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 BPH / May 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Saw Palmetto NOT helpful

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bong - 04 May 2006 01:28 GMT
Watch for the latest edition of New England Journal of Medicine, due out
tomorrow, May 4th.  A study done claims 160 mg Saw Palmetto, 85 to 95% fatty
acid, taken 2x daily, offers no improvement to symptoms of BPH.
Rich256 - 04 May 2006 03:07 GMT
> Watch for the latest edition of New England Journal of Medicine, due out
> tomorrow, May 4th.  A study done claims 160 mg Saw Palmetto, 85 to 95% fatty
> acid, taken 2x daily, offers no improvement to symptoms of BPH.

That was reported here a couple months ago:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/354/18/1950

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/hotnews/62h815837.html
Derek F - 04 May 2006 14:55 GMT
> Watch for the latest edition of New England Journal of Medicine, due out
> tomorrow, May 4th.  A study done claims 160 mg Saw Palmetto, 85 to 95%
> fatty acid, taken 2x daily, offers no improvement to symptoms of BPH.

It helped me for ten years until the ultimate operation became available.
Derek.
Stocks06 - 08 May 2006 03:22 GMT
> > Watch for the latest edition of New England Journal of Medicine, due out
> > tomorrow, May 4th.  A study done claims 160 mg Saw Palmetto, 85 to 95%
> > fatty acid, taken 2x daily, offers no improvement to symptoms of BPH.
> >
> It helped me for ten years until the ultimate operation became available.
> Derek.

What's interesting is that saw palmetto by itself did not help me, but
in combination with other ingredients, uva ursi, pygeum, pumpkin seed
oil, zinc and B-6 helped.  It's called Prosta-Metto from the Vitamin
Shoppe.
Derek F - 08 May 2006 19:57 GMT
>> > Watch for the latest edition of New England Journal of Medicine, due
>> > out
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> oil, zinc and B-6 helped.  It's called Prosta-Metto from the Vitamin
> Shoppe.

I have read that German urologists prescribe Saw Palmetto.
Derek.
Jacob Johnson - 09 May 2006 02:04 GMT
"Stocks06" <brsher@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1147054926.410783.226590@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Derek F wrote:
>> > Watch for the latest edition of New England Journal of Medicine, due
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> oil, zinc and B-6 helped.  It's called Prosta-Metto from the Vitamin
> Shoppe.

I have read that German urologists prescribe Saw Palmetto.
Derek.

According to Doctor Julian Whitaker's newsletter (dated May 2006),
"...three of the physicans who authored the study [mentioned above]
received fees from drug companies who made BPH drugs that directly compete
with saw palmentto."
Note: BPH means benign prostatic hyperplasia
Jason
Mason C - 15 May 2006 01:04 GMT
> > Derek F wrote:
> >> > Watch for the latest edition of New England Journal of Medicine, due
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>Note: BPH means benign prostatic hyperplasia
>Jason

Is this the same research?

On 25 Feb 2006 20:06:33 GMT, aa994@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gunther Abrahamson)
wrote:

>WEDNESDAY, Feb. 8, 2006 (HealthDay News) -- Millions of older American men
>use the herbal supplement saw palmetto to treat an enlarged prostate, but
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
>approve it -- I'm pretty certain they would not. But it's simply not held
>to the same standard."

I posted the following response Feb 25 :

Who financed this test?

Why was the standard drug, finasteride(?), not included?

Discredite the herb; sell more prescription drug that is no better?

        Mason C
Jason Johnson - 15 May 2006 01:28 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:04:58 -0700, jacob@nospam.com (Jacob Johnson) wrote:

>In article <-6-dnaeYbJFYDsLZRVnyjg@bt.com>, "Derek F"
><lordpilrig@NOXbtinternet.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>Note: BPH means benign prostatic hyperplasia
>Jason


Is this the same research?

On 25 Feb 2006 20:06:33 GMT, aa994@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gunther Abrahamson)
wrote:


>WEDNESDAY, Feb. 8, 2006 (HealthDay News) -- Millions of older American men
>use the herbal supplement saw palmetto to treat an enlarged prostate, but
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
>approve it -- I'm pretty certain they would not. But it's simply not held
>to the same standard."


I posted the following response Feb 25 :

Who financed this test?

Why was the standard drug, finasteride(?), not included?

Discredite the herb; sell more prescription drug that is no better?

         Mason C

According to Doctor Julian Whitaker's newsletter (dated May 2006),
"...three of the physicans who authored the study [mentioned below]
received fees from drug companies who made BPH drugs that directly compete
with saw palmentto."
Note: BPH means benign prostatic hyperplasia

This is the study that I was referring to:

>WEDNESDAY, Feb. 8, 2006 (HealthDay News) -- Millions of older American men
>use the herbal supplement saw palmetto to treat an enlarged prostate, but
>a new study concludes the product doesn't work.

Jason
Mason C - 17 May 2006 04:16 GMT
I won't repeat the thread but just have to comment:

 It is irresponsible to test (1) saw palmetto and not compare
with (2) placebo AND (3) the most "popular" prescription drug.
A researcher who fails to include (3) should be hung from the yardarm at dawn.

       Mason C
Ed - 17 May 2006 19:59 GMT
>I won't repeat the thread but just have to comment:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>        Mason C

Of course a researcher can do anything he wants as long as he reports
his results honestly. Then we, other researchers, and the press can
review the results, compare with previously reported work, and make
comments.

IMHO it is very useful to have a study comparing saw palmetto and a
placebo.

Seems to me that the study did not exactly say that saw palmetto was
not helpful... the data showed it WAS helpful but so was the placebo.
And of course there are certain logical conclusions that lead from
that.

So to those of you who protest, "but it helped me!", yes, the study
also found that it helped most subjects. But a placebo would have
helped you too, provided that you believed it was saw palmetto.

It doesn't matter who the guys were who did the study, provided they
acted ethically. It looks to me like they did. They did not condemn
SP, and in fact declared that their study was not conclusive.

Remember too that all these studies are just a small part of the
jigsaw puzzle. More studies will be done and gradually the picture
will become clearer.

In the meantime, be careful about putting too much faith in certain
unproven treatments, whether it be SP, acupuncture, or praying. You
may end up delaying effective treatment and making your situation
worse.

Ed
Mason C - 28 May 2006 02:02 GMT
>>I won't repeat the thread but just have to comment:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>IMHO it is very useful to have a study comparing saw palmetto and a
>placebo.

No.  Useful to whom? First of all, placebo effects are important and valuable.
I could post a long discourse on this, but I won't.  Be grateful.

Publicizing that saw palmetto is "only" a placebo causes it to lose its
valuable placebo effect.  That is useful to the pharmaceutical companies
provided that their drug is NOT included in the study where they might
also be shown to be placebos.

If the purpose of the research was to help sufferers of BPH (what other
purpose?) the prescription drug would have been included.

Conclusion: the purpose of the research was to get rid of that cheap
herb that was cutting into sales.

      Mason C
Ed - 28 May 2006 17:54 GMT
>>>I won't repeat the thread but just have to comment:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>       Mason C

You should go to a faith healer. I've seen them in action. Very
effective, but only for a short time. And they are not cheap!

Ed
Mason C - 28 May 2006 20:00 GMT
>You should go to a faith healer. I've seen them in action. Very
>effective, but only for a short time. And they are not cheap!

Why should I?  For what affliction?  I didn't know I had one.  

Incidentally, I'm a renowned expert on that subject.  You can
buy my book on the internet:

  *The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P. P. Quimby*

or read it here:  http://masonc.home.netcom.com

           Mason C
Ed - 28 May 2006 22:06 GMT
>>You should go to a faith healer. I've seen them in action. Very
>>effective, but only for a short time. And they are not cheap!
>>
>Why should I?  For what affliction?  I didn't know I had one.  

In your previous post you said "Publicizing that saw palmetto is
"only" a placebo causes it to lose its valuable placebo effect."
Indeed! Placebos work only when people have faith in them. The healer,
if in fact there is healing, is faith.

By decrying the loss of faith in saw palmetto, you are suggesting that
it's okay for patients to be deceived as long as they think they are
benefitting.

That's no different than recommending quacks or faith healers.

Ed
Mason C - 28 May 2006 22:37 GMT
>>>You should go to a faith healer. I've seen them in action. Very
>>>effective, but only for a short time. And they are not cheap!
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>That's no different than recommending quacks or faith healers.

Ed:

 You keep this up and you'll trigger me into posting a discourse
on placebo medicine.  You do not want to do that.

       Mason C  (85 on vacuous placebos)
Ed - 29 May 2006 00:49 GMT
>>>>You should go to a faith healer. I've seen them in action. Very
>>>>effective, but only for a short time. And they are not cheap!
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>        Mason C  (85 on vacuous placebos)

Heh, okay, maybe we should call a truce. I know that it is sometimes
hard to know what is true and who to believe in the field of medicine.

With regards to saw palmetto and finasteride, I believe neither is
considered a cure for BPH. We hope that these agents slow the growth
of the prostate or reverse growth, and they may do that to varying
extents, but neither will dependably, effectively and fully relieve
the majority of patients of BPH symptoms.

That's not to say the treatments have no value, just that the outcomes
are usually not that clear, and can be affected by other factors.

Ed
Ed - 17 May 2006 20:14 GMT
> I posted the following response Feb 25 :
> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Jason

If saw palmetto is ineffective in relieving the symptoms of BPH, then
whether SP is used by BPH suffers or not won't have much effect on the
sale of prescription drugs like finasteride.

That's because eventually they will have to turn to other treatment,
whether it be prescription drugs or surgery.

I don't think there is serious doubt about the efficacy of finasteride
for most patients. It sure as hell helped me dramatically after many
hopeful but ineffective years on SP.

Ed
Jason Johnson - 17 May 2006 20:56 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2006 17:28:26 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
wrote:

>In article <s7hf62d1rpls20586s1f9ujqu984tdecbr@4ax.com>,
>masonc2XXX@XXXearthlink.net wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>Jason

If saw palmetto is ineffective in relieving the symptoms of BPH, then
whether SP is used by BPH suffers or not won't have much effect on the
sale of prescription drugs like finasteride.

That's because eventually they will have to turn to other treatment,
whether it be prescription drugs or surgery.

I don't think there is serious doubt about the efficacy of finasteride
for most patients. It sure as hell helped me dramatically after many
hopeful but ineffective years on SP.

Ed

Ed,
> According to Doctor Julian Whitaker's newsletter (dated May 2006),
> "...three of the physicans who authored the study [mentioned below]
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >use the herbal supplement saw palmetto to treat an enlarged prostate, but
> >a new study concludes the product doesn't work.

Do you agree that the study related to saw palmetto has NO validity since
three of the doctors who authored the study received fees from drug
companies who made BPH drugs that directly compete with saw palmetto?
I doubt that saw palmetto is as effective as drugs like finasteride but
it's much less likely to have side effects. I know that some of the
prescription drugs do have serious side effects. Does finasteride have any
side effects?
Jason
Rich256 - 17 May 2006 22:07 GMT
>  On Sun, 14 May 2006 17:28:26 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
>  wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> three of the doctors who authored the study received fees from drug
> companies who made BPH drugs that directly compete with saw palmetto?

I would not say it has NO validity.  If those doctors did indeed receive
fees from the drug companies the study is certainly in question but may
not totally invalidate what they did find.  By the same reasoning one
might say that since Julian Whitaker has financial interest in finding
against the study, his column is a not a valid source of information.
Is there another source that upholds his claims against the doctors in
the study?

> I doubt that saw palmetto is as effective as drugs like finasteride but
> it's much less likely to have side effects. I know that some of the
> prescription drugs do have serious side effects. Does finasteride have any
> side effects?
> Jason

All drugs have side effects on some or all individuals and usually the
drug companies don't seem to know why.  Sometimes they will specify that
it can interact with ir similar to other drugs.  I personally found that
the side effects of Flomax and Uroxatral were not worth the gain.  I
tried SP for at least six months and concluded it was absolutely of no
help for me.  It appears to me that all prostate drugs include dizziness
as one possible side effect.  Any drug that is going to affect the
muscles of the prostate functions is most likely going to affect muscles
elsewhere in the body.

Possible side effects of finasteride:

asthenia, postural hypotension, peripheral edema, dizziness, decreased
libido, rhinitis, abnormal ejaculation, impotence and abnormal sexual
function
Rich256 - 17 May 2006 23:07 GMT
>>  On Sun, 14 May 2006 17:28:26 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
>>  wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
> libido, rhinitis, abnormal ejaculation, impotence and abnormal sexual
> function

I forgot to mention that I even tried SP at three times the recommended
amount.  It did nothing for me.  Perhaps I fit into the advanced stage
group (65 gram prostate) like the study group.  And since my URO did a
presentation for Laserscope perhaps I should not have taken his advice
on PVP!!   However, he did recommend it only as the last resort after
trying medications and TUMT.

At two weeks past PVP I am happy with the results.  I note that there is
still a tiny amount of blood therefore perhaps even better days to come.
 Flow is exceptionally good.
Jason Johnson - 18 May 2006 00:57 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <lpsm621kmrrlvh4dc77aj2hhoep8cc7gvs@4ax.com>, Ed <ed@ed.ed> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> three of the doctors who authored the study received fees from drug
> companies who made BPH drugs that directly compete with saw palmetto?
I would not say it has NO validity.  If those doctors did indeed receive
fees from the drug companies the study is certainly in question but may
not totally invalidate what they did find.  By the same reasoning one
might say that since Julian Whitaker has financial interest in finding
against the study, his column is a not a valid source of information.
Is there another source that upholds his claims against the doctors in
the study?


> I doubt that saw palmetto is as effective as drugs like finasteride but
> it's much less likely to have side effects. I know that some of the
> prescription drugs do have serious side effects. Does finasteride have any
> side effects?
> Jason

All drugs have side effects on some or all individuals and usually the
drug companies don't seem to know why.  Sometimes they will specify that
it can interact with ir similar to other drugs.  I personally found that
the side effects of Flomax and Uroxatral were not worth the gain.  I
tried SP for at least six months and concluded it was absolutely of no
help for me.  It appears to me that all prostate drugs include dizziness
as one possible side effect.  Any drug that is going to affect the
muscles of the prostate functions is most likely going to affect muscles
elsewhere in the body.

Possible side effects of finasteride:

asthenia, postural hypotension, peripheral edema, dizziness, decreased
libido, rhinitis, abnormal ejaculation, impotence and abnormal sexual
function

That is one drug that I would NOT want to take.
Rich256 - 18 May 2006 01:23 GMT
>  Jason Johnson wrote:
>  > In article <lpsm621kmrrlvh4dc77aj2hhoep8cc7gvs@4ax.com>, Ed <ed@ed.ed> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>  > Jason
> That is one drug that I would NOT want to take.

Most have a list that is worse than that!!

And as for the doctors doing the study.  Before I would throw out their
results because they had received pay from Drug companies, I would want
to know what they were paid for.  Probably for other studies and then I
would want to know what their findings were.  Gee, they might have been
paid by the company to do a study and found against the companies drug.
 There are a lot of doctors out there that do that sort of thing for a
living.  They have no loyalty towards the companies they do business with.

What may be valid about the study is that it was more for advanced BPH
patients.  Need for another study.  Effectiveness of SP for various
degrees of BPH.
Jason Johnson - 18 May 2006 05:46 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <IgMag.70581$Fs1.42453@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
>  > Jason
> That is one drug that I would NOT want to take.

Most have a list that is worse than that!!

And as for the doctors doing the study.  Before I would throw out their
results because they had received pay from Drug companies, I would want
to know what they were paid for.  Probably for other studies and then I
would want to know what their findings were.  Gee, they might have been
paid by the company to do a study and found against the companies drug.
  There are a lot of doctors out there that do that sort of thing for a
living.  They have no loyalty towards the companies they do business with.

What may be valid about the study is that it was more for advanced BPH
patients.  Need for another study.  Effectiveness of SP for various
degrees of BPH.

My point was that those doctors that received fees for the drug company
wanted to prove that saw palmentto was not effective and they succeeded.
Otherwise, they knew that they may not get future fees from the drug
company for other research efforts. I don't trust those sorts of studies.
Researchers can prove almost anything they want to prove if they are
dishonest. I have read about statin companies that eliminated anyone from
their studies that had any health problems since they knew that people
that had health problems would be more likely to have serious side effects
as a result of taking statins.
Related to the side effects of finasteride--those side effects are very
similar to the symptoms of End Stage Renal Disease. I just hope that
people that take that medication do not develop kidney problems as a
direct result of taking that medication. In some cases, edema can lead to
heart and/or lung problems.
Jason
Rich256 - 18 May 2006 15:25 GMT
>  Jason Johnson wrote:
>  > In article <IgMag.70581$Fs1.42453@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 114 lines]
> heart and/or lung problems.
> Jason

But my question is for what services did the doctors receive fees?
Maybe they worked for the companies part time when going to school!!  My
thoughts are that a vague statement by someone who has strong financial
reasons to dispute the study falls into the same category.  If he had
specified what the fees were for I might have a different opinion.

It kind of falls into the same category as the media ranting about how
big oil is driving up the price of gasoline.  But when you take a
careful look you find that companies like Exxon made about 7 cents a
gallon, up from about 5 (with their volume a huge profit increase).  The
media would have you think that is the only reason the price of gasoline
has doubled.  More facts are needed.
Ed - 18 May 2006 19:08 GMT
>It kind of falls into the same category as the media ranting about how
>big oil is driving up the price of gasoline.  But when you take a
>careful look you find that companies like Exxon made about 7 cents a
>gallon, up from about 5 (with their volume a huge profit increase).  The
>media would have you think that is the only reason the price of gasoline
>has doubled.  More facts are needed.

The media is not pointing the finger at big oil. It's the politicians
who are doing that. It's all inuendo, though. They know that the real
culprit is increasing supply, which is being exacerbated by the
burgeoning economies of China and India, and made much worse by all
the Americans driving gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. Most
politicians won't berate the gas-guzzlers!

There are consumers who are demanding a reduction of gas taxes... they
are stupid. Gas taxes should be INCREASED if consumption is to go
down.

Back to SP... no need for bitterness about the findings of the study.
Just continue taking it if you want. There's hardly any side effects.
If you believe in it, take it.

If some people lose faith in SP, then maybe prices will drop!

Ed
Ed - 18 May 2006 19:12 GMT
>>It kind of falls into the same category as the media ranting about how
>>big oil is driving up the price of gasoline.  But when you take a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>who are doing that. It's all inuendo, though. They know that the real
>culprit is increasing supply, which is being exacerbated by the

... I meant increasing DEMAND..

>burgeoning economies of China and India, and made much worse by all
>the Americans driving gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. Most
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Ed
Jason Johnson - 18 May 2006 19:40 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <f8Pag.71029$Fs1.22055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 116 lines]
> heart and/or lung problems.
> Jason

But my question is for what services did the doctors receive fees?
Maybe they worked for the companies part time when going to school!!  My
thoughts are that a vague statement by someone who has strong financial
reasons to dispute the study falls into the same category.  If he had
specified what the fees were for I might have a different opinion.

It kind of falls into the same category as the media ranting about how
big oil is driving up the price of gasoline.  But when you take a
careful look you find that companies like Exxon made about 7 cents a
gallon, up from about 5 (with their volume a huge profit increase).  The
media would have you think that is the only reason the price of gasoline
has doubled.  More facts are needed.

I don't have Dr. Whitakers article in front of me. It costs about a
million dollars or more to conduct a major study. The company that
conducts the study has to pay fees to all of the doctors and researchers
that conduct the study.
According to Doctor Julian Whitaker's newsletter (dated May 2006),
"...three of the physicans who authored the study
received fees from drug companies who made BPH drugs that
directly compete
with saw palmentto."
Note: BPH means benign prostatic hyperplasi
In other words, the service that the doctors performed was to serve as
researchers on the saw palmetto study. They were paid to conduct the
study. They succeeded in getting the same result they hoped to get.
The CEO of the drug company may have patted them on their backs when he or
she paid them the fees.
Jason
Rich256 - 18 May 2006 20:26 GMT
>  Jason Johnson wrote:
>  > In article <f8Pag.71029$Fs1.22055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 149 lines]
> she paid them the fees.
> Jason

Sorry, I just don't read it the same way you do.  I get the impression
that they at some time they were paid for something they did for those
companies.

However, even if they did that still doesn't invalidate the study.  What
if Dr. Whitaker hired some researchers who came up with the decision
that SP was helpful?  It would be invalid because he paid for it?

If the drug companies don't do the research who will?

Unfortunately the FDA classes it as a food supplement.  SP contains same
inhibitors as finasteride.  The difference is that finasteride is
administered under controlled conditions.

Dr. Whitaker recommends a low-fat diet and serenoa repens extract to
lower PSA.  Instead they should be checking for cancer!!  Unfortunately
many patients do not notify their UROs that they are taking Saw
Palmetto.  There is extensive coverage about this on the web.

Also note that the doctors that did the study did state that the study
used a specific preparation of SP and that other mixtures may have
different results.

The the extent of SP usage and the wide range of preparations, the FDA
should do a study.

Strange how different countries handle different drugs.  As I understand
in the UK a doctors prescription is required for a supply of more than
100 aspirin or paracetamol tablets.  At COSTCO or SAMS you see them in
500 or 1000 tablet bottles.
Jason Johnson - 18 May 2006 23:53 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <Kt%ag.73037$Fs1.6737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 151 lines]
> she paid them the fees.
> Jason


Sorry, I just don't read it the same way you do.  I get the impression
that they at some time they were paid for something they did for those
companies.

However, even if they did that still doesn't invalidate the study.  What
if Dr. Whitaker hired some researchers who came up with the decision
that SP was helpful?  It would be invalid because he paid for it?

If the drug companies don't do the research who will?

Unfortunately the FDA classes it as a food supplement.  SP contains same
inhibitors as finasteride.  The difference is that finasteride is
administered under controlled conditions.

Dr. Whitaker recommends a low-fat diet and serenoa repens extract to
lower PSA.  Instead they should be checking for cancer!!  Unfortunately
many patients do not notify their UROs that they are taking Saw
Palmetto.  There is extensive coverage about this on the web.

Also note that the doctors that did the study did state that the study
used a specific preparation of SP and that other mixtures may have
different results.

The the extent of SP usage and the wide range of preparations, the FDA
should do a study.

Strange how different countries handle different drugs.  As I understand
in the UK a doctors prescription is required for a supply of more than
100 aspirin or paracetamol tablets.  At COSTCO or SAMS you see them in
500 or 1000 tablet bottles.

It would be better if the FDA and medical colleges would do the research
studies without taking any fees from any drug or vitamin companies. That
means that people like Doctor Whitaker would not be about to accuse drug
companies of paying drug company doctors to come up with the results that
benefited the companies that paid for the research. Some of the statin
companies have been accused of going to great efforts to make sure that
the study results come out in their favor. 31 deaths were linked to Baycol
(a statin). It's my guess that their study results indicated that Baycol
did not have any harmful side effects.
Jason
Rich256 - 19 May 2006 03:28 GMT
>  Jason Johnson wrote:
>  > In article <Kt%ag.73037$Fs1.6737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 213 lines]
> did not have any harmful side effects.
> Jason

But with the same argument who is at fault for deaths from herbal
treatments?  Recently I heard a doctor say that a woman patient was
bragging that she never took any "Medicine".  Then found she was taking
some 50 different herbal mixtures.  Chew some birch bark for pain (it
contains aspirin).

FDA fees is a difficult area.  The question is why should the public pay
for research of every drug any company or individual might like to have
certified?

Baycol is not a good example.  All statins are noted as having
notoriously dangerous side effects.  Anyone taking them must recognize
the danger from kidney and liver damage. They are used by individuals
who would rather take a pill rather than change their lifestyle.

And remember that several of those that died taking Baycol were also
taking Gemfibrozil.

I suppose a problem with SP is that there are hundreds of various
mixtures that would either have to be eliminated.  A similar situation
exists when aspirin is mixed with various other ingredients such as is
done with Alka-seltzer.   At the request of the FDA they pulled their
cold medicine version that contained phenylpropanolamine.

When taking SP you must take the word of the manufacturer as to what it
contains.
Jason Johnson - 19 May 2006 15:36 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <mT3bg.122569$eR6.31507@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 215 lines]
> did not have any harmful side effects.
> Jason

But with the same argument who is at fault for deaths from herbal
treatments?  Recently I heard a doctor say that a woman patient was
bragging that she never took any "Medicine".  Then found she was taking
some 50 different herbal mixtures.  Chew some birch bark for pain (it
contains aspirin).

FDA fees is a difficult area.  The question is why should the public pay
for research of every drug any company or individual might like to have
certified?

Baycol is not a good example.  All statins are noted as having
notoriously dangerous side effects.  Anyone taking them must recognize
the danger from kidney and liver damage. They are used by individuals
who would rather take a pill rather than change their lifestyle.

And remember that several of those that died taking Baycol were also
taking Gemfibrozil.

I suppose a problem with SP is that there are hundreds of various
mixtures that would either have to be eliminated.  A similar situation
exists when aspirin is mixed with various other ingredients such as is
done with Alka-seltzer.   At the request of the FDA they pulled their
cold medicine version that contained phenylpropanolamine.

When taking SP you must take the word of the manufacturer as to what it
contains.

Hello,
You made some good points. I should have made it more clear that I was
referring to studies like the one done related to Saw Palmetto. The drug
companies should conduct studies related to new types of medications.
However, the FDA should do a better job of monitoring the validity of
those types of studies. I have read that the FDA done almost no monitoring
related to the abortion pill---is it called RU-46 or something like that.
5 women have died as a direct result of taking that pill. Of course,
people that take supplements should see their doctors at least once a year
for a physical exam. If they develop any medical problems--they should see
their doctors ASAP. If health food nuts refuse to see their doctors, they
are putting their health and life at risk. I take lots of supplements but
see my doctor once every three months. I try to avoid medication  but do
take medication if the supplements don't solve the problem. I check my BP
every day and rarely ever have to take a blood pressure pill due to my
exercise and diet program. I stopped taking statins due to liver problems.
Jason
Ed - 18 May 2006 06:37 GMT
>What may be valid about the study is that it was more for advanced BPH
>patients.  Need for another study.  Effectiveness of SP for various
>degrees of BPH.

I agree that a new study is needed to determine the effectiveness of
SP for mild BPH.

But I have to say that even when I was taking SP and believing in it,
I was wondering why it was not more embraced by the medical profession
here. If SP could really arrest mild BPH, that would be noticed, you
know! But instead, the typical pattern seemed to be, take SP when the
symptoms are mild, and then later, when the symptoms get more serious,
switch to prescription drugs. But if that is what typically happens,
then that says that SP doesn't work!

I dismissed that logic for several years while on SP, hoping that my
BPH wouldn't progress. But it did. Now I'm on proscar, and it has
reversed the progress of the disease significantly.

If I had only started proscar a bit sooner. Its ability to shrink the
prostate is limited, and after a year or two no more shrinkage occurs.
I think if you start earlier it would stabilize the prostate at a
smaller size, and that should mean milder symptoms.

Ed
Ed - 18 May 2006 06:13 GMT
> Possible side effects of finasteride:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>That is one drug that I would NOT want to take.

Those side effects may or may not occur for a particular patient. I
take it and find it very beneficial and the side effects are minimal
to none.

Ed
Pete - 18 May 2006 18:06 GMT
Okay guys...this thread has gotten a little out of hand and was I trying to
ignore it, but I read everything in this group, and now I have to get my two
cents in (pertaining to side effects).

I hope you are aware of the following.

All drugs (both Rx and OTC) have side effects (or can have side effects),
and they can effect each person differently for a myriad of reasons.  If you
look at any good pill book or do googles, or read package inserts, you will
see that many drugs have 20-40 (or more) side effects.  Try checking the
side effects for the dreaded prednisone sometime (nasty stuff).

Now having said that I would like to say that the friggen Pharmaceutical
companies list practically every possible side effect there is in order to
"cover their a.s" in case they missed something (and end up getting sued by
a friggen lawyer).  IMO the side effect nonsense becomes a game in itself,
and if you notice (I have reported this before), many of the side effects
are going in both directions for the same drug (ie low bp/high bp,
diarrhea/constipation, runny nose/stuffed up nose, speeds up heart/slows
down heart, etc).

So if you worry about the side effects too much without even trying the drug
first to see if it may affect you (or how it affects you), you may be losing
out on a possible benefit, although in general it is not good to take any
drug unless you and your doctor feel it is necessary, and it is helping you.

Okay, I am done.  Have a nice day :-):-) ...Pete

>> In article
>> <IgMag.70581$Fs1.42453@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Rich256
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Ed
Rich256 - 18 May 2006 22:27 GMT
> Okay guys...this thread has gotten a little out of hand and was I trying to
> ignore it, but I read everything in this group, and now I have to get my two
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Okay, I am done.  Have a nice day :-):-) ...Pete

That's OK.  What else we have to do?? :-).
Pete - 19 May 2006 01:09 GMT
>> Okay guys...this thread has gotten a little out of hand and was I
>> trying to ignore it, but I read everything in this group, and now I
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> That's OK.  What else we have to do?? :-).

Nothing Rich...wishing you continued improvement/success on your PVP.
Sounds like you are quite pleased.
Ed - 18 May 2006 06:21 GMT
>Do you agree that the study related to saw palmetto has NO validity since
>three of the doctors who authored the study received fees from drug
>companies who made BPH drugs that directly compete with saw palmetto?

A study like this is scrutinized pretty thoroughly by peers and other
interested specialists. The researchers have to reveal a lot of detail
about how the work was done. It seems to have stood up pretty well.

And that's what matters. It doesn't matter what they were possibly
trying to prove; if their method was good, then the results are
credible.

Anyway, I don't see SP as competing with finasteride.

Ed
Jason Johnson - 18 May 2006 19:30 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:56:13 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
wrote:

>Do you agree that the study related to saw palmetto has NO validity since
>three of the doctors who authored the study received fees from drug
>companies who made BPH drugs that directly compete with saw palmetto?

A study like this is scrutinized pretty thoroughly by peers and other
interested specialists. The researchers have to reveal a lot of detail
about how the work was done. It seems to have stood up pretty well.

And that's what matters. It doesn't matter what they were possibly
trying to prove; if their method was good, then the results are
credible.

Anyway, I don't see SP as competing with finasteride.

Ed

Ed,
If a company that made saw palmetto paid some doctors to do a research
study that proved that saw palmetto was more effective than finasteride--I
doubt that the medical establishment would support the study in the same
way that they supported the saw palmetto study. There is a competition
between finasteride and saw palmetto. A potential patient for finasteride
may spend a year treating his problem with saw palmetto instead of
finasteride. If you multiply that number by 100,000--imagine  the millions
of dollars that the company that makes finasteride would have made from
those 100,000 people during that same year.
Jason
Rich256 - 18 May 2006 20:30 GMT
>  On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:56:13 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
>  wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> those 100,000 people during that same year.
> Jason

Opposed to the hundreds of thousands made by the SP manufacturer:-).

Then comes the cancer deaths of those treated with SP because it lowered
their PSA without the knowledge of their doctors.  My GP checks my PSA
every year but he has never asked if I take SP.  If I were on
Finasteride he would know.
Rich256 - 18 May 2006 22:26 GMT
>>  On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:56:13 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
>>  wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> every year but he has never asked if I take SP.  If I were on
> Finasteride he would know.

If the FDA would put some control on SP there would be a baseline to
work from.  It would probably drop in price too if classed as an over
the counter drug like aspirin and acetaminophen (Tylenol).
Jason Johnson - 18 May 2006 23:44 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <nm0o62lu2hefbtoidrfftsem3l1r5e1ecu@4ax.com>, Ed <ed@ed.ed> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> those 100,000 people during that same year.
> Jason

Opposed to the hundreds of thousands made by the SP manufacturer:-).

Then comes the cancer deaths of those treated with SP because it lowered
their PSA without the knowledge of their doctors.  My GP checks my PSA
every year but he has never asked if I take SP.  If I were on
Finasteride he would know.

You made a great point. I prefer saw palmetto and Lycopene since they do
not have the side effects of medication. However, I know that when I get
older, I will have to take the medication. My GP also does not ask me
about the vitamins and other "over the counter" stuff that I take.
Jason
Rich256 - 19 May 2006 02:53 GMT
>  Jason Johnson wrote:
>  > In article <nm0o62lu2hefbtoidrfftsem3l1r5e1ecu@4ax.com>, Ed <ed@ed.ed> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> about the vitamins and other "over the counter" stuff that I take.
> Jason

A little personal note.  A neighbor was taking SP.  Perhaps his Personal
Physician didn't know about it.  Suddenly found he had Prostate Cancer.
  I was most surprised when he died from it.  Apparently was already
far advanced when detected.
Jason Johnson - 19 May 2006 15:24 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <YW3bg.122604$eR6.91754@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> about the vitamins and other "over the counter" stuff that I take.
> Jason


A little personal note.  A neighbor was taking SP.  Perhaps his Personal
Physician didn't know about it.  Suddenly found he had Prostate Cancer.
   I was most surprised when he died from it.  Apparently was already
far advanced when detected.

That could have happened even if they person had not been taking SP.
I doubt if SP was a factor in the death. Even people that take supplements
such as SP should see their doctors on a regular basis--at least once a year
for physical exam. I take lots of supplements but see my doctor
(internist) about once every three months. Some health food nuts rarely
ever see
doctors. I have read some of the newsletters (written by doctors) that
imply that it's not necessary to see doctors related to their medical
problems. I once attended a vegetarian club meeting and you would have
been amazed at some of the weird people that I met. I met one
"fruititarian" (sp??) that looked like he was about to die--he was about
20 years old and his weight was probably less than 100 pounds. I doubt
that he ever visited a real doctor.
Jason
Rich256 - 19 May 2006 15:37 GMT
>  Jason Johnson wrote:
>  > In article <YW3bg.122604$eR6.91754@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> that he ever visited a real doctor.
> Jason

My point is that SP lowers PSA.  It can ruin the purpose of the test.
If a doctor is to diagnose properly he must be aware of all medications
and herbs you take.

And of course it is not necessary to see doctors.  Only 50 years ago
many treatments we expect today were out of the question.  Open heart
surgery was a goal.

And it is not just health food nuts that live long lives without seeing
doctors.  It has always been said if you want to be healthy you need to
pick your parents.  I have a 98 year old father in law.  He continuously
brags to the effect "don't do anything unless you really have to".  He
never follows the doctors orders.   He really could use PVP but doctors
don't want to put him under because of his age.  He takes one medication
that costs about $10 a month.  Oh yeah, he enjoys red meat, used to
smoke.  He gave up driving when he was 95 (only because we would not
quit bugging him about it).
Jason Johnson - 19 May 2006 16:18 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <Xy9bg.124434$eR6.113308@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
> that he ever visited a real doctor.
> Jason


My point is that SP lowers PSA.  It can ruin the purpose of the test.
If a doctor is to diagnose properly he must be aware of all medications
and herbs you take.

And of course it is not necessary to see doctors.  Only 50 years ago
many treatments we expect today were out of the question.  Open heart
surgery was a goal.

And it is not just health food nuts that live long lives without seeing
doctors.  It has always been said if you want to be healthy you need to
pick your parents.  I have a 98 year old father in law.  He continuously
brags to the effect "don't do anything unless you really have to".  He
never follows the doctors orders.   He really could use PVP but doctors
don't want to put him under because of his age.  He takes one medication
that costs about $10 a month.  Oh yeah, he enjoys red meat, used to
smoke.  He gave up driving when he was 95 (only because we would not
quit bugging him about it).

I was not aware that SP lowers PSA. I will make sure that I don't take it
prior to my next PSA. Perhaps SP was a factor in that person's death.
I agree that genes are more important than just about anything else. I was
born with bad genes. Many of those people that live to be over 90 do have
to suffer with age related diseases more than those people that die in
their 50's and early 60's. I know of one 95 year old lady that has had a
really bad case of
of osteoporosis. Some 90 year old people have to wear diapers. If I die in
my late 50's--I will never have to deal with those age related diseases.
Your father in law is fortunate that he does not have any of those
terrrible age related disease. Have you ever had a relative that has
Alzheimer's Disease?
I hope that you have great genes.
Rich256 - 19 May 2006 17:06 GMT
>  Jason Johnson wrote:
>  > In article <Xy9bg.124434$eR6.113308@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 97 lines]
> I was not aware that SP lowers PSA. I will make sure that I don't take it
> prior to my next PSA. Perhaps SP was a factor in that person's death.

OK to take it but be certain the doctors know.

http://www.priory.com/med/saw.htm

Finasteride also lowers it.  I think the rule is to double PSA readings
for those taking Finasteride.

> Have you ever had a relative that has
> Alzheimer's Disease?

Yes, My father got it at about age 90.  He died from complications of a
fall.   My mother from a heart attack at age 85, complicated by diabetes.

 My mother-in-law died from Alzheimer's at age 91.  Harder on her
husband than her.  He kept thinking she could recover.  She was truly a
vegetable the last couple weeks.  She forgot how to swallow her food.
Jason Johnson - 19 May 2006 18:04 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <NKkbg.76668$Fs1.14794@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 99 lines]
> I was not aware that SP lowers PSA. I will make sure that I don't take it
> prior to my next PSA. Perhaps SP was a factor in that person's death.  
OK to take it but be certain the doctors know.

http://www.priory.com/med/saw.htm

Finasteride also lowers it.  I think the rule is to double PSA readings
for those taking Finasteride.


> Have you ever had a relative that has
> Alzheimer's Disease?

Yes, My father got it at about age 90.  He died from complications of a
fall.   My mother from a heart attack at age 85, complicated by diabetes.


  My mother-in-law died from Alzheimer's at age 91.  Harder on her
husband than her.  He kept thinking she could recover.  She was truly a
vegetable the last couple weeks.  She forgot how to swallow her food.

There are some advantages of dying before the age of 60--it means that we
will miss out on all of those age related diseases like Alzheimers (my
family calls it "oldtimers disease") and osteoporosis. I never want to
have to wear diapers. I am sorry about what happened to your father and
mother-in-law. It must have been hard on your family.
Jason
Rich256 - 19 May 2006 19:32 GMT
>  Jason Johnson wrote:
>  > In article <NKkbg.76668$Fs1.14794@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 141 lines]
> mother-in-law. It must have been hard on your family.
> Jason

My dad didn't have it very long.  He had just reached the point where he
needed nursing home care and was doing quite well.  A fall resulted in a
fracture that needed surgery.  He did not survive it.

The mother in law was hard on her husband.  She got along quite well at
home for a couple years but only lasted about 6 months in a nursing
home.  Those that contact it at earlier ages seem to live longer.  A
close friend has crippling Osteoporosis.  He has a wonderful outlook on
life.  Confined to a wheelchair and must wear a metal brace for his
lungs.  Just taking each day as it comes.

And when I consider my only problem is being able to take a strong leak
life seems pretty good!!  Remember I survived the childhood where during
the summer we were intentionally exposed to all the measles, mumps,
chicken pox etc in order to get them out of the way.  And fortunately,
managed to get through those years without contacting polio.
Jason Johnson - 19 May 2006 20:48 GMT
Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article <R1mbg.76893$Fs1.12086@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 143 lines]
> mother-in-law. It must have been hard on your family.
> Jason

My dad didn't have it very long.  He had just reached the point where he
needed nursing home care and was doing quite well.  A fall resulted in a
fracture that needed surgery.  He did not survive it.

The mother in law was hard on her husband.  She got along quite well at
home for a couple years but only lasted about 6 months in a nursing
home.  Those that contact it at earlier ages seem to live longer.  A
close friend has crippling Osteoporosis.  He has a wonderful outlook on
life.  Confined to a wheelchair and must wear a metal brace for his
lungs.  Just taking each day as it comes.

And when I consider my only problem is being able to take a strong leak
life seems pretty good!!  Remember I survived the childhood where during
the summer we were intentionally exposed to all the measles, mumps,
chicken pox etc in order to get them out of the way.  And fortunately,
managed to get through those years without contacting polio.

Yes, I remember polio. They had found a cure for it while I was in grade
school--thank goodness for that. I had an aunt that suffered from polio
and she
spent her last twenty or more years in a wheel chair or a rocking chair.
I recall setting on her lap and letting her rock me in her rocking chair
when I was a small child. I felt sorry for her husband when she passed away.
He was never the same after she died. I am grateful that all of those people
in America in my generation and all future generations will not have to
worry about contacting polio or any of the other diseases they now have
vaccines for. It's amazing that some parents won't allow their children to
vacinated. I hope that you never develop any of those age-related diseases
that you mentioned.
jason
 
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.