Re: DHT not very anabolic after all

[Guest guest]

Dale,

> There were only two new

> products I had introduce around that time, one was from a Oriental Medical

> Doctor to help detox liver and the other was Saw Palmetto 120 mg/day.

> While I can't support my suspicions, I feel the Saw may have been the

> major factor or a one two punch from the two.

Did you ever find out what was in those liver pills? I think it's much more

likely that the liver pills were doing something to change your T levels,

because the levels of all blood chemicals are influenced heavily by the

actions of the liver. Something like a quart of blood or more is filtered

through the liver each minute.

-gts

[Guest guest]

Gordon:

I have no doubt Proscar is useful in MPB. It was however " re-incarnated "

for marketing purposes by the manufacturer when a double-blind placebo

controlled study it worked no better than placebo in relieving BPH symptoms.

Besides my work in an Anti-Aging Medicine Clinic, I have been in the field of

Cardiac Rehabilitation since 1972. I have seen thousands of men with BPH and

have seen Proscar come and go. The strategy nowdays is to use alpha

adrenergic blockade via Cardura or Hytrin which has a much faster and more

effective response than Proscar. Virtually none of the old men I treat are on

Proscar anymore because alpha blockade works better.

I tried the stuff myself about 5 years ago just to see what lowering DHT

would do. All it did was take away my libido and erections!! The drug " side

effects " of lowering

DHT should not be trivialized. The prostate gland depends on DHT to maintain

it's health. Depriving it of DHT just makes for a sick prostate, one which

may be more susceptible to prostate cancer as shown by the following

peer-reviewed article published in the British Journal of Cancer in August,

1998.

Title: The Effect of Finasteride on the Prostate Gland in Men with Elevated

Serum

Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels

Authors: Cote, RJ. Skinner, EC. Salem, CE. Mertes, SJ Stanczyk, FZ

, BE Pike, MC Ross RK

Source " British Journal of Cancer 78(3) 413-8, 1998

Abstract

Prostate cancer is a disease associated with androgens. It has been

hypothesized that reducing the conversion of testosterone (T) to

dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in the prostate by the use of the drug finasteride,

a 5 alpha reductase inhibitor, will reduce the incidence of prostate cancer.

We investigated the chemopreventive potential of finasteride by evaluating

its effect on the prostate gland of men with elevated prostate-specific

antigen (PSA). Fifty-two men with elevated PSA and prostate sextant biopsies

negative for cancer were randomized to receive finasteride 5 mg per day (27

patients) or no medication ( 25 patients) for 12 months and were re-biopsied

ar 12 months. The biopsies were evaluated for the presence of cancer, the

proportion of glandular and hyperpalstic tissue and the presence of

high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). Epithelial

proliferation wass assessed in the prestudy and 12-month biopsies by

immunohistochemistry using antibody to proliferating cell nuclear antigen

(PCNA). Serum blood samples were drawn at baeline and after 1, 3, 6 and 12

months of study. In the control group, serum levels of PSA and T were

unchanged throughout the 12 months. In the finasterde group, PSA decreased 48%

(P<.001), DHT decreased 67% (P<.001) and T increased 21% (P<.001).

Histological evaluation of prestudy and 12 month biopsy specimens revealed

that the finasteride group had a 30% reduction in the percentage of

hyperplastic epithelial tissue

(P<.002). although this decrease was not statistically significantly

different between the finasteride and control groups (P<.11). In patients

with PIN on prestudy biopsy, no change occurred in the PIN lesions with

finasteride treatment. Finasteride also had no effect on the proliferation

index of prostate epithelial cells. Of the 27 patients treated with

finasteride, eight ( 30%) had adenocarcinoma of the prostate detected on the

12 month biopsy compared with one (4%) of the control patients ( P =.025). In

the treatment group six cancers occured in the in the eight patients with PIN

on prestudy biopsy: in the observational group no cancers were detected in

the five patients with PIN on the prestudy biopsy (P=.021). Two cancers

occurred in the 19 men in the treatment group with no evidence of PIN on the

prestudy biopsy, compared to one cancer in 20 patients in the observational

group wtih no evidence of PIN on prestudy biopsy. (P=.60). This study using a

novel model for evaluating the short-term efficacy of chemopreventive or

therpeutic agents in men at high risk of prostate cancer provides little

evidence that finasteride is an effective chemoprotective agent for prostate

cancer in men with elevated PSA.

I love this conclusion!! It's about as politcally correct as you can get!

In men at highest risk of developing prostate cancer ( elevated PSA with

PIN), Proscar caused a 7 fold increase in the rate of subsequent protate

cancer incidence!!! The correct conclusion should have been Proscar causes

prostate cancer in men at high risk.

I believe this may be what Doctor Speers was referring to when he said

it may be bad advice to recommend DHT blockade. When I read this study after

it came out I concluded that not only was Proscar not helpful in BPH but it

probably increases risk of prostate cancer by making the gland " sicker " .

Again, I reiterate that

DHT is not the " bad guy " hormone it has been labeled by the powers that be.

Remember, these same folks have ( and continue) to say the same thing about

testosterone. I would not recommend Proscar to any man!

Randy

[Guest guest]

Randy,

> I have no doubt Proscar is useful in MPB. It was however " re-incarnated "

> for marketing purposes by the manufacturer when a double-blind placebo

> controlled study it worked no better than placebo in relieving BPH

symptoms.

Maybe, I don't know. I'm interested mainly in preventing hair loss (MPB) in

body builders. That is what prompted this discussion. It's interesting that

Proscar may not work as well as advertised for BPH, but that is not really

my area of interest.

> I tried the stuff myself about 5 years ago just to see what lowering

DHT

> would do. All it did was take away my libido and erections!!

It does this in about 2% of men. 98% of men experience no sexual

side-effects.

And I might add that if Saw Palmetto blocks DHT, as is claimed, then it too

is likely to produce this side-effect in some small percentage of men.

I think DHT is a bit like estradiol in men. We men probably need a little

DHT for proper function of our nervous system if nothing else, just as we

need a little estradiol to be healthy. But elevated values of either of

these chemicals are bad for our health. Those who inject T, especially large

amounts of T such as in body-builders, are likely to have elevated values of

both DHT and estradiol unless some measures are taken to control the

activities of 5a-reductase and aromatase.

-gts

[Guest guest]

Gordon:

Maybe you didn't read the Cote study carefully. It showed a 7X higher rate

of prostate cancer development from lowering DHT via Proscar vs not lowering

DHT. DHT is very important to prostate health. I think it highly advisable

NOT to advise men to take this drug. DHT is itself used by some urologists to

treat BPH. Estradiol is probably more of a culprit in prostate enlargement

than DHT. No one has ever died from MPB the last I checked while prostate CA

is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. What effect might

recommending a weaker dose of Proscar (Propecia) have on prostate

health/prostate cancer?? Can you answer that question??? I would prefer to

lower Estradiol to a reasonable level and leave DHT alone until someone

refutes the Cote study.

I can guaratee you that " side effects " ( aka unwanted direct effects) of

Proscar are considerably more than 2% and considerably more than saw palmetto.

Randy

[Guest guest]

> Maybe you didn't read the Cote study carefully. It showed a 7X higher

rate

> of prostate cancer development from lowering DHT via Proscar vs not

lowering

> DHT.

I looked at it Randy, but perhaps you didn't notice that they were testing

the use of Proscar in men who ALREADY had elevated PSA. These were men who

were likely already in or nearly in the early stages of prostate cancer!

> I would prefer to lower Estradiol to a reasonable level and leave DHT

alone

> until someone refutes the Cote study.

But there is nothing to refute. The study only shows that one should not use

Proscar in men with elevated PSA. Such men probably have prostate cancer and

Proscar is not indicated for prostate cancer.

Perhaps it shouldn't be prescribed even for BPH -- I can go along with

that -- but you have not given us any reason to think it causes cancer in

men who do not already have elevated PSA levels, especially at the dose used

for MPB, which is only 1/5 the dose used for BPH.

> I think it highly advisable NOT to advise men to take this drug.

If you're right, Randy, then hundreds of thousands of doctors in this

country are guilty of malpractice with millions of patients. If you really

think you're right then you should get a law degree and file a class action

suit and make a hundred million dollars for youself!

The study only shows that is advisable not to prescribe Proscar if you think

your patient may be in the early stages of prostate cancer.

> I believe this may be what Doctor Speers was referring to when he

> said it may be bad advice to recommend DHT blockade.

No, Dr Speers mentioned nothing about the prostate. He disgreed with me when

I wrote that body builders who inject large doses of T should consider using

DHT blockers to keep DHT from elevating to superphysiological levels. He

wrote that doing so would be a waste of money -- meaning that the T would

not be put to good anabolic use in the body builder if it was not converted

as fully as possible to DHT. Dr Speers was wrong about that, or least he has

yet to refute all the contradictory evidence I have provided.

Do you understand that no one least of all me is suggesting that anyone

should try to eliminate DHT with massive doses of finasteride? I am

suggesting that merely that men should avoid *elevated*, *unnaturally high*

levels of DHT from T injections. Finasteride happens to be one way to keep

DHT at NORMAL levels, which is where it belongs. Are you going to tell me

that keeping DHT at normal levels will cause cancer? I don't think so.

-gts

[Guest guest]

Gentlemen,

1. I believe that you both agree on the fact that using Proscar can be

detrimental in people with early prostate cancer or signs of prostate cancer.

Is this right?

2. I recall reading that almost every man will die with (not from) prostate

cancer. Also, in the back of my mind was a paper published showing autopsy

results from Vietnam casualties showing 30% had malignant cells in the

prostate. Most were under thirty. How do you think this factors in.

3. Below is a copy of an abstract showing 14% of a group of men (mean age late

50s) and 29% of men over sixty who had " normal PSA " and low levels of T showed

cancerous cells as determined by a biopse. What is really scary is that it is

possible that this number is much higher, since I believe they only biopsy 6

sites. They could possibly miss many cancers.

4. I'm starting to wonder if in most cases it wouldn't be better to just leave

the prostate alone. I'm tempted to forget about PSA test all together. I have

heard several MDs who practice preventative medicine say they will never have

their prostate biopsied, because " almost all men have cancerous cells " and that

during the biopsy when the needle is pulled out, it actually will spread some

cancer cells on the outside of the needle to the surrounding tissue. Scary!!

Title

Occult prostate cancer in men with low serum testosterone levels.

Author

Morgentaler A; Bruning CO 3rd; DeWolf WC

Address

Division of Urology, Beth Israel Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston,

Mass. 02215, USA.

Source

JAMA, 276(23):1904-6 1996 Dec 18

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of occult prostate cancer in men

with low serum total testosterone or free

testosterone levels. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a consecutive series

of men. SETTING: Academic teaching

hospital. PATIENTS: Seventy-seven men with low total testosterone or free

testosterone levels, with normal results

of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of

4.0 ng/mL or less. The mean age was 58

years. INTERVENTIONS: Sextant prostate needle biopsies with ultrasound

guidance. MAIN OUTCOME

MEASURES: Results of prostate needle biopsies, transrectal ultrasound,

prostate volume, PSA level, PSA density,

total and free testosterone levels. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was identified

in 14% (11/77) of the entire group and in

10 men (29%) aged 60 years or older. The median age for men with cancer was

64 years. Histologic examination

showed Gleason scores of 6 or 7 for all cancers. No significant differences

were noted between the cancer and benign

groups with regard to PSA level, PSA density, prostate volume, total

testosterone level, or free testosterone level.

CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of biopsy-detectable prostate cancer was

identified in men with low total or free

testosterone levels despite normal PSA levels and results of digital rectal

examination. These data suggest that (1)

digital rectal examination and PSA levels are insensitive indicators of

prostate cancer in men with low total or free

testosterone levels, and (2) PSA levels may be altered by naturally

occurring reductions in serum androgen levels.

Language

Eng

Unique Identifier

97122397

MESH Headings

Adult ; Aged ; Biological Markers BL ; Biopsy, Needle ; Human ; Male ;

Middle Age ; Neoplasms,

Hormone-Dependent *BL ; Prostate-Specific Antigen BL ; Prostatic Neoplasms

*BL/EP/PA/PC ; Retrospective

Studies ; Testosterone *BL

Publication Type

JOURNAL ARTICLE

ISSN

0098-7484

Country of Publication

UNITED STATES

Again, I ask that when someone presents an opposing view let's question the view

and not the person. Gordon's, your jab that all those doctors couldn't be

wrong-- may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Look at some of the new

data about HRT in females. They may of had it all wrong.

Take care and this is really interesting.

Dale

[Guest guest]

> 1. I believe that you both agree on the fact that using Proscar can be

> detrimental in people with early prostate cancer or signs of prostate

cancer.

> Is this right?

Assuming that study Randy presented is confirmed, I would agree. However

that study is not a very large study. The number of test subjects was quite

small. The most singnificant conclusion of that study was that finasteride

(Proscar) will not *prevent* prostate cancer. I think some people had hoped

it would prevent or cure prostate cancer, and this study probably put them

to shame.

But if Proscar really *caused* cancer in men who were not already cancerous,

as Randy fears, then there would be a huge epidemic in Proscar-caused cancer

in this country. Proscar would have been pulled off the market years ago and

Merck would be paying out billions in a class action suit.

Proscar is not indicated for prostate cancer. It is indicated for BPH, which

is a fairly common and benign condition. It's just an enlargement of the

prostate, which causes difficulty in urination.

> Vietnam casualties showing 30% had malignant cells in the

> prostate. Most were under thirty. How do you think this factors in.

Our bodies makes cancer cells every day. It's normal. Fortunately our immune

systems kill most budding cancers before they spread. So this figure above

means little.

Prostate cancer is actually a fairly rare disease. You're much much likely

to die of other causes.

> 4. I'm starting to wonder if in most cases it wouldn't be better to just

leave

> the prostate alone.

Sure leave it alone! You won't get any arguments from me.

But unnaturally high DHT levels are not healthy. DHT should be kept in the

normal range in body builders who inject large amounts of testosterone. That

is my only point here, and it is the point with which Doc and I disagree.

Somehow people have turned it into some kind of damned debate about prostate

cancer treatments.

-gts

[Guest guest]

I don't mean to sound testy, but it was when Randy spoke the dreaded " C "

word that Doc went off the deep end and jumped all over it as an opportunity

to attack my credibility and suggest that I be sued for suggesting that

people use an approved drug for an approved purpose. Jeff was RIGHT ON on

about that and I'm glad he pointed it out.

[Guest guest]

No, i don't think so. Mugging someone with insults and inflammatory

statements merely because you don't like their viewpoint isn't a good

idea.

gordon wrote:

>

> people use an approved drug for an approved purpose. Jeff was RIGHT ON on

> about that and I'm glad he pointed it out.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:

> 1/3555/7/_/164625/_/956774116/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gordo,

A few comments below.

gordon wrote:

> > 1. I believe that you both agree on the fact that using Proscar can be

> > detrimental in people with early prostate cancer or signs of prostate

> cancer.

> > Is this right?

>

> Assuming that study Randy presented is confirmed, I would agree. However

> that study is not a very large study. The number of test subjects was quite

> small. The most singnificant conclusion of that study was that finasteride

> (Proscar) will not *prevent* prostate cancer. I think some people had hoped

> it would prevent or cure prostate cancer, and this study probably put them

> to shame.

>

> But if Proscar really *caused* cancer in men who were not already cancerous,

> as Randy fears, then there would be a huge epidemic in Proscar-caused cancer

> in this country. Proscar would have been pulled off the market years ago and

> Merck would be paying out billions in a class action suit.

Probably a very good point

>

>

> Proscar is not indicated for prostate cancer. It is indicated for BPH, which

> is a fairly common and benign condition. It's just an enlargement of the

> prostate, which causes difficulty in urination.

>

> > Vietnam casualties showing 30% had malignant cells in the

> > prostate. Most were under thirty. How do you think this factors in.

>

> Our bodies makes cancer cells every day. It's normal. Fortunately our immune

> systems kill most budding cancers before they spread. So this figure above

> means little.

>

Why is it then that when Urologist find cancerous cells, it get serious.

Prostates are removed, frozen and zapped and cancers start to spread. Also,

while I have heard the same about cancer cells coming and going, it is when then

end up in one spot and start to grow that they are detectable, as in the

prostate.

>

> Prostate cancer is actually a fairly rare disease. You're much much likely

> to die of other causes.

>

I agree completely that deaths aren't frequent with this, except that I think

the opposite on it being a rare disease. It is very common, but most cases are

confined to the prostate which handles them quite well. While the study I

attached was small, with 14% of those biopsied showing detectable cancer cells,

and in 30% or those over sixty, it isn't rare at all. I will try and find other

abstracts and see if they come close to these numbers. Also as I mentioned, if

they didn't biopsy the right places, the patient was considered cancer free. I

don't know if they feel that the cells are in certain places more often or if it

is just hit a miss.

Part of the reason I getting a little passionate on this is because my

brother-in-law happens to have fallen into this battle. About a year ago, after

having elevated PSA (8 or so) he was biopsied with positive results. He then

had radioactive pellets inserted into his prostate, but his PSA hasn't fallen

below 4. A bone scan a few days ago proved negative, but they can't seem to

come up with a reason for his still having what they consider an elevated PSA

after the surgery. I'm very concerned about his prognosis and even more so

about the treatments he may receive. I don't want this to be another " medical

success " where they get the cancer, but patient dies.

If anyone has any ideas, it would sure be appreciated.

Thanks again Gordo and all,

Dale

[Guest guest]

I didn't say I liked his attititude, Whoo. I said I'm glad he pointed

something out.

> No, i don't think so. Mugging someone with insults and inflammatory

> statements merely because you don't like their viewpoint isn't a good

> idea.

>

> gordon wrote:

> >

> > people use an approved drug for an approved purpose. Jeff was RIGHT ON

on

> > about that and I'm glad he pointed it out.

> >

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:

> > 1/3555/7/_/164625/_/956774116/

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dale,

> Why is it then that when Urologist find cancerous cells, it get serious.

> Prostates are removed, frozen and zapped and cancers start to

> spread. Also, while I have heard the same about cancer cells coming

> and going, it is when then end up in one spot and start to grow that they

> are detectable, as in the prostate.

I think you answered your own question there. If prostate cancers grow

enough to show up on a biopsy, then the urologist is probably perfectly

justified in zapping them. I don't know enough about it to say for sure, but

I would imagine there might be borderline cases where the urologist makes a

judgment call to not operate.

> Part of the reason I getting a little passionate on this is because my

> brother-in-law happens to have fallen into this battle. About a year ago,

after

> having elevated PSA (8 or so) he was biopsied with positive results. He

then

> had radioactive pellets inserted into his prostate, but his PSA hasn't

fallen

> below 4. A bone scan a few days ago proved negative, but they can't seem

to

> come up with a reason for his still having what they consider an elevated

PSA

> after the surgery. I'm very concerned about his prognosis and even more

so

> about the treatments he may receive. I don't want this to be another

" medical

> success " where they get the cancer, but patient dies.

>

> If anyone has any ideas, it would sure be appreciated.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother-in-law, and I'm sorry that I don't know

how to cure him completely. I don't think I would know even if I were an MD.

I do know however that an elevated PSA is not in itself enough reason make

final arrangments. So hopefully the docs will keep tabs on him, and keep

testing for cancer as well as a change in PSA.

-gts

[Guest guest]

The Cote study was of men with elevated PSA and NO prostate cancer at the

time of biopsy. Subsequently lowering DHT levels created prostate cancer in

many more than placebo. These men were on no testosterone replacement of

course and we cannot compare this to bodybuilders who take large amounts of

steroids and/or testosterone and raise DHT levels " excessively " , whatever we

might define that to be. I doubt this is a problem or we would read or hear

about a lot of bodybuilders coming down with prostate cancer. In 30 years of

reading bodybuilding publications I can't recall reading of a single prostate

CA death amongst the many that have died of a variety of causes, mostly

cardiovascular. Anyone reading this post know of any steroid user/abuser

subsequently coming down with prostate cancer? ( of course there are many

other contributing factors to prostate CA with low intra-prostatic zinc

levels being but one example.

There is, I believe a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

initiated on Air Force personnel several years ago ( 18,000 as I recall)

attempting to further analyze the effect of lowering DHT with Proscar on

prostate CA. It's probably several years away from completion so we'll have

to await it's results.

If it does confirm the Cote study, will there be a class action lawsuit? I

don't know but my good friend who is a malpractice attorney would probably be

quite interested.

In the meantime, like any " new " drug approved by the FDA, I think it prudent

to wait many years ( 5- 10 at least) to assess the true benefits AND risks

before jumping in. So far, Proscar doesn't look like a winner to me.

Randy

[Guest guest]

I agree with Gordon on this point. Leave the prostate alone!! I have severe

doubts about the " value " of PSA testing. Like everything in the cancer

business, it just leads to more procedures, anti-androgens, prostatectomies,

radiation, etc. In other words, business as usual with not much evidence of

improved outcomes.

Randy

[Guest guest]

Dale:

I would suggest the use of the AMAS test out of Oncolab In Boston as a

better tool to assess cancer progression/regression. There are just too many

variables that cause PSA to go up or down that have nothing to do with cancer

and insufficient data to draw any prognostic value. The AMAS test has been

used to diagnosis and follow a wide variety of cancers with data going back

to the late 1970's. Oddly, very FEW docs even know it exists or is available.

It runs around $150.

Randy

[Guest guest]

Randy,

> The Cote study was of men with elevated PSA and NO prostate cancer

> at the time of biopsy.

I think you really mean no prostate cancer was yet DETECTED at biopsy. That

is a subtle but extremely important difference in meaning.

Given their elevated PSAs it would be presumptuous to think some or most of

the men who actually did get cancer were not already in the very early

stages of prostate cancer at the beginning of the study.

> Subsequently lowering DHT levels created prostate cancer in

> many more than placebo.

The number of cancers involved were quite small for both the placebo and the

proscar group, so the comparison is not very interesting without a larger

study to confirm your conclusions. I believe this, and the proper

interpretation of the initial biopsy results mentioned above, are two very

important reasons that the researchers themselves did not reach your

conclusion. The researchers concluded only that proscar would not *prevent*

cancer, just as I concluded. If the researchers thought proscar might

actually have *caused* the cancers then THEY WOULD HAVE MADE THAT EXTREMELY

IMPORTANT FACT VERY VERY CLEAR. It would have been front page news in the

health section of every newspaper. The researchers would have suggested

further studies of proscar as a possible carcinogen.

You prefer to ignore their stated conclusions and instead draw your own

contradictory conclusions. You explained your different conclusion by

ascribing an unethical ulterior political motive to the researchers. I think

it is always dangerous and unwise to impugn the character and integrity of

researchers (or anyone for that matter) without solid evidence to support

one's accusations. This is especially so when looking only at a research

abstract.

> DHT levels " excessively " , whatever we

> might define that to be. I doubt this is a problem or we would

> read or hear about a lot of bodybuilders coming down with prostate

> cancer. In 30 years of reading bodybuilding publications I can't recall...

No one here has argued that elevated DHT in BB'ers causes them to get

prostate cancer, so I'm not sure why you bring this up.

However elevated DHT is most definitely linked to MPB in BB'ers and probably

also to BPH. The prostate tends to grow larger in the presence of DHT and

probably also in the presence of all other highly androgenic steroids. In

fact I think researchers use the swelling of the prostate in lab animals as

a means of measuring a steroid's androgenicity. High anabolic/low androgenic

steroids like nandrolone do not cause enlargement of the prostate, but high

androgenic steroids like DHT do cause enlargement of the prostate.

In any case my interest in finasteride is much more limited, confined only

to treatment and prevention of male pattern baldness in BB'ers. My intention

and recommendation is only that BB'ers keep DHT at NORMAL levels --- at or

about the same levels that it would be in healthy males in the absence of

testosterone injections. It is beyond me how you or Doc or anyone else here

can think that maintaining DHT at normal levels would cause prostate cancer.

-gts

[Guest guest]

Randy,

Thanks. I'll do a little search and see what else I can come up with.

Dale

bikeice@... wrote:

> Dale:

>

> I would suggest the use of the AMAS test out of Oncolab In Boston as a

> better tool to assess cancer progression/regression. There are just too many

> variables that cause PSA to go up or down that have nothing to do with cancer

> and insufficient data to draw any prognostic value. The AMAS test has been

> used to diagnosis and follow a wide variety of cancers with data going back

> to the late 1970's. Oddly, very FEW docs even know it exists or is available.

> It runs around $150.

> Randy

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Get 3 months FREE and a chance to WIN a trip to London, England when

> you receive, manage and pay your bills online with Paytrust.com!

> Stamps, checks and bills in your mailbox are history. Enroll Today!

> 1/3556/7/_/164625/_/956815458/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>