 |
 | 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 / June 2007Hot Flushes
I'm one of the ones really bothered by hot flushes and night sweats. I had been considering some form of hormonal therapy to alleviate them - in particular Depo Provera, but there was a slight rise in my PSA last sample, and I was advised against that drug as it might be converted to some form of T which would actually fuel the cancer. Talk too about Megace, but I have decided to do nothing more about the mentioned SE's because they seem now to be lessening in intensity. Whether this is down to getting used to the ADT or rather - down to extra supplementation I started a few weeks past, I don't know. I upped my D3 intake to 8 x 600 iu capsules a day and began taking Cayenne Extract 3 x 520 mg a day in addition to my usual regime. (All SOLGAR Brand) Sometimes it's difficult to know what is a genuine hot flush caused by hormones or a sweaty session caused by eating large quantities of chillies (I'm a chili-head) But I did notice that when my son and I eat the same hot food, we have those sweaty sessions about the same times. I also recently bought a bicycle for exercise - causing more sweatiness! I can manage about 15 miles on it now, just slow steady pedalling on fairly flat roads. Great fun. But as I said, the SE's mentioned SEEM to be becoming less noticeable. I've had three nights DRY undisturbed sleep this past week. Usually I'm up and bed-hopping most nights, pillows in the tumble dryer. So what's that - Getting used to ADT? - exercise? - supplements? (OR the fact that my er.. social life? -has made a dramatic improvement in the past fortnight!!!) Whatever it is, I'm happy that I don't have to start some extra drug. Thanks for listening. HUGHIE. On Jun 18, 1:50 am, "Hugh Kearnley" <hughkearn...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Sometimes it's difficult to know what is a genuine hot flush caused by > hormones or a sweaty session caused by eating large quantities of chillies > (I'm a chili-head) The hot flashes are still mild and hitting me intermittently. Fortunately the company keeps the building really cold and, get this, I keep a jacket at my desk because most of the day, I'm shivering. When a hot flash hits me, I can take my jacket off. Hugh, we must be brothers. I can't get enough chili, Thai, or Szcheuan food. I like it hot enough to make my scalp sweat. I don't know if my favorite is good old American Chili with lots of beef or the more exotic hot foods with noodles. Indian currys are good too. I don't like them as hot. Supposedly, the hot peppers help whack the cancer so, eat hot and hardy but not so much that you get a Lupron belly. If I get my food a little hotter than normal, just at the edge, I eat less. That's a good thing. I'd like to keep the weight off. -kh My husband has always like hot spicy food. He is still eating it now, if I do not put it in a recipe he puts sprinkles it on his food. Years ago we were visiting friends and he orderd hot Mexican chili and the other man was sweating just watching Hubby eat that chili. shirleyann My husband has hot flashes from his hormone shot too. He got his second shot a couple of weeks ago and he gets them at any time of day. His faces flushes, a very bright pink and says his scalp sweats too. He says he is not getting anymore. He is getting his 2nd PSA test in 2 weeks. shirleyann > My husband has hot flashes from his hormone shot too. > He got his second shot a couple of weeks ago and he gets them at any > time of day. His faces flushes, a very bright pink and says his scalp > sweats too. > > He says he is not getting anymore. -cough-cough- > He is getting his 2nd PSA test in 2 weeks. > > shirleyann I just feel hot and energized but in a tired way. Sometimes a little sweat forms. It's not terrible. -kh Hi Hughie, After our chat Saturday I went back and looked at your profile. You are presently on CPA, which is an steroidal antiandrogen and as such could be contributing to your PSA elevation. Consider stopping CPA and switching to Casodex. Because of your extensive mets it is preferable to do this without waiting for an antiandrogen withdrawal response from stopping CPA. As far as the hot flushes if they continue to bother you try a 0.1 mg estradiol patch. For the moment it is safer not to use either DP or Megace because as mentioned they can accelerate PCa growth. Since you SEEM to be doing better with the hot flushes, I urge you to continue your social life experience... <GRIN> Very best to you, my friend! RalphV www.pcainaz.org/phpbb On Jun 17, 10:50 pm, "Hugh Kearnley" <hughkearn...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I'm one of the ones really bothered by hot flushes and night sweats. I had > been considering some form of hormonal therapy to alleviate them - in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Thanks for listening. > HUGHIE. > it is safer not to use either DP or > Megace because as mentioned they can accelerate PCa growth. How does that reconcile with the strident insistence that we can manage ADT SEs by using Strum's list of anti-ADT-SE meds, which include both of those drugs? I.P. It's based on information that's only just surfacing, and although I don't want to get involved in controversies over it, ('Cos I'm no expert) I don't think it's been confirmed beyond a doubt. However, I'm not going to risk making things any worse. HUGHIE >> it is safer not to use either DP or >> Megace because as mentioned they can accelerate PCa growth. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I.P. IP, There is no need to reconcile anything. Chemotherapy is used to treat prostate cancer, but is not used in early stages at this point in time. DP and Megace are progestins that can promote PCa cell growth in hormonally treated patients whose PSA is not totally under control. In patients without bone mets and UD PSAs it is a proper form of treatment to control SEs that affect their QOL. These two drugs along with CPA are progestins. I just wanted to alert Hughie to postpone the use of DP or Megace to treat his hot flushes when other less risky options are available. Also to consult about his present use of CPA when his PSA is increasing while on Zoladex. This was just an alert for his consideration and not to start for a confrontation about what needs to be reconciled on Dr. Strum's list of remedies. RalphV www.pcainaz.org/phpbb > PCAi...@gmail.com wrote: > > it is safer not to use either DP or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I.P. > Chemotherapy is used to treat prostate cancer, > but is not used in early stages at this point in time. That's not clear to me, given the number of oncs who prescribe ADT after apparently successful RP or RT just in case there are lurkers. It seems contradictory to me that they prescribe drugs under the assumption we have lingering undetectable cancer which will promote the cancer if that assumption is true. I.P. It should be clear IP. It means that for Hugh's case with advanced disease the use of DP or Megace can be risky. That does not mean that it might not be a good treatment for hot flushes in others with an earlier stage. Is that hard to understand? RV > PCAi...@gmail.com wrote: > > Chemotherapy is used to treat prostate cancer, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I.P. > It should be clear IP. . . . > it might be a good treatment for hot flushes in others with an > earlier stage. Is that hard to understand? Yup, so I'll try again. The only reason to prescribe early adjuvant ADT the assumption the pt still has cancer? But if the pt still has cancer, is giving him a cancer-promoting drug like Megace a good thing? Yet another way: If the early adjuvant pt doesn't have any cancer cells, the ADT is wasted. If he does still have cancer, his Megace feeds it. Isn't that dilemma a tightrope between a rock and hard place? I.P. Let me respond to your question that BTW, has nothing to do with the original thread that Hugh initiated in trying to deal with his hot flushes. ADT could be prescribed: 1. When localized treatment has failed and recurrence is recognized by either a PSA elevation or by imaging. 2. Adjuvant ADT is prescribed along with a localized treatment in borderline cases in which a combined treatment is required to promote a better outcome. 3. ADT is also prescribed for those in whom localized treatment is not indicated because of too advanced non localized disease. 4. In a neoadjuvant mode to reduce gland size to be able to treat with SI or RT It is not my intent to debate you about the merit or lack thereof of ADT. The case on hand relates to the proper use of a medication given the stage of disease of the patient. In a patient undergoing ADT who has advanced metastatic disease AND there is an increase in PSA (while suppressed) the use of Megace, DP or even CPA needs to be cautiously considered. Metastatic disease can have a mutated androgen receptor (AR) that can use these chemicals to promote cell growth. The answer to your question is yes and no. They are a good thing for patients with non-visible disease responding to ADT and a bad thing for those with more advanced disease including bone mets who are not totally responding to therapy. Is that clearer now? We participate here to try to help people making complex decisions about their life. You are very cavalier in your responses to serious issues based on your personal preferences and your interpretation of issues. That can impact the lives of participants who are newly diagnosed and trying to learn. You need to consider how your tirades about ADT SEs affect those making treatment decisions. Your personal preferences and treatment decisions are not necessarily the same as they might be for others. Hugh, if you are listening, be sure to consult with your medical oncologist regarding the options presented by this thread. RalphV www.pcainaz.org/phpbb On Jun 18, 10:44 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote: > PCAi...@gmail.com wrote: > > It should be clear IP. . . . [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I.P. I ALWAYS listen when you speak, Ralphie. VERY Carefully! Thanks Hughie. > Let me respond to your question that BTW, has nothing to do with the > original thread that Hugh initiated in trying to deal with his hot [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> >> I.P. > ADT could be prescribed: > 1. failed treatment. > 2. required to promote a better outcome. > 3. too advanced non localized disease. > 4. neoadjuvant > They are a good thing for patients > with non-visible disease responding to ADT and a bad thing for those > with more advanced disease including bone mets who are not totally > responding to therapy. Is that clearer now? You omitted precisely the scenario I have repeatedly defined and by which many pts are being harmed: giving ADT after an apparently successful first procedure, with little, if any, regard to its therapeutic index. > We participate here to try to help people making complex decisions > about their life. *Exactly* the reason I press so hard so often -- at the risk of my own popularity -- for people to consider all the facts available, rather than swallowing the stuff they read here without fact-checking. > You are very cavalier in your responses to serious issues Cavalier: with disregard for others. God DAMN -- and no apologies -- you people who turn every discussion into baseless personal attacks. When facts and logic fail, they attack, attack, attack. Would any *rational* person think I put my neck on the chopping block if I didn't care about the impact of anti-SE ostriches on the lives devastated by unnecessary and/or unforewarned ADT SEs? How dare the ostriches turn their heads away from the ever-increasing tear-jerking anecdotes and professional reports right here of people being "abused" -- my word this time, but I couldn't find a more appropriate word in Roget's -- by physicians prescribing early adjuvant ADT so cavalierly. > based on your personal preferences You know it has nothing to do with personal preferences because I've explained that many ways over the last 30 months. Like several others here, you are deliberately attributing motives that do not exist to undermine the facts. > and your interpretation of issues. I assembled pages of the results of studies, quotes in context from all the authors we've discussed here, oncology textbooks, and findings presented in sources such as the Johns Hopkins Prostate White Papers, citing my sources when first presented. I posted them here for this august forum to critique, and had a university teaching hospital oncology board review them. Not one of my scores of statements was disputed. On the contrary, the oncology board praised it as one of the most succinct, accurate, and eye-opening ADT summaries they had seen, to the extent it made them rethink some of their own paradigms. Anyone considering early adjuvant ADT who puts more faith in your dismissal of all that as just "my interpretation" than that review process, and blindly bends over for his injections, is asking for some very unnecessary surprises at best, risking some unnecessary QOL nightmares at worst. The ADT picture is infinitely more complex and personal than the screw-the-SE crowd would have us believe, as proved in several studies and constantly stated in the literature cited and too often posted herein. > That can impact the lives of participants who are newly > diagnosed and trying to learn. I very profoundly hope so. Otherwise they're doomed by the SE-ostrich crowd to repeat the egregious errors of many thousands of men who preceded them. Why do you think so many oncologists cited here by so many posters including myself, including one renowned oncologist who abandoned his ADT because it was worse than his advanced mets, are broadcasting the same message? > You need to consider how your tirades > about ADT SEs affect those making treatment decisions. I do. And the more I consider it, the less patience I have with people who try so hard to conceal the SE picture emerging in the literature and from oncologists and VA psychologists and and pts right here. It was precisely a few individuals' denial of the solid peer-reviewed SE evidence (and Strum's claims) that kicked off my tirade for the welfare of "those making treatment decisions". Fortunately for those treatment choosers who are paying attention, some deniers are now denying less at the same time the increased personal horror studies and professional ADT SE rants are reinforcing my message. > Your personal > preferences and treatment decisions are not necessarily the same as > they might be for others. You know that I've said many times and in many ways that I even mention my own preferences and decisions only rarely, only when necessary to illustrate a point or provide an insight and labeled as such, and then with emphasis on three vital words: *in my case*? You knew that, yet you still insinuate that I'm trying to force my opinions, not *facts*, on others. That's dishonest as hell, Ralph. > Hugh, if you are listening, be sure to consult with your medical > oncologist regarding the options presented by this thread. Exactly what I've said more often than I can count, and I can even do two digits. The ADT SE deniers haven't even *seen* my stubborn side yet. You will someday realize the way to run me off is to prove my *facts* wrong, not attack me personally. I've asked you several times now why giving a pt suspected of undetectable PC a PC-promoting drug isn't questionable, and your responses have deliberately sidestepped the issue and/or focused instead on the questioner. Similarly, I've asked deniers many times to explain why they refute specific, cited studies, treatises, advice, and claims by the whole slate from Johns Hopkins to Strum, and I very seldom get much more than outright refusal and/or ad hominem in return. If you deniers want newbies making tx decisions to believe your counterculture claims, I suggest you back up your denials with facts rather than bluster. Every time I consider walking away and leaving the forum to the mercy of the SE-deniers, two or three patients and/or journal reports reveal heartbreaking stories of the impacts of SE denial and appeals to rectify the problem; you're going to have a hard time outweighing that in my conscience. I.P. IP, Wow!!! Are you kidding me? You are offended because I called your attitude in these matters cavalier? I turned to personal attacks when logic and facts failed? Lighten up. You went on a tangent as this thread was about Hughie and his hot flushes problem. Then you went out of the way to make it your anti-ADT SE campaign at my expense... Disgusting! This was all about helping a fellow survivor with a case of advanced cancer and not about your personal crusade against ADT-SEs in early PCa. Enough said! Had more than enough of your BS for one day... RalphV > IP, > Wow!!! Are you kidding me? You are offended because I called your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of advanced cancer and not about your personal crusade against ADT-SEs > in early PCa. Uh, it was Hughie who brought up the questions about the conflicts between Depo Provera/Megace, hot flush SEs, and prostate cancer. I merely focused the issue on UD PC, because that's where the conflict peaks and those drugs' encouragement of PC is news to me. How that's "at your expense" escapes me. But if you're unwilling or unable to resolve the paradox of giving cancer-promoting drugs to UD PC pts, please just say so or don't respond, like everyone else, rather than posting a litany of false personal accusations. And . . . help me understand this . . . Jordan wages a sworn, persistent, vendetta of archived lies for two years after facts offended him, yet you're surprised I'd react once to being falsely accused of disregarding newbies? How do you spell "pfztpftzppftzpftpftzpf"? Would it bother you if I revealed your bigoted tirade against Hispanics in that other forum? I.P. > Would > it bother you if I revealed your ----- tirade against ------ in that other > forum? Well, that would, at least, show which of you have most regressed into childhood. I have never seen this work, so I enter into it without hope. It is, at best, likely to be an exercise in futility. I fear, having seen it fail so often, it borders on insanity. But, here goes.... Steve J. and IP: Have you two noticed there are fewer and fewer participants here? That newbies come in and disappear? That tried and true monikers are no longer showing up in our headers other than to occasionally pass along a PSA or joke? Steve, you don't like I.P. I.P., you don't like Steve. You both believe you are justified in not liking the other. You have quoted old transgressions until we are all (if I may speak for the rest) sick of hearing them. It has neither ameliorated the transgressions nor caused us to further respect your knowledge and support. So, please, for the rest of us, and for the newbies you profess to be concerned about, discontinue these personal attacks. Please, don't reply with one last shot. Please, don't reply as if taking the high road while silently offending the other. Please, just don't say a thing. Just stop.... please. (snip) The redacted question with which Steve K began his post was from Mike Freely, not me, and was directed at Ralph. I will inform all that Rafael Valle is a US citizen of Cuban origin. IOW, "hispanic." And all who know him are well aware that he is a truly great man. > So, please, for the rest of us, and for the newbies you profess to be > concerned about, discontinue these personal attacks. Please, don't reply > with one last shot. Please, don't reply as if taking the high road while > silently offending the other. Please, just don't say a thing. Just > stop.... please. Point taken. I'm ready. Regards, Steve J > > Would > > it bother you if I revealed your ----- tirade against ------ in that other [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > silently offending the other. Please, just don't say a thing. Just > stop.... please. Amen Ditto Dave P > I.P. wrote >> Would >> it bother you if I revealed your ----- tirade against ------ in that other >> forum? > Steve, you don't like I.P. I.P., you don't like Steve. ... You have quoted old > transgressions . . . It has [not] ameliorated the transgressions . . . > > So, please, for the rest of us, and for the newbies you profess to be > concerned about, discontinue these personal attacks. *THANK YOU*, Steve, for joining me in speaking out against baseless personal attacks. As you know, the archives show I haven't made *any* of them on Jordan or anyone else (other than the obvious but very purposeful parody above) despite his dozens on me, but if your lumping me with the ad hominem practicioners achieves our objective, I'm all for it. Another important clarification: Jordan noticeably mitigated his dismissal of ADT SEs after I so graphically exposed those transgressions, so chalk one up for the newbies' side. I hear and respect your sensitivity to strife, but reserve the right to prioritize people's *cancer* above your feelings if that Hobb's choice remains necessary. I.P. > *THANK YOU*, Steve, for joining me in speaking out against baseless > personal attacks. I did not join you, I.P. I asked you to stop. >> *THANK YOU*, Steve, for joining me in speaking out against baseless >> personal attacks. > > I did not join you, I.P. I asked you to stop. I have been asking people for years to stop doing it and to speak out against it. You are only about the third, maybe fourth, person I've seen speak against it in this forum. And unless you can find examples in the archives to back up your accusation that I levy personal attacks without proof (and topical necessity as a bonus), you are doing exactly that yourself. I don't think you can find any evidence of it, because I don't think I've done it this century, if ever. (You get bonus points for finding one of the two or three times I've even mentioned someone *else's* ad hominem without a specific PC-related purpose I've explained at length.) Yet you have seen scores of vitriolic examples of not only *un*proven but often *dis*proven personal attacks directed at me from Jordan alone, not to mention Doug, RalphV, et.al.. I've received far more praise for *not* responding in kind to baseless ad hominem than complaints of waging it, and not one of the latter accusers has ever managed to back it up. The archives are at your fingertips, and accusations of ad hominem without proof are just . . . ad hominem. I'll even spot you 20:1 odds. For every case of my baseless ad hominem you can find, you've seen 20 from Jordan. I believe the ratio is infinite; maybe some bored reader can prove me wrong. Tip: anyone wanting to claim the obvious as baseless *or* ad hominem should read the relevant surrounding and ensuing archives and the definitions of ad hominem closely first; it wasn't even close. I.P. >>> *THANK YOU*, Steve, for joining me in speaking out against baseless >>> personal attacks. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > think you can find any evidence of it, because I don't think I've done > it this century, if ever. Do your own research. You won't have to go back more than 100 hours. >>>> *THANK YOU*, Steve, for joining me in speaking out against baseless >>>> personal attacks. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do your own research. You won't have to go back more than 100 hours. Steve, that is a copout. If you cannot show us some examples of my baseless ad hominem you're accusing me of, please stop the baseless ad hominem. If my examples are so rampant, your task should be easy. I've removed the filters on the worst of the ad hominem masters in case you need their help in finding examples. Show us the money. I.P. >>>>> *THANK YOU*, Steve, for joining me in speaking out against baseless >>>>> personal attacks. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I.P. It is out of my sincere admiration of your research, politics, and military background that I am giving you one more response; though your behavior in this matter deserves a righteous PLONK. I asked you (plural) to stop the personal attacks. You (singular) replied that I am on your side. I replied that I am not on your (singular) side and that I had asked you (plural) to stop the personal attacks. You (singular) replied with a denial and telling me to research. I refused. You (singular) replied that I am copping out (an interesting accusation on a couple of levels) and accused me of accusing you (singular?) of "baseless ad hominem"; a phrase that I have never written or uttered in my life. My request of you (plural), to which I originally appended the word, "please", was to stop. All but you (singular) have stopped. > "I.P. Freely" accused me of accusing [him] of "baseless ad > hominem"; a phrase that I have never written or uttered in my life. > you just make something up. you just make something up. > You've lied on me twice Direct quotes from Kramer in this very thread: On Jun 20, he made the accusation twice: > "discontinue these personal attacks [aka ad hominem]" and > I did not join you, I.P. I asked you to stop. (How's that differ from saying "I asked you to stop beating your wife"?) On the 21st, twice more: > I.P. wrote >> And unless you can find examples in the archives to back up your >> accusation that I levy personal attacks > Do your own research. You won't have to go back more than 100 hours. > All but you have stopped That certainly isn't obvious. Hughie and Dave echoed these false (until somebody finds some) accusations, and RalphV added a few additional ones. If you would stop making the libelous personal attacks, guys, or if this were about cookies rather than cancer, I'd stop responding to them. We'd get along infinitely better and cancer victims would learn more if Jordan and RalphV would play their trump cards -- vastly greater cancer knowledge than I have -- and keep their ad hominem up their sleeves. > PLONK. If anyone is concerned that Kramer didn't see my four public quotes of his false accusations, feel free to notify him. He may not have left his shields down temporarily, as I do to allow plonkees a fair response. The three of you who echoed Kramer's sentiments admitted you weren't interested in the archived facts -- apparently not even from just last week. If that's how you make decisions affecting facts and insights affecting the health of men making cancer treatment choices, I'm not inclined to be very sympathetic. As a result, the decision goes to Ron B, who apparently "gets it", from the Big O thread: > I must say that the "Big-O" is a very smart and great researcher here. > But for SURE...he can answer your query... he's great. I didn't pay Ron enough for his praise, but it tells me that some people recognize that, if people force me to choose between feelings vs honest discussion of cancer treatment issues, feelings take hind teat. This ain't a popularity contest; it's *cancer*. The rest of you can PLONK me to hellenback if you like; my loyalty is to people making cancer tx decisions, not people who can't or won't distinguish between baseless personal attacks and valid cancer issues. I.P. I tried to stay on the fence, not wishing to step into one camp or the other, because both SJ & IP are intelligent, educated guys who have taught me a lot. I don't know how the carping started and don't really care, but it's gone on too long for comfort. However, the sniping got to me too and I can see how it would affect other people. This support float is a delicate animal, keep tearing the fabric and it WILL sink a lot faster than some might think. Some may have already abandoned it and swam (or sunk) elsewhere. There's no amusement in this. Just dismay. Call it a day, for the sake of the rest of us who still hold on. Meanwhile, Steve Kramer, I just jumped off the fence. I'm in your yard now, and just heard a load of other feet hitting the same ground too. Regards, Hughie. >> *THANK YOU*, Steve, for joining me in speaking out against baseless >> personal attacks. > > I did not join you, I.P. I asked you to stop. Hello: Since this thread was started by Hugh and he's responded to this ugly subthread, I'm going to reclucantly throw my two cents in, too. And I am reluctant. Whenever I post anything on this thread, the last question I ask myself before hitting the 'send' button is this: how is my post supportive of men with prostate cancer and the women who love them? If I can't answer that question, then I don't send the post. You have seen little if any posts of mine that react to mean- spirited political jokes, or that gloat overmuch over my good fortune so far with this disease, or that attack, even if indirectly, others on this forum. It's not that I haven't written those things -- I just don't send them, because I do not see how it's helpful here to do so. If that makes my posts sound trite and/or insipid at times, then so be it. Steve Jordan, every time one of your posts begins with "Mike Freely ----ed", I know right away the direction you're headed. How is that supportive? I.P.: I don't care if you didn't start it -- whatever 'it' is. You keep it going -- just like you've done with this thread, after Steve K. asked you politely and in a clear manner to stop it. How is that supportive? To the both of you: I do not care one whit about the history of this feud. I am here because I have prostate cancer and I need to feel like I'm not all alone in this. I am here to help other men as best I can. I am here to get good information from guys like you -- both of you -- to better make my choices. I am here to seek and to offer support. I am not here to listen to you squabble. --charlie > It's not that I haven't written those things -- I just > don't send them, because I do not see how it's helpful here to do so. Its purpose, on my part, has been clearly explained. I comment on others' attacks when their baseless slams on my credibility undermine important factual points and subjective insights I've made, thus harming people trying to make informed decisions. > Steve Jordan, every time one of your posts begins with "Mike Freely > ----ed", I know right away the direction you're headed. How is that > supportive? It is supportive of his promise to bring me down, or whatever phrase he posted here two years ago. It is done at the expense of people trying to make informed decisions. > I.P.: I don't care if you didn't start it -- whatever 'it' is. You > keep it going -- just like you've done with this thread, after Steve > K. asked you politely and in a clear manner to stop it. How is that > supportive? Kramer initially asked me politely, then falsely accused me of making baseless personal attacks. That's libel since he can't back it up with facts, but its *real* impact is on people trying to make informed decisions. Which do *you* consider more important, people's feelings or people's cancer treatment decisions? > To the both of you: I do not care one whit about the history of this > feud. And that's why you fail to understand its impact on people trying to make informed decisions. Jordan, and to a lesser but also stated intent, RalphV, are trying to control the facts and insights I offer the group by undermining my credibility. That's called censorship, and I'm amazed so many people tolerate it. > I am here to help other men as best I can. > I am here to . . . offer support. Until my cancer returns, that's my sole purpose here. > I am here to get good information from guys like you Yet you tolerate their censorship? (I started to say "attempted" censorship, but in convincing the more gullible readers that I am not credible, Jordan has effected censorship). > both of you -- to better make my choices. I may make some honest mistakes, but they're quickly caught by Jordana and the others here, at which point I acknowledge them and apologize. What I do not do is deliberately lie about other posters nor deliberately make cancer treatment statements contradicted by the very literature I'm referencing and repeatedly refuse to discuss why I'm making those false statements, as Jordan has done so *many* times right in front of you people. > I am not here to listen to you squabble. Squabble: trivial argument. What's trivial about censorship, inaccurate cancer treatment claims and advice, refusal to discuss misstatements made to newbies, and swearing out a *vendetta* for goshssake? If this were alt.cookies I wouldn't give a rat's patoot about Jordan's stupid vendetta. But it's not; it's a.s.c.p., and truth *matters*. Realize this has all been said before, which is why the history of this "squabble" is important if Jordan, et.al. keep it up. I.P. > Kramer initially asked me politely, then falsely accused me of making > baseless personal attacks. That's a lie. I have never typed the phrase "baseless personal attacks" in my life. You just pick and choose what you want to reply to, don't you. And, if there isn't anything to which you cannot reasonably reply, you just make something up. You've lied on me twice. That is unacceptable to an honorable man. Have a nice life, I.P. PLONK! > Steve J. and IP: Have you two noticed there are fewer and fewer > participants here? That newbies come in and disappear? That tried and > true monikers are no longer showing up in our headers other than to > occasionally pass along a PSA or joke? I left about a year ago. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone & I don't blame anyone. We are all different and we all have our own opinions. Not everybody likes everybody else. But, it had gotten to the point where, well, you just couldn't get an answer without somebody taking offense with something somebody else said and having it turn into nothing more than bickering match. The flow of information was dwindling. I pop in and lurk every once in a while but not often. Things haven't changed much. My time spent for research for information that could help me is better spent in other places. On June 19, Mike Freely indulged himself in yet another of his patented tizzies. This time replying but failing to *respond* to a post by a man who knows more about this disease than many medics and who has aided more men -- and their ladies -- than Mike is capable of counting. Mike fails repeatedly to post the foundation, if any there be, for his oft-repeated egotistic claim of wisdom in this field. He has been asked to do so and simply will not do it. Hmmmm. And Mike ends his rant with >.....heartbreaking stories of the impacts of SE denial and appeals to rectify the problem; ....failing as usual to cite any source. And he concludes > ....you're going to have a hard time outweighing that in my conscience. What "conscience" would that be? A better word would be "ego." I have long ago concluded the Mikey is incapable of rationally debating an issue. Regards, Steve J Epitaph for a wasted life: "He lived beneath the moon And slept beneath the sun. He lived a life of going to do And died with nothing done." -- Anonymous I bought three remote controlled tower fans to use in three different rooms at Walmart last year. (Lasko brand). They have been very convenient to use when a hot flash hits me. I can turn it on without getting up and it will rotate and stay pointed just where I desire. They are not expensive and have been very helplful. ~Ralph I know; you old heads here have read this before. But for the newbies here . . . Y'know, guys, it took little more than a few slightly warm flushes (from a trial 28-day dose of ADT), hardly enough to feel but sufficient to wake me up, to help convince me early adjuvant ADT (by definition, after initial treatment but before re-occurrence) didn't fit my criteria for secondary PC treatment. There were certainly other factors, but I didn't want to lose as much or more time making up lost sleep as I might gain from "just-in-case" ADT. I ain't got time to spend half of each day in bed and the other half dragging my exhausted butt around in second gear. This scenario may not compute for the average bear who only gains a few months over a decade by early adjuvant -- i.e., optional -- ADT. I.P. >I know; you old heads here have read this before. But for the newbies here >. . . [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > scenario may not compute for the average bear who only gains a few months > over a decade by early adjuvant -- i.e., optional -- ADT. COUNTERPOINT Yet I, while passing my 48-month dose of ADT, have suffered through many of those other disconcerting SEs, yet am convinced that my early adjuvant ADT fit perfectly my criteria for PC treatment -- life if I can stand it. I have lost no sleep due to the decision and I do not feel as I am dragging around a lifeless hulk. I met C. Palmer today and I think he would attest that I walked from my car, through the doors and to the table much as anybody else. What have I lost? Maybe sex, maybe impotence, maybe weight gain, maybe a second or two in remembering names and numbers. What have I gained? I think years. I guess I am one of the "old heads" of which you speak. Surely I have read it before ... to ad nauseum. But, it works for some of us and not for others. No one will know before they try it and that is an inarguable fact.  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 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04 (06/12/2007) Non Illegitimi Carborundum > Yet I, while passing my 48-month dose of ADT, have suffered through many of > those other disconcerting SEs, yet am convinced that my early adjuvant ADT [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it before ... to ad nauseum. But, it works for some of us and not for > others. No one will know before they try it and that is an inarguable fact. And neither I nor any literature has ever said or implied your experience is not possible. I.P. Dear Hughie, On Jun 18, 1:50?am, "Hugh Kearnley" <hughkearn...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I'm one of the ones really bothered by hot flushes and night sweats. Now and then I will get a painful migraine headache and my body will just heat up suddenly from the pain. I find that the best way to cool off quickly is to put an ice pack on my chest or head. You can use what you have in the freezer. Frozen peas in a bag are great for putting under your head -- they're flexible. > I also recently bought a bicycle for exercise - causing more sweatiness! I > can manage about 15 miles on it now, just slow, steady pedalling on fairly > flat roads. Great fun. Fabulous. Especially for a beginner. You go guy! I had another idea: Why don't you ride in that park where those hooligans assaulted you and run into them "by accident". > HUGHIE. L. Hi Leah Honey! Was beginning to think you were away to Canada again. The Park in question - cycling is against the by-laws. Me - well, I'm a law abiding person.(Cough Cough!) More worrying is the recent spate of teenage yob driver/passenger combos that have started coming up behind cyclists and pushing them off the road. (For a supposed laugh) Eight arrests in Glasgow in the last three months. Three guys with multiple leg fractures. Worrying. But I cycle early morning or afternoons to avoid them. I have bought a little movie camera that fits on the side of my cycle helmet - records up to 2 hours before you reset it - you can catch the perps number plates for the cops. They avoid cyclists with helmet cameras. Your tip about the frozen peas at the back of the neck - will try that next bedsweat. Thanks Doll. Shuggie. > Dear Hughie, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > L. On Jun 18, 9:59 pm, "Hugh Kearnley" <hughkearn...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I have bought a little movie camera that fits on the side of my cycle > helmet - records up to 2 hours before you reset it - you can catch the perps > number plates for the cops. They avoid cyclists with helmet cameras. 4 or 5 hollow points will do the job too. -kh > I'm one of the ones really bothered by hot flushes and night sweats. Hugh, just a quick comment here from another who really got hit hard and frequent. When these hot flashes were a real problem, and they were all the time while on HT, I also considered Megace and decided against it just because it MIGHT cause other more important problems. There is no "undo" key to go back if it causes a problem. That was just my own feeling. What I found to be of most benefit for combating hot flashes was to try and look ahead and be prepared to get some air flow on me. Sit close to the door or air vents in the conference room, get up and stand away from the other hot bodies if need be. Have a fan on the floor by my desk. Carry a bottle of cold water. Have a ceiling fan on above me in the bedroom even though it means alternating between sweating and getting chilled. A hot drink would trigger a big one, so be it, I like coffee. Any confinement would trigger one. Stress or anger would trigger one, can't do much about that, but having a means of getting moving air on my face was usually a big help. One hot flash type event I had now and then that did not respond to this was what I called "the burn." I would flush, and then stay that way, somewhat hot, very flushed in the face, sweating just a very little, and this would usually last for a day and a half or so. A hot flash could happen on top of this burn, and there is a difference between "the burn" and a hot flash. I enjoy reading many of you posts. Most descriptive. Your topics cover a lot of ground!! Have not heard anything about fishing or your cat for awhile, except for some references to fishy smelling something or other. Am waiting to see what you come up with next. Good luck to you. > Have a ceiling fan on above me in the bedroom I've had a 10" fan blowing in my face (from two feet away) for decades as I sleep. For warm flushes, which I get if I go to sleep dehydrated, I push the button on the bigger, more powerful fan next to it which rustles my covers head to toe. With the bedroom at or below 60 degrees year 'round, that will cool me right down within half an hour. Both fans have averted a great deal of sleep loss. 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.