Bob Dillon was right. "Everybody must get ston?d!" LOL

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

ChrisR
Veteran Member


Date Joined Apr 2008
Total Posts : 826
   Posted 4/1/2011 3:46 PM (GMT -6)   
 
National Institute of Cancer says so to.............
 

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25380
   Posted 4/1/2011 3:49 PM (GMT -6)   
Your post is probably in violation of Forum Rule #2. You might want to check it out first.
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 2/11 1.24
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 9/10,

ChrisR
Veteran Member


Date Joined Apr 2008
Total Posts : 826
   Posted 4/1/2011 3:49 PM (GMT -6)   
What? Quoting song lyrics?
Dx @ 42 years old on 4/2008
Gleason 6 (50 Point Biopsy) (6 Cores positive - Small Focus Each)
open RP 10/08 Johns Hopkins Dr. Partin
pT2 Organ Confined Gleason 6 (tertiary score 0)
PSA Since Surgery
1/15/2009 (3 Month) <.1
10/15/2009 (1 Year) <.1
10/15/2010 (2 Year) <0.03
02/11/2011 (2.3 Year) <0.03 (Impromptu done by GP at a physical)
10/15/2011 (3 Year) -

Ziggy9
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2008
Total Posts : 981
   Posted 4/1/2011 3:54 PM (GMT -6)   
ChrisR said...
What? Quoting song lyrics?


I'm in a MMJ legal state and I'm not allowed to discuss it here. Although as a preventative it doesn't work as my 40+ years of usage can attest to.
Diagnosed 11/08/07 - Age: 58 - 3 of 12 @5%
Psa: 2.3 - 3+3=6 - Size: 34g -T-2-A

2/22/08 - 3D Mapping Saturation Biopsy - 1 of 45 @2% - Psa:2.1 - 3+3=6 - 28g after taking Avodart - Catheter for 1 day -Good Candidate for TFT(Targeted Focal Therapy) Cryosurgery(Ice Balls) - Clinical Research Study

4/22/08 - TFT performed at University of Colorado Medical Center - Catheter for 4 days - Slight soreness for 2 weeks but afterward life returns as normal

7/30/08 - Psa: .32
11/10/08 - Psa.62 -
April 2009 12 of 12 Negative Biopsy

2/16/10 12 of 12 Negative Biopsy

Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 4/1/2011 4:22 PM (GMT -6)   
Guys,
i have seen some interesting papers on this topic but they are not allowed here. The thing is not all states allow any use and federally it is outlawed for any use. I have alerted the Admin for a clarification. Similar to other topics we limit it is quite controversial.

I request that we await the findings before any further posting but I have a good idea on what the finding might be. And I'm sorry but it is what it is and we can move on.

Tony

Ziggy9
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2008
Total Posts : 981
   Posted 4/1/2011 7:32 PM (GMT -6)   
It's coming soon to Nevada, Tony. You'll be able to discuss, compare or whatever about MMJ at your Ustoo meetings then log online and be forbidden to say a word.

Seems rather silly and not current with the times. I don't find this topic to be the same as religion or politics.

Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 4/1/2011 8:30 PM (GMT -6)   
Ziggy this may dismay you.

I agree. And Nevada is on the cutting edge side of the topic btw.

I will only say we already have had this topic discussed at other meetings. But the rules here are different than the meetings we have and I also moderate them.

We have to respect the rules in place. If they change I will work for the patient as best I can within the parameters set to moderate.

I have to.

Tony
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:
Da Vinci Surgery ~ 2/16/2007
Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ~ IMRT Completed 8/07
Adjuvant Hormone Therapy ~ 28 months on Casodex and Lupron.
Undetectable PSA.

Blog: www.caringbridge.org/visit/tonycrispino

ChrisR
Veteran Member


Date Joined Apr 2008
Total Posts : 826
   Posted 4/2/2011 8:41 AM (GMT -6)   
I did not post this artilce to be controversial.   If you read the article they institute seems to elude that they actually believe it has a benefit, but then they back off as if they know it is very controversial.  I personally have never used, but it if will help others here or myself one day I don't want the it to be a hidden solution.   I think just like many other possible medicines that could beneift us, the drug companies don't want anything to do with it because it won't make them a "dime".   Oops, another pun again.......

Ziggy9
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2008
Total Posts : 981
   Posted 4/2/2011 8:58 AM (GMT -6)   
TC-LasVegas said...
Ziggy this may dismay you.

I agree. And Nevada is on the cutting edge side of the topic btw.

I will only say we already have had this topic discussed at other meetings. But the rules here are different than the meetings we have and I also moderate them.

We have to respect the rules in place. If they change I will work for the patient as best I can within the parameters set to moderate.

I have to.

Tony


It doesn''t dismay me at all.

I know Nevada is soon to open MMJ dispensaries. You'll be surprised as we have more of them in the state than Starbucks.

GOP
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2010
Total Posts : 657
   Posted 4/2/2011 9:48 AM (GMT -6)   
'Although as a preventative it doesn't work as my 40+ years of usage can attest to.'
 
Yeah, Tomatoes-ketchup didn't work out too well in that regard either as some have proposed it might, and I was (and remain) a hard core user of that product line.

clocknut
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2010
Total Posts : 2670
   Posted 4/2/2011 9:53 AM (GMT -6)   
The title of this thread is pretty misleading, and the newspaper article does a rather poor job or summarizing the actual document.  The following summary statement in the actual document says pretty much the opposite of the thread title:  The CAM Board lead reviewers realized that the previous wording could have been misinterpreted as being a recommendation for prescribing Cannabis, which was not the intent of the Board. In addition, the current evidence for the antitumor properties of Cannabis is discussed only in the context of laboratory studies and not in research involving human subjects. It is discussed only in the summary section
New Topic Locked Topic Printable Version
Forum Information
Currently it is Sunday, July 22, 2018 3:46 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 2,984,295 posts in 327,206 threads.
View Active Threads


Who's Online
This forum has 161989 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, 45791Anne312.
407 Guest(s), 8 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
Kent M., astroman, WendyMax, Yellow1955, Tudpock18, mcspike, borborygmi, duke48