interesting NY Times article - prehistoric PCa

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> ]

tatt2man
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 2840
   Posted 1/4/2011 8:02 AM (GMT -6)   

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25364
   Posted 1/4/2011 8:45 AM (GMT -6)   
Truly amazing. Thanks.
Age: 58, 56 dx, PSA: 7/07 5.8, 10/08 16.3
3rd Biopsy: 9/08 7 of 7 Positive, 40-90%, Gleason 4+3
open RP: 11/08, on catheters for 101 days
Path Rpt: Gleason 3+4, pT2c, 42g, 20% cancer, 1 pos marg
Incont & ED: None
Post Surgery PSA: 2/09 .05,5/09 .1, 6/09 .11. 8/09 .16
Post SRT PSA: 1/10 .12, 4/8 .04, 8/6 .06 11/10 Not taking it
Latest: 6 Corr Surgeries to Bladder Neck, SP Catheter since 10/1/9, SRT 39 Sess/72 gy ended 11/09, 21 Catheters, Ileal Conduit Surgery 9/23/10

142
Forum Moderator


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 6887
   Posted 1/4/2011 8:57 AM (GMT -6)   
Good article - thanks for posting it.

clocknut
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2010
Total Posts : 2649
   Posted 1/4/2011 11:29 AM (GMT -6)   
I love it when science and common sense come together.

Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 1/4/2011 5:29 PM (GMT -6)   

I really enjoyed reading this NYT article because I am somewhat of a history buff…I like to understand why things changed over time.  Prostate cancer, and other cancers, existed long ago, but not at the same rates as they are occurring today.

It is absolutely true that one reason that cancer incidence is going up is that humans are living longer and so they are getting more cancers which strike later in life.  As the article says, “In former times, it was less common because people were struck down in midlife by other things.”  Also, we detect/screen cancer much more systematically today, but this does not explain the rates of cancer deaths (which for some cancers has recently been offset by improvements).

These factors have been gauged by researchers to account for only about 1/3 of the increase, with 2/3 attributed to changes in our modern lifestyle.  This fact is further evidenced by the sharp increase in cancer rates in children since the mid-20th century.  Children are not in midlife, and we generally do not screen for cancer in children.

 

Scientific literature helps explain why things changed over time, and in particular the increase in cancer incidence since World War II.  Here’s some key factors impacting a wide range of cancers:

·         Dramatic increase in use of refined sugar, now greater than 150 lbs for average person in western society (much of this from industrial foods).  (Sugar/cancer link shown way back in 1931 by Nobel laureate Otto Warburg.)

·         Huge shift in fats in our foods.  Invention of trans fats (didn’t exist before WWII) to allow industrial foods to stay on shelves and for McDonalds to make french fries in the same oil all day long.  Also, shift in Omega-3/Omega-6 balance driven largely in changes to how we feed animals (stopped feeding grass, which is high in Omega-3—inhibitor of cell growth) and shifted to corn and soy (high in Omega-6—stimulator of cell growth).  We took Omega-3 out of the diets of the animals we eat, which in turn took it out of our diets. 

·         Change in chemical exposures; there were essentially no pesticides (which are mostly classified as carcinogens) before WWII.

·         Radical shift to sedentary lifestyle.  Exercise is known to protect bodies from carcinogens, strengthens our immunity systems, and reduces sugar load.  How many of your parents/grandparents walked a mile to school?  How many of your children/grandchildren walk a mile to school?

 

Cancer is not brand new in the modern era, but it got much worse in the modern era.


 

Added later in an edit:  a picture says a thousand words:   IMAGE

Post Edited (Casey59) : 1/4/2011 4:36:16 PM (GMT-7)


Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 1/4/2011 5:45 PM (GMT -6)   
A good friend of mine writes articles for the Miami Herald. He is a surgeon near Miami and wanted to write about the InfoLink just after he and Mike Scott started it. The article compared this finding of the Scythian King to how he must have been treated for his growing illness to how we might do it today. Here is the article from Arnon Krongrad:

tinyurl.com/alq82v

I responded Arnon's paper with the following:

Great article, Arnon...

The internet has been a great source of information on prostate cancer for me and Ruthie. From the initial moments my urologist said “C” I was a bit dazed and confused. BTW my dx urologist gave me all the pathology stuff and medical records and told me “Take these with you, you are likely to turn to the web and ask questions, this will help you”. After four days of research (and a bone scan) I was much more settled in and understanding of my disease though I had a ways to go. Within two weeks I knew what I wanted to do and who I wanted to do it. When I showed up at the City of Hope for the first time, Dr. Wilson confirmed a second opinion, asked me question after question for which I fired back answers indicating that I “was well informed” and ready to proceed. I am smart enough to look past much of the useless information and get usable information. After nearly two years I am well equipped to continue my healing. But, I fall in the general population. Do we have a ways to go with online counseling and discussion? Yes. Like you said we are on Health 2.0. Eventually, we will have Health XP and Health Vista and it’s already here to stay. You can see me as a study patient, but I see myself as patient and an advocate who speaks from the heart openly. I like Health 2.0.

But I do have food for thought. The Scythian king’s demise was like so many today with late stage prostate cancer. The difference, in his case, between Soothsayer 1.0 and Health 2.0 appears still to be completely undetermined. We have found early detection to be a real aid in fighting this disease. But we have also still find late detection to be almost always a quality of life game versus a mystic cure.

The time you and Mike have given is very nice and it brings me peace knowing that a doctor wants to interact in the way you do in the Front of the Mask. To me it’s great networking. And that’s not a bad thing. See you at Happy Hour.

Your friend,

Tony Crispino
Disease:
Advanced Prostate Cancer at age 44 (I am 48 now)
pT3b,N0,Mx (original PSA was 19.8) EPE, PM, SVI. Gleason 4+3=7

Treatments:
RALP ~ 2/17/2007 at the City of Hope near Los Angeles.
Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ~ IMRT Completed 8/07
Adjuvant Hormone Therapy ~ 28 months on Casodex and Lupron.

Status:
"I beat up this disease and took its lunch money! I am in remission."
I am currently not being treated, but I do have regular oncology visits.
I am the president of an UsTOO chapter in Las Vegas

Blog : www.caringbridge.org/visit/tonycrispino

Post Edited (TC-LasVegas) : 1/4/2011 4:48:25 PM (GMT-7)


Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 1/4/2011 7:23 PM (GMT -6)   
Unfortunately, in the world of HW/Health 2.0, we also have to tolerate a lot of irrelevant blather...

tatt2man
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 2840
   Posted 1/4/2011 7:30 PM (GMT -6)   
that comment was unnecessary and antagonistic

Post Edited (tatt2man) : 1/4/2011 6:35:22 PM (GMT-7)


Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 1/4/2011 7:44 PM (GMT -6)   
LOL, Casey...
Very true and touche. Still I have to wonder... We still cannot completely stop cancer. Metastatic cancer seems to still be a scientific mystery. Additionally, we assume that cancer is more prevalent, and it may be, but it may have nothing to do with diets. And it may even not be true. But if it is, then back in the time of a Scythian king we know that he did not use Old Spice deodorant, he did not watch TV, he did not have Lysol to spray in the bathroom when he finished his work there.

Nope ~ for this cancer survivor in 700BC, it was a smelly life filled with no preservatives, plenty of exercise pillaging the neighboring countries, and a case of metastatic prostate cancer that killed him. When I read scripture from that era and understand the societal challenges that were in place, it is interesting to think how folks handled such things. I would like to think that 2700 years later we are treating it better.

Just some blather to think about...:-)

Tat..don't sweat it. I can take it...

Tony

Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 1/5/2011 11:24 AM (GMT -6)   
TC-LasVegas said...
LOL, Casey...
 
Glad to see you "get it", Tony.   Dr Scholz says that laughter is the "ultimate antioxidant."

Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 1/5/2011 12:28 PM (GMT -6)   
Casey,
I still have to wonder how it is that today's science has clearly identifies an increase in cases of prostate cancer. I mean bone lesions that are positive for PSA is only something that could have been determined in the PSA era, but as recently as 1980 this case would have been classified as "unknown cancer" at best. So that means that nearly every other person that died of prostate cancer before 1980 has yet to be identified as prostate cancer as a cause of death unless there is a massive population based exhumation process ~ we don't know if prostate cancer is more prevalent in any era.

In the cohort of the "Jeremiah Study" Completed circa 650bc, we see a population that had NO cancer. Instead the possible causes of death were:

Demonic Possession
Hand of God (But Scythians were mostly paganists or idolatrists so very few would agree on this one. But demonic possession was still allowed)
Impalement of a foreign object (the enemy was typically possessed)
Leprosy (Also attributed to demonic possession)
Plague (Demonic Possession)
Natural Death (reserved for the era's heros and kings who don't die of anything above)

In fact this man likely died of demonic possession ~ like everyone else.

Now how is THAT for some serious blather?

:-)

Tony

Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 1/5/2011 12:44 PM (GMT -6)   
Tony,

I agree with your point that PC would have previously been classified as something like "unknown cancer." The data I spoke of (above) is for all cancers as a whole showing notable increases (which would include "unknown cancers."  So, further microscopic analysis is not really possible. However, things which we know contribute to prostate cancer mortality are on the list I provided of radical changes in lifestyle since WWII...so put 1+1 together, even if the details of PC deaths prior to the 80's are not available.

Loved the "Jeremiah Study" causes of death. Would have hated to have lived in those times (except as a hero or king). It's good to be king!

Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 1/5/2011 1:40 PM (GMT -6)   
Casey,
Yes but you know how I feel about studies. Even that one would have lacked enough time and follow up to be useful...

Just imagine what people in the year 4700 will think about our studies used today in prostate cancer to indicate "facts"...

(edited to add a point)

Tony

Post Edited (TC-LasVegas) : 1/5/2011 12:50:19 PM (GMT-7)


Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 1/5/2011 2:00 PM (GMT -6)   

Tony,

I know all too well about how you feel about studies being too short.

You should be pleased to know that although I restricted my primary comments, above, to the period since WWII, I referenced a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which analyzed Omega-3 & Omega-6 fatty acid usage over a span of 4-million years.

If this won't satisfy you...then I give up!


Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 1/5/2011 2:09 PM (GMT -6)   
Ahh.
A retrospective Level III epidemiological study ~ you need to give up!

Tony

Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 1/5/2011 2:12 PM (GMT -6)   
"Uncle!"

Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 1/5/2011 2:27 PM (GMT -6)   
Hahaha...
I would imagine that in the era of this "patient", when an animal was killed for consumption, every single tissue was consumed to the pelts that were worn. Saturated fats and otherwise. Scythians were a landlocked people. In fact staples of their diet were "mare's milk", meat, and cheese. Absolutely loaded in saturated fats.

Maybe that's why this king had prostate cancer...?

Tony

Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 1/5/2011 2:33 PM (GMT -6)   
OK, I was going to quit, but now you pulled me back into this...you have nobody but yourself to blame...

Those animals of yesteryear were all grass-fed. Grass is high in Omega-3 fatty acids. We have changed how we feed the animals which we then feed to ourselves. Now (largely since about WWII, but especially more recently) we have industrialized farms, and we feed corn and soy to animals before slaughter. Corn and soy are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Back to bullet #2 above.

What now!?

Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 1/5/2011 3:04 PM (GMT -6)   
I can easily drag this one out. But it probably is already drug out far enough.

Thanks for the exchanges, and I accept responsibility for the dragging. It was too entertaining, though.

It is, however, very much interesting how different era's will show us multiple social-economic variances that can challenge much of today's thinking. I believe we truly have more uncovered data than discovered data when it comes to cancers and what makes them prevalent. I accept some of the epidemiological data ~ but not all of it. That would be ignorant to what the studies did not take into consideration. And that could be critical data.

All we have here is the era, the patient, and the likely cause of death. We do not have his diet nor the diet of the animals he ate. I would like to see cases that were in other era's but it is only for conversation.

The article that Tatt2man posts only raises more questions than it answers.

Tony

PS: unless dragged back in, I too and finished...so to all ~ be careful what you wish for.

BuiDoi
Regular Member


Date Joined Aug 2010
Total Posts : 234
   Posted 1/5/2011 11:18 PM (GMT -6)   
.
and there I was blaming Global Warming for my PCa...
.
PS - I do wonder what we will be reading about in the years to come, as some of the controversy develops over GM Corn.   Do we believe all the scare-mongering ??
If the curret deal is that the switch from Grass-Fed to Grain-fed is causing problems, then God only knows what we are in for.
 
I think that I will tear up the backyard and plant vegies..
.

Post Edited (BuiDoi) : 1/5/2011 10:48:58 PM (GMT-7)

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
Forum Information
Currently it is Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:28 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 2,953,398 posts in 324,001 threads.
View Active Threads


Who's Online
This forum has 162074 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, 831jen.
413 Guest(s), 9 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
Froggy88, The Dude Abides, Pratoman, FLBeachgal, Busted1, F8, Quilter2015, xy123, Tall Allen