RE: Half life of PSA?

[Guest guest]

> Terry Herbert wrote:

>

> One of the posters on my site raised an issue about PSA of

> which I was unaware.

>

> He drew my attention to this study - Prostate Cancer Prostatic

> Dis. 2002;5(2):111-4.Clearance rates of total prostate specific

> antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy in African-Americans

> and Caucasians. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. It is a small study and

> it is aimed at trying to resolve any differences between what

> are termed PSA ‘clearance rates’ between Caucasian and

> African-American patients (none was found). I found some of

> the other outcomes somewhat confusing.

>

> Table 2 shows what is termed the serum total PSA half-life. The

> figures in the table are in line with another referenced study

> -(Eur Urol. 1998;33(3):251-4. Clearance of free and total serum

> PSA after prostatic surgery. Ravery V, Meulemans A,

> Boccon-Gibod L.) which concluded that the half-life of PSA

> after surgery was up to 3 days with a mean half-life of 2.43

> +/- 0.688 days for total PSA.

>

> So, if these studies are correct, why has it been the practise

> for urologist surgeons to wait for up to three months before

> measuring PSA levels after surgery? From the anecdotal evidence

> of posts on Lists and on my site, I know that this practise has

> changed and more often it seems that the initial post-surgery

> PSA test is done after three or four weeks. This change has

> resulted in more men having a detectable PSA level when the PSA

> test is done so soon after surgery, a result which is put down

> to blood circulating in the aftermath of the surgery. Surely

> all the men should have undetectable PSA levels, if these

> studies are correct.

Three weeks may not be quite enough time. Assuming the outside

number of 3 days for half life, 21 days would leave:

1/(2^(21/3)) = 1/(2^7) = 1/128

With an initial PSA of say 15, the residual PSA after 21 days

would be 15/128 = 0.117, probably still detectable.

For 28 days the residual would be 1/645 or, for an

initial PSA of 15 = 15/645 = 0.023, maybe still detectable,

depending on the sensitivity of the test.

However if the doc waited six weeks (42 days) the residual would

be 1/16384. 15/16384 = 0.0009, completely out of sight.

> Another aspect that these studies seem to impact is the

> accuracy of PSA tests. If the prostate is massaged by DRE

> (Digital Rectal Examination) or, for example a bike ride, or is

> exercised by ejaculation or any other activity that produces

> higher levels of PSA, and if the half life is really 2.5 days,

> surely it will take the best part of a week for that extra PSA

> to decay - not the 48 hours that is usually quoted?

Now that one I can't explain away. What I'd really like to see

is a study that shows exactly how much extra PSA is produced by

having sex. Then we could make the mental subtractions without

abstaining - having our cake and eating it too

On my last PSA test I forgot all about it the night before and

did the deed. However the test turned out exactly the same as it

had the previous year (0.09). I'm guessing that for men who no

longer have a prostate, or whose prostate has been long enough

ago radiated to be pretty dead, ejaculation has little or no

effect on the outcome.

> As the first oncologist I consulted said " There is something to

> learn about PCA every day. " Anyone with any input on this?

I just hope the urologists and oncologists are learning every day

and not just relying on what they learned in medical school two

or three decades ago.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Alan,

I read this (and another similar post on

another List) and thought ‘What the….!! What is this man talking

about?????’ And that’s when I realized that my (very non

scientific) idea of what the term ‘half-life’ meant was seriously

flawed. I reckon there might be more than one man on this list who might think

that a half-life is half the life of the item under discussion and since we all

know that two halves make a whole, twice the half life equals the full life. Therefore

if PSA has a half life of 3 days it has a full life of six days i.e. after

six days it is gone.

But, impelled by your post I went to my

good friend Wikipedia (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

for anyone else who shares my lack of knowledge) and all became more clear. The

second half of a half life is a lot longer than the first half, and a lot longer

than twice their number!! How you scientists must laugh at such ignorance J but that comes from dropping

out of school – warn your children!!

So now that I understand THAT a tad more,

I can understand (and agree with) what you have to say about the minimum time

to measure after RP (Radical Prostatectomy) and as to effective time after DRE

(Digital Rectal Examination), I haven’t found any study that gives a

precise estimate of the likely range of variance induced by DRE – in fact

I can’t find any recent studies at all. What is even more curious

is the fact that there do not seem to be any studies that demonstrate any

increase in PSA levels after DRE (Digital Rectal Examination) The most recent I

can find are in the mid 90s and both of the most relevant ones indicate that

there is no significant change in PSA from DRE! There are many articles which

refer to the ‘fact’ that this occurs, but few of them have

references. The one reference that I have used is also an old one so…….????

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 Alan Meyer

Sent: Wednesday, 16 June 2010 8:40

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re:

Half life of PSA?

> Terry Herbert

wrote:

>

> One of the posters on my site raised an issue about PSA of

> which I was unaware.

>

> He drew my attention to this study - Prostate Cancer Prostatic

> Dis. 2002;5(2):111-4.Clearance rates of total prostate specific

> antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy in African-Americans

> and Caucasians. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. It is a small study and

> it is aimed at trying to resolve any differences between what

> are termed PSA ‘clearance rates’ between Caucasian and

> African-American patients (none was found). I found some of

> the other outcomes somewhat confusing.

>

> Table 2 shows what is termed the serum total PSA half-life. The

> figures in the table are in line with another referenced study

> -(Eur Urol. 1998;33(3):251-4. Clearance of free and total serum

> PSA after prostatic surgery. Ravery V, Meulemans A,

> Boccon-Gibod L.) which concluded that the half-life of PSA

> after surgery was up to 3 days with a mean half-life of 2.43

> +/- 0.688 days for total PSA.

>

> So, if these studies are correct, why has it been the practise

> for urologist surgeons to wait for up to three months before

> measuring PSA levels after surgery? From the anecdotal evidence

> of posts on Lists and on my site, I know that this practise has

> changed and more often it seems that the initial post-surgery

> PSA test is done after three or four weeks. This change has

> resulted in more men having a detectable PSA level when the PSA

> test is done so soon after surgery, a result which is put down

> to blood circulating in the aftermath of the surgery. Surely

> all the men should have undetectable PSA levels, if these

> studies are correct.

Three weeks may not be quite enough time. Assuming the outside

number of 3 days for half life, 21 days would leave:

1/(2^(21/3)) = 1/(2^7) = 1/128

With an initial PSA of say 15, the residual PSA after 21 days

would be 15/128 = 0.117, probably still detectable.

For 28 days the residual would be 1/645 or, for an

initial PSA of 15 = 15/645 = 0.023, maybe still detectable,

depending on the sensitivity of the test.

However if the doc waited six weeks (42 days) the residual would

be 1/16384. 15/16384 = 0.0009, completely out of sight.

> Another aspect that these studies seem to impact is the

> accuracy of PSA tests. If the prostate is massaged by DRE

> (Digital Rectal Examination) or, for example a bike ride, or is

> exercised by ejaculation or any other activity that produces

> higher levels of PSA, and if the half life is really 2.5 days,

> surely it will take the best part of a week for that extra PSA

> to decay - not the 48 hours that is usually quoted?

Now that one I can't explain away. What I'd really like to see

is a study that shows exactly how much extra PSA is produced by

having sex. Then we could make the mental subtractions without

abstaining - having our cake and eating it too

On my last PSA test I forgot all about it the night before and

did the deed. However the test turned out exactly the same as it

had the previous year (0.09). I'm guessing that for men who no

longer have a prostate, or whose prostate has been long enough

ago radiated to be pretty dead, ejaculation has little or no

effect on the outcome.

> As the first oncologist I consulted said " There is something to

> learn about PCA every day. " Anyone with any input on this?

I just hope the urologists and oncologists are learning every day

and not just relying on what they learned in medical school two

or three decades ago.

Alan

[Guest guest]

For what it's worth, I had a routine checkup when my PSA initially came back as

4.6 which started the ball rolling. My GP gave me a thorough DRE and made an

appointment with the Urologist about a half hour later. He also gave me a real

once over and sent me down for a blood draw. All this in a span of three hours

or so. My next PSA came back as 6.3. I suspect the stimulation of the prostate

had some effect and didn't take long.

>

> So now that I understand THAT a tad more, I can understand (and agree with)

> what you have to say about the minimum time to measure after RP (Radical

> Prostatectomy) and as to effective time after DRE (Digital Rectal

> Examination), I haven't found any study that gives a precise estimate of the

> likely range of variance induced by DRE - in fact I can't find any recent

> studies at all. What is even more curious is the fact that there do not seem

> to be any studies that demonstrate any increase in PSA levels after DRE

> (Digital Rectal Examination) The most recent I can find are in the mid 90s

> and both of the most relevant ones indicate that there is no significant

> change in PSA from DRE! There are many articles which refer to the 'fact'

> that this occurs, but few of them have references. The one reference that I

> have used is also an old one so...????

>

>

>

>

>

> Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong

>

[Guest guest]

" mccartney_7@... " wrote:

> For what it's worth, I had a routine checkup when my PSA

> initially came back as 4.6 which started the ball rolling. My

> GP gave me a thorough DRE and made an appointment with the

> Urologist about a half hour later. He also gave me a real once

> over and sent me down for a blood draw. All this in a span of

> three hours or so. My next PSA came back as 6.3. I suspect the

> stimulation of the prostate had some effect and didn't take

> long.

I had a similar experience with higher than expected PSA readings

after DRE exams. Like yours, they came out almost 2 points

higher than I expected. There's no way for me to know for sure

whether the PSA results were artificially elevated, but I

suspected they were.

A lot of urologists don't like to hear this kind of story. It's

not always convenient for them to get the blood draw first and

they don't want to believe that they are doing anything that

isn't right.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Hi Alan and others,

I am curious about PCa cells wondering around in our system. If they do not attach to something what is their life time. For original cells is there a time when they die as well?

Tom W.

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 12:55:41 AMSubject: RE: Half life of PSA?

Alan,

I read this (and another similar post on another List) and thought ‘What the….!! What is this man talking about?????’ And that’s when I realized that my (very non scientific) idea of what the term ‘half-life’ meant was seriously flawed. I reckon there might be more than one man on this list who might think that a half-life is half the life of the item under discussion and since we all know that two halves make a whole, twice the half life equals the full life. Therefore if PSA has a half life of 3 days it has a full life of six days i.e. after six days it is gone.

But, impelled by your post I went to my good friend Wikipedia (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life for anyone else who shares my lack of knowledge) and all became more clear. The second half of a half life is a lot longer than the first half, and a lot longer than twice their number!! How you scientists must laugh at such ignorance J but that comes from dropping out of school – warn your children!!

So now that I understand THAT a tad more, I can understand (and agree with) what you have to say about the minimum time to measure after RP (Radical Prostatectomy) and as to effective time after DRE (Digital Rectal Examination) , I haven’t found any study that gives a precise estimate of the likely range of variance induced by DRE – in fact I can’t find any recent studies at all. What is even more curious is the fact that there do not seem to be any studies that demonstrate any increase in PSA levels after DRE (Digital Rectal Examination) The most recent I can find are in the mid 90s and both of the most relevant ones indicate that there is no significant change in PSA from DRE! There are many articles which refer to the ‘fact’ that this occurs, but few of them have references. The one reference that I have used is also an

old one so…….????

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: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com ] On Behalf Of Alan MeyerSent: Wednesday, 16 June 2010 8:40 AMTo: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) comSubject: Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Half life of PSA?

> Terry Herbert <ghenesh_49@optusnet .com.au> wrote:> > One of the posters on my site raised an issue about PSA of> which I was unaware.> > He drew my attention to this study - Prostate Cancer Prostatic> Dis. 2002;5(2):111- 4.Clearance rates of total prostate specific> antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy in African-Americans> and Caucasians. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. It is a small study and> it is aimed at trying to resolve any differences between what> are termed PSA ‘clearance rates’ between Caucasian and> African-American patients (none was found). I found some of> the other outcomes somewhat confusing.> > Table 2 shows what is termed the serum total

PSA half-life. The> figures in the table are in line with another referenced study> -(Eur Urol. 1998;33(3):251- 4. Clearance of free and total serum> PSA after prostatic surgery. Ravery V, Meulemans A,> Boccon-Gibod L.) which concluded that the half-life of PSA> after surgery was up to 3 days with a mean half-life of 2.43> +/- 0.688 days for total PSA.> > So, if these studies are correct, why has it been the practise> for urologist surgeons to wait for up to three months before> measuring PSA levels after surgery? From the anecdotal evidence> of posts on Lists and on my site, I know that this practise has> changed and more often it seems that the initial post-surgery> PSA test is done after three or four weeks. This change has> resulted in more men having a detectable PSA level when the PSA> test is done so soon after surgery, a result which is put

down> to blood circulating in the aftermath of the surgery. Surely> all the men should have undetectable PSA levels, if these> studies are correct.Three weeks may not be quite enough time. Assuming the outsidenumber of 3 days for half life, 21 days would leave:1/(2^(21/3)) = 1/(2^7) = 1/128With an initial PSA of say 15, the residual PSA after 21 dayswould be 15/128 = 0.117, probably still detectable.For 28 days the residual would be 1/645 or, for aninitial PSA of 15 = 15/645 = 0.023, maybe still detectable,depending on the sensitivity of the test.However if the doc waited six weeks (42 days) the residual wouldbe 1/16384. 15/16384 = 0.0009, completely out of sight.> Another aspect that these studies seem to impact is the> accuracy of PSA tests. If the prostate is massaged by DRE> (Digital Rectal Examination) or, for example a bike ride, or is>

exercised by ejaculation or any other activity that produces> higher levels of PSA, and if the half life is really 2.5 days,> surely it will take the best part of a week for that extra PSA> to decay - not the 48 hours that is usually quoted?Now that one I can't explain away. What I'd really like to seeis a study that shows exactly how much extra PSA is produced byhaving sex. Then we could make the mental subtractions withoutabstaining - having our cake and eating it too :)On my last PSA test I forgot all about it the night before anddid the deed. However the test turned out exactly the same as ithad the previous year (0.09). I'm guessing that for men who nolonger have a prostate, or whose prostate has been long enoughago radiated to be pretty dead, ejaculation has little or noeffect on the outcome.> As the first oncologist I consulted said "There is something to>

learn about PCA every day." Anyone with any input on this?I just hope the urologists and oncologists are learning every dayand not just relying on what they learned in medical school twoor three decades ago.Alan

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote:

> I am curious about PCa cells wondering around in our system. If

> they do not attach to something what is their life time.

I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if anyone

does.

Each organ in the body - prostate, heart, liver, whatever,

generates a unique chemical environment within which the cells of

that organ thrive. Most cells need that environment that is

special for them and die if and when they leave the organ where

they normally reside. The fact that cancer cells don't die when

they should is one of the things that makes them cancer cells.

> For original cells is there a time when they die as well?

That depends on the type of cell. Red blood cells live about 4

weeks. The cells lining the stomach and intestines live a

similar amount of time. Skin and hair cells are short lived. On

the other hand, nerve cells stay alive (if we're lucky) for our

entire lives.

Some cells are " intended " to die. The cells in the lining of the

stomach and on the surface of the skin are constantly exposed to

dangerous environments - acids, carcinogens, abrasions, and so

on. The body copes with that by " programming " these cells to die

in a few weeks and be shed from the body. The cells are

constantly renewed by deeper level, well protected cells that

divide to produce new cells which become the front line cells

facing the hostile environment. That's one reason we can eat

lots of carcinogenic foods without (most of the time) getting

cancer. The stomach and intestinal cells affected by the

carcinogens die off before the damage from the carcinogens can

become too serious.

I don't know enough biology to say any more, but it's a

fascinating subject. I love to read about this stuff.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Alan,

Since my PSA is low and is responding to ADT Lupron. I will do a vit C interveinious to try to kill present cells in the blood. I know it works short time but not long term.

Tom W.

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 10:21:20 AMSubject: Re: Half life of PSA?

Tom wrote:> I am curious about PCa cells wondering around in our system. If> they do not attach to something what is their life time.I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if anyonedoes.Each organ in the body - prostate, heart, liver, whatever,generates a unique chemical environment within which the cells ofthat organ thrive. Most cells need that environment that isspecial for them and die if and when they leave the organ wherethey normally reside. The fact that cancer cells don't die whenthey should is one of the things that makes them cancer cells.> For original cells is there a time when they die as well?That depends on the type of cell. Red blood cells live about 4weeks. The cells lining the stomach and

intestines live asimilar amount of time. Skin and hair cells are short lived. Onthe other hand, nerve cells stay alive (if we're lucky) for ourentire lives.Some cells are "intended" to die. The cells in the lining of thestomach and on the surface of the skin are constantly exposed todangerous environments - acids, carcinogens, abrasions, and soon. The body copes with that by "programming" these cells to diein a few weeks and be shed from the body. The cells areconstantly renewed by deeper level, well protected cells thatdivide to produce new cells which become the front line cellsfacing the hostile environment. That's one reason we can eatlots of carcinogenic foods without (most of the time) gettingcancer. The stomach and intestinal cells affected by thecarcinogens die off before the damage from the carcinogens canbecome too serious.I don't know enough biology to say any more, but

it's afascinating subject. I love to read about this stuff.Alan

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote:

> Since my PSA is low and is responding to ADT Lupron. I will do

> a vit C interveinious to try to kill present cells in the

> blood. I know it works short time but not long term.

I've read that vitamin C can kill cancer cells in test tubes

though I don't know if much is known about its anti-cancer action

in the body. There are also positive claims about vitamin D,

pomegranate extract, resveratrol (from red wine) and other

things, but the evidence is limited.

Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of sales propaganda and

plain mythology floating around about diet and supplements. It's

hard to know what, if anything, actually works. I wish someone

at a reputable agency like NCI or the UK National Health would

maintain a summary of the most reliable information we have

on diet and supplements for each of the cancers.

I've searched the NCI website for information but what I found is

mainly about preventing cancer, not treating it.

Good luck with your treatments.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote:

> Since my PSA is low and is responding to ADT Lupron. I will do

> a vit C interveinious to try to kill present cells in the

> blood. I know it works short time but not long term.

I've read that vitamin C can kill cancer cells in test tubes

though I don't know if much is known about its anti-cancer action

in the body. There are also positive claims about vitamin D,

pomegranate extract, resveratrol (from red wine) and other

things, but the evidence is limited.

Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of sales propaganda and

plain mythology floating around about diet and supplements. It's

hard to know what, if anything, actually works. I wish someone

at a reputable agency like NCI or the UK National Health would

maintain a summary of the most reliable information we have

on diet and supplements for each of the cancers.

I've searched the NCI website for information but what I found is

mainly about preventing cancer, not treating it.

Good luck with your treatments.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Alan,

I wish they would do the research too. The AMA in the USA will not approve it as a treatment. I did an experiment on my own. I did Vit C intraveniously last October. I am unusual in that I ejaculate bodily fluids from where my prostrate was. The Vit C in the veins does not go through the digestive system which only can absorb about 4,000 mg. That is why the alternative people give in the veins.

I did the Vit C in the veins as well as under the skin. Before that my PSA was at 4.6 and climbing. After a week of the Vit C treatment I took my PSA and it was 0.1 and then took the PSA again after another week and it was back up to 4.6. My large assumption is it killed what was present in the veins but not the "old" cells. My ejaculation was yellow which is my body fluids from where the prostrate was.

My large assumption is that Vit C. killed the new cells until the old cells in the prostrate could replace them in the blood and lymph system. So if the the lupron has lowered my PSA to 0.4 and I kill the PCa in the fluids then I am better off for a while. Who knows if this is valid. I am just fighting this thing every can.

This does not substitute for science and I make no medical claims for anyone.

Tom W.

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 10:47:04 AMSubject: Re: Half life of PSA?

Tom wrote:> Since my PSA is low and is responding to ADT Lupron. I will do> a vit C interveinious to try to kill present cells in the> blood. I know it works short time but not long term.I've read that vitamin C can kill cancer cells in test tubesthough I don't know if much is known about its anti-cancer actionin the body. There are also positive claims about vitamin D,pomegranate extract, resveratrol (from red wine) and otherthings, but the evidence is limited.Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of sales propaganda andplain mythology floating around about diet and supplements. It'shard to know what, if anything, actually works. I wish someoneat a reputable agency like NCI or the UK National Health wouldmaintain a summary of the most

reliable information we haveon diet and supplements for each of the cancers.I've searched the NCI website for information but what I found ismainly about preventing cancer, not treating it.Good luck with your treatments.Alan

[Guest guest]

Alan,

I wish they would do the research too. The AMA in the USA will not approve it as a treatment. I did an experiment on my own. I did Vit C intraveniously last October. I am unusual in that I ejaculate bodily fluids from where my prostrate was. The Vit C in the veins does not go through the digestive system which only can absorb about 4,000 mg. That is why the alternative people give in the veins.

I did the Vit C in the veins as well as under the skin. Before that my PSA was at 4.6 and climbing. After a week of the Vit C treatment I took my PSA and it was 0.1 and then took the PSA again after another week and it was back up to 4.6. My large assumption is it killed what was present in the veins but not the "old" cells. My ejaculation was yellow which is my body fluids from where the prostrate was.

My large assumption is that Vit C. killed the new cells until the old cells in the prostrate could replace them in the blood and lymph system. So if the the lupron has lowered my PSA to 0.4 and I kill the PCa in the fluids then I am better off for a while. Who knows if this is valid. I am just fighting this thing every can.

This does not substitute for science and I make no medical claims for anyone.

Tom W.

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 10:47:04 AMSubject: Re: Half life of PSA?

Tom wrote:> Since my PSA is low and is responding to ADT Lupron. I will do> a vit C interveinious to try to kill present cells in the> blood. I know it works short time but not long term.I've read that vitamin C can kill cancer cells in test tubesthough I don't know if much is known about its anti-cancer actionin the body. There are also positive claims about vitamin D,pomegranate extract, resveratrol (from red wine) and otherthings, but the evidence is limited.Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of sales propaganda andplain mythology floating around about diet and supplements. It'shard to know what, if anything, actually works. I wish someoneat a reputable agency like NCI or the UK National Health wouldmaintain a summary of the most

reliable information we haveon diet and supplements for each of the cancers.I've searched the NCI website for information but what I found ismainly about preventing cancer, not treating it.Good luck with your treatments.Alan

[Guest guest]

Alan

My PSA didn't rise as fast during one summer so I started vitamin D for winter and this seemed to help

Not science but for a low cost seemed worthwhile

Re: Half life of PSA?

Tom wrote:> Since my PSA is low and is responding to ADT Lupron. I will do> a vit C interveinious to try to kill present cells in the> blood. I know it works short time but not long term.I've read that vitamin C can kill cancer cells in test tubesthough I don't know if much is known about its anti-cancer actionin the body. There are also positive claims about vitamin D,pomegranate extract, resveratrol (from red wine) and otherthings, but the evidence is limited.Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of sales propaganda andplain mythology floating around about diet and supplements. It'shard to know what, if anything, actually works. I wish someoneat a reputable agency like NCI or the UK National Health wouldmaintain a summary of the most reliable information we haveon diet and supplements for each of the cancers.I've searched the NCI website for information but what I found ismainly about preventing cancer, not treating it.Good luck with your treatments.Alan