has been around for somewhat longer than 'a few hundred years'.

I haven't done the research myself but can you cite any respected evidence that indicates that teetotal societies, which would presumably include many Arab states, have significantly less prostate cancer? You seem to be suggesting that maternal alcohol consumption is the main, if not the only cause of prostate cancer. If that was the case we would expect prostate cancer incidence in 'dry' Arab states to be practically zero.

Malaga, Spain

Re: Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

sammy_bates <sammy_bates> wrote:> Strong spirit alcohol (i.e. distilled ethanol) has only been> around for a few hundred years and its use only really took off> with the Industrial Revolution when the demand for its> anaesthetising properties came to the fore.> > During pregnancy it only takes a thimblful at the crucial time> to make all the difference.> > With such a long latency it is easy to see how prostate cancer> only came to be remarked on in the learned texts around the> turn of the 20th century.> > Grey does not mention PC malignancy in his famous anatomy book> of ~1850 despite having an interest in the diseases that caused> prostate problems of the day (e.g. tuberculosis).> > As for other cancers in ancient times, yes. If you look at the> Ebers Papyrus you will see the mention of various cancers but> not prostate cancer. The upper classes lived into their 80's in> Ancient Egypt.Sammy,If we assume that the hypothesis is true that taking strongalcoholic drinks during pregnancy is the cause of PCa, I think wehave to throw out the hypothesis that Grey didn't mention PCabecause it didn't exist in 1850. It seems to me that much morelikely explanations are either that Grey wasn't concerned withthe issue, or that prostate cancer was simply unknown becausemedical science had not advanced far enough to recognize it.Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia article on gin:"By 1740 the production of gin had increased to six timesthat of beer[citation needed], and because of its cheapnessit became popular with the poor. Of the 15,000 drinkingestablishments in London, over half were gin-shops."and:"Gin, though, was blamed for various social and medicalproblems, and it may have been a factor in the higher deathrates which stabilized London's previously growingpopulation."and:"The Gin Act 1736 imposed high taxes on retailers and led toriots in the streets."As I understand it, the gin of the time was at least as strong ascontemporary gin, and it was wildly popular in England way before1850 and drunkenness was more common in 18th century London thantoday. The Wikipedia article has a reproduction of Hogarth'sengraving "Gin Lane" showing drunken women on the street withbabies.Bear in mind, this argument is not to throw out your theory thatfetal alcohol syndrome is a cause of prostate cancer, only thatthe fact that PCa is not mentioned in early medical literature isnot an indication of the truth of that proposition.However I'd also like to know what the evidence is for sayingthat "strong spirit" causes the problem but the alcohol in wineand beer, both well known since early ancient times, does not.We know that there are plenty of cases of severe drunkennessassociated with just wine and beer. It's obvious that even asingle glass of wine or bottle of beer will result in a muchhigher concentration of blood alcohol than a thimbleful ofstrong spirit. We should also expect, I think, that it is thetotal concentration of alcohol in the blood, and not theconcentration of alcohol in the drink, that is responsible forits effects on the body.Alan

[Guest guest]

Sammy et al

I am surte that lifestyle has an impact. I'm not sure that alcohol is the only devil in the room.

B

Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

Strong spirit alcohol (i.e. distilled ethanol) has only been around for a few hundred years and its use only really took off with the Industrial Revolution when the demand for its anaesthetising properties came to the fore. During pregnancy it only takes a thimblful at the crucial time to make all the difference.With such a long latency it is easy to see how prostate cancer only came to be remarked on in the learned texts around the turn of the 20th century.Grey does not mention PC malignancy in his famous anatomy book of ~1850 despite having an interest in the diseases that caused prostate problems of the day (e.g. tuberculosis). ~~As for other cancers in ancient times, yes. If you look at the Ebers Papyrus you will see the mention of various cancers but not prostate cancer. The upper classes lived into their 80's in Ancient Egypt.> > > I do not feel comfortable with the statement.> >> > > Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.> >> > As long as there is that perception, there will never be an> > effective treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat> > random symptoms. Moreover, as long as there is that perception,> > there will never be attempts to prevent it.> > I agree that understanding the cause will help with treatment and> help even more with prevention. However, surely you don't really> mean that current treatments only treat symptoms. Neither> surgery nor radiation are aimed at symptoms and, in fact, those> treatments are pretty much only effective in patients who are> still symptom free.> > As I understand it, we have pretty strong evidence that cancers> of all types begin in a single cell which then multiplies out of> control. If all of the cancerous cells are successfully found> and removed (the aim of prostatectomy) or are successfully> damaged so that they cannot divide and multiply (the aim of> radiation), then the cancer is cured. That will be true whether> or not we know why that first cell became cancerous.> > Furthermore, if the entire prostate is removed, whatever process> caused that first cell to become cancerous cannot cause another> cell to become cancerous because there are no more prostate> cells at all.> > And supposing that fetal estrogen imprinting is the exclusive> cause of PCa, how does that affect treatment?> > > ... Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. ...> > I just don't no what to make of that statement. A web page on> types of cancer at NCI (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/alphalist)> lists 215 types of cancer.> > How many of those were "known" in ancient times? Were any of> them?> > And what evidence do we have that women didn't drink alcohol in> ancient times? I'm not sure that the Greek or Roman literature> that has survived would indicate that at all. There was even a> Roman God of wine (Bacchus) and a feast in his honor> (bacchanalia) which came to symbolize drunken orgies. There are> a number of accounts of Roman Emperors like Nero and Caligula who> held drunken orgies all the time, with lots of women present, and> as far as I know, there was similar irresponsible behavior in> other sections of both the upper and lower classes. Shouldn't> that have resulted in lots of PCa among Romans?> > Given that the most common symptom of prostate cancer is bone> pain, how would the ancients, who had only the most rudimentary> understanding of anatomy and none at all of the causes of> disease, ever associate that with the prostate?> > For that matter, did the ancients know what a prostate was?> > > It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to> > test. If you want to. > > What tests do you propose? pointed out that his mother was> almost a teetotaler. So was mine. I bet that if we asked others> on this group we would find more men who know that their mothers> did not drink alcohol.> > Would that count as a refutation of your hypothesis? Would it> count as evidence that there are other causes? Why or why not?> > Sammy,> > I'm not saying that there is no truth to your argument. There> may be. You have pointed to some scientific evidence for it, and> it looks to my layman's eyes like the evidence you cited is> scientifically valid. There is indeed evidence for some> correlation between alcohol intake in pregnant women and PCa in> their sons. However I don't recall any of the articles you cited> as saying that this is the exclusive cause, or even that we have> proof that this is a cause - only evidence for it.> > I applaud your efforts to help men with PCa. I really do. I> also try to do that as do most of the people in this group. Many> of us have put in hundreds or thousands of hours in trying to> help men and their families in whatever way we can. But I don't> think it's helpful to vociferously insist on a certain path when> there is no scientific consensus on that path and when its> implications for treatment are far from clear.> > I love your intention to help people. I just wish you'd be a> more flexible in your thinking about how to do that.> > Alan>

[Guest guest]

Sammy, Wrong, wrong, wrong again.

Hooch, poteen, scotch predate the industrial revolution by many centuries and that's in the UK alone. There are African tribal equivalents, South American indian equivalents which probably go back even further. I'm not sure that even in native North American society, before the white man invaded, distillation was not a treasured pastime

It is interesting that recently it has been recognised that the concentrated effect of the anti-oxidants in red wine can be gained in brandy (which is distilled from red wine). In my humble opinion as a consumer of Californian brandy (for my health's sake), I am loath to accept that it is a cause of as well as a palliative for PCa.

Cheers -

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Saturday, 20 March, 2010 0:36:22Subject: Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

Strong spirit alcohol (i.e. distilled ethanol) has only been around for a few hundred years and its use only really took off with the Industrial Revolution when the demand for its anaesthetising properties came to the fore. During pregnancy it only takes a thimblful at the crucial time to make all the difference.With such a long latency it is easy to see how prostate cancer only came to be remarked on in the learned texts around the turn of the 20th century.Grey does not mention PC malignancy in his famous anatomy book of ~1850 despite having an interest in the diseases that caused prostate problems of the day (e.g. tuberculosis) . ~~As for other cancers in ancient times, yes. If you look at the Ebers Papyrus you will see the mention of various cancers but not prostate cancer. The upper classes lived into their 80's in Ancient Egypt.> > > I do not feel comfortable with the statement.> >> > > Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.> >> > As long as there is that perception, there will never be an> > effective treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat> > random symptoms. Moreover, as long as there is that perception,> > there will never be attempts to prevent it.> > I agree that understanding the cause will help with treatment and> help even more with prevention. However, surely you don't really> mean that current treatments only treat symptoms. Neither> surgery nor radiation are aimed at symptoms and, in fact, those>

treatments are pretty much only effective in patients who are> still symptom free.> > As I understand it, we have pretty strong evidence that cancers> of all types begin in a single cell which then multiplies out of> control. If all of the cancerous cells are successfully found> and removed (the aim of prostatectomy) or are successfully> damaged so that they cannot divide and multiply (the aim of> radiation), then the cancer is cured. That will be true whether> or not we know why that first cell became cancerous.> > Furthermore, if the entire prostate is removed, whatever process> caused that first cell to become cancerous cannot cause another> cell to become cancerous because there are no more prostate> cells at all.> > And supposing that fetal estrogen imprinting is the exclusive> cause of PCa, how does that affect treatment?>

> > ... Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. ...> > I just don't no what to make of that statement. A web page on> types of cancer at NCI (http://www.cancer. gov/cancertopics /alphalist)> lists 215 types of cancer.> > How many of those were "known" in ancient times? Were any of> them?> > And what evidence do we have that women didn't drink alcohol in> ancient times? I'm not sure that the Greek or Roman literature> that has survived would indicate that at all. There was even a> Roman God of wine (Bacchus) and a feast in his honor> (bacchanalia) which came to symbolize drunken orgies. There are> a number of accounts of Roman Emperors like Nero and Caligula who> held drunken orgies all the time, with lots of women present, and> as far as I

know, there was similar irresponsible behavior in> other sections of both the upper and lower classes. Shouldn't> that have resulted in lots of PCa among Romans?> > Given that the most common symptom of prostate cancer is bone> pain, how would the ancients, who had only the most rudimentary> understanding of anatomy and none at all of the causes of> disease, ever associate that with the prostate?> > For that matter, did the ancients know what a prostate was?> > > It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to> > test. If you want to. > > What tests do you propose? pointed out that his mother was> almost a teetotaler. So was mine. I bet that if we asked others> on this group we would find more men who know that their mothers> did not drink alcohol.> > Would that count as a refutation of your

hypothesis? Would it> count as evidence that there are other causes? Why or why not?> > Sammy,> > I'm not saying that there is no truth to your argument. There> may be. You have pointed to some scientific evidence for it, and> it looks to my layman's eyes like the evidence you cited is> scientifically valid. There is indeed evidence for some> correlation between alcohol intake in pregnant women and PCa in> their sons. However I don't recall any of the articles you cited> as saying that this is the exclusive cause, or even that we have> proof that this is a cause - only evidence for it.> > I applaud your efforts to help men with PCa. I really do. I> also try to do that as do most of the people in this group. Many> of us have put in hundreds or thousands of hours in trying to> help men and their families in whatever way we can. But I

don't> think it's helpful to vociferously insist on a certain path when> there is no scientific consensus on that path and when its> implications for treatment are far from clear.> > I love your intention to help people. I just wish you'd be a> more flexible in your thinking about how to do that.> > Alan>

[Guest guest]

Further to my last e-mail which included information about distillation of strong spirit alcohol in Scotland since 500AD, a 5 minute search of the internet (after an evening imbibing semi strong ethanol, namely Port at approx 20% by volume, 3rd oldest appelation in the world sine 1756) reveals that distillation (producing strong ethanol) has been known to mankind since at least the second millenium BC in Mesapotamia under the Babylonians (in what is now Iraq) - hardly 'only been around for a few hundred years'. To my reckoning that is at least 4010 years !!!

Sammy I'm not sure why this 'obsession' has surfaced again - it riled more than a few of us PCa sufferers less than 2 months ago, partly because several of us have/had teetotal mothers (including my own despite her direct descent from the Whisky distilling Dalriada tribe) and yet we still have PCa. Your arguements are simplistic, ill-researched, factually incorrect, irrelevant and to me at least frankly insulting.

Was your mother a lush?

Malaga,Spain

Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

Strong spirit alcohol (i.e. distilled ethanol) has only been around for a few hundred years and its use only really took off with the Industrial Revolution when the demand for its anaesthetising properties came to the fore. During pregnancy it only takes a thimblful at the crucial time to make all the difference.With such a long latency it is easy to see how prostate cancer only came to be remarked on in the learned texts around the turn of the 20th century.Grey does not mention PC malignancy in his famous anatomy book of ~1850 despite having an interest in the diseases that caused prostate problems of the day (e.g. tuberculosis). ~~As for other cancers in ancient times, yes. If you look at the Ebers Papyrus you will see the mention of various cancers but not prostate cancer. The upper classes lived into their 80's in Ancient Egypt.> > > I do not feel comfortable with the statement.> >> > > Lastly, no one knows what causes PCa.> >> > As long as there is that perception, there will never be an> > effective treatment, never mind cure - just attempts to treat> > random symptoms. Moreover, as long as there is that perception,> > there will never be attempts to prevent it.> > I agree that understanding the cause will help with treatment and> help even more with prevention. However, surely you don't really> mean that current treatments only treat symptoms. Neither> surgery nor radiation are aimed at symptoms and, in fact, those> treatments are pretty much only effective in patients who are> still symptom free.> > As I understand it, we have pretty strong evidence that cancers> of all types begin in a single cell which then multiplies out of> control. If all of the cancerous cells are successfully found> and removed (the aim of prostatectomy) or are successfully> damaged so that they cannot divide and multiply (the aim of> radiation), then the cancer is cured. That will be true whether> or not we know why that first cell became cancerous.> > Furthermore, if the entire prostate is removed, whatever process> caused that first cell to become cancerous cannot cause another> cell to become cancerous because there are no more prostate> cells at all.> > And supposing that fetal estrogen imprinting is the exclusive> cause of PCa, how does that affect treatment?> > > ... Prostate cancer was unheard of in ancient times. ...> > I just don't no what to make of that statement. A web page on> types of cancer at NCI (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/alphalist)> lists 215 types of cancer.> > How many of those were "known" in ancient times? Were any of> them?> > And what evidence do we have that women didn't drink alcohol in> ancient times? I'm not sure that the Greek or Roman literature> that has survived would indicate that at all. There was even a> Roman God of wine (Bacchus) and a feast in his honor> (bacchanalia) which came to symbolize drunken orgies. There are> a number of accounts of Roman Emperors like Nero and Caligula who> held drunken orgies all the time, with lots of women present, and> as far as I know, there was similar irresponsible behavior in> other sections of both the upper and lower classes. Shouldn't> that have resulted in lots of PCa among Romans?> > Given that the most common symptom of prostate cancer is bone> pain, how would the ancients, who had only the most rudimentary> understanding of anatomy and none at all of the causes of> disease, ever associate that with the prostate?> > For that matter, did the ancients know what a prostate was?> > > It is really that simple, and it is a really easy hypothesis to> > test. If you want to. > > What tests do you propose? pointed out that his mother was> almost a teetotaler. So was mine. I bet that if we asked others> on this group we would find more men who know that their mothers> did not drink alcohol.> > Would that count as a refutation of your hypothesis? Would it> count as evidence that there are other causes? Why or why not?> > Sammy,> > I'm not saying that there is no truth to your argument. There> may be. You have pointed to some scientific evidence for it, and> it looks to my layman's eyes like the evidence you cited is> scientifically valid. There is indeed evidence for some> correlation between alcohol intake in pregnant women and PCa in> their sons. However I don't recall any of the articles you cited> as saying that this is the exclusive cause, or even that we have> proof that this is a cause - only evidence for it.> > I applaud your efforts to help men with PCa. I really do. I> also try to do that as do most of the people in this group. Many> of us have put in hundreds or thousands of hours in trying to> help men and their families in whatever way we can. But I don't> think it's helpful to vociferously insist on a certain path when> there is no scientific consensus on that path and when its> implications for treatment are far from clear.> > I love your intention to help people. I just wish you'd be a> more flexible in your thinking about how to do that.> > Alan>

[Guest guest]

sammy_bates wrote:

> Maybe you have a better explanation for the sudden emergence of

> Pc just over 100 years ago ?

Yes, I think I do have a much better explanation.

I don't know if my explanation is right, but I think it's more

likely than yours.

I suggest that prostate cancer didn't suddenly start happening

100 years ago, but rather that it has happened for thousands of

years, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, but medical

science had not progressed far enough to recognize it until a

hundred or so years ago.

There are many diseases like this. " Senile dementia " has been

known since ancient times, but Alzheimer's Disease was not

identified until 1906. Even then, it was not until around the

1960's, that it was realized that the great majority of cases of

senile dementia were caused by Alzheimer's Disease, and not by

" hardening of the arteries " , which was the accepted explanation

until then.

Cancer has been recognized for thousands of years. The first use

of the word " cancer " is actually ascribed to Hippocrates, who

died in 370 BC (see

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_the_history_of_cancer_72.asp)

But until the development of modern science and technology in the

19th and 20th centuries, no one understood very much about

cancer. It required modern microscopes, modern cell observation

techniques, modern histology, modern autopsy techniques,

microphotography, and many other developments before people were

able to say that a growth on a dead man's backbone was actually

made up of prostate tissue.

Before then, the doctors mostly had to rely on symptoms, and the

symptoms of prostate cancer are not generally in the prostate.

> The alcohol explanation is simple, but by no means simplistic.

> Look, crude distillation may have been around for thousands of

> years (Indus Valley and so on) but the efficient production of

> ethanol using water cooling apparatus only started a few

> hundred years ago, with its discovery by Islamic scientists.

Yes. You are right that early distillation techniques were not

suitable for mass production. But mass production of alcoholic

drinks was initiated long before 100 years ago. As I explained

in my last reply to you, for which I cited the Wikipedia article

on gin, high concentration distilled liquor (gin), was consumed

in great quantities, by women as well as men, from the early 18th

century in England, 250 years _before_ you say that prostate

cancer appeared.

250 years is ten or more generations!

It seems crystal clear to me that either the transfer of alchohol

from mother to fetus does not cause prostate cancer, or else

prostate cancer did exist in those times but was not recognized

by the very primitive medical science that existed before the

late nineteenth century.

I don't understand why this is not clear to you. You asked what

is wrong with your argument and I've told you. More than once.

But you do not seem to be willing to address my argument.

Why am I wrong in thinking that medical science, was just too

primitive to recognize prostate cancer before it did?

> I have to say the following or someone in total

> misunderstanding will jump down my throat with more

> accusations. I am not a Reformist and neither am I

> anti-Feminist.

I understand.

I don't recall anyone in this group having accused you of being

Reformist or male chauvinist. I certainly didn't and don't now.

I will go further and say that the only thing I accuse you of is

jumping to conclusions based on inadequate evidence. I believe

you are absolutely sincere in wanting to help cancer patients. I

believe you are absolutely sincere and honest in your statements

in support of women.

It's neither your motives nor your attitudes to people that I am

criticizing. It is your understanding of the science and the

history of that science.

> It took a few hundred more years to bring ethanol technology to

> an area where market demand was able to nurture mass production

> and with that, made spirit alcohol as we know it available to

> young women of child bearing age.

>

> The Industrial Revolution gave birth to a new middle class

> hungry for luxury, and a working class hot on its heels. ...

I think you're grasping at straws here Sammy.

You've got a preconceived notion of the science. You're putting

together a historical story to try to shore it up. But the

evidence for the scientific and historical claims is not there

and the story you're constructing is way out in left field

(pardon my Americanism.)

> ... But even then this strong alcohol was not available to

> reproductively viable females until the end of the 1800's. ...

Not true. Working class women were often drunkards in 18th

century London. Women in the Roman Empire drank and, as I

explained in a previous response, blood alcohol concentration is

not determined by alcohol concentration in the drink.

> Women were treated like children first by their fathers then by

> their husbands (much like women today in other cultures).

Sometimes true, but sometimes not. The strictly n sexual

mores became really strong in n times. All you have to

do is read Chaucer or Shakespeare to see that that there were

earlier periods in England that were _not_ n.

> They just would not be allowed any alcohol, never

> mind distilled alcohol, full stop.

A great story, but I don't think it's true.

> Not allowed that is, until the menfolk started disappearing on

> long war campaigns, and women began to win their freedom by

> replacing men in the workplace.

What long war campaigns are we talking about? The Seven Years

War starting in 1756? The Thirty Years war starting in 1618?

The Hundred Years War starting in 1337? How about the 27 year

Peloponnesian War starting in 431 BC, or the Punic Wars that

stretched over 120 years, raged across the entire Mediterranean

and included 17 years of pretty constant warfare in the Second

Punic War?

You're making up a story to support your pre-conceived position.

I see very little in the real history to support your ideas.

....

> The combination of factors I have mentioned explains the high

> prevalence and mortality of PC in western societies. Look at a

> world map of PC mortality and you will see neighboring

> countries with different 'alcohol rules' having different PC

> rates.

There may be something to this, but I'm not sure. I don't know

to what extent PCa mortality in western countries is due to

alcohol intake, different foods, or even how real it is. For the

underdeveloped world we have to consider the low life expectancy

and the lack of medical diagnosis (one doctor per 30,000 people

in some African countries) as possible reasons why prostate

cancer may be under diagnosed there, and heavy PSA testing for a

corresponding over diagnosis in the west.

Alcohol may be involved. We don't know for sure. I think we do

know for sure that some men whose mothers were not drinkers do

get PCa.

> I will go so far as to predict that wherever alcohol

> availability has been increased due to relaxation of drinking

> hours and/or lowering of drinking age, there wuill be an

> explosion of prostate cancer in 40-50 years. This can be easily

> proven just by looking at the prostates of aborted fetuses. I

> guarantee anyone comparing these prostates to archival samples

> will find differences in the cellular morphology suggesting

> increased ERalpha activity.

If this can be easily proven, I'd like to see the evidence for

it. What is the empirical foundation of your " guarantee " ?

> You read it here first.

Indeed!

Some time ago I asked you what the evidence was for your theory

that fetal estrogen imprinting was the cause of PCa. You sent me

citations to a number of articles and I read the abstracts in

Pubmed.

I fully agree with you that the articles you cited do provide

some evidence that alcohol consumption by pregnant women can

contribute to the development of prostate cancer.

But I saw nothing whatsoever in those articles to indicate that

this was the _exclusive_ cause of prostate cancer. The articles

didn't claim that. They didn't claim it was a necessary cause

(meaning that men who have PCa must have had mothers who drank

alcohol) and they didn't even claim that it was a

sufficient cause (meaning that a man whose mother drank alcohol

during pregnancy would certainly get PCa.)

Just on the evidence of this group, we know that it can't be a

necessary cause because there are men here who know that their

mother's were not drinkers, but they still got PCa.

If you wish to campaign against pregnant women drinking, I'm all

for it! I support you. That is a Good Thing. But when you go

way beyond the evidence to make far reaching but unsubstantiated

claims about the sole, or even the main, cause of PCa, and far

reaching but unsubstantiated claims about the history of

medicine and of prostate cancer, you've left me behind. Making

scientific and historical claims that go beyond the evidence, and

insisting that they are true, is not a Good Thing. It's a Bad

Thing! It's a serious intellectual error. It undermines all of

the good things you are trying to do. It keeps people who try to

understand science and history from supporting you. It

compromises the positive message you are trying to project.

I urge you to seriously reconsider your position.

Alan

[Guest guest]

This is more than I can tolerate. The rules of this group are being abused

badly.

"

There are just two rules for this group

1 No Spam

2 Be kind to others

"

Please see rule #2. I did not set up this group. I am on Taxotere and suffer

from " chemo brain " . However, even I can understand why this rule is in place.

Sammy has been very professional in this discussion. He has cited journal

references and drawn clear conclusions based on the facts.

has only been unkind and abusive. I would suggest to the group owner

that be put on monitoring and not allow his personal attacks on members

of this group to continue.

The following are clear examples of personal attacks.

"

I think you may need to find a hobby, or a girlfriend.

But you're going to have to take off the tin-foil hat, first.

"

If a newcomer came in and saw this he would leave. I know I would have. And

there goes our chance to be helpful to someone who is dazed and confused.

Now please be kind and stop the personal attacks.

Steve

Bergerson

Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

Here's where my BS meter went haywire:

" This can be easily proven just by looking at the prostates of aborted fetuses.

I guarantee anyone comparing these prostates to archival samples will find

differences in the cellular morphology suggesting increased ERalpha activity. "

Gee, wouldn't it be great if you've discovered a means to detect aggressive,

fatal prostate cancer at the FOETAL level! You'd win a Nobel Prize, for sure.

I think you may need to find a hobby, or a girlfriend.

But you're going to have to take off the tin-foil hat, first. This is too much.

--The Other Steve

------------------------------------

There are just two rules for this group

1 No Spam

2 Be kind to others

Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs different

levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some men even with

all options offered chose radical options that you would not choose. We only ask

that people be informed before choice is made, we cannot and should not tell

other members what to do, other than look at other options.

Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

An excellent post Alan. Thank you for articulating so eloquently a response; views I for one agree with wholeheartedly.

Spain.

Re: Re: ??????? (No one knows what causes PCa)

sammy_bates <sammy_bates> wrote:> Maybe you have a better explanation for the sudden emergence of> Pc just over 100 years ago ?Yes, I think I do have a much better explanation.I don't know if my explanation is right, but I think it's morelikely than yours.I suggest that prostate cancer didn't suddenly start happening100 years ago, but rather that it has happened for thousands ofyears, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, but medicalscience had not progressed far enough to recognize it until ahundred or so years ago.There are many diseases like this. "Senile dementia" has beenknown since ancient times, but Alzheimer's Disease was notidentified until 1906. Even then, it was not until around the1960's, that it was realized that the great majority of cases ofsenile dementia were caused by Alzheimer's Disease, and not by"hardening of the arteries", which was the accepted explanationuntil then.Cancer has been recognized for thousands of years. The first useof the word "cancer" is actually ascribed to Hippocrates, whodied in 370 BC (seehttp://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_the_history_of_cancer_72.asp)But until the development of modern science and technology in the19th and 20th centuries, no one understood very much aboutcancer. It required modern microscopes, modern cell observationtechniques, modern histology, modern autopsy techniques,microphotography, and many other developments before people wereable to say that a growth on a dead man's backbone was actuallymade up of prostate tissue.Before then, the doctors mostly had to rely on symptoms, and thesymptoms of prostate cancer are not generally in the prostate.> The alcohol explanation is simple, but by no means simplistic.> Look, crude distillation may have been around for thousands of> years (Indus Valley and so on) but the efficient production of> ethanol using water cooling apparatus only started a few> hundred years ago, with its discovery by Islamic scientists.Yes. You are right that early distillation techniques were notsuitable for mass production. But mass production of alcoholicdrinks was initiated long before 100 years ago. As I explainedin my last reply to you, for which I cited the Wikipedia articleon gin, high concentration distilled liquor (gin), was consumedin great quantities, by women as well as men, from the early 18thcentury in England, 250 years _before_ you say that prostatecancer appeared.250 years is ten or more generations!It seems crystal clear to me that either the transfer of alchoholfrom mother to fetus does not cause prostate cancer, or elseprostate cancer did exist in those times but was not recognizedby the very primitive medical science that existed before thelate nineteenth century.I don't understand why this is not clear to you. You asked whatis wrong with your argument and I've told you. More than once.But you do not seem to be willing to address my argument.Why am I wrong in thinking that medical science, was just tooprimitive to recognize prostate cancer before it did?> I have to say the following or someone in total> misunderstanding will jump down my throat with more> accusations. I am not a Reformist and neither am I> anti-Feminist.I understand.I don't recall anyone in this group having accused you of beingReformist or male chauvinist. I certainly didn't and don't now.I will go further and say that the only thing I accuse you of isjumping to conclusions based on inadequate evidence. I believeyou are absolutely sincere in wanting to help cancer patients. Ibelieve you are absolutely sincere and honest in your statementsin support of women.It's neither your motives nor your attitudes to people that I amcriticizing. It is your understanding of the science and thehistory of that science.> It took a few hundred more years to bring ethanol technology to> an area where market demand was able to nurture mass production> and with that, made spirit alcohol as we know it available to> young women of child bearing age.> > The Industrial Revolution gave birth to a new middle class> hungry for luxury, and a working class hot on its heels. ...I think you're grasping at straws here Sammy.You've got a preconceived notion of the science. You're puttingtogether a historical story to try to shore it up. But theevidence for the scientific and historical claims is not thereand the story you're constructing is way out in left field(pardon my Americanism.)> ... But even then this strong alcohol was not available to> reproductively viable females until the end of the 1800's. ...Not true. Working class women were often drunkards in 18thcentury London. Women in the Roman Empire drank and, as Iexplained in a previous response, blood alcohol concentration isnot determined by alcohol concentration in the drink.> Women were treated like children first by their fathers then by> their husbands (much like women today in other cultures).Sometimes true, but sometimes not. The strictly n sexualmores became really strong in n times. All you have todo is read Chaucer or Shakespeare to see that that there wereearlier periods in England that were _not_ n.> They just would not be allowed any alcohol, never> mind distilled alcohol, full stop.A great story, but I don't think it's true.> Not allowed that is, until the menfolk started disappearing on> long war campaigns, and women began to win their freedom by> replacing men in the workplace.What long war campaigns are we talking about? The Seven YearsWar starting in 1756? The Thirty Years war starting in 1618?The Hundred Years War starting in 1337? How about the 27 yearPeloponnesian War starting in 431 BC, or the Punic Wars thatstretched over 120 years, raged across the entire Mediterraneanand included 17 years of pretty constant warfare in the SecondPunic War?You're making up a story to support your pre-conceived position.I see very little in the real history to support your ideas....> The combination of factors I have mentioned explains the high> prevalence and mortality of PC in western societies. Look at a> world map of PC mortality and you will see neighboring> countries with different 'alcohol rules' having different PC> rates.There may be something to this, but I'm not sure. I don't knowto what extent PCa mortality in western countries is due toalcohol intake, different foods, or even how real it is. For theunderdeveloped world we have to consider the low life expectancyand the lack of medical diagnosis (one doctor per 30,000 peoplein some African countries) as possible reasons why prostatecancer may be under diagnosed there, and heavy PSA testing for acorresponding over diagnosis in the west.Alcohol may be involved. We don't know for sure. I think we doknow for sure that some men whose mothers were not drinkers doget PCa.> I will go so far as to predict that wherever alcohol> availability has been increased due to relaxation of drinking> hours and/or lowering of drinking age, there wuill be an> explosion of prostate cancer in 40-50 years. This can be easily> proven just by looking at the prostates of aborted fetuses. I> guarantee anyone comparing these prostates to archival samples> will find differences in the cellular morphology suggesting> increased ERalpha activity.If this can be easily proven, I'd like to see the evidence forit. What is the empirical foundation of your "guarantee"?> You read it here first.Indeed!Some time ago I asked you what the evidence was for your theorythat fetal estrogen imprinting was the cause of PCa. You sent mecitations to a number of articles and I read the abstracts inPubmed.I fully agree with you that the articles you cited do providesome evidence that alcohol consumption by pregnant women cancontribute to the development of prostate cancer.But I saw nothing whatsoever in those articles to indicate thatthis was the _exclusive_ cause of prostate cancer. The articlesdidn't claim that. They didn't claim it was a necessary cause(meaning that men who have PCa must have had mothers who drankalcohol) and they didn't even claim that it was asufficient cause (meaning that a man whose mother drank alcoholduring pregnancy would certainly get PCa.)Just on the evidence of this group, we know that it can't be anecessary cause because there are men here who know that theirmother's were not drinkers, but they still got PCa.If you wish to campaign against pregnant women drinking, I'm allfor it! I support you. That is a Good Thing. But when you goway beyond the evidence to make far reaching but unsubstantiatedclaims about the sole, or even the main, cause of PCa, and farreaching but unsubstantiated claims about the history ofmedicine and of prostate cancer, you've left me behind. Makingscientific and historical claims that go beyond the evidence, andinsisting that they are true, is not a Good Thing. It's a BadThing! It's a serious intellectual error. It undermines all ofthe good things you are trying to do. It keeps people who try tounderstand science and history from supporting you. Itcompromises the positive message you are trying to project.I urge you to seriously reconsider your position.Alan