Ok, I will speak. I think it goes to attitude. I have written several articles, and to help with attitude, I will post this article published 2 or 3 years ago in PAACT magazine.
Folks, this is an article that I wrote about my
successful treatment plan and submitted to PAACT
Newsletter, and they just published it Dec 08.
LETTER TO THE
Diferent treatment plans
We depend upon research done in the Petri dish, on
mice, and on groups of people.
Perhaps we could look at identical twins, with each
undergoing a different treatment plan, for their
results. It would be pretty good research.
Here is a true story. Twin A: PSA went from 0.8 to
1.3, Gleason 9, Tetraploid grade tumor, cancer
in three lymph nodes that were removed. Twin
A had an orchiectomy and prostatectomy thirteen
years ago and has "never" had a rise in PSA (still
less than 0.01). Twin A is still alive.
Twin B: PSA went from 1.01 to 2.3, also Gleason
grade 9. Cancer only went as far as his seminal
Twin B had a prostatectomy. Twin B passed
away three years ago.
Question? Why is twin A still alive when the cancer
was in his lymph nodes, and has never had a rise
in PSA; and twin B passed away three years ago
and the cancer had only gone as far as his seminal
vesicles? That is what this discussion will be about.
I am twin A. I will make very few comments about
my brother's treatment (twin B), except to say he
was not nearly as aggressive in his treatment as I
was. He listened to his doctors; I listened to
worked very hard to stay alive and was very
in my treatment plan.
To start, we will talk about how smart you are. An
M.D. in my town grew marijuana in his backyard, got
caught, and is in jail. He was smart, but not "street
smart." There is a difference. So, I hang my hat on
being "street smart." I have three degrees, but they
are of no help, as none of them have anything to do
with health/medicine. I will explain my thinking, an
approach to my treatment plan, and how it differs
from many others.
First, three months after surgery, my PSA was
at 0.1, which was considered undetectable
back in 1994. I asked my very skilled surgeon if I
should start flutamide. He said, "take nothing by
mouth. He said: we will use flutamide
if/when it comes back." I could hardly believe
his statement. If we cut out all of the cancer why
try to kill the remainder, if there happened to be
left? My street smarts kicked in, I got together with
my family doctor, and I convinced him to start me on
flutamide three months after surgery. A short time
later I started taking Proscar®. So, I was
on triple hormone therapy three months after
surgery fourteen years ago. Essentially, in fourteen
years I have never been off of triple hormone
Where did the idea ever come from that after your
basic treatment: whether it is an orchiectomy,
seeds, etc., that you should wait for the PSA to
rise, then start treating with medication? All wrong
my opinion, and experience.
If a boxer gets an eight count on his opponent, he
does not back off and let his opponent gain strength,
and start in again. No, he goes after the knockout.
If you know your cancer is down in the eighth
round, with your first basic treatment, why not go
for the knockout with additional medication. "Street
So, first, in my opinion, start with medication right
after your basic treatment, whatever that is.
Second, take the shotgun approach to treatment.
When I was in the service, during rifle training, I
learned that the target can often move or another
target can develop. Often things can come into play
that can influence your cancer. So why take a rifle
approach, why not a shotgun approach? In my
I did not want to start a medication and wait to
"see how it does." I didn't think this was street
(you may just find out "how it does," and your cancer
continues). There are different elements to prostate
cancer. How do you know which element may arise
and restart or continue your cancer?
A shotgun approach goes something like this. If
there is good research on a medication/supplement,
why not start it immediately? You may not have a
Perhaps your cancer is influenced by inflammation,
and you may not realize that you have an inflammation
problem. Why not start Celebrex®? You get the
picture. In a shotgun approach you start just about
anything that "good" research has shown may stop
or slow down cancer.
We could go on and on about the shotgun approach
to treatment with many medications and many
supplements. There are a lot of medications and
supplements that fit into the shotgun approach, but
not so many that you can't get a handle on them.
I try to stay on the cutting edge of research, with
Here are some examples: lycopene. I phoned
Doctor Clinton (at Harvard then, now at Ohio State),
and he introduced me to lycopene and suggested I
eat cooked tomatoes. No capsules were available at
the time. I looked at the research and started eating
Pomegranate research looked overwhelming to
me, and no capsules were available at the time. I
purchased it as a liquid concentrate, shipped under
cold pack from California, then refrigerated it. When
the capsules became available I switched to the
Soy and fish oil capsules are another example. The
research looked very good to me, so I started taking
both of them 13 years ago.
Often folks have a different point of view, and do
want to take triple hormone therapy, as they want
to keep an erection. That is understandable, if you
accept the risk. I often hear it said that while you
are on triple hormone therapy you do not feel good.
I don't feel bad. Remember women have very low
testosterone, and they are tennis players, basketball
Back on point. Street smarts again. If you purchase
a new car, never change the oil, and blow an engine,
then replace the engine, would you go back and not
change the oil in the car again? Of course not, you
would change the oil, and use preventive maintenance.
Same with cancer. Keep changing the oil, by
staying on your treatment plan.
So, as of today, I have never stopped my medications/
supplements from the beginning, and have
My family doctor, who is a very excellent doctor,
would not give me everything I asked for. He would
often look at my research, but he knew other doctors
at a large medical center nearby, so I suspect
he would contact them sometimes before writing
me the prescription. If his research showed
he would not give me the prescription.
You may be thinking, "if he's so smart, why did he
his prostate cancer get as far as his lymph nodes?"
It wasn't my fault. I told the large medical
during my annual physical, that I wanted a biopsy
and they wouldn't agree to give me one.
I told them my twin brother already had prostate
cancer, and showed them some research that said
to watch the trend of the PSA. Having a PSA of 4.0
is not the only indicator for a conclusive
of prostate cancer. They wouldn't listen to me.
Six months later, the same doctor still refused to
give me a biopsy. Another month went by without
a biopsy, so I went to another doctor at the same
institution and begged for one. They finally did the
biopsy, but by then it was already advanced to my
lymph nodes. I was smarter than these doctors. It
is understandable to make mistakes. Even doctors
make mistakes, and that's ok, but they should
listen to their patients too, when good research is
presented to them.
Some doctors still think the PSA of 4.0 is the magic
number. I don't believe it.
I watch the trend in my blood work. I've talked with
lot of men, and often find that they do not know the
numbers on their blood work. They are not being
proactive or their own advocate.
Some doctors will use unreliable research or old
research to prove their point for a treatment plan
that they are suggesting for you. Don't listen. Do
your own research.
Let me give you an example: suppose a doctor
tells you that a prostatectomy is not any better than
watchful waiting, and the results are the same.
They may even use "research" that is fifteen years
old and done in a small country, which doesn't have
as good of doctors as we have, to prove their point.
You had better run for the door. If you are street
smart you will get on your computer and check
out the research yourself. One doctor recently
used research from the Lancet, 1996, 347:260 to
show that surgery accelerates cancer growth. (I
have never considered the Lancet as a top of the
line publication). He even went further and used
an article from the Scandinavian Journal of Urology
and Nephrology, 1995, 172:65-77 to prove
that radical prostatectomy versus no treatment for
prostate cancer were the same. Is he kidding me?
Using a Scandinavian study done in 1955 to prove
his point. He had better look at the research done
at Mayo Clinic. They have 3500 doctors, and do
many, many prostatectomy's a week and keep figures
on their long term results.
Are we to listen to some doctor that is using old
and unreliable research to prove his inferior point
view? Be your own advocate. We are not children.
What if a doctor tells you to cycle, that you will
better results than continuous treatment? Better
read the PAACT newsletter, September 2007
(page 3), with the most brilliant Dr. Fernand Labrie
Quote: "Frequent errors related to androgen
1) Monotherapy alone, instead of combined
2) Too short a duration of treatment.
3) Treatment started too late.
4) "Intermittent treatment."
Dr. Labrie is one of the giants in prostate research
and treatment. I will listen to Doctors like him.
To summarize, my approach has been to first start
medication/supplements immediately after your
first basic treatment, whatever that is.
Then stay on it. Take a shotgun approach.
Listen only to good research and good Doctors.
Aged, gleason 9, psa prior to surgery 2.3. Took prostate and testies out at Mayo Clinic, Sep 4, 1994. Gleason 9, in lymph nodes. I have been very aggressive in my treatment plan. I have never had a rise in psa, 16 years out. Still less than .01. My twin brother, also gleason 9, passed away 6 years ago with prostate cancer. He was not very aggressive in his treatment plan.