Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Need a horse tranquilizer

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
callalily - 20 Feb 2007 00:57 GMT
Hello everybody,

I started out trying to be brief, but this turned into an incredibly
long warble.  However, indulge me because warble I must.  I am
warbling for my life.  I need to talk, and only my PC soulmates
understand this language.

You know there is a "Ladies Only PC group" on the Cooley site, and I
read something there about them planning a cruise.  I don't know if
they're serious, but wouldn't it be great to go on a cruise with PC
people only.    It sounds like paradise.  To be among your own!  And
they would have a midnight buffet full of cruciferous vegetables!
Anyway, I hope the cruise is not ladies-only because my husb. just
loves the idea.

Seriously:

Ever since my husband got his second positive psa test (first one 1/3
(.12),  second 2/7 (.l4),  I have been understandably upset.  The
biggest problem is that my body is playing tricks on me.

**A few weeks ago, the day my husband got the first result, I was
serving dinner that night and just felt unsteady and I was weaving
around like a drunk and bumping into walls.  I managed to sit down and
asked my husband to bring in the food so that I wouldn't drop
everything on the floor.  I was really shaking.

Unfortunately, we had to wait almost three weeks before we talked to
his surgeon about the result, and it was very nerve-wracking.
Additionally, his doctor had been behaving strangely unresponsive,
which made us even more nervous.  In early Jan. we had made numerous
requests from this doc for my husband's path report and "whatever else
might be useful to do some nomograms".  I just wanted to have this
stuff in a file.

Anyway, they never responded.  And 3 weeks into that my husband got
the positive PSA test (*done for convenience by his internist*) and we
immediately called the doc and faxed the result over to the surgeon,
but he didn't respond.  I wracked my brain to think of an explanation
for this slack behavior, and the best one I found, however lame, was
suggested to me by another doctor, namely: Some docs just feel
threatened when you request records from them.  (I am mentioning all
this only bec. I know others have experienced it.)  But then, a couple
of days later, I had an idea which I think is closer to the truth, to
wit, my requesting records, plus the fact that I'm in the legal
business (I'm sure he had asked me this, conversationally).  Anyway,
if this is true it's outrageous, because I've never sued anybody in my
life.  It's like my father used to say, "The shoemaker goes
barefoot".  So it was disturbing enough to contemplate a possible
recurrence of the ca, but it just galled me that the doc was making
things so much worse.

I tried to make an appt for J. with an onc, and they told me "Call
back when you have all the records in hand".  Anyway, I had no choice
but to ask Patient Relations to intervene about this whole thing
because if this surgeon wanted to fire us, we'd gladly go elsewhere
but we have to have the records, for a start.

Anyway, my husband saw the doctor (alone) and what he said was
predictable: PSA less than .2 he's not worried about, and come back
again in 3 mos and 6 mos.  He did not do a DRE and I'm curious what
people think about that (you know, to check the prostate bed).  I am
wondering also, since his first test was done by Quest Labs, would it
have been a good idea to have them repeat it (5 wks later)?  Just a
thought.

Anyway, I'm disclosing all this sensitive stuff maybe because I'm
self-destructive,  or because I don't expect to have any other
interactions with this surgeon in the future. All I am concerned about
is that he forward all the relevant records.

Because I had once complained about the doctor/vitamin salesman at
Columbia (to you all), I told my husband, "We'll have to move away
from here because we'll never get medical care in this town again".
So he said, "Where do you want to move?".  I replied, Baltimore,
Cleveland and Rochester, MN, in that order.

This is where somebody might be able to advise: **I forgot to mention
that, as advised here, I set up an appt for him with a rad onc for
2/28**.and am trying to make one with a med onc.  Anyway, what the
surgeon sent me last week as far as "records" was a copy of the
original biopsy report, post-op path report and a PSA result done by
an ED doctor at that same hospital  6 mos. post op.

I would like the surgeon to turn over everything he has because I feel
it's necessary, including stuff forwarded to him initially by J's uro,
and also any relevant data of his own, including his notes and copies
of any imaging done.  Please advise about this.  Is this a reasonable
request?  Is there something specific I should ask for? I don't want
to go thru another hassle.  [Also, if another hospital requests the
info from the surgeon directly, are they going to send the whole file
or just the few pages they sent me.]

[Also, I just called J's internist and asked him to prepare his
records (some PSA's done there) for pick-up and sent an email to the
urologist for the same reason.  I am so mixed up that I can't remember
where I put any of the stuff I already had.  I am hoping these doctors
will comply without a hassle.

**Also, Since we got the second PSA result last week I have been
feeling down but also extremely frightened and nervous.   More like
terrified.  Yesterday at lunch I wasn't feeling well and I was shaking
and stuttering (which started in the last few weeks).  I also
developed a migraine, and my blood pressure went up (did not any of
these before his dx).

Then J. got me aggravated:  He said to me, "You look sick".  Are you
stressed out about something?  Maybe about your mother being here?  So
I said, "I'm stressed out but not about that".  I think the answer was
pretty obvious; you had to see the elephant in the room unless you
were shutting your eyes. This is something that absolutely drives me
crazy about him: that at every stage of this journey he is in complete
denial.  I am really getting fed up with this behavior.  Also, I told
him to ask his ED doctor why his penis is getting crooked and he just
never made the call.  You'd think he'd care.  And for the longest time
he said he "did not notice" his genitals "changing shape".  Well.

Then last evening J. said to me, "It sound like you're having trouble
breathing", and I said, "Not that I know of", but I realized I was
pumping breath like a locomotive.  Hyperventilating.

My concern is that I feel guilty showing this obvious distress in
front of him.  Intellectually, he knows that he has a serious problem,
but he has not even mentioned it once in a few weeks.  I am sitting
around reading up on this and making appts.  I am starting to get sick
of his not doing anything.  He is going to the gym all day just to be
away from me.

As far as remedies, I have some klonopin for anxiety, and some ambien
to sleep.  Also, I dug out of my drawer some Inderal I'd been given
some time back because I thought it might help with the shaking.  But
apparently all this is not enough.  And this stuff  can make you very
drowsy.

Honestly, I don't like the idea of J. having more treatments in
principle, because it's like, he was already treated for this, it
doesn't seem fair.  And now I'm skeptical about everything including
using rad for recurrence.  But nothing terrifies me more than hormone
therapy.  I think if he is going to die, maybe he shouldn't stretch it
out for years (on ADT) and just get it over with.  I've concluded that
death can be a beautiful thing if done right.

Another change in my life that bothers me  is that my whole life has
become "cancerized".  Yesterday I went "cancer shopping" in the
supermarket. I bought whatever is conceivably beneficial to him: fresh
watermelon, pink grapefruit, papayas, etc.  I wish the supermarket
were arranged by color, because everything I need is pink (pom juice,
a darker shade).  Then I passed a section where they had these pickled
peppers and sun-dried tomatoes which were very expensive, and we don't
even like them, but I thought they might be good for him.  Because
here, peppers are king.  So I put them in the cart.  I don't shop
anymore by choosing what I like.  [However, I did feel sorry for
myself and bought a jar of chestnuts in cognac sauce which was very
good.  *Does anybody know if a chestnut is a real nut and could
substitute for some of the other less appealing nuts on the list?".]

Finally, I went to the herring section, which was the highlight of the
tour.  But there were at least 15 different types (this is a store
that caters to gourmet types), and if you're like me and you can't
make decisions, this presented a real challenge.  I ended up buying
some herring in mustard sauce because the label said it had canola oil
(good) and also beta carotene.

I had already bought him a bag of peanuts the other day (because he
won't eat walnuts), and he is developing a real belly even though he
is going to the gym almost every day.  It's the pom juice, spaghetti
sauce, nuts and whatever.  I read that a belly is not good for a man
because of heart attack risk, but better that than the alternative...

Yesterday at lunchtime he told me he was going to have a piece of
chicken.  I told him, "Wait, "I bought you this absolutely delicious
Swedish herring.  You must try it". So reluctantly he said OK.  He
asked if I was having some (and i definitely did *not* feel like it),
and I said, "sure".

Then we were sitting at the table and he was serving himself some of
the above and he asked, "Would you like some?".  I replied, "Why don't
you try it first"?  He and my mother laughed; it was if I was using
him as a "food tester".  Then he bit into his herrring sandwich and
immediately keeled over.  My heart just stopped and my mother
screamed.

I asked J. "What's wrong?" and then he jerked himself upright and said
he was only playing a joke (acting like he'd been poisoned).  Well,
some joke.  But I was pleased because he took a second helping of the
herring.

Also, a few weeks ago, I had bought him a whole lot of supps, but he
refuses to take the following: garlic, turmeric, blueberry extract and
broccoli sprouts.  What's the big problem with a few more pills?  And
I'm embarrassed to write this, but we don't have much of an income
right now (more stressful than ca, if you ask me), and the all-around
supplement I ordered from Theralogix (the "meat" of the supplement
diet"),  was not delivered because of "insufficient funds."  This just
upset me terribly.

Anyway, at any meal the conversation inevitably turns to what food is
good for him.

Another big problem for me is that my mother comes over sometimes and
she just drives me crazy.  She is just plain obnoxious, I hate to say
it.  I reluctantly took her to the supermarket with me on Friday, and
she did what she always does.  Asks, "what do you need this for" and
why don't you buy a different brand, and this time, in particular, she
was upset because I had treated myself to some roses ($6.99).  She
insisted it was a frivolous expense and wanted to put it back.  I
practically slapped her.
______________________________

[OT - Gardening]  Skip if you want.

I can't live without flowers.  They just cheer me up.  This is OT, but
I need to warble.

I am very proud of the huge garden my husband and I kept on the roof
of our building 11 stories above Manhattan, overlooking the Hudson
River.  [It was great, but then the bldg. manager said it was a fire
hazard? because we were using the hose, and they made us remove
everything.]

I am very proud of my potted offspring:  The first flower I grew was a
pink "dinnerplate" dahlia, and it was just stunning. Husband took
pictures of it, and I can remember every detail.  We also had about 15
rosebushes (all in pots), exotic plants (hibiscus, lantana,
bougainvillea), and lots of flowering plants.  We also grew some
beautiful delphiniums.

This was a true labor of love, and that's why I am indulging myself in
talking about it.  It calms me. Container gardening is the best,
because you can choose the  best potting soil and mix it with whatever
you wish, manure, peat moss, bone meal etc.  (Also, you can design
"living floral arrangements").  We had to go to CT or MA to haul in
all that soil and then drag it up 11 floors.  Also, it was good
because there are no pests or deer to interfere.  And the sun shines
like crazy, because there is a "solar friendly" surface on this roof.
Plus, we fed each type of plant a special diet: rose food, tomato
food, flowering plant food, etc.  My husband was very devoted to his
garden.

Best of all, we grew the most magnificent cherry tomatoes.  Before
that, I had never tasted a real tomato. And we seasoned it with some
home-grown basel (a neighbor who grew herbs said, "Help yourself".)  I
wish I could have entered these tomatoes into a 4-H contest.  Believe
it or not, I think they have a branch in NYC.  My husband said we
should start a produce business called "Manhattan Farms".  I also grew
the most incredible eggplant (what Mary F. called an "aubergine", as
she used the word in a sentence a couple of times, "My son said that
his Dad has a c-ck like an aubergine".)

This eggplant was my pride and joy.  It was absolutely perfect,
blemish free, and a beautiful deep purple.  This would definitely have
taken first prize in a contest.  But I didn't know how to cook the
eggplant, and so I gave it to a friend.

Anyway, these are my happy memories.

I know this is off-topic but we have a lot of Brits here, and the
stereotype is that they are all crazy about gardening.  I know that in
my Encyclopedia of Roses, it seems that almost all of them are bred in
the UK, in England, Scotland and Ireland.

I was just thinking they should name a rose after PC, and I'm freaking
out, because I think there are a number of roses named after various
diseases.  In fact, I'm sure of it.

_______________________________________

More on PC:

Anyway, in a serious vein: I am going to ask for some help in
interpreting the records that I have in front of me: for example, 3
PSA tests done by 3 different labs.  But I'll put that in a separate
post.

Anyway, apropos of how PC affects my life: my interests have changed
dramatically.  As google suggested, all I'm interested in is PC, PC
and PC.  But other diseases are also welcome.

Friday, we had a houseguest who arrived to spend the weekend, one I
hadn't know before.  He sounded really interesting: his family
background, job, travels all over, and he was very personable. (My
husband found out yesterday that he does stand-up comedy.)

Anyway, early on Sam mentioned that his father had passed three years
ago, and we were immediate best friends, because so had mine
(approximately).  Then I asked him, "What did your father die of"? and
he shook his head sadly but didn't say anything.  Then I asked him
again, and he practically whispered, "stomach cancer".  But was was
really interesting was that his father had suffered a massive heart
attack at age 42 and had managed to make it to 76.

I don't know anybody personally who's had a heart attack, but my
father had a stroke, and it's all in the cardiovascular family, and so
I was glad to go on about that.

At some point I had told him that I was very distracted because a
"friend of mine" had cancer.  I said this only because I needed to
explain why I was so spaced out: he had had to ask me four times for a
towel (which I usually provide).

Anyway, I got the idea that cancer was not this man's favorite
disease.  But this is what happened next:  I had a piece of paper in
front of me, which was a recipe for "Enhanced Tomato Juice", which I
was planning to prepare.  So he asked me, "What is that?", and I
handed the paper to him.  Then I realized that on top of it it said
loud and clear, "acsp".  I was surprised he didn't flee. Anyway, I
never got to talk to him about anything but death and disease,  which
was too bad.

What amuses me is that we have house guests pretty often, and they
stay in the guest room, which is also my work space.  And it never
occurred to me that I should maybe put away all the reading material
that's around: stacks of papers about PC, ED, etc. It seems that
penile rehab is my favorite subject.  But until yesterday I had never
thought that maybe I should keep this juicy stuff private.

Also, with my husband, PC dominates the conversation, even tho he
doesn't like to talk about the subject.  He told me he was concerned
that I was spending so much time on PC-related things because I was
worried about him.  So I told him, "No, this isn't about you, it's
about a whole lot of people."  I didn't want him to feel nervous.

But he did get excited about an article I found the other day on the
"evolutionary biology" of cancer (which I hope to talk about), and so
occasionally he does show an interest.

This is not in order, but I have to purge myself of just one thing.  I
mentioned that I'd had some problems with cooperation from his
surgeon, but I didn't want to make a big deal about it.  But last
Thursday I got a call from a guy who identified himself as a doctor
who is "head of quality control" for the Uro dept of that hospital.  I
told him I really didn't want to talk about this anymore.  Anyway,
just the fact that this man told me he was reviewing J's records and
was looking into this some more, made me frightfully nervous.  I mean,
is it routine, or what??  Could there be something amiss.

The conversation with this doc somehow got to me, so I called my
shrink and told him everything, all the while weeping profusely.  Then
he said to me, "You know, this is all about guilt: you have a lot of
guilt for hating your mother.  So you are punishing yourself".  Well,
I really gave it to him!   If he had been there in person I would have
punched him out.   Truth is, if I didn't like him prsonally, I would
take a hike.  But I have to have someone impartial to talk to.

Anyway, any advice is welcome.

If you made it until here, thanks for listening.  I feel enormously
better for having written all this.

Leah
Alan Meyer - 20 Feb 2007 04:11 GMT
Dear Leah,

A horse tranquilizer would be a great thing right now.  It sounds
to me like you really need to decompress.

I figure your PCa problem is serious, but still very, very far from
fatal.  You're doing all the right things.  Supplements may make
a significant difference - especially at this early stage when the
cancer recurrence, if it is a recurrence, is still very small and
weak.  The growth rate of the PSA sounds very slow.  That may
mean it will take a long, long time to develop and, in the meantime,
you may be able to zap it successfully with radiation.  Salvage
radiation doesn't always work, but it really does work a significant
percentage of the time, especially when you catch it early,
before the PSA reaches 1.0.

If push comes to shove and you have to rely on hormone therapy,
that's unfortunate but it beats the hell out of the alternatives.
When I was on hormone therapy, I didn't like it, but it didn't
do me in either.  I still worked every day.  I still did all the things
I liked doing from reading books and watching movies to
writing computer programs, to going out for long walks and
dinners with my wife.  We even had sex from time to time.
HT knocks down a man's libido, but does _not_ destroy his
ability to have sex.  I wasn't terribly interested when we got
started, but once we got into it, all the old feelings came out
again and the feelings were just like before.  I didn't gain any
weight, and I never got depressed.

Steve K. has been on it for 3.5 years already and still has an
undetectable PSA.  And he's pretty upbeat about life too.

And there are more and more treatments becoming available.  It's
impossible to know what will happen, but I think there's an excellent
chance that your husband will grow old and die of something other
than PCa.

Meanwhile, maybe the thing to do is for you and your husband to
go get some Chinese carryout, rent the funniest, feel good
video you can find, or even two of them, and spend an evening
just having a great time.

All the best.

   Alan
callalily - 25 Feb 2007 21:45 GMT
Dear Alan,

Just wanted to thank you and others who responded to my msg.  I am
feeling much better now, the panic has gone away except for moments,
but, we are still entering a battle, and it ain't over 'til it's
over.

We are going to see a rad once next Wednesday, provide J's surgeon
gives us all his med. records.  Based on my experience, I'm not
counting on it.  I spent a lot of time in my last msg complaining
about the lack of responsiveness from his doctor, and I was not being
paranoid in the least.  For whatever reason -- and I don't care what
it is --  they have just not followed up about anything.  I think in
part it may be a "clerical" problem.  But I just look forward to the
day when we can start dealing with a new doc.  I can tell you it was
not a happy situation to get an adverse test result and then wait to 3
weeks to talk to his doc, he didn't even return a phone call.  That's
what made me so nervous.  My concern with the rad onc is that we will
end up buying whatever he is selling.  Maybe I should "leave the
checkbook at home".

Also, he is "owning" his disease more.  He made some phone calls to
the doc and also helped me with assembling his med. records.  That
made a big difference, psychologically.

You feel worse when things are in limbo like we are, between
diagnoses, so to speak.  Once you settle on a course, any course, it
becomes easier.  And I think what makes PC difficult is all the
uncertainty surrounding the disease, the lack of consensus.  As I
mentioned, the NCI called PC a "morass".  I read that even docs find
it "stressful" to treat PC because of this.

I got copies of some of his med. records recently and they contained 3
path reports (done within a month), all having a different Gleason
score.  I mean, is this a crapshoot?  The first one, done by uro, was
3+4, (Quest), the second (a review of the first) was 3+3 (NY Hosp.
Lab), and the post-op one was 4+3 (NY Hosp).  So go sort this out.  I
had also read Scardino in the beginning and told the uro I wanted to
have his biopsy reviewed by an expert at Sloan or Hopkins, like the
book said.  The uro assured me that the pathologists at the hospital
were experts in PC and so it wasn't necessary, and I relied on that.
But they were far off the mark.

What makes this even more depressing is that his post-op path report
looks so beautiful.  Negative for everything, except a mention of
"perineural invasion".  What does that mean?

Iin the meantime, you may be able to zap it successfully with
radiation. �Salvage
> radiation doesn't always work, but it really does work a significant
> percentage of the time, especially when you catch it early,
> before the PSA reaches 1.0.

Having trouble with those wretched decimals again!  I can't quote you
chapter and verse, but I have read that salv rad is done on a lot of
people who won't benefit from it.  Same as with other PC treatments.
Dr. Catalona wrote a good article on who are the best candidates, so
that's helpful.

> If push comes to shove and you have to rely on hormone therapy,
> that's unfortunate but it beats the hell out of the alternatives.

Just wanted to explain that what I fear about hormone therapy is more
the psych effects than the physical effects.  Hormones control our
brains as much as our genitals.  So it's not just about physical sex.
Hardly.

>From what I have read in other groups (especially PC and Intimacy), a
lot of men do have emotional reactions to HT (for whatever reason) (or
just to the PC), and their wives often find them sullen and distant.
At least there are many bitter complaints of this sort.  What I have
heard so many times is, "Since his treatment, he only pays attention
to the dog".

I think the ethic in this group is to keep a stiff upper lip, that
it's not manly to complain.  Because in other groups I read much more
about PC's effects on the person's inner self.  You don't see much of
that here.  So when Hughie asked what to do about the emotional
effects of HT, I was thinking, "Good luck".  Also, I'm sure all
treatments affect relationships, but I know a professor and PC
survivor who I've quoted here a number of times, and he has done a lot
of research on how HT affects relationships.  And he says the news is
not good.

> When I was on hormone therapy, I didn't like it, but it didn't
> do me in either. I still worked every day.

That's a blessing.  My husb. works some days but he does not have a
steady job to distract him from this problem.  That concerns me.  In
fact, he just told me that he has work for Thurs. and Fri. doing
medical copyediting.  He has had to learn all sorts of new things.
And I'm concerned about what he'll do on Mon, Tues and Wed.

I was thinking the other day that cancer destroys the body and
unemployment the spirit.  Also, it's possible to die with dignity, but
if you're out of work you can't live with dignity. Just my opinion. I
have mentioned here that when my husb. had been diagnosed with PC, he
had just started a job (as a tech. writing consultant), and he was
very happy there and I was afraid they would boot him out as soon as
he told them he had to take off time, etc...luckily it didn't happen.
But consider that many people who get sick have no protections
whatsoever from this sort of thing.

I've also mentioned that my husband did work similar to yours,
computer programming, and he was laid off from a long-time job with a
good company at age 50.  It's hard to reinvent yourself at that age,
and you face widespread discrimination when you look for work.  You
also face the practical issue of needing money to live on (even if you
have savings).  And you don't have health insurance either, or, like
my husband, you bounce around from one doc to another when you changed
insurances.  That makes for bad medical care.  In fact, I think this
is what "killed" my husb.  In the last few years he has not had an
interested, caring doc, just drive thrsu.  If things had been
otherwise, he almost certainly would have had a PSA test before age
53.  He has a family history.  He used to see my doctor, who is top-
notch, but had to switch for insurance reasons.  My doc told me that
no way would he skip a PSA test on a man over 50.  He even asked me if
I wanted him to go thru his files, that maybe he had an old PSA test
for J. But J. would have been too young.  So there.

The reason I mention all this is not that I have a need to talk about
right now, but our story is similar to that of many other families,
and that's why I share this baggage.  Even if some of it is
embarrassing.

I HT knocks down a man's libido, but does _not_ destroy his
> ability to have sex. I wasn't terribly interested when we got
> started, but once we got into it, all the old feelings came out
> again and the feelings were just like before.

Like I said, it's mostly not about the sex act.  In fact, since I
found out this bad news, I have no interest in the above whatsoever.
For me, sex and death don't mix.  When you have more important
concerns, you don't think about having sex.  At least I don't.

> Steve K. has been on it for 3.5 years already and still has an
> undetectable PSA. And he's pretty upbeat about life too.

Steve K. is blessed with a lot of resources, as he himself pointed
out.  So that certainly makes a difference in his "resistance" to this
disease.  But I have to point out that most people today are not
getting sick and dying with generations of offspring lovingly caring
for them.  Steve's response to Doug T. set me thinking about all
this.  You know, I read that most Americans today do not live in
"traditional" families.  (Over 50%).  Now I know Manhattan is not
typical, but it does reflect trends that are all over the country. I
was thinking of the people that live on my floor in my bldg. and
thought it provided a good example.  So here I go.  These are my
neighbors:

(A) There is me and J, married, no children, had to care for sick
father for a year (serious stroke) and mother for the last three years
has needed a lot of attention.  I am putting this in the "caring for
elderly parents" category as it relates to family.  (B) Next door is
Tracy, a divorcee with a teenage son, who seems to have a serious
boyfriend. She is very capable, but has struggled financially, because
her son is in an expensive private school.  She says it's because he's
slightly autistic, but I don't see any trace of it.  But she knows
better. (C) Next is a middle-aged couple who moved in recently (I'm
embarrassed that I don't even know there names).  They had raised a
family in NJ (suburbs) and then came here to "retire".  (D) A  middle-
aged, never married man who lives with his girlfriend (I think). As I
said, they're not married, even though they've been together forever.
Don't know why.  (E)  An old lady who is very sick with emphysema,
etc., wheelchair-bound and on oxygen.  She had a close friend who used
to spend a lot of time with her, but that woman died.  (Incidentally,
that relationship might have been more than platonic, IMO.)  Now, all
this woman has is a home attendant to care for her.  (F)  A young
woman, premed student at Princeton, absolutely lovely girl, who lives
alone and comes home on vacations.  Both her parents died of cancer.
She is an only child.  Sometimes her aunt and uncle come by and stay
in that apt.

Anyway, things are not like they were even a few generations ago.   It
seems that my mother expected one of her 5 children to invite her to
live with them after my father died, but it didn't happen.  I told her
she was living in a new world.  A new reality.  We were encouraging
her to go to an "assisted living" facility but she resisted.  I asked
her why, and she said, "Because somebody might ask me what I'm doing
here if I have raised 5 children".  Touche.

Anyway, to wrap this up, prostate cancer is not a bad or good disease,
it's a different disease to every person.  The other day I was in the
library reading the Castle-Connoly Cancer book, and after looking at
some of the other ca's, I wanted to go home and hug the PC. But how
you respond to a disease is not just a matter of attitude, although
that counts for a lot.  It depends on what you have on the debit and
credit side of the ledger.  I read the other day a post from a woman
who begged for help, saying her husband was suicidal.  He had just
been diagnosed with PC, but before that, he had had every disease on
the planet.  So no wonder he felt bad.  For once, I was tongue-tied.

All this reminds me of a legal maxim:  "You take your victim as you
find him."  What that means is that if you have an intent to harm
someone and you tap them on the shoulder and they happen to be brittle
and fall down and die, you might be charged with murder.  Tough luck.
I think cancer is a lot like that, it takes it's victims as it find
them.  Those who have been weakened by other things may not stand up
to the ca as well than others.  It's not just about character.

Anyway, I rambled as usual, but I think maybe for a purpose this
time.

Anyway, you sound like you're doing well and I wish you the very
best.  And keep ondoing the yoga or meditation or whatever it is that
makes you so serene.:-)

Best,

Leah
I.P. Freely - 25 Feb 2007 22:48 GMT
> From what I have read in other groups (especially PC and Intimacy), a
> lot of men do have emotional reactions to HT (for whatever reason) (or
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> about PC's effects on the person's inner self.  You don't see much of
> that here.  

Much of that is because when I do bring it up, with references, several
people here raise various degrees of hell, some saying -- and refusing
to cite their sources -- that pills will fix just about everything. You
weren't in this forum yet when a geriatric psychologist whose pts are
mostly old men told me that ADT has virtually destroyed the psyches and
personal relationships of many of her pts. She advised me to consider it
only as an absolutely last resort, when my PC symptoms are significant
and can be mitigated no other way.

> I was thinking the other day that cancer destroys the body and
> unemployment the spirit.  Also, it's possible to die with dignity, but
> if you're out of work you can't live with dignity.

Unless, of course, one has or generates other passions and isn't
fiscally deprived.

I.P.
callalily - 27 Feb 2007 23:59 GMT
Dear All,

> > From what I have read in other groups (especially PC and Intimacy), a
> > lot of men do have emotional reactions to HT (for whatever reason) (or
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > about PC's effects on the person's inner self. You don't see much of
> > that here.

IP wrote:
> Much of that is because when I do bring it up, with references, several
> people here raise various degrees of hell, some saying -- and refusing
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I.P.

I just want to make it clear that I was not trying to bash ADT.  It is
a treatment that  prolongs life.  So It is an important part of the
arsenal we have to fight Pca. In fact, my husb. already told me, if he
needs HT, he'll be first in line. I can't say I'm thrilled about it.
But I do think the experience could be greatly improved and fewer
relationships would be damaged, with some *intervention* or even just
ordinary  *conversation*. Couples therapy should be a standard part of
HT treatment, but at the moment it is not done.  That is what the prof
I cited recommends, and he says it works.

HT (and other PC treatments!), can cause a lot of distress not just to
men, but to their partners.  In some of my other forums, I see an
enormous amount of anger, rage, and bitterness directed at the men,
and I think this is because there isn't enough communication between
the couple.  Someone here once said a woman can't read a man's mind,
but we try and do anyway.  Women see rejection in everything.  They
see selfishness and neglect.  I honestly don't know what the man
feels. Probably hurt, fear, anger, rejection, inadequacy, etc.

And the woman is afraid too, really afraid.  Just recently, Dragonlady
wrote that she was "terrified" about her husband's illness.  I felt
bad for her, but I didn't know what to say.  [Dragonlady: your husband
doesn't have advanced illness at this point, so keep that in
perspective.]

Anyway, both parties in a relationship may suffer greatly, and I think
this could be remedied.  The last thing a man with PC needs is an
angry wife.  And every wife feels some anger, however irrational,
just because of the man getting sick on her!

This is a tragedy that need not be so.  Many relationships could
probably be saved with counseling or just some plain speaking from the
heart.  Normally, I'm not a big advocate of therapy, but I think here
it's essential.  It should be a part of treatment with HT.  Otherwise,
couples should be given some advice on how to discuss their feelings
with one another.

I, for one, have written to a number of these women that I just could
not believe that their men, who were loving, caring, sweet and
generous a month ago, have suddenly become selfish and brutish.  A
person's underlying character doesn't change in a flash.

Anyway, here are some samples from the PC and Intimacy goup on yahoo.
It should give you a better idea of what goes on on the other side of
the "sex divide".

[Jane Doe]

"I am writing this to tell you guys in the group that It is not fair
to
keep your touch from the women you love. Even when you know you cannot
perform sexually touch is still important to both of you".
________________

[Jane Doe #2]

"Here is a hypothetical question for all of you guys. If your wife
needed help being fed and she was hungry but you weren't, would you
take the time to prepare something for her then help her even though
you didn't eat? Sex is the same. Most women (even those who appear
strong and say they are okay with celebacy) have a hunger for some
sex, be it only playful touching.

I don't know how to say this delicatly, but most men, think that the
only way a woman can be satisfied is with a nice hard penis. It ain't
so. My husband has on a rare occasion given me enormous pleasure with
his touch, fingers and tongue. Even though you can't have sexual
pleasure any more, why deprive your wife? If it was the other way
around I am sure she would still do wonderful things to you. I would
anyway.

Talk this over with your wives guys and let her know that right now
you cannot get an erection (or at least it is difficult) but you still
want to play with her. Make this your New Years resolution. "
_________________

Leah
I.P. Freely - 28 Feb 2007 03:06 GMT
> I just want to make it clear that I was not trying to bash ADT.
You presented facts. Many people here and across the globe -- consider
Pelosi's classic example last week -- equate facts with emotions and
judgment. You and I can't change that association, so we may as well
just present facts and let people use them as they wish, for practical
purposes or fodder for their emotions. It seems awfully silly to me to
squelch facts because some people feel offended by them.

> Couples therapy should be a standard part of HT treatment

Absolutely. But that will take some work, considering that so many
doctors prescribe ADT without even telling the *patient* a lot about it.

 > I, for one, have written to a number of these women that I just could
> not believe that their men, who were loving, caring, sweet and
> generous a month ago, have suddenly become selfish and brutish.  A
> person's underlying character doesn't change in a flash.

Character, no; behavior, yes. T depletion, whether natural, surgical, or
chemical, devastates many men's emotions.

I.P.
callalily - 28 Feb 2007 00:07 GMT
Dear All,

> > From what I have read in other groups (especially PC and Intimacy), a
> > lot of men do have emotional reactions to HT (for whatever reason) (or
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> I.P.

Just wanted to clarify.  I don't want to bash ADT.  Clearly, it
prolongs life and has a place in the PC arsenal.  I just think it can
be made easier on couples with some mandatory counseling that should
be part of the treatment.  If not, couples should be told how to
communicate to their partners what they're really feeling, so that the
partner doesn't misinterpret it.  The prof I cited says this does
work.

You know women always see rejection or selfishness when the man is
really feeling hurt, inadequate, afraid, angry or whatever.

Let's try to make this treatment better.  For the time being, we're
stuck with it.

Leah
callalily - 28 Feb 2007 00:09 GMT
Sorry for this posting twice.  I thought the first one didn't go thru
so I rewrote it.  So you have the long version and the abbreviated
one.

Leah
I.P. Freely - 28 Feb 2007 03:06 GMT
> Sorry for this posting twice.  I thought the first one didn't go thru
> so I rewrote it.  So you have the long version and the abbreviated
> one.

NOW you tell us.   ;-)

I.P.
Alan Meyer - 26 Feb 2007 03:17 GMT
> ...
> Anyway, you sound like you're doing well and I wish you the very
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Leah

I'm in a hotel room by the Newark airport at the moment, hoping
that the snow won't cancel our flight tomorrow to the Caribbean.  I'm
ready for a week in the sun - which is even better than yoga or
meditation.

Everybody deals with the hard problems in life in a different way.
My own way is probably unique to me and might even seem
laughable to others, but here it is.

I try to put my life in perspective, to see it in terms of the
progress of life in general.  I firmly believe that all of us are,
quite literally, cousins.  We share almost all of our DNA and
have a myriad of common ancestors.  When I die, all of my
cousins will still be around, and our descendents will carry
on after us.  Nevermind whether or not we ourselves have children,
all of the children of the world belong to us.  All of them, quite
literally, carry almost all the same DNA as us.

After I die, the great music made by our cousin Mozart will
continue to be played and enjoyed.  Our cousin Groucho
Marx's movies will still be broadcast on TV.  The tremendous
work that our cousins Gallileo and Newton started, and that
was taken up by our cousins from Dalton to Darwin and from
Einstein to Feynman will be taken up further by our children
and their children.

In short, although I will die, none of the things that I loved will
die.  They'll go right on developing.  The progress of the human
spirit will not stop.  I have been a tiny part of that progress, a
drop of water in the stream.  But the stream is the big thing
and it will go on and on.

Maybe that's deep, or maybe it's just silly, but thinking about it
keeps me from focusing on my troubles and makes me more
appreciative of what I've been given, as it were.

And besides all that, I know that I've led a charmed life.  I've had
a great marriage, and a simple but happy career.  I've read many
wonderful books and through them listened to the ideas of some
of the greatest thinkers who have ever lived.  I was born in a
great country and never had to deal with the poverty and
oppression and ignorance that afflicts so many people all over
the world.

I know it will all come to an end, but I have to believe that, when
the end comes, I'll have nothing to complain about.  And in the
meantime I mean to enjoy every minute that I can.

All the best.

     Alan
I.P. Freely - 26 Feb 2007 04:44 GMT
> And besides all that, I know that I've led a charmed life.  I've had
> a great marriage, and a simple but happy career.  I've read many
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the end comes, I'll have nothing to complain about.  And in the
> meantime I mean to enjoy every minute that I can.

Not silly at all, Alan. And I also think most of us in this forum now
are extremely fortunate to have lived in what may prove to be the best
lifespan available on the planet. Times were pretty rough in the last
'30s and early '40s, and I suspect they will be much, *much* worse by
the next '20s. Many of us were born in the '40s, and won't have to face
the upcoming '20s. I was even very fortunate in the very narrow 20-year
window I happen to have spent in the military, and fortunate even in the
timing of my precious sports, which outside my wife are the highlights
of my life. My wife's career had some very fortuitous timing, as well.

I often wonder how many people feel that way . . . whether I'm kidding
myself thinking my accidental timing in many arenas was superb.

I don't think so.

I.P.
safire - 26 Feb 2007 09:17 GMT
>>  I was born in a
>> great country and never had to deal with the poverty and
>> oppression and ignorance that afflicts so many people all over
>> the world.

Amen.

> Times were pretty rough in the last
> '30s and early '40s, and I suspect they will be much, *much* worse by
> the next '20s.

How come? Please explain. There is a considerable risk that this recent
procedure that I went through may extend my lifetime so as to live
through the next '20s. The NCCN decision tree did not take external
quality of life factors into account.
I.P. Freely - 26 Feb 2007 16:39 GMT
>> Times were pretty rough in the last '30s and early '40s, and I suspect
>> they will be much, *much* worse by the next '20s.
>
> How come? Please explain.

I've been watching radical Islam emerge and WMDs proliferate for 40
years. Anyone -- such as the left half of the U.S. and most of Europe --
who doesn't comprehend the threat they pose to the entire world isn't
paying any attention. The primary two world leaders who get it, Bush and
Blair, are going down in flames as the world swallows everything the
hard left media puts out -- and *doesn't* put out -- there (did you even
know, for example, that the insurgents began using WMDs last month? You
*have* seen Ahmadinejad's Hitlerian speeches, right?). Do you realize
that some people -- about 100,000,000 in the U.S. alone, including the
leaders of Congress, laughably think that diplomacy, appeasement, and
forfeiting the war radical Islam began will *slow* the world's march
towards nuclear terrorism funded by relatively infinite oil wealth? Does
the public even begin to comprehend the potential gravity of the fact
that Muslims will comprise 50% of Russia's military within ten years . .
.  with access to its technology and quite possibly to Middle Eastern
oil wealth?

'Nuff said? Good; I'll spare readers the next 100 pages.

I.P.
dave perry - 26 Feb 2007 20:14 GMT
> > I.P. Freely wrote:>
> I've been watching radical Islam emerge and WMDs proliferate for 40
> years.

I agree that radical Islam is our biggest threat but it's too bad we
chose to fight it by invading Iraq and taking out Saddam who was
probably as big a foe to radical Islam as we are.  Now, after four
years of lies and fiasco, after about a half trillion dollars, after
3000+ American lives, after the slaughter of countless innocent
citizens of Iraq - now we're upset that many are saying enough.  If
Mr. Bush, in the first few days after 9/11, had proclaimed "No more
Middle-East oil," Americans, given their emotions at the time, would
have gladly walked to work on their knees so that we could put all our
resources into fighting Osama, the Taliban and others of that ilk.
Instead, everyone is now soured on the whole idea of military
solutions and the war on terror has been set back years if not
decades.

As for this being the best of times, I agree.  As for the future, the
terror threat will at the very least deplete our resources so that our
standard of living must suffer.  We have spent countless billions (a
trillion?) in response to an attack that cost the price of a few
flying lessons, a dozen plane tickets and some box cutters.  At that
rate, it won't take long for our treasury to be exhausted way before
they run out of box cutters.
Dave Perry
I.P. Freely - 26 Feb 2007 21:21 GMT
> after four years of lies

I'm so tired of hearing that. In the literally hundreds of debates I've
heard on that specific issue, I have yet to hear even *one* lie named
and supported by published facts.

> after about a half trillion dollars

The cost to the U.S. alone of 9/11 cost exceeded a trillion dollars
years ago, and is is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the
next major shoe to drop.

> after 3000+ American lives

Another relative drop in the bucket.

> after the slaughter of countless innocent citizens of Iraq

Saddam *deliberately* slaughtered 25 times as many Iraqi civilians as
this war *accidentally* killed, the vast majority of Iraqi civilians
killed in this war were *deliberately targeted* by radical *Muslims*,
and *many* U.S. soldiers' lives were lost due to our direct efforts to
minimize Iraqi civilian lives.

> now we're upset that many are saying enough.

The free world doesn't have the luxury of saying "enough"; that
privilege is rapidly being granted to the enemy, who every week renews
its vow to declare "Enough!" only when your blood line is extinguished
or converted.

> If
> Mr. Bush, in the first few days after 9/11, had proclaimed "No more
> Middle-East oil," yada yada yada

Among the dozens of arguments against that stupid mantra is that we got
3% of our oil from Iraq. We'd need even less if the same people who say
they want to wean us from oil would stop opposing the entire long list
of alternatives from windmills to ANWAR to shale oil.

> everyone is now soured on the whole idea of military solutions

Not everyone. The opposition includes:
A. Those who realize it is the *only* solution to such forces as
Kruschev, Hitler, and radical Islam.
B. Those who still have the backbone to do what it takes to protect
their descendants.
C. Those who realize that anything less than military solutions to
radical Islam is like a 40-year-old "fighting" Gleason 10 T3 PC with WW
. . . without watching.
D. Those who comprehend that our previous similar withdrawals cost many
millions of lives, even without being followed home.
E Many of those paying attention to the situation beyond what they see
in the New York Times and on CNN.

> the war on terror has been set back years if not decades.

The war *from* terrorism has also been set back years *by* our war *on*
terror (didn't MSNBC mention that the terrorist body count
conservatively exceeds 50,000?). That's how war works. When we quit, the
war will return, on steroids. We won the Cold War only because Russians
enjoy life; radical Muslims exalt in martyrdom, and are thus not
deterred by our might; they are deterred only one martyr at a time, and
only by his/her death.

> As for this being the best of times, I agree.  As for the future, the
> terror threat will at the very least deplete our resources so that our
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> rate, it won't take long for our treasury to be exhausted way before
> they run out of box cutters.

The minute they get nukes and a tanker or 18-wheeler to deliver 'em in,
we won't be concerned about box cutters. What's that? They already
*have* tankers and semis? Drat . . . two down, one to go.

I.P.
dave perry - 27 Feb 2007 03:03 GMT
> > after four years of lies
>
> I'm so tired of hearing that. In the literally hundreds of debates I've
> heard on that specific issue, I have yet to hear even *one* lie named
> and supported by published facts.

Call 'em what you like.  Perhaps "faulty intelligence" or "whoppers"
or "misunderstandings" or "insufficient intelligence" would be more
suitable.  I prefer "organized deception" myself.

> The cost to the U.S. alone of 9/11 cost exceeded a trillion dollars
> years ago, and is is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the
> next major shoe to drop.

To paraphrase the late Senator Dirkson from Illinois, "A trillion
here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we're talking big money."  I
believe the money could have been better spent fighting the Taliban
and Osama rather than pissing it away in Iraq.

> > after 3000+ American lives
>
> Another relative drop in the bucket.

Maybe so but I would rather these lives be spent fighting the original
gang of terrorists in Afghanistan.

> > after the slaughter of countless innocent citizens of Iraq

> Saddam *deliberately* slaughtered 25 times as many Iraqi civilians as
> this war *accidentally* killed, the vast majority of Iraqi civilians
> killed in this war were *deliberately targeted* by radical *Muslims*,
> and *many* U.S. soldiers' lives were lost due to our direct efforts to
> minimize Iraqi civilian lives.

Saddam was a bastard, no doubt about that.  However there are plenty
of bastards around the world, all living quite comfortably with little
threat from the US or anyone else.  I can accept bastards born that
way but not those who acquire that status.  Apparently only those few
who sit on oil are to be despised.>

> > now we're upset that many are saying enough.
>
> The free world doesn't have the luxury of saying "enough"; that
> privilege is rapidly being granted to the enemy, who every week renews
> its vow to declare "Enough!" only when your blood line is extinguished
> or converted.

I agree.  The problem is we've wasted our enthusiasm and resources to
fight the real enemy by following a course that has led us into this
quagmire from which we may never extricate ourselves.

> > Mr. Bush, in the first few days after 9/11, had proclaimed "No more
> > Middle-East oil," yada yada yada
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> they want to wean us from oil would stop opposing the entire long list
> of alternatives from windmills to ANWAR to shale oil.

I never said "oil from Iraq."  I said "Middle-East oil" and we will
never be free of their oil as long as the only plane allowed to fly
over US territory on 9/12 was carrying the Saudi royal family to
safety nor as long as Exxon, Texaco, et al have interests in the
region.  As for the long list of alternatives, most on that list
aren't worth squat.  Shale has good potential and nuclear is gaining
ground even among its biggest foes since they've learned nuclear
produces no carbon dioxide.  As for windmills, one lonely windmill on
the prairie is bucolic.  Ten thousand are downright ugly.>

> > everyone is now soured on the whole idea of military solutions
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> E Many of those paying attention to the situation beyond what they see
> in the New York Times and on CNN.

Agreed.  However, the military solution is in the mountains between
Afghanistan and Pakistan, Somalia, the ghettoes of Great Britain, and
perhaps Detroit.  Saddam had Iraq under control with an iron fist and
he was almost as opposed to radical Islam as we are.  Now look what
we've done.  >

> > the war on terror has been set back years if not decades.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> deterred by our might; they are deterred only one martyr at a time, and
> only by his/her death.

Agreed again.  I think you and I equally see the danger, we just
disagree on what's been done so far to accomplish a common end.

Your compadre in diapers,
Dave Perry
I.P. Freely - 27 Feb 2007 04:34 GMT
> Call 'em what you like.  Perhaps "faulty intelligence" or "whoppers"
> or "misunderstandings" or "insufficient intelligence" would be more
> suitable.  I prefer "organized deception" myself.

That's the same response the vast majority of accusers provide: vague
generalities. Any specific allegations are disproved by facts or by
pointing out that the first specific, dire warnings about radical
Islam's intolerable threat to the free world came from Bill Clinton in
response to the French detective who outed Al Qaeda and to many
unrequited acts of terrorism on the U.S. on Clinton's watch.

> I would rather these lives be spent fighting the original
> gang of terrorists in Afghanistan.

That's like fighting communism only in Berkely. Radical Islam has cells
in well over 100 nations.

I'm sorry, but the rest just slips into more unsupported canned talking
points contrary to facts. I think we need to stick to our diapers.

Oh, wait . . . I already do sometimes. ;-)

I.P.
Steve Kramer - 26 Feb 2007 11:31 GMT
> Not silly at all, Alan. And I also think most of us in this forum now are
> extremely fortunate to have lived in what may prove to be the best
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I often wonder how many people feel that way . . . whether I'm kidding
> myself thinking my accidental timing in many arenas was superb.

I often consider that my values and convictions were more readily accepted a
couple of decades before the one in which I was born.  But, I too have
wondered about the time and place of my existence.  So many things, good
things, have happened to me in my life and career where the principle
causative factor was timing.  I like to think that I was born to a pretty
good family, in one of the best cities in arguably the best country of the
greatest era in the history of man.

Never in the history of the United States was there a span of peace such as
the one between '73 and Sadam.  During my life, travel became
interterstrial; disease was substantially rebuffed; instant communications
with people from all over the world became possible; virtual teleportation
to anywhere in the world instantly became possible; knowledge from all the
libraries of the world came to my fingertips, etc.

Unfortunately, I also agree the future is bleak.  Our President cannot keep
the terrorists at bay across the oceans much longer, especially with the
seditionists and terrorist sympathizers on this side of the ocean.  Even if
he could keep up the effort, eventually, the terrorists will target our
homeland.  Death will come to visit our men, women and children and the
rights and privileges we have know all our lives will erode.

Yessir, in some ways, prostate cancer is a gift.
I.P. Freely - 26 Feb 2007 18:14 GMT
> I too have
> wondered about the time and place of my existence.  So many things, good
> things, have happened to me in my life and career where the principle
> causative factor was timing.  

I hear "timing", add "place", and must add an even greater synergistic
influence in some ways: initiative. I can think of no place on earth
that can reward individual initiative like the U.S. can, whether it's
the likes of Bill Gates or just my having chosen every job and transfer
I had in my 20 years in uniform.

> Never in the history of the United States was there a span of peace such as
> the one between '73 and Sadam.  

And both my wife and I feel privileged in helping to keep it that way,
through our efforts in the Cold War . . . which ended the year I
retired. I like to think that we both advanced the destruction of the
Berlin Wall by a few minutes.

> During my life, travel became
> interterstrial; disease was substantially rebuffed; instant communications
> with people from all over the world became possible; virtual teleportation
> to anywhere in the world instantly became possible; knowledge from all the
> libraries of the world came to my fingertips, etc.

Well said, and I, probably as you, could add a long list of
life-altering opportunities of a more personal nature, such as . . .
My fortuitous introduction to what I consider God's Country -- the
American desert southwest -- and its climate, its unique open spaces,
and its unlimited recreation, at its peak.
My introduction to even better (read: safer for middle-aged bodies)
recreation and subsequent relocation to its North American epicenter
near *its* peak.
My success at achieving those moves due to great personal effort and
initiative.
Our luck at beginning our mutual fund investment blitz in 1992 -- when
we had to borrow to pay our income taxes -- and our dedication to maxing
it out during the market's 10-year trip to the moon. (We are very
comfortable now thanks in large part to the long list of money-saving
steps I posted here months ago as a means for most people to avoid
poverty and buy health insurance.)
Speaking of the moon, I not only watched it all happen real time but
helped us get there, thanks to time and place serendipity (I lived down
the street from Werner Von Braun and worked in the same building as he
at his peak).

The list could go on at length, because every time I feel like whining
that I won't live forever, I remind myself of what I've been blessed to
do and see and achieve. Sure, many people have outdone me, but
*life's*not*a*competition*, and Gates and Turner and even some Hollywood
lunatics *add* to my life. I've had a helluva life, due to timing,
place, initiative, and good fortune, and while cancer may cut it short,
it can't take away what's already been experienced. I hope to smile all
the way to the grave, or at least to my final bed.

> Unfortunately, I also agree the future is bleak.  Our President cannot keep
> the terrorists at bay across the oceans much longer, especially with the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Yessir, in some ways, prostate cancer is a gift.

Absolutely, consciously agree, even if my PC *hadn't* literally saved my
life (my colon cancer doc reaffirmed that just last week).

When you start feeling down, folks, add to your written list and
appraisal of your blessings. It won't cure your cancer, but it is as
good as ADT in one sense: it holds it at bay for a while.

I.P.
callalily - 26 Feb 2007 05:02 GMT
Dear Alan,

>  ...
> I'm in a hotel room by the Newark airport at the moment, hoping
> that the snow won't cancel our flight tomorrow to the Caribbean. I'm
> ready for a week in the sun - which is even better than yoga or
> meditation.

Newark. Just a "heartbeat" away.  Why didn't you tell me?  Could have
stopped by.  Have a wonderful trip.  I didn't know it was supposed to
snow tomorrow.  I'm very excited for my husband.  On Sunday, he is off
to Jupiter, FL, with a couple of friends to watch spring training, and
I'm sure he will have a wonderful time.

There is so much "deep" stuff in this letter, I need some time to
digest it.

Thanks for writing it.

Leah

> Everybody deals with the hard problems in life in a different way.
> My own way is probably unique to me and might even seem
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
>    Alan
rosbif - 02 Mar 2007 08:59 GMT
> I can't quote you
>chapter and verse, but I have read that salv rad is done on a lot of
>people who won't benefit from it.  Same as with other PC treatments.
>Dr. Catalona wrote a good article on who are the best candidates, so
>that's helpful.

I'd be interested in that. Can you post up or point to it, Leah?
callalily - 02 Mar 2007 15:38 GMT
Dear Rosbif,

Happy to oblige.  I happened to look up your numbers and got -- yet
another -- chuckle out of this:  (11/21/06):  "After 2 years of WW
I, . . . "  At 100+ , it's no wonder you're having prostate problems.

I hope the Catalona article (summer '04) is not outdated by medical
standards.  Note that he mentions that these studies were based on tx
with older methods of rad.  We were supposed to see the rad onc on
Wednesday, but spouse got a new tech. writing assignment, so we
rescheduled for 2 weeks.  I will ask the doc whether there are any
updates.

You must be telephathic; I was about to send this to a guy in India.

Take care.

Leah
_________________

New Results for Postoperative Radiotherapy

By William J. Catalona, MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several previous articles in QUEST and on the drcatalona.com website
address
postoperative radiotherapy, but recent reports have increased our
knowledge, and
this article supplements those previous ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History

In the past, we, and other researchers, analyzed 4-year studies of the
effect of postoperative radiotherapy on recurring prostate cancer
after a radical prostatectomy. The figures looked pretty good, and we
reported, with some optimism, that postoperative radiotherapy worked
in saving lives.

It has become clear from recent studies that some patients are far
more likely to benefit from postoperative radiotherapy than others,
depending upon the particular features of their tumor, their PSA level
at the time of treatment, and the dose and technique of radiotherapy
used.

For instance, favorable features would be a low PSA level at the time
of treatment, a more slowly rising PSA level, a lower Gleason grade,
and a higher dose of radiation.

Unfavorable features would be the presence of seminal vesicle
invasion, lymph node metastases, a high and/or rapidly rising PSA, and
a high Gleason grade. The presence of positive surgical margins has
been found to be a favorable feature in some studies but not others.

Also, the duration of follow-up affects the results of postoperative
radiotherapy. With longer follow-up, more patients are found to
relapse.

Thus, the results of postoperative radiotherapy are strongly
influenced by the patient mix. In series of patients who are selected
with favorable features, postoperative radiotherapy is more successful
than in those that include patients with unfavorable features.
However, many patients have mixed features.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the past, some physicians have felt that patients having certain
adverse features such as lymph node metastases, seminal vesicle
invasion, very high Gleason grade, or a persistently detectable or
rapidly rising PSA after surgery should not be treated with
postoperative radiotherapy.

Rather, hormonal therapy would be deemed more appropriate, because
these patients would have a high likelihood of having distant
metastases. Furthermore, to date there is no proof that postoperative
radiotherapy can reduce the ultimate incidence of distant metastases
or improve survival.

Recent studies have shed some new light on this controversial area of
prostate cancer treatment. Although the results differ from study to
study, part of the reason for these differences lie in the types of
patients included, the radiation techniques used, and the length of
follow-up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adjuvant and Salvage

Postoperative radiotherapy has two categories: adjuvant and salvage.

Adjuvant is preventive treatment closely following a radical
prostatectomy. It is recommended after surgery reveals adverse
pathologic findings that indicate a likely spread of the cancer beyond
the prostate gland but, at the same time, the patient has an
undetectable PSA.

Salvage radiotherapy is the treatment recommended when, after a RRP
and upon follow-up testing, a patient has a rising PSA. It has been
thought that salvage radiotherapy has the potential to cure patients
with cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephenson Study

A recent journal article, (Stephenson, JAMA 2004) being read by
doctors with a great deal of interest, reported on patients they had
followed for almost four years to watch the effects of postoperative
radiotherapy.

Because doctors are using the information, I think our readers should
be familiar with it.

In that 4-year period, approximately 50% of patients who received
salvage radiotherapy for a rising PSA after radical prostatectomy
showed further cancer progression; 10% developed distant metastases,
and 4% died of prostate cancer.

Factors other than a rising PSA figured into the results. Progression
was more likely to occur in men with a Gleason score of 8 or more, a
PSA level of 2 or higher before radiotherapy, negative surgical
margins, a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less after a RRP, or
seminal vesicle involvement.

The idea that negative surgical margins might be a factor in prostate
cancer progression is a paradoxical finding. The proposed explanation
is that patients with positive margins are more likely to have a tumor
recurrence within the bed of the prostate; whereas, those with
negative margins are more likely to have a distant recurrence.
However, I am not convinced of this explanation, and our data does not
confirm it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among patients with none of these adverse features present, 77% with a
rising PSA after RRP remained free of cancer progression for 4 years.
And some patients with only one adverse finding fared surprising well.

For instance, 64% of men with a rapid PSA doubling time remained free
of recurrence for 4 years if their Gleason grade was 7 or less and
their surgical margins were positive.

Also, patients with a Gleason score of 8 or higher had a progression
free survival of 81% if they were treated early, had a PSA doubling
time longer than 10 months and positive surgical margins.

Therefore, some patients with high-grade cancer and/or a rapid PSA
doubling times who were previously thought to be destined to develop
metastases may respond well to radiotherapy, at least for a 4-year
period.

If Stephenson is correct, some patients with recurring prostate cancer
can be optimistic that postoperative radiotherapy might, at least,
postpone the spread of CaP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longer Study

Recently, my research group (including Dr. Misop Han, Jonathan
Rubenstein, and Kimberly Roehl) updated our results analyzing the
effects of postoperative radiotherapy with a longer follow-up,
projected 10-year outcomes.

We found a significant decrease in progression-free rates with these
longer follow-ups. In other words, the postoperative radiotherapy
might not have worked as well as we thought.

In the salvage treatment setting that was recommended because of a
rising PSA, we evaluated 307 patients.

Overall, PSA levels fell to undetectable in 73% of patients after
radiotherapy. We observed favorable responses more often in men
without seminal vesicle invasion and in those with a lower PSA at the
time of treatment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, we did not confirm better response rates in men with positive
surgical margins. In this finding, our results conflict with
Stephenson's.

With long-term follow-up, though, only 25% of all patients had lasting
responses to salvage radiotherapy. (The 5-year response rate was 55%
and 10-year rate was 35%.) It is important to note, however, that many
patients with long-term follow-up were treated with older radiotherapy
methods that are not as effective as those currently in routine use.

One of our conclusions is that we need more studies to answer an
important question: Is postoperative radiotherapy deterring the spread
of prostate cancer? In other words, how many patients would follow the
same time-line with or without the postoperative radiotherapy?

In patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy (adverse pathologic
findings but an undetectable PSA), the results were that 78% were free
of recurrence at 5 years and 64% at 10 years. In matched patients who
did not receive adjuvant radiotherapy, 75% were recurrence free at 5
years and 50% at 10 years. Thus, there appears to be a distinct
benefit for adjuvant radiotherapy with long-term follow-up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Controversies

A current controversy is taking place over whether all men with
adverse pathologic findings after radical prostatectomy should
automatically receive adjuvant radiotherapy if their PSA levels become
undetectable after surgery ,or whether they should follow their PSA
levels and receive radiotherapy only if the PSA begins to increase.

In women with breast cancer, for which there is no sensitive tumor
marker such as PSA; adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy are routinely
given if the surgery reveals adverse findings. Thus, all such women
would be treated as though they would have cancer progression without
further treatment.

However, with prostate cancer, the PSA test provides a sensitive
marker for persistent cancer, and the results of treatment appear to
be nearly as good if the radiotherapy is given when the PSA just
begins to rise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delaying therapy until the PSA rises can avoid unnecessary treatment
in some patients; however, waiting until the PSA is higher than 2 ng/
ml can compromise results.

Another controversy exists about whether patients with very high-risk
tumors should receive hormonal therapy in conjunction with
postoperative radiotherapy, and, if so, for how long should it be
continued.

Studies in patients treated primarily with radiotherapy (without
surgery) have shown that patients with high risk tumors respond better
if they receive hormonal therapy beginning before and continuing for
two years after radiotherapy.

However, it is not known if prolonged hormonal therapy is needed with
salvage radiotherapy. This distinction is important because many men
would prefer to avoid prolonged hormonal therapy with its associated
side effects of hot flashes, sexual dysfunction, and changes in body
fat and muscle distribution. The answer to this controversy is unknown
and these decisions must be made on an individual basis between the
patient and his physician.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Place for Optimism

Relying on postoperative radiotherapy to deter the spread of cancer
may have to be revisited. But, with new and more effective detection
techniques, we might not have to worry about postoperative
radiotherapy. Men will be treated soon enough so that a recurrence of
the cancer is unlikely. And that world is the best of all possible
worlds.
rosbif - 03 Mar 2007 08:22 GMT
>Dear Rosbif,
>
>Happy to oblige.  I happened to look up your numbers and got -- yet
>another -- chuckle out of this:  (11/21/06):  "After 2 years of WW
>I, . . . "  At 100+ , it's no wonder you're having prostate problems.

Teehee, people do say I look young for my age.

Thanks for posting this Leah, but cripes!, did you divine any useable
strategy from this?  There's a lot of info but none of it really seems
to coalesce or point anywhere in particular.

e.g.

>The idea that negative surgical margins might be a factor in prostate
>cancer progression is a paradoxical finding.

Maybe this is just poorly expressed?  I would hope -ve margins WERE a
factor, in particular pointing to a better prognosis.  If he means
it's better to have +ve margins then he's got some explaining to do.

>The proposed explanation
>is that patients with positive margins are more likely to have a tumor
>recurrence within the bed of the prostate; whereas, those with
>negative margins are more likely to have a distant recurrence.
>However, I am not convinced of this explanation, and our data does not
>confirm it.

I'm not convinced either -  paradoxical findings without a resolution
is about as bad an assessment a study can possibly make of itself IMO.

>Among patients with none of these adverse features present, 77% with a
>rising PSA after RRP remained free of cancer progression for 4 years.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>of recurrence for 4 years if their Gleason grade was 7 or less and
>their surgical margins were positive.

This puts a bit of a strain on my understanding of recurrence.  I
thought rapid PSA doubling time was itself a marker?  

>Also, patients with a Gleason score of 8 or higher had a progression
>free survival of 81% if they were treated early, had a PSA doubling
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>metastases may respond well to radiotherapy, at least for a 4-year
>period.

But the 4 year result must be less conclusive than the longer study
below...

>If Stephenson is correct, some patients with recurring prostate cancer
>can be optimistic that postoperative radiotherapy might, at least,
>postpone the spread of CaP.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>years and 50% at 10 years. Thus, there appears to be a distinct
>benefit for adjuvant radiotherapy with long-term follow-up.

...which shows only a marginal improvement at 5 years (78 vs 75%) and
not a lot to write home about at 10 years (64 vs 50%) given the burden
of a double whammy of extra SEs bought on by the RT.  Of course each
of us would load these figures differently depending on priorities and
perception of magnitude.

I'd be interested to know what others make of it all.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>the cancer is unlikely. And that world is the best of all possible
>worlds.

i.e. 'we're just not sure'

What do think Leah? Did this inform your strategy at all?
Steve Kramer - 21 Feb 2007 00:43 GMT
> but wouldn't it be great to go on a cruise with PC
> people only.    It sounds like paradise.  To be among your own!

The only cruise I can imagine where a lot of the men go to that elevated sun
deck to get a better view of the ocean.

> **A few weeks ago, the day my husband got the first result, I was
> serving dinner that night and just felt unsteady and I was weaving
> around like a drunk and bumping into walls.

I've been driving since I was 14 years old (I was a mechanic at 13) and had
one at-fault accident in 1987.  On the date of my dx, I backed my truck into
my wife's Toyota.  All in all, I'd rather have been bumping into walls.

> He did not do a DRE and I'm curious what
> people think about that (you know, to check the prostate bed).

Some do, some don't.   My doc does every 8 months.

> Then J. got me aggravated:  He said to me, "You look sick".  Are you
> stressed out about something?  Maybe about your mother being here?  So
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> never made the call.  You'd think he'd care.  And for the longest time
> he said he "did not notice" his genitals "changing shape".  Well.

Give it a year or year and a half.  That's about how long it took me.

> Finally, I went to the herring section,

Should have had salmon.

> [OT - Gardening]  Skip if you want.

Okay.
callalily - 23 Feb 2007 23:01 GMT
Dear Steve,

> "callalily" <lfc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The only cruise I can imagine where a lot of the men go to that elevated sun
> deck to get a better view of the ocean.

Well, you need to work on your imagination.  Not to say that this boat
isn't rocky, but it's not the "Voyage of the Damned" either.  And
sunlight is great for you folks!

I still like the idea of a cruise.  Hughie can do the cooking, and IP
can give aerobics classes.  And we have loads of comedians here.

Last but not least, Leonard E. can figure out how much it'll all cost.

A doctor would come in handy . . .

Where should we go?  Maybe to visit Maui Mike?  We should all see
Hawaii before we die (so that we've seen paradise, in case they don't
let us in upstairs).

> > He did not do a DRE and I'm curious what
> > people think about that (you know, to check the prostate bed).

> Some do, some don't.  My doc does every 8 months.

Well, this wasn't a routine visit.  If there's a chance of recurrence,
Dr. Callalily says you need to check the prostate bed.  And if the
doc's too lazy to do it, I'll do it on my own.  There's a good diagram
in the Strum book.

This is something that absolutely drives me
> > crazy about him: that at every stage of this journey he is in complete
> > denial. I am really getting fed up with this behavior.

Happy to say, this has improved a lot in the last week.  J. is making
calls to the docs and helping me assemble his records for visit to the
rad onc.

> > Finally, I went to the herring section,
>
> Should have had salmon.

It may be declasse, but when it comes to Omega-3's, herring is King!
(See chart below from the Cleveland Clinic.)  You can't eat salmon all
day.  Better yet, you can have salmon for dinner and do what my father
did on occasion, put a slab of herring on a nice piece of pumpernickel
bread and have it for breakfast.  (By the way, IP, you said something
about skipping the herring.  Now they eat catfish in the South, don't
they?)

Amount of Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Selected Fish and Seafood

Fish Serving Size Amount of Omega-3 Fat

Atlantic Salmon or Herring  3 ounces cooked 1.9 grams
Blue Fin Tuna 3 ounces cooked 1.5 grams
Sardines, canned 3 oz. in tomato sauce 1.5 grams
Anchovies, canned 2 ounces drained 1.2 grams
Atlantic Mackerel 3 ounces cooked 1.15 grams
Salmon, canned 3 ounces drained 1.0 gram
Swordfish 3 ounces cooked 0.9. gram
Sea Bass (mixed species) 3 ounces cooked 0.65 gram
Tuna, white meat canned 3 ounces drained 0.5 gram
Sole, Flounder, Mussels 3 ounces cooked 0.4 gram
Wild Catfish, crabmeat, clams 3 ounces cooked/steamed 0.3 gram
Prawns (jumbo shrimp) 6 pieces 0.15 gram
Atlantic Cod, Lobster 3 ounces cooked/steamed 0.15 gram
Trout, Orange roughy 3 ounces cooked <0.1 g

Best to you all.

Leah
Steve Kramer - 23 Feb 2007 23:50 GMT
Dear Steve,

> "callalily" <lfc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> sun
> deck to get a better view of the ocean.

Well, you need to work on your imagination.  Not to say that this boat
isn't rocky, but it's not the "Voyage of the Damned" either.  And
sunlight is great for you folks!

------- It was a joke about the topless sun bathing that normally goes on up
there.  Men usually "accidentally" end up on that deck for the view of
what's on the deck.  Those of us on ADT would go up for a better view of the
ocean.
Steve Kramer - 23 Feb 2007 23:51 GMT
> > Finally, I went to the herring section,
>
> Should have had salmon.

Another joke.  I guess I was off my game that night.
Hugh Kearnley - 24 Feb 2007 23:54 GMT
I still like the idea of a cruise.  Hughie can do the cooking,

HOY YOU! - If I'm going on a cruise - I'll wear the sunglasses and bermudas.
Some other (UN)lucky arse can cook. TVM!
Bob C. - 21 Feb 2007 03:00 GMT
> Hello everybody,
>  > **Also, Since we got the second PSA result last week I have been
> feeling down but also extremely frightened and nervous.   More like
> terrified.

   He is going to the gym all day just to be
> away from me.

  But nothing terrifies me more than hormone
> therapy.  
>
> Another change in my life that bothers me  is that my whole life has
> become "cancerized".  

> [OT - Gardening]  Skip if you want.

Leah, whew, what a long post. I hope that all that typing helped you get
some of it out of your system, but I doubt it. I would like to comment
on just a few parts of it, just the above. My cancer is hormone
refractory as of a few months ago, and I have been fighting this beast
since December of 2000 but I am not done yet. From day one my wife and I
both have tried to live by the philosophy that tomorrow is not going to
ruin today. We occasionally fail at that. It will happen. You, however,
  are letting this thing ruin the good days that are here now. I
occasionally take a break from even reading this newsgroup just to get
fully away from it. If any miracle cure comes up, I think I'll hear
about it. I keep one eye on different drugs and therapies in the works,
but I won't obsess over finding every little scrap of news available. I
take some supplements and eat lots of salmon and broccoli and drink lots
of pom juice, and so on, but I will not waste too much time reading
every opinion on every supplement and topic at the expense of my
valuable time. I guess my life was also "cancerized" at one time, but
not today. Well, not too often.

As for hormone therapy, I was on it for a year, off a year, on for two
years, and now off for this past year. I am one of those who has not
done well with the side effects. I will by choice, go back on it for
whatever help it may provide, but along with Casodex  this time. I am
not going to advise anyone to go on hormone therapy or not to, but your
research should tell you whether it's for you or not. I can live with
the SE's. My choice. Maybe it's helping me to hang around longer, maybe
it will hasten my demise. As you are only too aware, the cancer hits the
spouse as well. Same with living with the SEs. I am not happy that my
wife has to go through this, but I sure appreciate her help and support.
 Research, make joint decisions, and get on with your lives.

> Anyway, these are my happy memories.
Make more. Take much needed breaks from the battle(s) you are fighting
and make many more memories together. Get some patio tomatoes growing,
some Rosemary planted in a flower pot to use fresh on your salmon, and
work at having some fun and growing old together.

Don't let tomorrow ruin today, you do not know exactly what tomorrow may
hold. Maybe all the stress will do you in first? Sometimes I have to
pull my wife out of a funk, sometimes it's the other way around. No,
it's not easy.

I do not pretend to have a lot of answers, heck, sometimes I don't even
understand the questions! But I sure do not want to let some ugly beast
ruin whatever days I may have left with fears of what the future may bring.

I am not going to compete with you for length of post, so please take
this as kindly comments and not as criticism, but get your lives back
and enjoy life again. Together. Best of luck to you both.
I.P. Freely - 21 Feb 2007 06:16 GMT
>> Hello everybody,
>>  > **Also, Since we got the second PSA result last week I have been
>> feeling down but also extremely frightened and nervous.   More like
>> terrified.
>
>    He is going to the gym all day just to be away from me.

I suggest you go to go to a gym, also. It's tough to beat a hard workout
to blast many kinds of emotional issues out of one's head.

>   But nothing terrifies me more than hormone therapy.  

There's no reason to fear ADT, for the simple reason that it can usually
be discontinued successfully any time you decide it's worse than the
alternative. Thus you then have at least two choices, which beats having
only one. And both choices are now known choices, not a known one vs an
unknown one. i.e., the only thing you have to lose *trying* ADT is the
slight chance it may not be reversible, in which case you still gain its
benefits. Win/Win, unless he experiences a *pair* of unlikely outcomes
-- irreversibility and completely intolerable SEs -- which is *REALLY*
unlikely.

I.P.
callalily - 25 Feb 2007 22:22 GMT
Dear Bob,

> Leah, whew, what a long post. I hope that all that typing helped you get
> some of it out of your system, but I doubt it.

It did help me, and I am feeling much better, as I just wrote to
Alan.  And to you, I award the prize for Endurance, because I could
tell you that read my post to the bitter end, and I do appreciate the
sage advice.

>>From day one my wife and I both have tried to live by the philosophy that tomorrow >>is not going to ruin today.

But suppose yesterday ruined your today?  But it's your choice on
whether to dwell on it.

>>We occasionally fail at that. It will happen. You, however, are letting this thing ruin >>the good days that are here now.

Pardon me, but these are not the good days.  (If they are, I hate to
think about the bad days.)  We have just had to swallow a hard
diagnosis, which we honestly did not expect, but it does get better by
the day.  Especially when you've done something constructive like make
a follow-up appt. with a doctor.

I hope the good days are just around the corner, but more likely, we
are starting on the second leg of a difficult journey.  But as someone
said, "Every journey starts with a small step".

I guess what you can do is divert yourself, so I am reading lots of
jokes and some other interesting stuff.

> I occasionally take a break from even reading this newsgroup just to get
> fully away from it.

How do you do it?  My husband feels so neglected since I started
"talking" online that he told me yesterday he was going to limit how
much time I could spend on the computer!

>> If any miracle cure comes up, I think I'll hear about it. I keep one eye on different >>drugs and therapies in the works, but I won't obsess over finding every little scrap of news available.

I agree with you, but I had to learn that the hard way.  I have a
heard time now not just reading what's "in the pipeline" but also
anything at all about PC.  I'm just saturated.

> I take some supplements and eat lots of salmon and broccoli and drink lots
> of pom juice, and so on, but I will not waste too much time reading
> every opinion on every supplement and topic at the expense of my
> valuable time.

You're right.  That alone can make a person sick.  Whether to soy or
not.  How much Vit. D to take??

I guess my life was also "cancerized" at one time, but
> not today. Well, not too often.

It's like my husband says about life, "You write your own
narrative".

>>As you know, cancer affects the spouse.

Yes it does, and sometimes in worse ways. It's like I sometimes think,
"He has a foreshortened view of his body, but I see everything from
360 degrees".

> > Anyway, these are my happy memories.
>
> Make more. Take much needed breaks from the battle(s) you are fighting
> and make many more memories together. Get some patio tomatoes growing,

It's winter out here.  But the hyacinths are starting to come up.
Yum.  And the daffodils and tulips.  Even here in the city, Park Ave.
looks like a carpet of flowers in spring.

>  work at having some fun and growing old together.

Don't want to grow old at all.  I am just so annoyed that I am having
trouble reading up close.  And you start to get sick, and all your
friends start to get sick and die.  (I am 47, btw.)  I was amused
because somebody wrote me today, "Growing old is not for the weak".  I
agreed with that, but I added, "Growing old is not for the old", or
for that matter the middle-aged, either.  It's not fun for anybody,
unless you have your grandkids to diddle on your lap.

> Don't let tomorrow ruin today, you do not know exactly what tomorrow may
> hold.

Well, from reading this group I do know anything and everything about
what the future may hold.:-)

>>Maybe all the stress will do you in first?

That's what I'm trying not to let happen.  But you know, they're
always saying here, you're lucky if something else gets you before the
PC.

> I do not pretend to have a lot of answers, heck, sometimes I don't even
> understand the questions! But I sure do not want to let some ugly beast
> ruin whatever days I may have left with fears of what the future may bring.

You may have noticed that I have recently discussed the effects of
calling the Pca "the Ugly Beast".  I understand that its the
instinctive thing to do.  But I have been thinking and reading about
how ca is demonized and personalized more than other diseases, and I
believe it's true and that it affects the patient negatively.  I was
thinking that my father had a bad stroke (used to wish he'd had ca),
and nobody called it a beast or had any "personal relationship" with.
It was just something neutral to be overcome if possible.  I don't
think heart disease is taken personally either.  I think good examples
are arthritis and lupus, which some people have in severe form.  But
you don't hear people saying, "Of all things, my immune system, which
is supposed to protect me from disease, is making me sick.  Of all the
rotten things to do! That double-crossing Arthritis Beast."  I am just
saying all this because maybe we can have more compassion for
ourselves.

> I am not going to compete with you for length of post, so please take
> this as kindly comments and not as criticism,

I am a competitive person by nature and so I take some kind of
perverse pleasure in having written such a long post -- maybe it set a
record.  (But I doubt it.)

>> but get your lives back
> >and enjoy life again. Together. Best of luck to you both.

We will try our darndest and thank you for good advice.

I wish you the best of health and happiness for many years to come.
And if I hear about the "magic cure", you will be the first to know.

Oh, and give me your address. I would like to send you some cherry
tomatoes.

Best,

Leah
-
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage