Re: Are things changing?

[Guest guest]

Sammy --

Did you get the proofing notes I sent? I didn't get any response from you.

I don't feel qualified to comment further on the validity of your theories.

I think that if suitable subjects could be found for a clinical trial of

your proposed protocol, this would be a way to try to quantify and validate

outcomes as compared to present therapies. As far as I know, this is the

way theoretical constructs become accepted protocols in the scientific and

medical communities. Have you tried to find a way to do this?

Donna

Re: Are things changing?

> the only treatment should be the one you promote ..

If that is the impression it is because you have not read what I have

written despite the offer I made to you , to review my paper. I made

the offer to you as a courtesy, since you are the list owner, but you

refused. Donna took up the offer but hasn't commented yet. I also asked

Strum to review the paper but that is for another day. If people wish to see

what other readers have said they can look at this link. Actually, I will

update it in a day or two with some new material.

http://www.prostateman.org/readers/ <http://www.prostateman.org/readers/>

I do not decry any of the 'improvements' you mention. Indeed, they may be

necessary as a short term measure to get the cancer under control. However,

in my mind they are rehashed versions of the same old thing. Sure they are

technologically more refined, but at the heart of it we have 'cut, burn or

poison'. It is the notion that this cancer is something apart from us and

needing to be purged that has not changed. It is primal. You see it coming

up in all kinds of places throughout history - something evil and unwanted

has to be excoriated. We have to get past superstitious thinking.

What I am promoting is a different understanding of the disease. I am not

saying that all cancers are the same, or even that all PC's are the same.

All I am saying is that there is a thread within the PC line that makes

sense if you follow it through the way I have done. It is rather like those

photos you see on the market that you need to look at from a certain

perspective to make the elephant / dolphin jump out at you. From one end of

the perspective I use, I look at the way the problem of understanding the

meaning (cause) of PC has lead to this hiatus in appreciation of screening

strategies between people like Gray on the one hand and Labrie on the other.

At the far end of the spectrum I see how other societies and cultures have a

different PC epidemiology, but not a different biology. I link in different

layers of understanding and come up with a startling conclusion that PC

treatment hitherto, particularly hormone blockade and estrogen therapy, is

just one half of the possible range of treatments that could hit the

disease, perhaps even provide remission in a number of cases.

I make a case for perceiving PC differently, including the long run-up to

manifest disease, that is identified in other cultures, but not ours. We

have a superior kind of emergency treatment for all kinds of ailments when

the condition is critical, what we lack is an understanding of how the

disease got there. My bottom line is that PC in men is caused by

hypogonadism. [ The hypogonadism may have other causes, but that is the

'smoking gun' because of the hormetic effect of low dose androgen. ] If the

hypogonadism is addressed as it is in traditional medical systems, then the

disease is much less likely to manifest in an aggressive way.

Hope that clears the air.

Sammy.

Are things changing?

Sammy has raised an interesting point that he believes things are not

changing.

I tend to the view that nothing remains the same, but concur that some

people don't change.

My experience since 1996 is that things change BUT things change faster in

some places than in other places and in fact the only thing some urologists

change is their underpants. This though is not confined to the world of

urology. Having been involved in local government for a long time I have met

this in many walks of life.

Addressing myself to Sammy for a moment, in many ways I appreciate your

certainty and dedication to your cause, but I must say it seems that

sometimes you come across as saying that the only treatment should be the

one you promote. You may or not intend that. If that is what you believe,

can I challenge you to think would you be able to see a new alternative as

worthwhile? Alternatively you may think as I do that your treatent will be

the best for some men.

I personally think that we all need open minds in this world of medicine,

patients or professionals. I must say I am an advocate of change and looking

to those who follow me having a better chance, that is why I have been

involved in at least 3 trials.

As I have said before the lead time for true PCa cure certainty is a long

time, and to some extent this is a cause of so much delay and uncertainty.

So what has changed in some places since 1996.

We have laproscopic surgery, more people can access brachytherapy, hospitals

in the UK have urology specialist nurses and Macmillan nurses to give

support, more people know about helplines such as Prostate Cancer Charity,

there is more use of different chemotherapies in PCa, we have work on

focused ultrasound and cryotherapy, vaccine treatments are being trialled as

well as vaccine gene vector treatments. Can anyone add more?

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

You are doing a great work with this group, though there must be times when you wonder why you continue. Certainly I can only admire your patience and constraint and wish I had a tithe of it. I dont often contribute but always read the post and greatly appreciate its being there. Occasionally of course I delete unread, not necessarily because the subject is of no direct interest, but because I know from past experience that the writers name means a negative contribution.

You are clearly a good man and I wish you well.

. Metcalf wrote:

Sammy

I have not refused to read your paper but I must admit to having time constraints that restrict opportunities. I apologise that I have not had chance to read everything, but I continue to provide a vehicle for people to pass on information.

Thanks for clarifying the issue for us.

Some are moving, but we have a long way to go before everyone will change.

[Guest guest]

Hear Hear I agree with you your the Man!

> >Reply-To: ProstateCancerSupport >To: ProstateCancerSupport >Subject: Re: Are things changing? >Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:26:33 +0100 (BST) > >Dear , > >You are doing a great work with this group, though there must be times when you wonder why you continue. Certainly I can only admire your patience and constraint and wish I had a tithe of it. I dont often contribute but always read the post and greatly appreciate its being there. Occasionally of course I delete unread, not necessarily because the subject is of no direct interest, but because I know from past experience that the writers name means a negative contribution. > >You are clearly a good man and I wish you well. > >. > > Metcalf wrote: >Sammy > >I have not refused to read your paper but I must admit to having time constraints that restrict opportunities. I apologise that I have not had chance to read everything, but I continue to provide a vehicle for people to pass on information. > >Thanks for clarifying the issue for us. > >Some are moving, but we have a long way to go before everyone will change. > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Okay, Sammy, I just resent them to your email address below. Please confirm

that they have arrived this time.

Donna

Re: Are things changing?

Donna,

I did not get any notes. Perhaps you could try sending them again?

Many thanks.

Sammy.

Are things changing?

Sammy has raised an interesting point that he believes things are not

changing.

I tend to the view that nothing remains the same, but concur that some

people don't change.

My experience since 1996 is that things change BUT things change faster in

some places than in other places and in fact the only thing some urologists

change is their underpants. This though is not confined to the world of

urology. Having been involved in local government for a long time I have met

this in many walks of life.

Addressing myself to Sammy for a moment, in many ways I appreciate your

certainty and dedication to your cause, but I must say it seems that

sometimes you come across as saying that the only treatment should be the

one you promote. You may or not intend that. If that is what you believe,

can I challenge you to think would you be able to see a new alternative as

worthwhile? Alternatively you may think as I do that your treatent will be

the best for some men.

I personally think that we all need open minds in this world of medicine,

patients or professionals. I must say I am an advocate of change and looking

to those who follow me having a better chance, that is why I have been

involved in at least 3 trials.

As I have said before the lead time for true PCa cure certainty is a long

time, and to some extent this is a cause of so much delay and uncertainty.

So what has changed in some places since 1996.

We have laproscopic surgery, more people can access brachytherapy, hospitals

in the UK have urology specialist nurses and Macmillan nurses to give

support, more people know about helplines such as Prostate Cancer Charity,

there is more use of different chemotherapies in PCa, we have work on

focused ultrasound and cryotherapy, vaccine treatments are being trialled as

well as vaccine gene vector treatments. Can anyone add more?

[Guest guest]

Thank you Donna. I wish everyone who reviewed the paper would provide a similar very positive response - albeit without supporting what I say. Sammy.

Are things changing?Sammy has raised an interesting point that he believes things are notchanging.I tend to the view that nothing remains the same, but concur that somepeople don't change. My experience since 1996 is that things change BUT things change faster insome places than in other places and in fact the only thing some urologistschange is their underpants. This though is not confined to the world ofurology. Having been involved in local government for a long time I have metthis in many walks of life. Addressing myself to Sammy for a moment, in many ways I appreciate yourcertainty and dedication to your cause, but I must say it seems thatsometimes you come across as saying that the only treatment should be theone you promote. You may or not intend that. If that is what you believe,can I challenge you to think would you be able to see a new alternative asworthwhile? Alternatively you may think as I do that your treatent will bethe best for some men. I personally think that we all need open minds in this world of medicine,patients or professionals. I must say I am an advocate of change and lookingto those who follow me having a better chance, that is why I have beeninvolved in at least 3 trials.As I have said before the lead time for true PCa cure certainty is a longtime, and to some extent this is a cause of so much delay and uncertainty. So what has changed in some places since 1996.We have laproscopic surgery, more people can access brachytherapy, hospitalsin the UK have urology specialist nurses and Macmillan nurses to givesupport, more people know about helplines such as Prostate Cancer Charity,there is more use of different chemotherapies in PCa, we have work onfocused ultrasound and cryotherapy, vaccine treatments are being trialled aswell as vaccine gene vector treatments. Can anyone add more?