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

[Guest guest]

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: 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.>