Dragging you up to date !!
Well, well, well, where have you been ?
I have been back to Kings Lynn, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, to have a bladder neck resection. Apparently my bladder neck grew tissue after my vapourisation a year ago and closed off my bladder. The last thing I expected or wanted.
Hence the comment on the catheterisation in my last posting.
So with that now behind me and with an adequate flow again I can now think of PSA tests and see if I still have control of the cancer.
One point was that during the resection a sample was taken and showed no sign of cancer. I find it very difficult to discover if a year after a diagnosis of PC with a Gleason score of 3 + 3 the cancer should/would have been expected to spread and therefore the sample should/would have been positive, especially as I have had no conventional treatment.
So here is hoping for another 2 score as we had earlier last year !!
Still doing my daily walks, taking bicarb/honey. And oxygen tablets and apricot kernels, although not every day. So it will be interesting to find out just where I stand.
Last minute news.
I have held this up to get this result in. My PSA reading for the beginning of January is 2.4
So I guess I still have the beast well under control !! If not bound in chains and subdued.
Is it best to stay Stum !?
I have delayed any further reporting as I have not had any testing for two months.
Just had my recent PSA test result back today. 2.0
Some fifteen months ago I was told I had prostate cancer Gleason 3+3=6 My PSA taken a month later was 1.9.
Now today I am told it is 2. It had wandered up toward three and back to 2.4 but this is the lowest since I began.
I scratch my head and wonder why everyone with prostate cancer is not taking Lypo-spheric Vit C. I switched to Lypo as soon as I found it was said to maximize the amount of Vit C in your body and be as good if not better than Vitamin IV.
(Read Vitamin C the Real Story by Steve Hickey and Andrew Saul both PhD’s. if you don’t have a clue what I am talking about.)
Of course it could have been the OxCgen capsules, or the apricot seeds or the honey and bicarb.
Or was the cancer excised by the vapourisation treatment I had ? I think if it was that simple the procedure would have been public knowledge and hailed as the answer to PC. DON’T YOU ?
Whatever, I have escaped any traumatic conventional treatments, like a radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and/or hormone treatment.
Will keep you all updated. Have not been swamped with advice that thousands of you are following my example so can only assume the path I have taken will not be well trodden !!
No good news to report. My bladder neck is closing off again, so have some retention. Left a 7-10 day gap between a catheter and my last PSA which I believed would be aok, but the result came back 8.6.
Medics talking about an MRI and possible radiotherapy, but decided it was either my miscalculation on the gap to leave or possibly a minor infection although I did not feel any problem in that direction.
So about to go for another PSA test, will post that up approx 12th June, have therefore left almost six weeks since my last catheter, and had a course of antibiotics for good measure.
What can possibly go wrong !
Tap water is fine???
Well apparently it depends….
A BMJ (British Medical Journal) report last year advised that due to the extensive use of the contraceptive pill our drinking water is polluted.
Polluted by the constituents of the pill which find their way into our rivers and storage areas and is subsequently not removed during the so called water treatment procedure.
Researchers suspect that the Pills estrogen by products are making their way into the food chain and public water systems. This means that in areas with the highest use of contraception pills also have the highest rate of prostate cancer.
I can only suggest the purchase of an osmosis water filtration system as I am not sure if the simple jug filters eliminate such estrogen by products.
June 12th. +
Feel a whole lot better now !! The PSA test came back at 3.7 just over 50% drop on last months. I was hoping to get it back to the 2-3 figure that I have had almost since diagnosis of my Gleason 3+3 score prostate cancer.
Will throw everything at it for the next few weeks to see how it goes.
Way back when we began the Prostate Focus printed Newsletter we had a small note on how prostate cancer cells can be tracked back along the needles passage into the prostate. Now and again there has been a small item or so with confirmation of this but nothing of import.
Now however, in May we have a urologist and prostate cancer specialist Dr Ronald Wheeler MD who says he is planning to share a secret about which the urology community is keeping tight lipped.
Prostate Biopsies do spread prostate cancer cells.
"Because of poor judgment and a lack of sufficient knowledge by practicing urologists, many men are over-treated; many men mistreated while all suffer from a so-called innocuous prostate biopsy," said Dr. Wheeler, who has been a practicing urologist for more than 25 years. "The book is extremely controversial, I have written it intentionally to change the culture in urology as related to the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer for the health and wellness of patients."
Dr. Ronald Wheeler says an evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) will become the most dominant diagnostic test for prostate cancer in the not too distant future. "Women go through routine mammograms for cancer screening. It is mind boggling to think men are subjected to harmful biopsies performed randomly with a risk of spreading cancer cells."
Dr. Wheeler, who is the Medical Director at Diagnostic Center for Disease based in Sarasota, Fl, has planned a book tour across major cities in the U.S. called "Men at Risk: The Dirty Little Secret: Biopsies Really Do Spread Prostate Cancer cells" to educate patients, and their loved ones.
Eight, four, two, (WELL 2.2 TO BE ACCURATE) the sequence of my PSA tests over the past month or so. As you will recall the eight was following a catheter use and a possible mild bladder infection so now we have it back to a ‘normal’ level. I think this really endorses liposomal Vit. C. as a successful prostate cancer treatment, well for me at least.
Notice I do not say a cure. You might say that, but I never could !
I seem to be having more emails re prostate cancer than in the past. What still amazes me is that men are having PSA tests with no knowledge of what they entail. To make matters worse they are just told that the result is aok, and then left with no advice or backup as to what to do next.
As a result I am repeating a couple of write ups I did some years back on PC. Which may help if you need to take something to fight the possibility of a growing cancer …….
Money Flows Like Water Sometimes.
You know the more money you allow an organisation to gather to itself, the more it will spend. Councils, Government departments, semi Nationalised businesses and even charities
Royal Mail had a temporary brain storm and re branded all their vans etc. now we have the Prostate Cancer Charity changing its name and logo to become Prostate Cancer UK.
They say that they have chosen the new identity to help raise their voice, and game and reach more men. I’m sure that some clever promotional organisation can gloss such advice but I cannot really see how such a change can raise their voice and game.
In the meantime they advise … “that research for prostate cancer is still badly under funded. We believe men deserve better. With our bold new identity and approach we will fight for this.”
The cost of the identity refresh is around £190,000. I wonder how many miles of marathons and tin rattling it took to raise that ?
I feel that amount would fund a deal of research. The organisation says:
'Our new name puts us in a much better position to deliver change for men. It communicates authority, expertise and nationwide impact. This will help us form influential partnerships and improve care for men.'
This just makes me want to ensure that not a penny of my money will go to any charity with such grandiose plans.
Hoffman et al in 1988 related both quercetin's direct anti-cancer activity, as well as its synergistic effect with several standard anti-cancer drugs. They also noted that quercetin "...is a licensed [anti-cancer] drug in many countries, and is non-toxic at the required dose range”.
J. Boik’s textbook Cancer & Natural Medicine, reports the importance of platelet aggregation in cancer. "The importance of platelet aggregation in cancer metastasis is more widely accepted. Activated platelets are sticky and may enhance the adhesion ability of tumour cells”.
I was taken aback by the 1988 advice that not only did quercetin have anti-cancer activity and helped to increase the activity of standard anti-cancer drugs but that it was a licensed anti-cancer drug in many countries. For something that costs pence per tablet you would have thought that the UK cancer charities would have been yelling this out from the rooftops and would have been funding trials. It has been known about for seventeen years, so why are we not told there is a connection between platelet aggregation and cancer metastasis ?
I cannot recall one member of the PHA ever telling me that he had been advised to take quercetin either to prevent or treat his prostate cancer or to cut down the chances of metastasis.
But then it has never been suggested, to my knowledge, that it should be taken for any other medical problem!
So these two sets of research have remained hidden from view for some forty and seventeen years respectively. I find it hard to believe that at least some researchers, oncologists, surgeons, and urologists have not read these same trials and advices over such a long period of time. It appears they have remained silent and ignored this research. I have so far been unable to locate any place to find out just which countries have licensed quercetin as an anti-cancer drug. (PD
FROM A PROSTATE FOCUS ARTICLE I WROTE IN 2001.
Quercetin is documented as being safe with a low toxicity and has been used to treat asthma, hay fever and eczema. What alerted me to the product was its use in gout, arthritis, and pancreatitis as it is an excellent anti inflammatory - plus a trial in the USA which showed that it blocks the androgen (hormone) activity in human prostate cells.
Now these prostate cancer trials are in a laboratory on prostate cancer cells in dishes, not yet on humans. However, it is significant as it could be a method of stopping the growth of cancer cells without using the hormonal drugs currently used, such as Zoladex and Casodex.
The trials led to newspaper articles which advised “an apple a day may help stop the growth of prostate cancer. A compound found in the apple called, surprise, surprise, Quercetin blocks the hormone that the cancer cells need to grow. This blockage can prevent or stop the growth of prostate cancer say researchers”.
It is early days yet but these trials have a great significance for men at the end of their hormone treatment because the cancer no longer responds to the lack of testosterone.
Distribution of Prostabrit, Quercetin, Beta-sitosterol and Potenzia will be taken over by THINK NATURAL part of Lifeplan Products Ltd, who have been the manufacturer of our capsules for many years.
HERE TO PURCHASE
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your past support for the PHA that has allowed us to provide information for so many men.
Our web site will continue into the future with prostate information and detail of my current successful self treatment of my prostate cancer. www.prostatehelp.me.uk
Philip Dunn, (Secretary)
So what now…
My PSA result for September is 2.1 I like this steady result !
For those interested I have dropped the use of the Lypo Vitamin C to just one sachet twice per week on Monday and Friday.
I still have Apricot kernels broken up in a coffee grinder sprinkled on my breakfast toast plus on soup when I remember. That together with two or three Quercetin capsules of course. They have been shown in lab test to destroy cancer cells.
So I will continue with this as long as my readings remain as is.
The reason for the lower amounts of Vit C is because the latest I have read about Lypo Vit C is that one sachet is the same as a Vit C IV.
When you consider that when I was first diagnosed and found out about Lypo Vit C I was taking two SACHETS per day, week in week out, for several months, my body must have wondered what the hell was happening !!
So it appears, if this is correct, that I am having two Vit C intravenous treatments per week. If I have read my Vit C books correctly such IV’s are potent cancer cell killers.
The comment below is worth noting if you need an argument when your medic says you need a radical prostatectomy
Localized Prostate Cancer:
Removal No Better Than Observation.
A large study that followed men across the US diagnosed with localized prostate cancer for over 10 years found they lived just as long whether they had surgery to remove the prostate or underwent observation. The researchers say their findings support observation over surgery for men with localized prostate cancer, especially if it is low-risk.
In their study, which was published online on 19 July in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) describe how, following diagnosis, between November 1994 through January 2002, they enrolled 731 men with localized prostate cancer, randomly assigned them to receive either radical prostatectomy or observation, and then followed their progress.
Radical prostatectomy is a surgical procedure that removes the entire prostate gland and some surrounding tissue.
The Study: Surgery Versus Observation
The average age of the men at diagnosis was 67 years, and the method of diagnosis was through prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood tests and biopsies. About half the men went into the surgery group (364), and half into the observation group (367).
Although the observation group did not have the surgery, they were able to receive palliative care and chemotherapy if their cancer got worse.
During the median follow-up of 10 years, 47% (171 men) in the surgery group died, compared with 49.9% (183) in the observation group. In their analysis, the researchers calculated the hazard ratio for this as 0.88, with confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.71 to 1.08 (P=0.22), and an absolute risk reduction of 2.9 percentage points.
In the surgery group, 5.8% of the men (21) died from prostate cancer or treatment, compared with 8.4% (31) in the observation group. For this, the calculated hazard ratio was 0.63, with 95% CI ranging from 0.36 to 1.09 (P=0.09) and an absolute risk reduction of 2.6 percentage points.
These figures did not change when they took into account other potential influencing factors such as age, race, medical conditions, and the type of tumor.
21.4% of the men in the surgery group had a complication within the first 30 days, the most common being infection. One of the men also died during this period.
Two years after surgery, urinary incontinence and impotence (erectile dysfunction) were much more common among the men in the surgery group than in the observation group.
Observation Better Option for Low Risk Categories
The researchers classified the men, according to their PSA levels and Gleason scores, as having either low, intermediate, or high-risk prostate cancer.
The results showed that the men with low-risk cancer (PSA under 10, Gleason score under 7), were the least likely to benefit from radical prostatectomy.
The researchers say their findings support the idea that if the cancer is low risk, then observation is a better option for men with localized prostate cancer.
Check out the original site here.. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/248143.php
Nothing to report this month as no PSA test. All aok with my sysytem !
Check out here for information on a cancer treatment more fully written up.
It is now two months since my last PSA test. I have cut out most of the treatments I have been giving myself over the past four weeks including Vit C sachets.
New Test.....and the result is 2.5. i.e. it has increased apparently by .3
Possibly something I can ignore ?
Am I cured ? If I am was it the Vit C? Was it the Gyrus vapourisation I had which found the cancer in the first place and eliminated it at the same time ?
The Gyrus machine is only used for BPH treatment and I have seen no comments that it could be used for prostate cancer. Maybe it is just one of lifes little mysteries.
My medics seem to prefer to keep their lips very tightly zipped !!
If you are unsure about Vit C lypo or curious about the general medical negative attitude to it then check out this site.
IT’S DECISION TIME.
But how can you make a decision if your medical team cannot.
Do you have breast cancer ? No, well maybe prostate cancer ? No, not that either, lucky you !
Well maybe you have had a cholesterol check, they are the ‘in’ thing this decade. Medics need to tick all the boxes, pharma’s push for mega sales.
Breast cancer screening is Good. Prostate cancer screening is Good. Cholesterol screening is Good.
All those statements are true, aren’t they ?
But now shock horror, not only have SOME medics come to the conclusion that prostate cancer screening means that many men are surgically mutilated, chemically mutilated and generally mentally screwed, by what follows a positive test, if they go for treatment.
That is due to the use of radical surgery, radiotherapy or hormone treatment. Not to mention the mental stress the diagnosis and treatment causes. The clear evidence is that many men who have a positive PSA result, in fact, had a pussy cat cancer and never needed the treatment meted out to them at all. oooOPs.
So if your medic cannot plot an accurate path of treatment following a blood test and/or a biopsy then how the h*** can you ?
Now we have in our Newspapers almost word for word with similar comments in regard to breast cancer. It seems thousands of women are being mutilated….. etc. even though they do not have a cancer which will kill them. (Obviously worse for a woman is that the mutilation is much more evident than surgery on a prostate gland).
With all the millions of pounds being spent around the world on cancer research you would have thought that this decision making conundrum would have been looked at, evaluated and solved.
Maybe not enough of the money raised, by the cancer charities, escapes from the clutches of the administrators. After all there is a need for suitable office space in a ‘suitable’ city area, a vast array of training schemes to send staff on, meetings with fellow charity staff/workers at ‘up market’ locations.
You would be surprised at how the administrative costs add up ! Well maybe you wouldn’t !
We now find that statins do not work for all the patients who have them prescribed. So they are faced with all the side effects that this range of drugs can cause even though the drugs do not help with the cholesterol problem they have been labelled with. Here is one.
A new study from the University of Waterloo has linked cholesterol medications with the development of cataracts.
The report published in Optometry and Vision Science found the use of statins increases the risk of developing cataracts by 50%... And people with type-2 diabetes have even greater risk.
Check out the web for full reports on side effects, the British Medical Journal, listed the following:- liver problems, acute kidney failure, muscle weakness and cataracts.
No problems nothing to report…
With no PSA this month I’m just winging it for a month !
HOW SCIENTIFIC ARE ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS?
By Walter Last
Here is the first part of Walters article, the total reproduced, with permission, in the Prostate Focus back in 2004.
There is a link below to the whole article.
Walter Last worked as a biochemist and research chemist in the medical departments of several German universities and at Bio-science Labs in Los Angeles. USA. Later he worked as a nutritionist and natural therapist in New Zealand and in Australia where he is now based.
He has written numerous health-related articles as well as several books, including ‘Heal Yourself’ and’Healing Foods’. His latest book is ‘The Natural Way to Heal’.
Walter Last is retired and does not have a clinic. For information check his web site
Or go direct to the original article together with all the medical references
The medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research that underpins its approach to cancer treatment. Someone newly diagnosed with cancer faces enormous pressure from our health care system to start immediately on a scientific medical treatment program that involves surgery, chemotherapy and radiation in various combinations. Being fearful and in shock, most individuals in this situation are no match for the overwhelming power of medical authority.
How would you react in this situation? You may be leaning towards natural therapies for simple health problems but for something as serious as cancer you may feel safer with the tested and proven methods of orthodox medical care. Nevertheless, if you have the chance, read the following before you make your final decision. You may then have a better appreciation of natural cancer treatment.
In this article I have assembled some little known facts about the science behind orthodox cancer treatment. In cancer research, success (expressed as a five-year survival rate) is established by comparing other forms and combinations of treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the success rate of surgery has rarely been compared with the survival rates of untreated patients, and never with patients who adopted natural therapies. Therefore, orthodox cancer treatment is inherently unscientific. The overall supposed cure rate is not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect.
In support of my position I offer the following key statements and conclusions from medical and scientific publications.
“Studies appear to show that early intervention is helpful, because pre-cancerous lesions are included in early removals that frequently would not become cancerous if left untouched.” In other words, early intervention appears helpful because lesions are removed that are not cancerous but they are counted as being cancer, and that improves survival statistics. “Also, it does not matter how much or how little of a breast is removed; the outcome is always the same “(1). This statement indicates that surgery does not improve survival chances; otherwise there would be a difference between radical surgery and lumpectomy.
Researchers said it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of women with breast cancer to a futile mutilating procedure (2). Furthermore, there is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this then they would most likely refuse surgery (3).
In 1993 the editor of The Lancet pointed out that despite various modifications of breast cancer treatment, death rates remain unchanged. He acknowledges that despite the almost weekly releases of miracle breakthroughs, the medical profession with its extraordinary capacity for self-delusion (his words, not mine) in all truth has lost its way. At the same time he rejects those who now believe that salvation will come from increasing chemotherapy after surgery to just below the rate where it kills the patient. Instead, he continues, “would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach has failed?” Not too soon to ask this question after a century of mutilating women, I would say. The title of this editorial, appropriately, is Breast cancer: have we lost our way? (4).
Basically all types and combinations of conventional breast cancer treatment appear to result in the same low long-term survival rates. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum, M.D., a leading British breast cancer surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery tends to increase the risk of relapse or death within three years. He also linked surgery to the accelerated spread of cancer, which it does by forming metastases in other parts of the body (5).
An earlier German comparison found that untreated post-menopausal women with breast cancer lived longer than treated women, and the recommendation was not to treat postmenopausal women for breast cancer (6).
This conclusion confirms a finding by Ernst Krokowski, a German professor of radiology. He demonstrated conclusively that metastasis is commonly triggered by medical intervention, including sometimes even by a biopsy or surgery unrelated to the cancer (7). Disturbance of a tumor causes a greatly increased number of cancer cells to enter the bloodstream, while most medical intervention (especially chemotherapy) suppresses the immune system. This combination is a recipe for disaster. It is metastases that kill while primary tumors in general, and those in the breast in particular, can be relatively harmless. These findings have been confirmed by recent research, which shows that surgery, even if unrelated to the cancer, can trigger an explosive spread of metastases and lead to an untimely end (8).
This follows earlier reports that radical surgery for prostate cancer also tends to spread the disease. Actually, prostate cancer was investigated in the first randomized clinical trials for any type of cancer. After 23 years there was no difference in the survival rates of those who had surgery and controls (who did not) but those with surgery suffered more morbidity such as impotence or incontinence (9).
The late H B Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading US cancer statistician. He said in a speech before the American Cancer Society that no study had proven that early intervention improves the chances of survival. On the contrary, his studies prove conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer, and with better quality of life than treated ones. Needless to say, he was not invited again (10).