Guest guest Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Forgive me Sam. I don't mean to be contentious. However I presume that when you post statements like these you are, after all, inviting discussion. Georgia Sam > ... > If you go back to the archetypal medical observer - Grey from > the 1850's - you will find no occurrences of prostate cancer in > the general population. Grey's Anatomy of 1850 devotes some > time to describing the pathologies the prostate is likely to > encounter, but nowhere does it suggest prostatic malignancy is > a common feature of prostate disease. The Wikipedia article states that prostate cancer was not identified, at least in the literature, until 1853. I don't think we know whether there were few or no cases before then. " Dementia " , like " cancer " has been recognized for thousands of years, but Alzheimer's Disease was only identified in 1906. Before then, nobody could tell the difference between AD and the many other forms of dementia. When a doctor in 1800 opened a corpse and found tumors on the spine or in the lungs, how would he know whether it was prostate cancer or lung cancer or colon cancer? Did anyone recognize that " cancer " was hundreds of different diseases and not just " cancer " ? Was anyone in the first half of the 19th century examining tumor tissue under the microscope and determining the site of origin - something that even today requires significant expertise to accomplish, not to mention textbook examples and photomicrographs to compare against? If someone found tumors in the lungs, spine and prostate, would he have had the tools and the background necessary to determine whether it was lung cancer, bone cancer or prostate cancer? Would he have understood that the cancer originated at one site and spread to others? I think you're making far too many assumptions about what could or should have been recognized in 1850 if it was present. Many of the very most basic concepts of disease were evolving rapidly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some of the most fundamental concepts that we take for granted about biochemistry, the structure of cells and the nature of disease were poorly understood or not understood at all in 1850. It wasn't until 1828 for example that anyone even knew that organic chemistry was subject to the same laws as inorganic chemistry, with all scientists before then, and many for quite a while after, believing that there was an immaterial, " vital " life force that accounted for living tissue. I should think that there a danger here of conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence. > But we need not stop there. If prostatic malignancy existed in > any human population from Ancient Eqypt to China*, the > tell-tale evidence of raised PSA would be found in tissue > samples from the grave. What PSA levels did the ancient Egyptians and Chinese have? Is there a scientific paper that tells us? > Moreover, evidence of changes in androgen receptor cell > expression, and other DNA properties, characteristic of > advanced prostate cancer would also be easily detected IF they > existed. Would androgen receptors survive mumification and thousands of years of storage? Would PSA survive? Can you cite the articles where these issues have been investigated? > That this evidence has not been found indicates clearly > prostate cancer is a new disease - a disease of modern > civilisation. Again, is there a danger here of conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence? Do we have evidence of colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, bladder cancer, Wilm's Tumor, etc., etc. Can you point us to a research paper that describes what cancers *have* been found in ancient mummies? How many of the hundreds of recognized cancers have been found? .... > The bottom line is this: If we are ever going to find a cure > for prostate cancer, then we need to recognise it as abnormal. > For as long as we regard prostate cancer as normal, we will > tolerate it, palliate it, but there will be no attempt to come > to grips with its real cause, and hence a cure will elude us. I take your point and agree that if PCa is considered " normal " or " natural " or " inevitable " less effort might be spent trying to conquer it. But I wouldn't go quite as far as you go. I think much medical research has been directed towards combating common, illnesses and conditions. No one can dispute that death is normal. Everybody dies. But I can't think of any fatal illness that has not been researched, even including aging itself. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 So what is your point? " Il faut d'abord durer " Hemingway Cancer is NOT normal > PCS & All, > > I think the information put out by this " Prostate Cancer Information > Link " is in danger of being classified as 'junk science'. Whoever owns > the site should really clean up their act so the useful material is > not tainted with the same stigma as the rubbish. I refer to this, for > example which suggests a medical observer from the 1930's is saying > that " cancer is normal " :- > > http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/risk-prevention/cancer-is-normal/ > > Which is actually a misrepresentation of what the author was trying to > say about latent occult PC - NOT the deadly malignant variety that > characterises a significant proportion of the prostate cancers > diagnosed in the 21st century :- > > " .. the writer has been impressed by the frequency of the small > carcinomas that have been found in the prostate in the routine autopsy > material of this department. " > > Rich AR. Classics in oncology. On the frequency of occurrence of > occult carcinoma of the prostate: Arnold Rice Rich, M.D., Journal of > Urology 33:3, 1935. CA Cancer J Clin. 1979 Mar-Apr;29(2):115-9. PubMed > PMID: 108001. > > If you go back to the archetypal medical observer - Grey from the > 1850's - you will find no occurrences of prostate cancer in the > general population. Grey's Anatomy of 1850 devotes some time to > describing the pathologies the prostate is likely to encounter, but > nowhere does it suggest prostatic malignancy is a common feature of > prostate disease. > > But we need not stop there. If prostatic malignancy existed in any > human population from Ancient Eqypt to China*, the tell-tale evidence > of raised PSA would be found in tissue samples from the grave. > Moreover, evidence of changes in androgen receptor cell expression, > and other DNA properties, characteristic of advanced prostate cancer > would also be easily detected IF they existed. > > That this evidence has not been found indicates clearly prostate > cancer is a new disease - a disease of modern civilisation. > > * Readers may be surprised to learn that in many ancient civilisations > it was not uncommon to live into the fourth score year. The " Ebers > Papyrus " for example relates the lives of men and women in their 80's > some 3500 years ago in Egypt. To suggest as some do that PC is the > price we pay for a longer life in our modern civilisation is not a > valid argument. Other civilisations had octogenarians without the > curse of this disease to contend with. > > The bottom line is this: If we are ever going to find a cure for > prostate cancer, then we need to recognise it as abnormal. For as long > as we regard prostate cancer as normal, we will tolerate it, palliate > it, but there will be no attempt to come to grips with its real cause, > and hence a cure will elude us. The so-called " Prostate Cancer > Information Link " does us a great disservice. > > > > -- > > Sam. > > For your delectation and edification:- > > http://poetryfromtheprostrateyears.com/ > > > ------------------------------------ > > There are just two rules for this group > 1 No Spam > 2 Be kind to others > > Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs > different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some > men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not > choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we > cannot and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at > other options. > > Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply > Try to change the title if the content requires it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I think that there are quite a few points . I'm a bit surprised that more of our members have not caught on. It means for starters that Prostate cancer has something to do with what is in our environment and is not a genetic disease or a disease that is inevitable or men when they reach a certain age. That is quite a big point I would think because the implication is that the disease can be prevented and if it can be prevented then there may also be ways to cure it that do not involve destroying ones manhood and rendering one to the status of a eunuch. That would be a tremendous improvement. When Huggins and Lebrie found that by castrating a dog that it's prostate cancer ''temorarily'' regressed that was very big news and opened the world of Pharmaceutical drug companies to produce the drugs used today for that purpose. Drugs like lupron for example. What most people don't get is that the entire theory on Prostate cancer and castration was based on that one incident. That one dog. That is astonishing to say the least. And I might add that it is also very interesting that the only other creatture on earth that gets prostate cancer naturally other than humans are in fact dogs. I do not think it a coincidence that it just so happens that dogs also share our homes , our environment and our diets. What was never done were studies to determine how prevelant the disease is amongst the canine population and if wild dogs or ferrel dogs also get prostate cancer and if they do, do they have the same incidence as canines that live with and amongst humans. Those would be two very good places to begin. The incidence of Prostate cancer and Breast Cancer in Laos is almost zero. Yet within one generation , immigrants from that country to the U.S. have similar rates of prostate cancer and breast cancer as the native white population. African Americans have not only the highest incidence of prostate cancer in the U.S., they have the highest rates of prostate cancer in the world. There are a lot of points . But tell me, what is your take on all of this? You seem to want to dismiss any evidence that points to causes that are not within the general accepted medical model. Is that your objection? Perhaps you may want to expand on your answer as I am very interested in what you have to say . I really am. And I do not mean that in an arguementative sense. I honestly want to hear your views on these ''points'' and particularly why you do not think it is important that prostate cancer is NOT normal. Which is isn't by the way as Georgia clay has outlined. BOB Subject: Re: Cancer is NOT normalTo: ProstateCancerSupport Date: Monday, December 27, 2010, 6:48 PM So what is your point?"Il faut d'abord durer" Hemingway Cancer is NOT normal> PCS & All,>> I think the information put out by this "Prostate Cancer Information> Link" is in danger of being classified as 'junk science'. Whoever owns> the site should really clean up their act so the useful material is> not tainted with the same stigma as the rubbish. I refer to this, for> example which suggests a medical observer from the 1930's is saying> that "cancer is normal" :->> http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/risk-prevention/cancer-is-normal/>> Which is actually a misrepresentation of what the author was trying to> say about latent occult PC - NOT the deadly malignant variety that> characterises a significant proportion of the prostate cancers> diagnosed in the 21st century :->> ".. the writer has been impressed by the frequency of the small> carcinomas that have been found in the prostate in the routine autopsy> material of this department.">> Rich AR. Classics in oncology. On the frequency of occurrence of> occult carcinoma of the prostate: Arnold Rice Rich, M.D., Journal of> Urology 33:3, 1935. CA Cancer J Clin. 1979 Mar-Apr;29(2):115-9. PubMed> PMID: 108001.>> If you go back to the archetypal medical observer - Grey from the> 1850's - you will find no occurrences of prostate cancer in the> general population. Grey's Anatomy of 1850 devotes some time to> describing the pathologies the prostate is likely to encounter, but> nowhere does it suggest prostatic malignancy is a common feature of> prostate disease.>> But we need not stop there. If prostatic malignancy existed in any> human population from Ancient Eqypt to China*, the tell-tale evidence> of raised PSA would be found in tissue samples from the grave.> Moreover, evidence of changes in androgen receptor cell expression,> and other DNA properties, characteristic of advanced prostate cancer> would also be easily detected IF they existed.>> That this evidence has not been found indicates clearly prostate> cancer is a new disease - a disease of modern civilisation.>> * Readers may be surprised to learn that in many ancient civilisations> it was not uncommon to live into the fourth score year. The "Ebers> Papyrus" for example relates the lives of men and women in their 80's> some 3500 years ago in Egypt. To suggest as some do that PC is the> price we pay for a longer life in our modern civilisation is not a> valid argument. Other civilisations had octogenarians without the> curse of this disease to contend with.>> The bottom line is this: If we are ever going to find a cure for> prostate cancer, then we need to recognise it as abnormal. For as long> as we regard prostate cancer as normal, we will tolerate it, palliate> it, but there will be no attempt to come to grips with its real cause,> and hence a cure will elude us. The so-called "Prostate Cancer> Information Link" does us a great disservice.>>>> -- >> Sam.>> For your delectation and edification:->> http://poetryfromtheprostrateyears.com/>>> ------------------------------------>> There are just two rules for this group> 1 No Spam> 2 Be kind to others>> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs > different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some > men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not > choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we > cannot and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at > other options.>> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply> Try to change the title if the content requires it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2010 Report Share Posted December 29, 2010 Sam. Suppose your hypothesis is correct. Suppose Cancer is not inherent in the species. What would you suggest I do about it? What do you propose to do about it? I really see no benefit to any of us by debating the origins of the disease. It avails nothing. " Il faut d'abord durer " Hemingway Cancer is NOT normal The point is , " Cancer is NOT normal " . What do you think ? Sam. Posted by: " Kennedy " ikennedy2@... frankilona25 Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:48 pm (PST) So what is your point? " Il faut d'abord durer " Hemingway -- Sam. For your delectation and edification:- http://poetryfromtheprostrateyears.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2010 Report Share Posted December 30, 2010 Sad to say , yours is a prevalent attitude among the more elderly. I think it derives from an unbalanced education. In days gone by, science was not taught with the enthusiasm or rigor that it is today - in fact it was a bit of a dirty word in the classroom. With that attitude comes a lack of insight into its investigative power and ability to shine light into areas of ignorance and prejudice. , if your car started burning too much gas, or maybe overheating, would you just walk away and hitch a lift with a neighbor the next time you wanted to go somewhere? What would he/she think of you if after some questioning they found out you did not even lift the bonnet before you gave up ? Like a car, science is a mechanism that enables us to get to places we would not otherwise reach. Clearly, we have to 'lift the bonnet' from time to time to enable us to fix things properly. If we simply palliate a problem (say feed the car more gasoline as it burns it up) then one day sooner rather than later, the car will fail catastrophically because the initial problem will have been amplified by ignoring the cause. What was maybe a poorly adjusted carburettor becomes over time becomes a damaged engine that requires a de-coke. The same applies to prostate cancer. By ignoring the cause we are obliged to merely palliate the problem and eventually the disease progresses to an uncurable state. I am suggesting it does not have to be that way, and if we never look, we will never know anything to the contrary. Sam. For your delectation and edification:- http://poetryfromtheprostrateyears.com/ > Sam. > > Suppose your hypothesis is correct. Suppose Cancer is not inherent in the > species. What would you suggest I do about it? What do you propose to do > about it? > > I really see no benefit to any of us by debating the origins of the disease. > It avails nothing. > > > > " Il faut d'abord durer " Hemingway > > Cancer is NOT normal > > > The point is , " Cancer is NOT normal " . > > What do you think ? > > Sam. > > > Posted by: " Kennedy " ikennedy2@... frankilona25 > Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:48 pm (PST) > > > So what is your point? > > > " Il faut d'abord durer " Hemingway > > > -- > > Sam. > > For your delectation and edification:- > http://poetryfromtheprostrateyears.com/ > -- Sam. For your delectation and edification:- http://poetryfromtheprostrateyears.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.