We may have cured father-in-laws cancer naturally - symptoms are gone in three weeks!!

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I'm not sure about these sizes because G is saying that the doctors never mentioned anything about him getting larger, they said he didn't. I'm not sure about him having a 30 gram prostate when a normal healthy adult is 25 grams. He took five minutes to pee because he had to stop so much. Does that sound like someone with a 30 gram prostate? Doubtful.

A healthy adult prostate weighs about 20 – 25 grams (2/3 to 3/4 of an ounce). It is walnut shaped and it measures 4 x 2 x 3 centimeters (1.6 x 1 x 1.2 inches). It is divided into 2 lobes. It contains smooth muscle cells capable of contracting to expel the prostatic fluid.

reply to post by Rezlooper


It's not like I made that number up. The 1/30/2013 report says 30 g and that's from the ultrasound during the biopsy on 1/17/2013. The 3/21/2013 report also references the 30 g estimation by ultrasound.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

It's not like I made that number up. The 1/30/2013 report says 30 g and that's from the ultrasound during the biopsy on 1/17/2013. The 3/21/2013 report also references the 30 g estimation by ultrasound.

I know, I saw that to. It's just kind of strange to me that if he had cancer, how it could only be 30 g when 25 is a normal healthy adult.

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

It's not like I made that number up. The 1/30/2013 report says 30 g and that's from the ultrasound during the biopsy on 1/17/2013. The 3/21/2013 report also references the 30 g estimation by ultrasound.

I know, I saw that to. It's just kind of strange to me that if he had cancer, how it could only be 30 g when 25 is a normal healthy adult.

That's because you don't understand how different cancers progress. Adenocarcinoma, cancer derived from glandular tissue, starts as abnormal cells that grow and progress along the ducts of the gland. They can expand quite far along those ducts before creating a tumor and alter the size and structure of the parent organ. Look up "ductal carcinoma in situ" for a detailed description.

reply to post by Rezlooper

It's just kind of strange to me that if he had cancer, how it could only be 30 g when 25 is a normal healthy adult.

That is just one of the many questions I would have for the Dr. if I were in your position. I've only seen ONE reference
to actual size and only ONE PSA result from Dr. Grune. It still blows my mind that a PSA wasn't done on the 21st. I have read nothing to indicate that the cancer MUST be accompanied by significant enlargement just as a "normal" PSA doesn't rule out cancer. However the reports seem to show a dramatic increase in size and that Gleason score of 7 from the biopsy is troublesome.

Also, here are a few excerpts from a site I would get to know.

Dr. Morton's current research is focused on patients who have been given a diagnosis of Gleason 7. His studies indicate the critical need for a unique treatment approach for these patients.

In a study of over 300 patients in Sweden, the disease specific survival for Gleason 7 patients was 10 years. In contrast, Gleason 6 patients survived 16 years and Gleason 4-5 for 20 years. We and many other groups have investigated this question and it is clear that the prognosis for men with Gleason score 7 tumors is worse than for men with Gleason 5 & 6 tumors.

I think that a patient needs to understand that he is at increased risk for both advanced pathologic grade as well as tumor recurrence if he has any component of Gleason 4 in his pretreatment biopsy. He should also understand that he must be certain to follow-up with his physician on a regular basis and have frequent PSA tests. It is clear that adjuvant therapies have the best chance to work when given at the earliest signs of disease progression.

prostatenet.com...

The quality of G's future depends on the quality of assessment of his condition. Make sure that decisions are based on the best information possible.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Hey NavyDoc.


Ever heard this one?

“People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care”

You used terms like "laughable" and "stupid" in your posts to Rezlooper.


While you may be correct, (you are a doctor after all),



Sometimes bitter medicine is easier to swallow in a sugar cube.


Your bedside manner needs some work.

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Hey NavyDoc.


Ever heard this one?

“People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care”

You used terms like "laughable" and "stupid" in your posts to Rezlooper.


While you may be correct, (you are a doctor after all),



Sometimes bitter medicine is easier to swallow in a sugar cube.


Your bedside manner needs some work.

Meh, some of the claims of alternative medicine is indeed laughable and even scary. I'm a big proponent of nutrition and supplimentation. I've got a huge stack of bottles right in front of me that i've been sorting through from tumeric to CoQ-10 to various B vitamins, D-ribose and L-argenine. What is frustrating about some of the wild claims by some people who push "natural cures" like snake oil without understanding underlying physiology and presenting unrealistic "miracle cures" is that it actually harms the naturopathic movement.

Notice how I also congradulated him on leading his FIL into better nutrition and how I pointed out that he did a very good job at helping him feel better and onto a more healthy lifestyle. Notice how I said that he probably added years onto the man's life. Of course, some people will only see the negative, I guess.


ETA: and yeah, when someone says somthing utterly moronic such as me and people like me intentionally keep people sick so that we can profit off of them, then I'm going to call that stupid. I'm human, so sue me.

reply to post by NavyDoc


A bit of a late reply to this thread, but I've been reading closely. I couldn't agree more with dusty1's comment about sugar cubes....you will pretty much always get more from people with honey than vinegar, no matter how clever, well educated or even correct you may be. I've been around medical people all my life...most of my family is in the medical profession one way or another, and I have to say that their closed mindedness on occasions makes me mental. It can be very patronising. While I totally agree that many of the claims in the alternative health area don't stand up to scrutiny, modern medical science is a long way from perfect too. Sometimes a very VERY long way.

The inspiration behind this thread is, I believe, the OP's strong belief that their efforts MAY have made a difference with some mechanism not yet fully understood, and he was opening it up for discussion, not derision and caustic comments about stupidity, which serve no-one. This thread could potentially be very useful, and if there is something critical or even negative to say, then all I can suggest is that you find a more evolved way of expressing your concerns. Using condescending and dismissive language just makes people want to ignore your opinion, however valuable it might be.

That's my little rant, for what it's worth. Best regards to you, Rezlooper, and to G...please keep us updated. Faery out!

Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

A bit of a late reply to this thread, but I've been reading closely. I couldn't agree more with dusty1's comment about sugar cubes....you will pretty much always get more from people with honey than vinegar, no matter how clever, well educated or even correct you may be. I've been around medical people all my life...most of my family is in the medical profession one way or another, and I have to say that their closed mindedness on occasions makes me mental. It can be very patronising. While I totally agree that many of the claims in the alternative health area don't stand up to scrutiny, modern medical science is a long way from perfect too. Sometimes a very VERY long way.

The inspiration behind this thread is, I believe, the OP's strong belief that their efforts MAY have made a difference with some mechanism not yet fully understood, and he was opening it up for discussion, not derision and caustic comments about stupidity, which serve no-one. This thread could potentially be very useful, and if there is something critical or even negative to say, then all I can suggest is that you find a more evolved way of expressing your concerns. Using condescending and dismissive language just makes people want to ignore your opinion, however valuable it might be.

That's my little rant, for what it's worth. Best regards to you, Rezlooper, and to G...please keep us updated. Faery out!

Fair enough, although there has been some caustic comments from teh other side as well. When someone suggests that you are intentionally keeping people sick to profit off of them, I think you can understand how one would find that a bit annoying/insulting.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I can completely understand that it would be hurtful, but you have to bear in mind that they almost certainly didn't mean you personally. I'm sure there are things going on in the bigger picture of the medical world than we will ever see, and cancer as a very lucrative industry isn't so much of a stretch maybe. Sadly, you have to accept that not every medical professional will have your level of integrity, and all too often, it's ALL about the money. It's plausible that a cancer cure that costs nothing would be a huge threat to someone somewhere.

I've been in the complementary medical world a long time, and have often observed that it's incredibly easy to get defensive about new or alternative techniques or even beliefs when confronted by science based arguments by people who have medical qualifications. What we really would love is for someone to say, ok, lets really look at this and perhaps we can find some way to test it and see if it's real or not, instead of dismissing it as woo straight off the bat. A lot of alternative stuff is absolute howling rubbish, but not all of it, and perhaps there are many bits worth exploring with the right combination of people involved. Without deviation, progress isn't possible, As Frank Zappa so wisely pointed out.

Originally posted by caitlinfae
Without deviation, progress isn't possible, As Frank Zappa so wisely pointed out.

Unfortunate citation, considering Zappa died of prostate cancer. Early diagnosis would likely have saved him.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Frank Zappa suffered from a very aggressive cancer, and died at just 52, much younger than G already is. It's well documented that he spent a lot of time with energy healers, and although they didn't cure him, his prognosis of just 2 months survival when he started with them turned into two years in all, with arguably much better quality of life.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by caitlinfae
Without deviation, progress isn't possible, As Frank Zappa so wisely pointed out.

Unfortunate citation, considering Zappa died of prostate cancer. Early diagnosis would likely have saved him.

I did not know that. Star for teaching me something this afternoon.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Meh, some of the claims of alternative medicine is indeed laughable and even scary. I'm a big proponent of nutrition and supplimentation.

Alright.

Notice how I also congradulated him on leading his FIL into better nutrition and how I pointed out that he did a very good job at helping him feel better and onto a more healthy lifestyle. Notice how I said that he probably added years onto the man's life. Of course, some people will only see the negative, I guess.

I noticed that.

Sometimes you can pat someone on the back with one hand, and stick the scalpel in with the other.

Perhaps I misjudged what I read.

I apologize if I misconstrued your intent.

reply to post by NavyDoc

ETA: and yeah, when someone says somthing utterly moronic such as me and people like me intentionally keep people sick so that we can profit off of them, then I'm going to call that stupid. I'm human, so sue me.

So military doctors in recent history, never conducted medical experiments on soldiers or civilians to see what would happen?

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

ETA: and yeah, when someone says somthing utterly moronic such as me and people like me intentionally keep people sick so that we can profit off of them, then I'm going to call that stupid. I'm human, so sue me.

So military doctors in recent history, never conducted medical experiments on soldiers or civilians to see what would happen?

If, by recent history, are you talking about the 1950's? There have been ethical breeches in the past...let me direct you to the Tuskeegee experiments. Due to these situations, medicine in general and government agencies (including the military) in particular have very strict guidlines and oversite for research studies. This is a conspiracy website, so I'm certain super top secret allegations will come up, but the process is very heavily regulated based on past incidents as you describe.

Again, the accusation that physicians intentionally keep people ill to profit off them is very unfounded and pretty inflammatory.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

ETA: and yeah, when someone says somthing utterly moronic such as me and people like me intentionally keep people sick so that we can profit off of them, then I'm going to call that stupid. I'm human, so sue me.

So military doctors in recent history, never conducted medical experiments on soldiers or civilians to see what would happen?

If, by recent history, are you talking about the 1950's? There have been ethical breeches in the past...let me direct you to the Tuskeegee experiments. Due to these situations, medicine in general and government agencies (including the military) in particular have very strict guidlines and oversite for research studies. This is a conspiracy website, so I'm certain super top secret allegations will come up, but the process is very heavily regulated based on past incidents as you describe.

Again, the accusation that physicians intentionally keep people ill to profit off them is very unfounded and pretty inflammatory.

If a doctor prescribes drugs, with known side effects, then they are voluntarily/involuntarily contributing to this dangerous practice.

Vitamin C will do what statins can not do, yet statins are prescribed in mass amounts while vitamin C is shunned, explain that, thanks.

Originally posted by toastyr

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

ETA: and yeah, when someone says somthing utterly moronic such as me and people like me intentionally keep people sick so that we can profit off of them, then I'm going to call that stupid. I'm human, so sue me.

So military doctors in recent history, never conducted medical experiments on soldiers or civilians to see what would happen?

If, by recent history, are you talking about the 1950's? There have been ethical breeches in the past...let me direct you to the Tuskeegee experiments. Due to these situations, medicine in general and government agencies (including the military) in particular have very strict guidlines and oversite for research studies. This is a conspiracy website, so I'm certain super top secret allegations will come up, but the process is very heavily regulated based on past incidents as you describe.

Again, the accusation that physicians intentionally keep people ill to profit off them is very unfounded and pretty inflammatory.

If a doctor prescribes drugs, with known side effects, then they are voluntarily/involuntarily contributing to this dangerous practice.

Vitamin C will do what statins can not do, yet statins are prescribed in mass amounts while vitamin C is shunned, explain that, thanks.

Everything has the potential for negative side effects. This is one of the problems one encounters with naturopathy: people assume that if it is "natural" it is completely risk free.

Mayo Clinic

High doses of vitamin C have been associated with multiple adverse effects. These include kidney stones, severe diarrhea, nausea, and gastritis. Rarely, flushing, faintness, dizziness, and fatigue have been noted. In cases of toxicity due to massive ingestions of vitamin C, forced fluids, and diuresis may be beneficial. In postmenopausal women with diabetes, supplemental vitamin C in doses greater than 300 milligrams daily has been associated with increased risk of heart-related death.

I'd start an otherwise healthy young person on what I take myself. CoQ10, niacin, and 1000mg vitamin C and consider a statin if supplements, diet, and exercise failed to help.


Statins are helpful, but I agree, are overprescribed. It boggles my mind that an 80 year old female is on a statin when I see that, we have a discussion. To be frank, she has a lot more potential causes to die in the next decade or two than elevated cholesterol. Remember: teh cholesterol you have today, sets you up for cardiac issues 20 years hence.

Statins are helpful, say an example of familial hypercholesterolemia where people have MIs in their 20s and have cholesterol plaques not just in their blood vessels, but in their eyes and on their skin.

There are a few good studies on vitamin c, Berkley did a placebo-controlled, randomized one that showed a drop in C-reactive protein by about 16%.

The UC Berkeley-led study looked at the separate effects of two antioxidants: vitamin C and vitamin E. The researchers randomly divided 396 healthy, non-smoking adults from the San Francisco Bay Area into groups taking daily doses of either 1,000 milligrams of vitamin C, 800 international units of vitamin E or a placebo. The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin C is 90 milligrams per day for men and 75 milligrams per day for women. The researchers noted that the suggested upper limit for vitamin C is 2,000 milligrams per day, or twice the level used in the study.

They compared participants’ baseline CRP levels with their levels two months later, at the end of the study. Fewer than half of the participants in the study started with elevated levels of CRP.

Participants who had baseline CRP levels less than 1 milligram per liter saw no significant effect on CRP levels after taking vitamin C supplements. However, those who started off with CRP levels of 1 milligram per liter or higher saw a 16.7 percent drop in levels after two months of treatment with vitamin C.

Not a huge trial, but with encouraging results and proper methodology and underlying physiology. If the cost and risk are low, it is definately worth a try. One problem with naturopathic attempts at augmenting traditional medicine is that it really takes an effort on the part of hte patient and practitioner. It takes more of an investment in your health than just taking a pill.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Just because the Mayo Clinic claims vitamin c is associated with kidney stones doesn't make it anymore true.
If you hop over to the vitamin foundation they take this claim apart on a study basis.
I believe it was Victor Herbert? (A well known "quack hunter") who championed this claim to push his agenda.
Limbo

See
www.internetwks.com...

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Just because the Mayo Clinic claims vitamin c is associated with kidney stones doesn't make it anymore true.
If you hop over to the vitamin foundation they take this claim apart on a study basis.
I believe it was Victor Herbert? (A well known "quack hunter") who championed this claim to push his agenda.
Limbo

See
www.internetwks.com...

Actually, if you understand physiology, you know that it is quite true. The kidney filters your blood to create urine. Large particulate loads can and do create concretions colloquially known as "kidney stones."

Large Amounts of Vitamin C Increase Risk of Kidney Stones
The researchers suspected that greater amounts of vitamin C could elevate the risk of kidney stones because the body breaks down the vitamin into material known as oxelate - a part of the stones.

Study co-author Agneta Akesson, an associate professor with the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, said:


"It is important that the public is aware that there may be risks associated with taking high doses of vitamin C. Those with a history of kidney stones should consult their doctor before taking high-dose vitamin C supplements."


In the current study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators followed over 23,000 Swedish men who were between 45 and 79 years old in 1997 up to the year 2009. None of them had kidney stones at baseline.

Close to 900 of the men took 1,000-milligram doses of vitamin C, and 3 percent of them (31 men) later had kidney stones. Less than 2 percent of those in the rest of the group developed kidney stones.

The researchers adjusted for factors which could undermine the reliability of the findings, such as education levels, ages, and body weights.

They revealed that those men who received the high-dose supplements had an elevated kidney stone risk ranging between 1.7 and 2.2 times.

Mega-doses of anything, even water, can be harmful and people should actually think before they consume. Why do som many people in the suppliment sid of things get all angry and confrontational if anyone suggests that there is any downside or any sort of side effects with "natural" healing? Rational thought teaches us that nothing is without risk and too much of a good thing can be harmful. One of the biggest incorrect beliefs in this arena is that if something is called "natural" it is completely without risk or side effects and can be taken in any amount without problems. This is not true anywhere in nature.