Prove PMID: 8931959 wrong - Re: 'Going strong' was..

[Guest guest]

Sammy,

I

guess you may not have bothered to read my story through – my chances

of surviving another 14 years is, by all accounts, slim. Like the

substantial majority of men, my heart condition is likely to carry me off

before then.

Why

on earth do you think that I would have kept a copy of your derogatory

e-mail(s)? And why do you think I would misrepresent what you said? And why

would you only consider being ‘contrite’ if I can ‘prove’

what you said? Simple question – did you ever think that my website

had any real value – if so what value did you ascribe to it?

You

don’t need my permission to e-mail any of the men on the List. Those

who have put their e-mail addresses and who are designated ‘Mentors’

(that term being the focus of your scorn) on the site indicate that they

are prepared to help other people – presumably some of them may wish

to help you in your search for the Truth - if you can motivate them to do

so. I would counsel you against a mass mailing to harvested

addresses – that does not go down well.

The

latest data in the US

indicates that about 4.5% of all prostate cancer deaths in that country

occur in men under the age of 60. If this percentage is applied to the

estimated number of deaths in UK it would mean that 476 men

under the age of 60 might have died from the disease in 2008. Another site

indicates that 7% of UK

deaths is in men under the age of 60, giving a total of 711. If these

figures are correct they would seem to indicate an improvement of 11% on

your 15 year old figures assuming your definition of “ the age of

retirement” is age 65. It should be borne in mind, when

considering any figures that the prostate cancer mortality rates peaked

about 15 years ago and that the UK 2008 mortality rate appears now to be

only slightly higher than it was in 1984 before the mortality rate took

off in lock step with the increase in incidence following the introduction

of PSA testing. It is still considerably higher than the mortality rate in

1971.

In both countries, the substantial

majority of deaths occur in men over the age of 80 and it is ONLY in this group

in the US that the oft repeated statement that prostate cancer is the ‘second

leading cause of male cancer deaths’ is true. In that group there were 79,411

deaths from all cancers: prostate cancer accounted for 15,120 (19% of the total

cancer deaths in this group)

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.net/StrangePlace/index.html

From:

ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of sammy_bates

Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2010 9:53

AM

To:

ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Prove PMID: 8931959 wrong - Re: 'Going strong' was..

Terry,

On the basis of my experience, you have at least another 14 years before you

need to address ADT issues. I hope I have been able to offer you something

positive in that at least. I wish you well - as I wish all men well who have

suffered this infernal disease.

I don't ever recall referring to your website as " ridiculous " .

Please copy the quote if you have it in your email archive and I will be duly

contrite.

Now, getting down to serious issues you say -- quote: >

> You might like to mail appropriate members of the 900+ list of men who

tell

> their stories on my site to see if you can recruit them for your crusade.

> The stories are indexed by age at diagnosis, PSA, Gleason Score, date of

> diagnosis and treatment chosen. Since your prime focus seems to be on

> younger men you might like to start with the Age index which is here

> http://www.yananow.net/Chart-Age.htm

My only " crusade " is getting to the truth.

As to your offer -- well, yes actually I would like to email all of them with

your permission. I'll have a small 'form' ready they can fill in soon. I'll

anonymise it, and we can go from there. Here is something you may be interested

in. Its not my idea, following on from below can I add that in the UK alone 800

men under tha age of retirement die from prostate cancer. That statistic

was based on WHO data for the same period, about 15 years ago. Has anything

changed ? Are relatively more men under the age of retirement surviving the

disease in 2010 compared to the mid 1990's ?

If anyone can provide (objective) contemporary evidence of improved survival

for younger men that would be a really positive thing to do.

Sammy.

Epidemiology of prostate cancer.

Dijkman GA, Debruyne FM.

Department of Urology, Ignatius Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.

Prostate cancer is currently one of the most common malignancies worldwide. The

incidence of prostate cancer has risen dramatically over the last decade, more so

than can be explained by increasing longevity. Mortality rates have also risen,

though not as dramatically. There is a wide geographic variation in the incidence

of clinical prostate cancer, with higher rates in the United States than in

China. One risk factor which could explain this variation is the high fat intake

associated with a Western diet. It is also apparent that prostate cancer is now

being detected at less advanced stages than in the past. Increased awareness of

the disease and improved detection methods are thought to contribute to this

earlier detection.

PMID: 8931959

Sammy.

[Guest guest]

Terry

I don't what if any effect the stats may show but there is one difference between the UK and USA - the level of screening.

I'm one for saying it is not the screening that is the issue, it is what to do or not to do when PCA is confirmed. Diet changes may be the only thing required in some men other than monitoring

Terry wrote among other things:-

RE: Prove PMID: 8931959 wrong - Re: 'Going strong' was..

Sammy,

I guess you may not have bothered to read my story through – my chances of surviving another 14 years is, by all accounts, slim. Like the substantial majority of The latest data in the US indicates that about 4.5% of all prostate cancer deaths in that country occur in men under the age of 60. If this percentage is applied to the estimated number of deaths in UK it would mean that 476 men under the age of 60 might have died from the disease in 2008. Another site indicates that 7% of UK deaths is in men under the age of 60, giving a total of 711. If these figures are correct they would seem to indicate an improvement of 11% on your 15 year old figures assuming your definition of “ the age of retirement” is age 65. It should be borne in mind, when considering any figures that the prostate cancer mortality rates peaked about 15 years ago and that the UK 2008 mortality rate appears now to be only slightly higher than it was in 1984 before the mortality rate took off in lock step with the increase in incidence following the introduction of PSA testing. It is still considerably higher than the mortality rate in 1971.

In both countries, the substantial majority of deaths occur in men over the age of 80 and it is ONLY in this group in the US that the oft repeated statement that prostate cancer is the ‘second leading cause of male cancer deaths’ is true. In that group there were 79,411 deaths from all cancers: prostate cancer accounted for 15,120 (19% of the total cancer deaths in this group)

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.net/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of sammy_bates

[Guest guest]

> Just because you moderate this group does not entitle you to make

unsubstantiated statements. Proof enough for anyone with half an ounce of sense

that you are

> indeed " in denial " about the true nature of PC -

prejudiced and prone to cherry picking.

I have to stand up for Terry in

remembering your statements against his website. Like all of the other

worthless posts I don’t tend to keep your emails around either. With some

of the unsubstantiated facts that you like to spread around I am very happy

that Terry does require you to prove your statements. You have a history. It

is interesting with all of the other people in this group whenever this group

looses its focus and degrades to personal attacks Sammy is the center of it.

Now lets hope the moderator will end this

diatribe so we can return to what is important, Prostate Cancer Support.

[Guest guest]

Terry and Sam, I was not following the beginning of this thread so perhaps I might be out of line with what I am about to say and suggest. If so, please put it to my own ignorance. I have learned much from both of you over time, as I am certain others have as well. One thing I have learned time and again, is that this disease is so very ambiguous. I gather that not one single person is really the ultimate authority on it at all. Over the last several years I have seen discussions become heated for various reasons, usually from the lesser knowledgeable as myself, as we try to overcome anther's' point of view who may or may not have slighted me or you. I have been properly chastised for doing this myself. Please gentlemen, I beg you on my very knees, to consider my take

on this.....you both have done much to help us all. Refocus on this and forget past misunderstandings, however much they may have hurt. We are in this together. And, for myself I can only say I would not be here but for what both of you have contributed. My respects to all,JeffSubject: Prove PMID: 8931959 wrong - Re: 'Going strong' was..To: ProstateCancerSupport Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 7:09 PM

Terry,What is this supposed to mean ? To any sane person it is a rant. Pure and simple. I am not going to stand for a rant. > Why

on earth do you think that I would have kept a copy of your derogatory

e-mail(s)? And why do you think I would misrepresent what you said? And why

would you only consider being `contrite' if I can `prove'

what you said? Simple question – did you ever think that my website

had any real value – if so what value did you ascribe to it?Just because you moderate this group does not entitle you to make unsubstantiated statements. Proof enough for anyone with half an ounce of sense that you are indeed "in denial" about the true nature of PC - prejudiced and prone to cherry picking.In the past you required me to 'prove' every statement I make about PC and I have endeavoured to do that. I am grateful for the lead, it sharpened up my act. Now when the shoe is on the other foot it behoves you to 'prove' I said the things you accuse me of, or apologise.BTW - you quote PC stats. What is your source, the bottomof a tea-cup ? Link please, or PubMed citation. You may have most of the guys on this group eating out of your hand for the kindness you have shown them, but where does that get guys like Andy Ripley who need strong up front help all the way ? I am not satisfied with your response and neither should you be.Sammy.>> Sammy,> > > > 1. I guess you may not have bothered to read my story through - my> chances of surviving another 14 years is, by all accounts, slim. Like the> substantial majority of men, my heart condition is likely to

carry me off> before then.> 2. Why on earth do you think that I would have kept a copy of your> derogatory e-mail(s)? And why do you think I would misrepresent what you> said? And why would you only consider being 'contrite' if I can 'prove' what> you said? Simple question - did you ever think that my website had any real> value - if so what value did you ascribe to it?> 3. You don't need my permission to e-mail any of the men on the List.> Those who have put their e-mail addresses and who are designated 'Mentors'> (that term being the focus of your scorn) on the site indicate that they are> prepared to help other people - presumably some of them may wish to help you> in your search for the Truth - if you can motivate them to do so. I would> counsel you against a mass mailing to harvested addresses - that does not go> down well.> 4. The latest data in the

US indicates that about 4.5% of all prostate> cancer deaths in that country occur in men under the age of 60. If this> percentage is applied to the estimated number of deaths in UK it would mean> that 476 men under the age of 60 might have died from the disease in 2008.> Another site indicates that 7% of UK deaths is in men under the age of 60,> giving a total of 711. If these figures are correct they would seem to> indicate an improvement of 11% on your 15 year old figures assuming your> definition of " the age of retirement" is age 65. It should be borne in> mind, when considering any figures that the prostate cancer mortality rates> peaked about 15 years ago and that the UK 2008 mortality rate appears now to> be only slightly higher than it was in 1984 before the mortality rate took> off in lock step with the increase in incidence following the introduction> of PSA

testing. It is still considerably higher than the mortality rate in> 1971.> > > > In both countries, the substantial majority of deaths occur in men over the> age of 80 and it is ONLY in this group in the US that the oft repeated> statement that prostate cancer is the 'second leading cause of male cancer> deaths' is true. In that group there were 79,411 deaths from all cancers:> prostate cancer accounted for 15,120 (19% of the total cancer deaths in this> group)> > > > All the best > > Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening> > Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong> > Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at> http://www.yananow. net/StrangePlace /index.html > > > > _____ > > From: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com>

[mailto:ProstateCan cerSupport@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of sammy_bates> Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2010 9:53 AM> To: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com> Subject: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Prove PMID: 8931959 wrong - Re: 'Going> strong' was..> > > > > > > Terry,> > On the basis of my experience, you have at least another 14 years before you> need to address ADT issues. I hope I have been able to offer you something> positive in that at least. I wish you well - as I wish all men well who have> suffered this infernal disease.> > I don't ever recall referring to your website as "ridiculous" . Please copy> the quote if you have it in your email archive and I will be duly contrite.> > Now, getting down to serious issues you say -- quote: > > > > You might like to mail appropriate

members of the 900+ list of men who> tell> > their stories on my site to see if you can recruit them for your crusade.> > The stories are indexed by age at diagnosis, PSA, Gleason Score, date of> > diagnosis and treatment chosen. Since your prime focus seems to be on> > younger men you might like to start with the Age index which is here> > http://www.yananow. net/Chart- Age.htm > > My only "crusade" is getting to the truth. > > As to your offer -- well, yes actually I would like to email all of them> with your permission. I'll have a small 'form' ready they can fill in soon.> I'll anonymise it, and we can go from there. Here is something you may be> interested in. Its not my idea, following on from below can I add that in> the UK alone 800 men under tha age of retirement die from prostate cancer.> That statistic was based on WHO data

for the same period, about 15 years> ago. Has anything changed ? Are relatively more men under the age of> retirement surviving the disease in 2010 compared to the mid 1990's ? > > If anyone can provide (objective) contemporary evidence of improved survival> for younger men that would be a really positive thing to do.> > Sammy.> > Epidemiology of prostate cancer.> > > > > > Dijkman GA, Debruyne FM.> > > > > > Department of Urology, Ignatius Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.> > > > > > Prostate cancer is currently one of the most common malignancies worldwide.> The> > > incidence of prostate cancer has risen dramatically over the last decade,> more so> > > than can be explained by increasing longevity. Mortality

rates have also> risen,> > > though not as dramatically. There is a wide geographic variation in the> incidence> > > of clinical prostate cancer, with higher rates in the United States than in> > > China. One risk factor which could explain this variation is the high fat> intake > > > associated with a Western diet. It is also apparent that prostate cancer is> now> > > being detected at less advanced stages than in the past. Increased awareness> of> > > the disease and improved detection methods are thought to contribute to this> > > earlier detection.> > > > > > PMID: 8931959> > > > > Sammy.>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Jeff for the "oil over troubled waters". I hope you find something in the following of value. Sam.I thought readers might like this because it illustrates just how awkward the whole business is.First we have a commercially financed study[1]* that unashamedly tries to peddle a DHT inhibitor that has a genuine use in the context of BPH management - for chemoprevention of prostate cancer. It is deeply flawed. Nevertheless it has nearly 1000 signatories. * Notice the articles written by Walsh in relation to REDUCE do not have an abstract form. It is necessary to go to source to see what Walsh is saying. This is a significant fact in itself. It means that only a few non-medical people will go to the trouble to find out what he is saying. I strongly advise anyone with a mind of their own to read what Walsh has to say. Walsh is saying the REDUCE trial is deeply flawed. "The finding that dutasteride was ineffective in reducing these high grade tumors is disappointing .. " [2] [p. 1238 NEJM 362;13 April 2010]Walsh is confident about this. Not least because history backs him up. The previous finasteride PCPT study put the writing on the wall for anyone to read if they take the trouble to. Quoting a Finnish study " .. men who received finasteride for more than four years had a risk of high grade disease that was increased by a factor of 2.6" [3].So where do we go from here ? A hint may be found in Walsh's comments in the NEJM editorial. "Because we lack a complete understanding of the pathophysiology of prostate cancer .. "I believe Walsh himself HAS tried to find an answer in the "androgen causes - castration cures" historical / empirical model deriving from the work of Huggins in the 1940's. Walsh did this by investigating gene polymorphisms that increase / decrease expression of the enzymes that convert testosterone to dihydrotestosterone. As you probably know, DHT is regarded as a more potent androgen capable of causing PC. The model Walsh was testing suggests increased DHT production via over expression of the SRDA2 enzyme should coincide with increased risk / rates of prostate cancer. It does not [4] - for further commentary see my PC21 notes page 22 - www.fitcare.org.uk/epidemic/ . This lack of a "smoking gun" is further corroborated by a meta-analysis including 10,000 cases and as many controls. [5]What do we make of this? DHT is responsible for benign stromal growth and reducing DHT can relieve the symptoms of BPH. Dutasteride and finasteride DO have a role to place, particularly in combination with alpha-adrenoceptor blockers, for BPH. Prostate cancer on the other hand is a different disease. Suppression of androgens, including DHT, in the case of PC can lead to "promiscuous receptors" in what is called castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). The last study I looked at investigates the way DHT interacts with the androgen receptor. This 2009 paper tells us that DHT "tightens-up" the receptor so it is less likely to be occupied by coregulators such as progestins or estrogens (including xenoestrogens from the environment or workplace). [6]My take on all of this is that we are being shafted by big business out to make a fast buck out of our disease. Like BP, there is less concern for the "little people" but great concern for shareholders and stock prices.The take home message is this: Get a proper diagnosis and if you do have a high risk of prostate cancer then act accordingly. It is no good treating a high risk PC case with medications for BPH. Its a no-brainer, but sadly a lot of guys still fall for it and are sucked into using prescription drugs that suppress their PSA but increase their risk of fatal disease [2,3].As usual - please excuse any typos that may occur. Email for clarification if you find one. Sam.1: Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW, Gomella LG, Marberger M, Montorsi F,Pettaway CA, Tammela TL, Teloken C, Tindall DJ, Somerville MC, TH, Fowler IL, Rittmaster RS; REDUCE Study Group. Effect of dutasteride on the risk ofprostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 1;362(13):1192-202. PubMed PMID:20357281.2: Walsh PC. Chemoprevention of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr1;362(13):1237-8. PubMed PMID: 20357287.3: Murtola TJ, Tammela TL, Määttänen L, Ala-Opas M, Stenman UH, Auvinen A.Prostate cancer incidence among finasteride and alpha-blocker users in theFinnish Prostate Cancer Screening Trial. Br J Cancer. 2009 Sep 1;101(5):843-8.Epub 2009 Aug 4. PubMed PMID: 19654575; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2736846.4: Chang BL, Zheng SL, Isaacs SD, AR, Bleecker ER, Walsh PC, Meyers DA,Isaacs WB, Xu J. Evaluation of SRD5A2 sequence variants in susceptibility tohereditary and sporadic prostate cancer. Prostate. 2003 Jun 15;56(1):37-44.PubMed PMID: 12746845.5: Li J, Coates RJ, Gwinn M, Khoury MJ. Steroid 5-{alpha}-reductase Type 2(SRD5a2) gene polymorphisms and risk of prostate cancer: a HuGE review. Am JEpidemiol. 2010 Jan 1;171(1):1-13. Epub 2009 Nov 13. Review. PubMed PMID:19914946.6: Jasuja R, Ulloor J, Yengo CM, Choong K, Istomin AY, Livesay DR, s DJ,Swerdloff RS, Miksovská J, Larsen RW, Bhasin S. Kinetic and thermodynamiccharacterization of dihydrotestosterone-induced conformational perturbations inandrogen receptor ligand-binding domain. Mol Endocrinol. 2009 Aug;23(8):1231-41. Epub 2009 May 14. PubMed PMID: 19443608; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2718745.

> >> > Sammy,> > > > > > > > 1. I guess you may not have bothered to read my story through - my> > chances of surviving another 14 years is, by all accounts, slim. Like the> > substantial majority of men, my heart condition is likely to carry me off> > before then.> > 2. Why on earth do you think that I would have kept a copy of your> > derogatory e-mail(s)? And why do you think I would misrepresent what you> > said? And why would you only consider being 'contrite' if I can 'prove' what> > you said? Simple question - did you ever think that my website had any real> > value - if so what value did you ascribe to it?> > 3. You don't need my permission to e-mail any of the men on the List.> > Those who have put their e-mail addresses and who are designated 'Mentors'> > (that term being the focus of your scorn) on the site indicate that they are> > prepared to help other people - presumably some of them may wish to help you> > in your search for the Truth - if you can motivate them to do so. I would> > counsel you against a mass mailing to harvested addresses - that does not go> > down well.> > 4. The latest data in the US indicates that about 4.5% of all prostate> > cancer deaths in that country occur in men under the age of 60. If this> > percentage is applied to the estimated number of deaths in UK it would mean> > that 476 men under the age of 60 might have died from the disease in 2008.> > Another site indicates that 7% of UK deaths is in men under the age of 60,> > giving a total of 711. If these figures are correct they would seem to> > indicate an improvement of 11% on your 15 year old figures assuming your> > definition of " the age of retirement" is age 65. It should be borne in> > mind, when considering any figures that the prostate cancer mortality rates> > peaked about 15 years ago and that the UK 2008 mortality rate appears now to> > be only slightly higher than it was in 1984 before the mortality rate took> > off in lock step with the increase in incidence following the introduction> > of PSA testing. It is still considerably higher than the mortality rate in> > 1971.> > > > > > > > In both countries, the substantial majority of deaths occur in men over the> > age of 80 and it is ONLY in this group in the US that the oft repeated> > statement that prostate cancer is the 'second leading cause of male cancer> > deaths' is true. In that group there were 79,411 deaths from all cancers:> > prostate cancer accounted for 15,120 (19% of the total cancer deaths in this> > group)> > > > > > > > All the best > > > > Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening> > > > Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong> > > > Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at> > http://www.yananow. net/StrangePlace /index.html > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com> > [mailto:ProstateCan cerSupport@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of sammy_bates> > Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2010 9:53 AM> > To: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com> > Subject: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Prove PMID: 8931959 wrong - Re: 'Going> > strong' was..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Terry,> > > > On the basis of my experience, you have at least another 14 years before you> > need to address ADT issues. I hope I have been able to offer you something> > positive in that at least. I wish you well - as I wish all men well who have> > suffered this infernal disease.> > > > I don't ever recall referring to your website as "ridiculous" . Please copy> > the quote if you have it in your email archive and I will be duly contrite.> > > > Now, getting down to serious issues you say -- quote: > > > > > > You might like to mail appropriate members of the 900+ list of men who> > tell> > > their stories on my site to see if you can recruit them for your crusade.> > > The stories are indexed by age at diagnosis, PSA, Gleason Score, date of> > > diagnosis and treatment chosen. Since your prime focus seems to be on> > > younger men you might like to start with the Age index which is here> > > http://www.yananow. net/Chart- Age.htm > > > > My only "crusade" is getting to the truth. > > > > As to your offer -- well, yes actually I would like to email all of them> > with your permission. I'll have a small 'form' ready they can fill in soon.> > I'll anonymise it, and we can go from there. Here is something you may be> > interested in. Its not my idea, following on from below can I add that in> > the UK alone 800 men under tha age of retirement die from prostate cancer.> > That statistic was based on WHO data for the same period, about 15 years> > ago. Has anything changed ? Are relatively more men under the age of> > retirement surviving the disease in 2010 compared to the mid 1990's ? > > > > If anyone can provide (objective) contemporary evidence of improved survival> > for younger men that would be a really positive thing to do.> > > > Sammy.> > > > Epidemiology of prostate cancer.> > > > > > > > > > > > Dijkman GA, Debruyne FM.> > > > > > > > > > > > Department of Urology, Ignatius Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.> > > > > > > > > > > > Prostate cancer is currently one of the most common malignancies worldwide.> > The> > > > > > incidence of prostate cancer has risen dramatically over the last decade,> > more so> > > > > > than can be explained by increasing longevity. Mortality rates have also> > risen,> > > > > > though not as dramatically. There is a wide geographic variation in the> > incidence> > > > > > of clinical prostate cancer, with higher rates in the United States than in> > > > > > China. One risk factor which could explain this variation is the high fat> > intake > > > > > > associated with a Western diet. It is also apparent that prostate cancer is> > now> > > > > > being detected at less advanced stages than in the past. Increased awareness> > of> > > > > > the disease and improved detection methods are thought to contribute to this> > > > > > earlier detection.> > > > > > > > > > > > PMID: 8931959> > > > > > > > > > Sammy.> >>