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

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry,

I did not mean to imply anyone's mother was a lush. However, alcohol is a common

cause of increased estrogen level as it upregulates aromatase expression.

Other factors that affect estrogen levels in utero are low vitamin D status.

Contact with xenoestrogens such as DDT may also be a factor.

I am not preaching anything and I didn't dream it up. References a'plenty for

anyone who wants them.

Sammy.

>

> >> 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]

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]

In the Western World, all spirits –apart from rectified spirits, which don't

need to be – are required by law to be aged, to allow any toxins to break down.

And anyway, most people drink spirits in dilute form; making them no stronger

than wine.

In addition to that, in the UK, spirits tend to be drunk at the higher end of

the social scale. But there's no evidence that they suffer a greater degree of

prostate cancer.

Ted

> >

> > > 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]

Maybe you have a better explanation for the sudden emergence of Pc just over 100

years ago ?

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.

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.

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. Sugar, tobacco and 'fineries' from around

the world poured into Western Europe. Mass production of strong alcohol was a

spin-off luxury. But even then this strong alcohol was not available to

reproductively viable females until the end of the 1800's. Women were treated

like children first by their fathers then by their husbands (much like women

today in other cultures). They just would not be allowed any alcohol, never mind

distilled alcohol, full stop. 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.

Along with their induction into the world of work, women were also inducted into

the men's world of leisure - booze and tobacco. [ I don't think tobacco is

implicated in PC as well, but who knows. There are some pretty odd chemicals in

tobacco smoke according to Lord and Bongiovanni's article on estrogen and

cancer. Anyhow .. ]

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.

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.

You read it here first.

Sammy.

> >

> > > 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]

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

[Guest guest]

There is no easier thing to do than a biopsy on fetal prostates. If

you don't understand that science has moved on to the stage where this kin dof

thing can be done routinely you are the one with problems my friend. Sammy.

>

> 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

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting reply. Despite all the objections, right down at the end you seem to

be coming round to the idea that maternal estrogen imprinting of the fetus with

alcohol can cause prostate cancer in male offspring.

Now, I didn't say alcohol was the only cause of this imprinting. I did say that

it seemed to be a predominant cause in western society. This is because when you

look across political and cultural borders you see a different pattern. In

countries where alcohol is prohibited, there are lower PC rates generally. BUT

the differences between these cultures that prohiit alcohol tells us an awful

lot as well, about the other potential contributors to fetal estrogen

imprinting.

When we feed this information back into a western scenario we see that it is

possible to have fetal estrogen imprinting WITHOUT maternal alcohol making a

contribution. Therefore, having a teetotal mother does not disprove the alcohol

hypothesis for westerners with the disease. Nevertheless, maternal alcohol is a

substantial contributor in western society, and will go on contributing until

we, as a society, are able to effectively address the problem of young women and

alcohol.

Disruption of the estrogen receptor at the fetal stage means that we can start

looking for something right away. It is easy to disprove my theory. Prostates of

aborted fetuses will have a greater chance of having this estrogen receptor

disruption if their mothers drank alcohol in the first month of gestation. Just

do the autopsies. What could be simpler ? I'll put money on it. Anyone

interested in a bet ?

Sammy.

>

> > 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

>