 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / March 2006PC causes
Dear Dr. Mirkin: Are we any closer to understanding the cause of prostate cancer? Virtually all North American men will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough, and a faulty diet may be the cause. Lack of vitamin D appears to increase risk of prostate cancer because it impairs the body’s ability to remove cancer cells (Journal of Clinical Oncology, November 2005). Since calcium blocks the activation of vitamin D and milk is full of calcium, even vitamin D-enriched milk increases risk for prostate cancer. Saturated fat and high doses of zinc also increase risk. Dietary substance which appear to reduce prostate cancer risk include lycopene, carotenoids, isoflavones, polyphenols and other phytochemicals found in vegetables; vitamin E, selenium, and omega-3 fatty acids found in seeds and fish. At this time, a diet to reduce risk for prostate cancer should include a wide variety of plant-based foods and seafood, the same diet recommended to prevent heart attacks – plus sunshine for vitamin D. I.P. >and omega-3 fatty acids found in seeds and fish ... doing our bit for the weekly omega-3 intake we had kippers for supper last night.... this morning we were mocked by the lingering stench and this:- http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=66623-omega-dha-cvd > we were mocked by the lingering > stench we cook our fish outdoors on the grille, er, the barbie, partly for that reason. > and this: > http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=66623-omega-dha-cvd (for those who didn't click on it, it says Omega-3s are useless according to the latest meta-study). THAT'S a royal pisser! We just read a few months ago that fish oils and their omega 3 content were now definitely shown to be beneficial to heart health, and that the benefits accrue within weeks, "according to the latest big study". What BS! Is it any wonder I refused ADT and am not likely to pursue RT? I'm getting the impression none of these trials mean a damned thing, that nothing counts but our gut feel and whether we like our doc. I.P. Seems that the more I read, the less I know or the more confusing it becomes. By all intents and purposes, I should have been at a pretty low risk for pc. I was relatively young at 52 at time of dx. I'm 54 now. I ate right, no junk foods, a with good variety of food groups included. I always exercised. Never smoked. I kept my weight down to ideal levels, flat stomach, ran, swam, lifted weights, took supps, etc. I do not eat milk products in quantity. I drink red wine with dinner. I live in South Florida so there is plenty of sunshine here. I also do all of the yard work. I know many people/friends that should be at much more risk, but they, as far as I know, do not have pc. They smoke, are overweight, and eat junk. I still have a rough time getting my mind around on just what was the real cause. Is it something that I did? Could I have done things better and perhaps prevented it from happening? If I just ate grass and drank nothing but pure water would I still be at the same risk? Is there a concrete answer to all of this? I wish that I knew so that I could make some sense out of it. It appears, at least for now, that there are no real definitive answers. B.A. > Seems that the more I read, the less I know or the more confusing it > becomes. By all intents and purposes, I should have been at a pretty low [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > make some sense out of it. It appears, at least for now, that there are > no real definitive answers. Unfortunately, there is one risk you couldn't avoid, being male. And that by far is the most significant one. It seems a cruel trick of fate that despite your best efforts you still got prostate cancer, but the best any of those measures can do is to reduce the probability. They can't make it impossible. Perhaps your healthy lifestyle is helping you avoid some other perils such as cardiovascular disease. In any event, you probably feel a lot better than you would otherwise. And you are in a better position to deal with any serious disease that might strike you. > B.A. After much study and reflection I think I've figured it out. Somewhere along the way the female of the species developed a gene that makes the male-only prostate gland particularly susceptible to cancer. This gene became dominant because it tended to eliminate males mostly when they were old and of little further use to the female, and allowed many still-fertile females to produce additional offspring w/ younger, more virile, males rather than being confined to caring for their old geezers. It also had the desirable (to women) side effect of redistributing huge amounts of property to them, thus furthering the feminist plot of world domination by women. I.e not a damn thing we can do about it. But the cruelest part? The Tx for it makes us infertile so we cannot pass on the genes for healthy prostates! :-) Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA .67 Memphis I knew women had something to do with it ;) It's all very to me clear now! B.A. Except for my typing...It was supposed to read: It's all very clear to me now! I'm hope I'm not developing dyslexia too! Ugghh... > Except for my typing...It was supposed to read: It's all very clear to > me now! I'm hope I'm not developing dyslexia too! > Ugghh... Funny you mentioned that. I have distinctly acquired minor dyslexia over the past decade or so after a lifetime of no trace of it. Anyone else notice it in their lives? I.P. > Funny you mentioned that. I have distinctly acquired minor dyslexia over > the past decade or so after a lifetime of no trace of it. Anyone else > notice it in their lives? > > I.P. On, ton em. >> Funny you mentioned that. I have distinctly acquired minor dyslexia over >> the past decade or so after a lifetime of no trace of it. Anyone else [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > On, ton em. Assmart. I.P. >>> Funny you mentioned that. I have distinctly acquired minor dyslexia over >>> the past decade or so after a lifetime of no trace of it. Anyone else [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I.P. Sorry. You tested positive. > After much study and reflection I think I've figured it out. Somewhere > along the way the female of the species developed a gene that makes the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > do about it. But the cruelest part? The Tx for it makes us infertile so > we cannot pass on the genes for healthy prostates! And the really neat thing about your analysis is that it fits both evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design. :-) This is billscancercure, I recogonize the illogical style. > After much study and reflection I think I've figured it out. Somewhere > along the way the female of the species developed a gene that makes the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > PSA .67 > Memphis news:1143254393.147421.198540@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > This is billscancercure, I recogonize the illogical style. No. Bill Denton is a 4-year member of the NG. >> After much study and reflection I think I've figured it out. Somewhere >> along the way the female of the species developed a gene that makes the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> PSA .67 >> Memphis Thanks, Steve. I would hope it would be obvious that I am being facetious but making a subtle statement on all the causes, treatments, and cures we continually hear about. That other guy was serious! Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA.67 Memphis > Perhaps your healthy lifestyle is helping you avoid some other perils > such as cardiovascular disease. Leonard: Thanks for the response. Funny that you should mention that. I had to get an angiogram before surgery because a stress test showed some artifact. Turned out to be a false positive. The doctor performing the angiogram was the head of Cardiology at Cleveland Clinic. Afterwards, he came over to me twice to say that not only did he not find anything wrong, but that he could see no plaque at all and cleared me for RP surgery, which was also uneventful in terms of recovery. I was continent from day one. My RP surgeon mentioned the fact of my being in shape, although his skills were an important fact too, for being in the top ten percent of patients that have this positive outcome. B.A. >> Seems that the more I read, the less I know or the more confusing it >> becomes. By all intents and purposes, I should have been at a pretty [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > you probably feel a lot better than you would otherwise. And you are in > a better position to deal with any serious disease that might strike you. Thanks, Leonard; I needed that. I'm in the same boat as Bob ... and wondering why the heck I backed way off on ice cream and pizza. I may die from one of these damned cancers, but I'm gonna enjoy the hell out of life in the meantime. A doc just yesterday remarked that I had gained about 6-8 pounds over the winter, then looked at his stupid weight chart and said I needed to shed almost 20 pounds of excess weight. I pulled off my shirt, challenged him to find any excess weight, said those 6-8 pounds took me >150 of serious gym time to put on, (and felt like asking him which hand he'd rather I use to stick his skinny little neck in the ceiling fan). ;-) I may be facing more life-threatening chronic issues than I have in my whole life, but I'm also the fittest I've been since I quit racing dirt bikes 22 years ago and nearly as muscular as I was in gymnastics 44 years ago. I don't need any damned contradictory trials and studies to tell me how I FEEL, and THAT is not subject to each month's medical newsletters. I. may P. Freely, but nobody gives me any $#!+ about it! ;-) > Seems that the more I read, the less I know or the more confusing it > becomes. By all intents and purposes, I should have been at a pretty low > risk for pc. . > B.A. A risk management specialist 'trained' a bunch of us once. He said, and I think Leonard has stated similar posits, that if your the one, that one in a million doesn't mean crap.  SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > Dear Dr. Mirkin: Are we any closer to understanding the cause of > prostate cancer? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I.P. I.P., I'm not Dr. Mirkin, but to answer your question, yes the cause of prostate cancer(PCa) has been discovered and will be featured in my next paper. Basically, the activation of the aromatase gene is all that is needed - that, plus hormones no longer at teenage levels. This is why PCa is the most common cancer in men. Other cancers require genetic mutations, but PCa just needs the right portion of DNA that ordinarily is methylated to become demethylated. The way to prevent prostate cancer is also straightforward. Basically, you just need very high T coupled with very low T (plus keep estradiol at normal levels). Ed Friedman >> Dear Dr. Mirkin: Are we any closer to understanding the cause of >> prostate cancer? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > you just need very high T coupled with very low T (plus keep estradiol > at normal levels). Tell Dr. Mirkin; he's always interested in new research. It wasn't my question; it was a cut'n'paste from his e-mail newsletter. I.P.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.