Has anyone ever refused treatment and stuck it out?

It's no secret there are a million "natural" and herbal supposed
remedies for prostate problems (not so many for actual cancer, but
nonetheless) and they are very convincing.
It takes a huge leap of faith when you're feeling just fine, no
symptoms, but elevated psa and perhaps abnormal DRE, to just cave in
and say "ok take out my prostate" and endure all the consequences.
The advertisements at least give some sort of alternative and my
question is: has anyone deliberately refused treatment and stuck it
out?

On October 18, "skeptic" inquired:

(ka-snip)

> has anyone deliberately refused treatment and stuck it
> out?

All the way through the agonizing last months? Dunno.

I do recall that there was a deluded fool here who thought that drinking
one's urine was somehow helpful. Unsurprisingly, his PCa killed him.

Regards,

Steve J

The answer is "of course" people refuse treatment and "stick it out".
But, if they did that, you aren't likely to find them participating in
this newsgroup, are you? I am NOT saying they went with one of the
alternative that promise all sorts of hope, although some probably do.
I think that it is more common for a person to forgo treatment and
just let nature take its course.

In my opinion, the natural and herbal supposed remedies are
"convincing" only to those who are looking for something to convince
them that they don't have to endure the problems, or potential
problems, resulting from "tradional" (commonly accepted medical)
treatments. If a person is convinced that there is some form of
"snake oil" out there that will cure his problems, he'll probably find
it among the "millions" you mention.

But, that's only my opinion. Each person has to do what is "right"
for him.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:00:54 -0700, skeptic <ribrass@aol.com> wrote:

>It's no secret there are a million "natural" and herbal supposed
>remedies for prostate problems (not so many for actual cancer, but
>nonetheless) and they are very convincing.
>It takes a huge leap of faith when you're feeling just fine, no
>symptoms, but elevated psa and perhaps abnormal DRE, to just cave in
>and say "ok take out my prostate" and endure all the consequences.
>The advertisements at least give some sort of alternative and my
>question is: has anyone deliberately refused treatment and stuck it
>out?




Burney dot Huff at Mindspring dot com

On Oct 18, 8:00 pm, skeptic <ribr...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's no secret there are a million "natural" and herbal
> supposed remedies for prostate problems (not so many for actual
> cancer, but nonetheless) and they are very convincing. It
> takes a huge leap of faith when you're feeling just fine, no
> symptoms, but elevated psa and perhaps abnormal DRE, to just
> cave in and say "ok take out my prostate" and endure all the
> consequences. The advertisements at least give some sort of
> alternative and my question is: has anyone deliberately
> refused treatment and stuck it out?

You can look back in the archives or search the net for stories
about Martin Howard. He was ethically opposed to any treatments
based on research with animals, and had an abiding faith in
alternative medicine. He stuck it out right to the end and died
of prostate cancer.

There is a guy with much more understanding of science in the
Yahoo Group "ProstateCancerSupport" named Terry Herbert. Terry
had what looked like a low risk cancer at age 54 and decided on
watchful waiting. He stuck with it as his PSA climbed, all the
way until he got clear metastastases. He's on hormone therapy
now.

Like Martin, Terry posted a number of articles and blogs on the
web advocating his choice and describing his experience. I can't
speak for him or say whether he was right or wrong. The choices
he made were his to make. However most of us in this newsgroup
chose differently.

I'm sure there are thousands of others. Martin and Terry just
happen to be two who have posted a lot of information on the net
and whom I have met through the newsgroups.

I understand your statement that a huge leap of faith is required
to undergo surgery or radiation because of a few nanograms of
protein in a deciliter of blood, or even because of some abnormal
looking cells on a biopsy slide. But a scientific outlook
requires such leaps and, when you think about it, it's not really
a matter of faith.

We've never seen cells, much less molecules, atoms, protons,
electrons, or photons. But we know they exist. The evidence for
them is overwhelming. We've never gone to the stars, but we know
they exist and we know quite a bit about their size, their
composition, their interactions, and how far they are from the
earth. We've never seen the center of the earth, but we have
pretty well established ideas about what's there. So too, we
can't see or feel the cancer growing within us but, by using
scientific medical techniques, we can discover its presence and
form a good idea about what it's going to do if left untreated.

I don't think of seeking treatment for an unfelt cancer as a leap
of faith. I think of it more as a leap of reason, of using our
minds to understand and deal with something that we know is
there, even though we don't detect it directly.

As for alternative medicine treatments - there's the real leap of
faith. With no solid evidence, no clinical trials, no objective
measurement of outcomes, people take treatments recommended by
alternative medicine practitioners who know nothing about the
etiology of cancer, nothing about basic chemistry or biology,
nothing about how to perform or interpret medical tests, and yet
make outrageous claims about what they can do for their patients.

No thank you. I'll stick with science myself. I'm about as
interested in getting help from an alternative medicine
practitioner as I would be in having my TV repaired by an
alternative TV repairman who think "western electronics" is just
one way among many to understand malfunctioning televisions.

Alan

From: ribrass@aol.com (skeptic)

It's no secret there are a million "natural" and herbal supposed
remedies for prostate problems (not so many for actual cancer, but
nonetheless) and they are very convincing. It takes a huge leap of faith
when you're feeling just fine, no symptoms, but elevated psa and perhaps
abnormal DRE, to just cave in and say "ok take out my prostate" and
endure all the consequences. The advertisements at least give some sort
of alternative and my question is: has anyone deliberately refused
treatment and stuck it out?

====> hi skeptic - i know of two people who did exactly what you have
described, so i think that they would be good candidates as
testimonials.

i tried to ask them, but both of them are dead. one died at age 56 and
the other one died at age 59.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc

well stated.
jloomis
"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192764431.531020.280670@i38g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>
> On Oct 18, 8:00 pm, skeptic <ribr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> It's no secret there are a million "natural" and herbal
>> supposed remedies for prostate problems (not so many for actual
>> cancer, but nonetheless) and they are very convincing. It
>> takes a huge leap of faith when you're feeling just fine, no
>> symptoms, but elevated psa and perhaps abnormal DRE, to just
>> cave in and say "ok take out my prostate" and endure all the
>> consequences. The advertisements at least give some sort of
>> alternative and my question is: has anyone deliberately
>> refused treatment and stuck it out?
>
> You can look back in the archives or search the net for stories
> about Martin Howard. He was ethically opposed to any treatments
> based on research with animals, and had an abiding faith in
> alternative medicine. He stuck it out right to the end and died
> of prostate cancer.
>
> There is a guy with much more understanding of science in the
> Yahoo Group "ProstateCancerSupport" named Terry Herbert. Terry
> had what looked like a low risk cancer at age 54 and decided on
> watchful waiting. He stuck with it as his PSA climbed, all the
> way until he got clear metastastases. He's on hormone therapy
> now.
>
> Like Martin, Terry posted a number of articles and blogs on the
> web advocating his choice and describing his experience. I can't
> speak for him or say whether he was right or wrong. The choices
> he made were his to make. However most of us in this newsgroup
> chose differently.
>
> I'm sure there are thousands of others. Martin and Terry just
> happen to be two who have posted a lot of information on the net
> and whom I have met through the newsgroups.
>
> I understand your statement that a huge leap of faith is required
> to undergo surgery or radiation because of a few nanograms of
> protein in a deciliter of blood, or even because of some abnormal
> looking cells on a biopsy slide. But a scientific outlook
> requires such leaps and, when you think about it, it's not really
> a matter of faith.
>
> We've never seen cells, much less molecules, atoms, protons,
> electrons, or photons. But we know they exist. The evidence for
> them is overwhelming. We've never gone to the stars, but we know
> they exist and we know quite a bit about their size, their
> composition, their interactions, and how far they are from the
> earth. We've never seen the center of the earth, but we have
> pretty well established ideas about what's there. So too, we
> can't see or feel the cancer growing within us but, by using
> scientific medical techniques, we can discover its presence and
> form a good idea about what it's going to do if left untreated.
>
> I don't think of seeking treatment for an unfelt cancer as a leap
> of faith. I think of it more as a leap of reason, of using our
> minds to understand and deal with something that we know is
> there, even though we don't detect it directly.
>
> As for alternative medicine treatments - there's the real leap of
> faith. With no solid evidence, no clinical trials, no objective
> measurement of outcomes, people take treatments recommended by
> alternative medicine practitioners who know nothing about the
> etiology of cancer, nothing about basic chemistry or biology,
> nothing about how to perform or interpret medical tests, and yet
> make outrageous claims about what they can do for their patients.
>
> No thank you. I'll stick with science myself. I'm about as
> interested in getting help from an alternative medicine
> practitioner as I would be in having my TV repaired by an
> alternative TV repairman who think "western electronics" is just
> one way among many to understand malfunctioning televisions.
>
> Alan
>

ummm......thanks for taking the time forr the reality check.
it was a stupid question and youwere kind enough to give serious
answers.
i'm slowly gathering the mindset to face my demons and undergo the
inevitable.
i hope i have the mental stamina to see it through.

I'd like to add more notes to my previous comment.

I'm not saying that every cancer should be treated, nor
am I saying that diet, nutrition, supplements, and a healthy
lifestyle are irrelevant in cancer control.

Sometimes watchful waiting is the right response to prostate
cancer. If the cancer is very small, the cells are well
differentiated (low Gleason score), the PSA is very slow
growing, etc., or the patient is elderly or has other health
problems that are likely to kill him first, invasive treatment
may be unnecessary.

However, the key thing with watchful waiting is to emphasize
the watchful part. Don't wait until the cancer gets harder to
treat or, worst of all, impossible to treat. It's necessary to
get regular PSA tests and DREs and take action if things
start to go south.

As for diet, nutrition, supplements, and lifestyle, I'm a semi-
believer myself. If I see some real evidence (not just
anecdotes) that a supplement works, and real evidence
that it's safe, I might take it. I do this if I think the risk is
very low. But I would never substitute self-treatment
with supplements for professional medical advice.

Are there medical doctors out there who want to exploit
you by giving you treatments you don't need? You bet
there are. In a private medical system that's inevitable,
just as it's probably inevitable in a public medical system
that doctors will be pressured not to give you treatments
you do need. So it's necessary to do your best to
separate the wheat from the chaff and find the doctors
who really do care. There are plenty of them out there.

But never imagine that the the "alternative medicine"
hucksters are any different. If anything, they're worse.
I suspect that quite a few of them couldn't care less
whether their treatments work or not. All they want to do
is sell them and make money.

Alan

"skeptic" <ribrass@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192798237.038519.191950@q3g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> ummm......thanks for taking the time forr the reality check.
> it was a stupid question and youwere kind enough to give serious
> answers.
> i'm slowly gathering the mindset to face my demons and undergo the
> inevitable.
> i hope i have the mental stamina to see it through.

I don't think it was a stupid question skeptic. Feel free
to ask more questions any time.

Best of luck with whatever you decide to do.

Alan

"skeptic" <ribrass@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192752054.708283.301000@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...
> It's no secret there are a million "natural" and herbal supposed
> remedies for prostate problems (not so many for actual cancer, but
> nonetheless) and they are very convincing.
> It takes a huge leap of faith when you're feeling just fine, no
> symptoms, but elevated psa and perhaps abnormal DRE, to just cave in
> and say "ok take out my prostate" and endure all the consequences.
> The advertisements at least give some sort of alternative and my
> question is: has anyone deliberately refused treatment and stuck it
> out?

One comes to mind; a very brave man or a stupid one -- Martin Howard. He
was diagnosed with a PSA of 145 in October 2002. Against the advise of all
his doctors and wife, he refused any chemicals that may have been tested on
animals. He died December 21, 2003.

By contrast, we just lost John Preston. He was diagnosed with a PSA of
639.5 four months after Martin. He died almost four years later on 10/5/07.

There have been many others here who had higher PSAs than Martin, and none
who died of prostate cancer more quickly. And, some are still kicking.




--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"skeptic" <ribrass@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192798237.038519.191950@q3g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> ummm......thanks for taking the time forr the reality check.
> it was a stupid question and youwere kind enough to give serious
> answers.
> i'm slowly gathering the mindset to face my demons and undergo the
> inevitable.
> i hope i have the mental stamina to see it through.

It was not stupid. The very nature of medical research, testing, approvals,
assessment, etc. causes cures to be 'permitted' years after they are
actually discovered. We don't have years and the current cures and SEs are
unfathomable at first! So, we grab at what's out there.




--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

From: skramer@cinci.rr.com (Steve*Kramer)
"skeptic" <ribrass@aol.com> wrote in message

One comes to mind; a very brave man or a stupid one -- Martin Howard. He
was diagnosed with a PSA of 145 in October 2002. Against the advise of
all his doctors and wife, he refused any chemicals that may have been
tested on animals. He died December 21, 2003.

By contrast, we just lost John Preston. He was diagnosed with a PSA of
639.5 four months after Martin. He died almost four years later on
10/5/07.

There have been many others here who had higher PSAs than Martin, and
none who died of prostate cancer more quickly. And, some are still
kicking.

===> hi steve - correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't martin say in
october of that year that his psa was around 285 or so, and in november,
it went to 311. his last post was, "you folks may have the last laugh
after all....." and in december, he died.

the point i'm making is that one doesn't need a high psa in order to die
from pca.

my dad had a psa in the 50's, while on lupron and had already had
started to pass blood in his urine.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc

"c palmer" <PALMER_ENT@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17071-47193B02-137@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
From: skramer@cinci.rr.com (Steve Kramer)
"skeptic" <ribrass@aol.com> wrote in message

One comes to mind; a very brave man or a stupid one -- Martin Howard. He
was diagnosed with a PSA of 145 in October 2002. Against the advise of
all his doctors and wife, he refused any chemicals that may have been
tested on animals. He died December 21, 2003.

By contrast, we just lost John Preston. He was diagnosed with a PSA of
639.5 four months after Martin. He died almost four years later on
10/5/07.

There have been many others here who had higher PSAs than Martin, and
none who died of prostate cancer more quickly. And, some are still
kicking.

===> hi steve - correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't martin say in
october of that year that his psa was around 285 or so, and in november,
it went to 311. his last post was, "you folks may have the last laugh
after all....." and in december, he died.


Yeah, that's pretty close to a quote as I recall. By November, it was 934.

Steve Kramer wrote:

> "c palmer" <PALMER_ENT@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:17071-47193B02-137@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
> From: skramer@cinci.rr.com (Steve Kramer)
> "skeptic" <ribrass@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> One comes to mind; a very brave man or a stupid one -- Martin Howard. He
> was diagnosed with a PSA of 145 in October 2002. Against the advise of
> all his doctors and wife, he refused any chemicals that may have been
> tested on animals. He died December 21, 2003.
>
> By contrast, we just lost John Preston. He was diagnosed with a PSA of
> 639.5 four months after Martin. He died almost four years later on
> 10/5/07.
>
> There have been many others here who had higher PSAs than Martin, and
> none who died of prostate cancer more quickly. And, some are still
> kicking.
>
> ===> hi steve - correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't martin say in
> october of that year that his psa was around 285 or so, and in november,
> it went to 311. his last post was, "you folks may have the last laugh
> after all....." and in december, he died.
>
> Yeah, that's pretty close to a quote as I recall. By November, it was 934.

Martin was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer in Oct/2002.
It was already in his bones : pelvis and upper femur on the left side, and the
first
lumbar vertebra.
He took hormone tablets for 4 weeks and did not like the side effects.
he died 14 months later:
At the time Martin was feeling a sense of failure. His last words to me were
"I'm sorry. I was trying to prove .." He was trying to prove, of course,
that cancer can be overcome by boosting the body's own immune system through
the use of alternative therapies.
Angela supported him.
(that's a brief summary and excerpts of her announcement of his death).
While his messages were dangerous to the naive, he did it his way.

Then there was Hugh. I forget his PSA - diagnosed in January.
More widespread mets. Put up with the tablets, injections and SE"s,
but died of a heart problem which is the biggest killer
http://www.peterrussell.dreamhosters...WorldClock.php

Nieither could provide us a Gleason, because they were diagnosed so late, no
biopsy.
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3505
Stages 1 and 2

Between 65 and 98 out of every 100 men (65 - 98%) with stage 1 and 2 prostate
cancer will live for more than five years after they are diagnosed. Some of
these will be cured with radical treatment. Others may have a cancer that is so
slow growing that it will not have progressed much in this time, even with no
treatment at all. If they are elderly, they may eventually die of old age,
without the cancer ever causing any problems.

Stage 3

About 60 out of every 100 men (60%) diagnosed with stage 3 prostate cancer will
live for more than five years after diagnosis.

Stage 4

About 20 to 30 out of every 100 men (20 -30%) have cancer spread to another
part of their body when they are diagnosed with prostate cancer. This advanced
disease is called stage 4 prostate cancer. About 1 in 3 (30%) men with advanced
prostate cancer will live for more than five years after diagnosis. On average,
men in this situation can expect their cancer to respond to treatment for about
12 to 18 months. Average survival after that is about another two years.

How reliable are these statistics?

No statistics can tell you what will happen to you. Your cancer is unique. The
same type of cancer can grow at different rates in different people for
example.
----------------------------------------------------------------
All were fine men. In hindsight, I wish that Hugh had had RT to the bones
earlier.
In hindsight he might have chosen quality of life, but we don't have a crystal
ball.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(most of) Canada gets as good results as the US for prostate cancer.
There's a decision making chart here
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2004/Jan/vol50-jan-cme-2.asp
Men with higher Gleason scores have a much higher risk of dying of prostate
cancer; most trials show that Gleason score is the most important prognostic
factor for death. A Canadian study of the feasibility of watchful waiting15 has
shown that more than half the men ended up being treated within 4 years. Those
with Gleason 7 cancers were more likely to require intervention than those with
lower-grade tumours (23% vs 16%). Men with faster-rising PSA levels are also
more likely to be treated than those with slow PSA doubling times.16 In
general, watchful waiting is reserved for those with low-risk prostate cancers
and shorter life expectancy.
-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a life expectancy chart, for Americans, in the NCCN (Professional
version)

J

On October 19, "skeptic" wrote:

> ummm......thanks for taking the time forr the reality check.
> it was a stupid question and youwere kind enough to give serious
> answers.

There is no such thing as a stupid question.

Only stupid people.

Regards,

Steve J

"J" <nswex@nalid;anon> wrote in message
news:47194D29.E9AA26B5@execulink.com...
> Steve Kramer wrote:

>> One comes to mind; a very brave man or a stupid one -- Martin Howard. He
>> was diagnosed with a PSA of 145 in October 2002. Against the advise of
>> all his doctors and wife, he refused any chemicals that may have been
>> tested on animals. He died December 21, 2003.

> At the time Martin was feeling a sense of failure. His last words to me
> were
> "I'm sorry. I was trying to prove .." He was trying to prove, of course,
> that cancer can be overcome by boosting the body's own immune system
> through
> the use of alternative therapies.
> Angela supported him.

Supported? I'd say. Even though she disagreed with his choice, she bathed
him in urine everyday and tended to his ever perceived need. A wonderful
woman.

> Then there was Hugh. I forget his PSA - diagnosed in January.
> More widespread mets. Put up with the tablets, injections and SE"s,
> but died of a heart problem which is the biggest killer

Yeah, Hugh was in deep doo doo. He was dx'd with 140 PSA. He was in even
deeper doo doo because of a health care system that, for all intents and
purposes, refused him palliative care. Prostate cancer was his disease but
I would not be surprised if the health care system killed him.


> Nieither could provide us a Gleason, because they were diagnosed so late,
> no
> biopsy.

Howard's was a 9. Hugh never gave us one.

> Stage 4
>
> About 20 to 30 out of every 100 men (20 -30%) have cancer spread to
> another
> part of their body when they are diagnosed with prostate cancer. This
> advanced
> disease is called stage 4 prostate cancer. About 1 in 3 (30%) men with
> advanced
> prostate cancer will live for more than five years after diagnosis. On
> average,
> men in this situation can expect their cancer to respond to treatment for
> about
> 12 to 18 months. Average survival after that is about another two years.

I would be interested in statistics of treatment vs non-treatment at Stage 1
and 2 if you have them. Most men making decisions for WW do so at this
stage, I think.

No, Skeptic, it was not a stupid question at all. I went through that
kind of thinking when I was trying to decide what to do and I imagine
more people here did, also.

Keep asking all the questions that come to mind until you become
comfortable, or at least accepting, of the treatment you decide on.

Best wishes.

Burney

On 19 Oct 2007 09:55:03 -0700, skeptic <ribrass@aol.com> wrote:

>ummm......thanks for taking the time forr the reality check.
>it was a stupid question and youwere kind enough to give serious
>answers.
>i'm slowly gathering the mindset to face my demons and undergo the
>inevitable.
>i hope i have the mental stamina to see it through.




Burney dot Huff at Mindspring dot com

"BH" <happy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:h39kh39kvlmo62onsiq2eog98m10fvbg19@4ax.com...

> No, Skeptic, it was not a stupid question at all. I went through that
> kind of thinking when I was trying to decide what to do and I imagine
> more people here did, also.

Ha! I just got a big smile. A long, long time ago, someone, and I think it
might have been Berky the Warrior (may he rest in peace), said "there are no
stupid questions, just questions that stupid people were waiting around for
you to ask."... or something like that.

It was, I believe, my first laugh in reading this forum and had long ago
forgotten it until just now.

"skeptic" wrote:

> The advertisements at least give some sort of alternative and my
> question is: has anyone deliberately refused treatment and stuck it
> out?

I was diagnosed in June 2001 at age 64 (I'll be 71 next month). PSA 10
Biopsy was PCa in right node.

Second opinion in early 2002. PSA 11. Same biopsy result.

August 2002 received 1st of what was supposed to be several shots for
chemical castration. Severe reaction and never had another one.

Agreed with the urologist to begin RT, went through the CT scans (which
can't show anything because of arthritis damage), cast made to lay in on the
RT table, X-rays, consults, etc. etc. etc. First RT appointment was January
2, 2003 at 0800 so I'd be out of there by 0830 and my driver could return me
home before heading for work.

Arrived at the hospital at 0745, stripped, put on a gown, and waited....and
waited...and waited.

0820, the radiologist came into the waiting room and said he already had
another fellow on the table, and didn't have me in his appointment book.
We left and never returned. Felt that if that they conduct business, I
wanted no part of them or their RT.

So for all practical purposes, I've been on watchful waiting for 6 years
(2001 - 2007). PSA dropped to 5something, 6something, 5something.

Urologist retired and an asshole took over his practice. Lost all of my
medical records for 5 years. Wouldn't/couldn't listen that I absolutely
would not return to the hospital, yet the dingbat scheduled two appointments
for me. Last time I him.

Now visiting an ocologist every 6 months for discussion and PSA. He
doesn't "push" anything, mostly listens and passes out literature. He did
retrieve some PSA tests and biopsy results from the labs.

skeptic wrote:
> It's no secret there are a million "natural" and herbal supposed
> remedies for prostate problems (not so many for actual cancer, but
> nonetheless) and they are very convincing.
> It takes a huge leap of faith when you're feeling just fine, no
> symptoms, but elevated psa and perhaps abnormal DRE, to just cave in
> and say "ok take out my prostate" and endure all the consequences.
> The advertisements at least give some sort of alternative and my
> question is: has anyone deliberately refused treatment and stuck it
> out?
>
Initial treatment, not I, but adjuvant/secondary treatment, you bet. A
whole broad team of oncs advised me to undergo ADT after my "successful"
surgery three years ago JUST IN CASE I MIGHT have some remaining distant
PC cells that MIGHT lead to serious mets some day before something else
kills me.

Dense, highly referenced pages of rebuttal summarizing hundreds of hours
of research and introspection led me to reject their advice and
convinced every one of them to support my decision. Most new data and
insights I've seen and had since then have reinforced my decision. My
*decision* was anecdotal; my *rationale* was worthy of consideration by
many PC pts.

BTW, like you, I've also led a pretty-to-very healthy lifestyle for many
decades. Genes happen, the antioxidant concept keeps stumbling over
facts and studies, and I agree that I'd fire -- hell, I DID fire -- a
doctor that let my PSA run amok without action.

I.P.