Men refused cancer treatment in Britain

A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.

Taxotere can improve the quality of life of patients in the later
stages of the cancer, and prolong their lives.

The charity claims that some doctors have been told to ration the
number of courses of taxotere that they prescribe by primary care
trusts struggling with limited funds.

Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.

More than 30,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK each
year, and around 10,000 die from it.

Professor Nick James, of the University of Birmingham, said primary
care trusts would not dare to treat women with breast cancer in the
same way that they treated men with prostate cancer for fear of
attracting negative media headlines.

"Essentially men with prostate cancer get a very raw deal. The people
who make these funding decisions make them with one eye on how it is
going to play in the media."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6112568.stm

--
This is soc.men, we know better. -- Michael Snyder

Lost wrote:
> A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
> struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.

Unlike Herceptin, a totally unproven drug known to cause heart disease
but prescribed even in cases no one claims it can be useful in on the
orer of the Secretary of State for Health to stop the Big Pharma funded
feminists whinging.

[...]
> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.

Perfect. Of course, it wouldn't have been developed otherwise.

[...]

"Stephen Morgan" <grauniad2liberty@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1162556094.810480.31100@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
>
> Lost wrote:
>> A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
>> struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.
>
> Unlike Herceptin, a totally unproven drug known to cause heart disease
> but prescribed even in cases no one claims it can be useful in on the
> orer of the Secretary of State for Health to stop the Big Pharma funded
> feminists whinging.

Only after a LOT of fighting. And not justified in my opinion (I have breast
cancer).
>
> [...]
>> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.
>
> Perfect. Of course, it wouldn't have been developed otherwise.

By saying that you're being as silly as those you mock.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:454b333a$0$29538$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet. net...
>
> "Stephen Morgan" <grauniad2liberty@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1162556094.810480.31100@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
>>
>> Lost wrote:
>>> A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
>>> struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.
>>
>> Unlike Herceptin, a totally unproven drug known to cause heart disease
>> but prescribed even in cases no one claims it can be useful in on the
>> orer of the Secretary of State for Health to stop the Big Pharma funded
>> feminists whinging.
>
> Only after a LOT of fighting. And not justified in my opinion (I have
> breast cancer).
>>
>> [...]
>>> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.
>>
>> Perfect. Of course, it wouldn't have been developed otherwise.
>
> By saying that you're being as silly as those you mock.
>
> Mary
>
NO! it is a FACT in the UK that women get over six times the health funding
that men get, just WHAT makes women that O so special to get this, please
tell me?

MCP wrote:
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.
> >>
> >> Perfect. Of course, it wouldn't have been developed otherwise.
> >
> > By saying that you're being as silly as those you mock.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> NO! it is a FACT in the UK that women get over six times the health funding
> that men get, just WHAT makes women that O so special to get this, please
> tell me?

And in the US it is 3 times.

"MCP" <gf010w5035@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:454b333a$0$29538$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet .net...
>>
>> "Stephen Morgan" <grauniad2liberty@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1162556094.810480.31100@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
>>>
>>> Lost wrote:
>>>> A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
>>>> struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.
>>>
>>> Unlike Herceptin, a totally unproven drug known to cause heart disease
>>> but prescribed even in cases no one claims it can be useful in on the
>>> orer of the Secretary of State for Health to stop the Big Pharma funded
>>> feminists whinging.
>>
>> Only after a LOT of fighting. And not justified in my opinion (I have
>> breast cancer).
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.
>>>
>>> Perfect. Of course, it wouldn't have been developed otherwise.
>>
>> By saying that you're being as silly as those you mock.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>NO! it is a FACT in the UK that women get over six times the health funding
>that men get, just WHAT makes women that O so special to get this, please
>tell me?

Agreed. Have you seen the cancer research campaign advertisements?
"It's a woman thing" they blare. Pink ribbons handed out to TV
presenters.

Men die seven to eight years younger than females. The research money
should target that anomaly.

--
This is soc.men, we know better. -- Michael Snyder

"Lost" <lostagain@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:454b3b39$0$97255$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
> "MCP" <gf010w5035@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:454b333a$0$29538$4c56ba96@master.news.zetne t.net...
>>>
>>> "Stephen Morgan" <grauniad2liberty@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1162556094.810480.31100@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
>>>>
>>>> Lost wrote:
>>>>> A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
>>>>> struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike Herceptin, a totally unproven drug known to cause heart disease
>>>> but prescribed even in cases no one claims it can be useful in on the
>>>> orer of the Secretary of State for Health to stop the Big Pharma funded
>>>> feminists whinging.
>>>
>>> Only after a LOT of fighting. And not justified in my opinion (I have
>>> breast cancer).
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.
>>>>
>>>> Perfect. Of course, it wouldn't have been developed otherwise.
>>>
>>> By saying that you're being as silly as those you mock.
>>>
>>> Mary
>>>
>>NO! it is a FACT in the UK that women get over six times the health
>>funding
>>that men get, just WHAT makes women that O so special to get this, please
>>tell me?
>
> Agreed. Have you seen the cancer research campaign advertisements?
> "It's a woman thing" they blare. Pink ribbons handed out to TV
> presenters.
>
> Men die seven to eight years younger than females. The research money
> should target that anomaly.

What i would like the "feminasties" on this newsgroup to explain to me is
why are they still shouting for equality when they have had far more than
their fair share for fucking decades?
EVERY second word that Hymendung and her alter ego Pandy is about EQ
Right's, EQ Right's, EQ Right's, Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa! bleating like a bunch of
preggers sheep!
>
> --
> This is soc.men, we know better. -- Michael Snyder

"Lost" <lostagain@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:454b3b39$0$97255$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
>>>
>>NO! it is a FACT in the UK that women get over six times the health
>>funding
>>that men get, just WHAT makes women that O so special to get this, please
>>tell me?
>
> Agreed. Have you seen the cancer research campaign advertisements?
> "It's a woman thing" they blare. Pink ribbons handed out to TV
> presenters.

So what are you doing about it? 'You' being men.
>
> Men die seven to eight years younger than females. The research money
> should target that anomaly.

So get off your virtual soap box and into the real world with it.

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Lost" <lostagain@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>news:454b3b39$0$97255$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.read freenews.net...
>>>>
>>>NO! it is a FACT in the UK that women get over six times the health
>>>funding
>>>that men get, just WHAT makes women that O so special to get this, please
>>>tell me?
>>
>> Agreed. Have you seen the cancer research campaign advertisements?
>> "It's a woman thing" they blare. Pink ribbons handed out to TV
>> presenters.
>
>So what are you doing about it? 'You' being men.
>>
>> Men die seven to eight years younger than females. The research money
>> should target that anomaly.
>
>So get off your virtual soap box and into the real world with it.

No, what are YOU going to do about it?

What help are men ever going to get from greedy, grasping females?

Men pay the taxes, men do the research -- and females get the benefit.

Why? Because men have been brainwashed from birth into believing that
females are made of sugar and spice and men are made of slugs and
snails.

--
This is soc.men, we know better. -- Michael Snyder

Lost wrote:
> A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
> struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.
>
> Taxotere can improve the quality of life of patients in the later
> stages of the cancer, and prolong their lives.
>
> The charity claims that some doctors have been told to ration the
> number of courses of taxotere that they prescribe by primary care
> trusts struggling with limited funds.
>
> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.
>
> More than 30,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK each
> year, and around 10,000 die from it.
>
> Professor Nick James, of the University of Birmingham, said primary
> care trusts would not dare to treat women with breast cancer in the
> same way that they treated men with prostate cancer for fear of
> attracting negative media headlines.
>
> "Essentially men with prostate cancer get a very raw deal. The people
> who make these funding decisions make them with one eye on how it is
> going to play in the media."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6112568.stm

NO COMMENT!!!

Oh, the hell with that; this is too important for political correctness.
You don't like politics in your forum? THEN STOP THE MASS CROSS-POSTING!

You Americans want this kind of BS in the U.S.? Then vote democrat so
they can force their national (BY DEFINITION, SOCIALIST) health plan
down our throats. It's already failed miserably in TE and WA, and its
author, Hillary Clinton, included this requirement: Choose your own
doctor and both of you will be fined $50,000 and may go to federal
prison. I EARNED my money defending the world from communism; if I
choose to use it to get better medical care, GET OVER IT and earn your
OWN damned money.

Sorry about straying from PC, but I'm f...ing fed up with the direction
the democratic party leaders have taken over the last few decades.

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:3wJ2h.26$s14.18@newsfe05.lga...

> Sorry about straying from PC, but I'm f...ing fed up with the direction
> the democratic party leaders have taken over the last few decades.

I make it seven.

"I.P. Freely" wrote:

> Lost wrote:
> > A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
> > struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.
> <snipped>
>
> NO COMMENT!!!
>
> Oh, the hell with that; this is too important for political correctness.
> You don't like politics in your forum? THEN STOP THE MASS CROSS-POSTING!

Gee, I wonder if that'll work...
J - uncrossposted

"Lost" <lostagain@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:454b3b39$0$97255$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
> "MCP" <gf010w5035@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:454b333a$0$29538$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet .net...
> >>
> >> "Stephen Morgan" <grauniad2liberty@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:1162556094.810480.31100@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
> >>>
> >>> Lost wrote:
> >>>> A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
> >>>> struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.
> >>>
> >>> Unlike Herceptin, a totally unproven drug known to cause heart disease
> >>> but prescribed even in cases no one claims it can be useful in on the
> >>> orer of the Secretary of State for Health to stop the Big Pharma
funded
> >>> feminists whinging.
> >>
> >> Only after a LOT of fighting. And not justified in my opinion (I have
> >> breast cancer).
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.
> >>>
> >>> Perfect. Of course, it wouldn't have been developed otherwise.
> >>
> >> By saying that you're being as silly as those you mock.
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
> >NO! it is a FACT in the UK that women get over six times the health
funding
> >that men get, just WHAT makes women that O so special to get this, please
> >tell me?
>
> Agreed. Have you seen the cancer research campaign advertisements?
> "It's a woman thing" they blare. Pink ribbons handed out to TV
> presenters.
>
> Men die seven to eight years younger than females. The research money
> should target that anomaly.

Well, for what it is worth, the Bills of Mortality done in UK about 1616
(more or less) noted that women were far more likely to visit a doctor than
a man. Nothing changed.

It's a huge problem in the UK....the NHS (National Health Service)
doesn't want to pay out (especially in outlying/rural areas) for
"expensive" medicines, especially for cancer patients.

There was a recent case (in Lancashire?) of a woman who had breast
cancer who sued her local NHS to provide Herceptin as her doctor said it
would give her a change to save her life. Only problem is that Herceptin
wasn't approved in the UK at the time (maybe that has changed since this
case went to court?) The woman died in the middle of the court
battle----and that is part of the problem UK patients face.

It also doesn't help that local NHS coucils recommend mammograms only
*every 3 years* in Britian. Then they wonder why there is a sky high
breast cancer rate in the country.

It's got to change-and fast for ALL cancer patients there!!

Mary Fisher wrote:
> "Stephen Morgan" <grauniad2liberty@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1162556094.810480.31100@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
> >
> > Lost wrote:
> >> A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a "titanic"
> >> struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.
> >
> > Unlike Herceptin, a totally unproven drug known to cause heart disease
> > but prescribed even in cases no one claims it can be useful in on the
> > orer of the Secretary of State for Health to stop the Big Pharma funded
> > feminists whinging.
>
> Only after a LOT of fighting.

Not much really. Massive funding from Glaxo or whoever and a media
blitz (mostly on BBC Breakfast). The government would never dare stand
up to the drug companies.

> And not justified in my opinion (I have breast
> cancer).

Like the old song says, the drugs don't work, they just make you worse.

> > [...]
> >> Taxotere was originally developed to treat breast cancer.
> >
> > Perfect. Of course, it wouldn't have been developed otherwise.
>
> By saying that you're being as silly as those you mock.

Except I'm factually correct.

Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'. Men don't
admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the other hand
do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for help and they
are quite militant about it. The incidence of breast cancer is much lower
than prostate cancer in my experience but I'm sure the funding is far
greater. The only charity I know of which specifically raises money for
prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for dad' held each spring here in
Ottawa and now in several other canadian cities.
Wayne
In Otawa

"Wayne" <wrjones@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:eijrue01e2n@news2.newsguy.com...
> Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'.

Why do you think women think that?

Some women might, some men might, I don't know. I don't think it.

> Men don't admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the
> other hand do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for
> help and they are quite militant about it.

Some are, not all.

> The incidence of breast cancer is much lower than prostate cancer in my
> experience

I don't think so ...

> but I'm sure the funding is far greater. The only charity I know of which
> specifically raises money for prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for
> dad' held each spring here in Ottawa and now in several other canadian
> cities.

So start another.

There are some in UK, I've never heard of a motorcycle ride for dad.

Sweeping statements aren't credible.

"Mary Fisher" (mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk) writes:
> "Wayne" <wrjones@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:eijrue01e2n@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'.
>
> Why do you think women think that?

Its a comfortable lie, to cover up their own choices' consequences.

> Some women might, some men might, I don't know. I don't think it.

" The singular of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

>> Men don't admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the
>> other hand do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for
>> help and they are quite militant about it.
>
> Some are, not all.

Ibid " anecdote ". In point of fact, given the vastly different
resources aimed at male and female medical issues, its logical to
conclude that awareness will be close to that imbalance.

Hint: More than 10 times as much $$$ is spent on breast cancer as
prostate cancer, yet both have almost identical rates of occurance
and of deaths from them.

>> The incidence of breast cancer is much lower than prostate cancer in my
>> experience
>
> I don't think so ...

Then, you are flat out *wrong*. Using Statistics Canada's " Canada At
A Glance 2006 " abstract, one finds the following data:

Page 7, Lifetime Probability of developing and dying from cancer.

Male Developing Dying
Prostate 12.0% 3.6%

Female
Breast 11.4% 3.7%

>> but I'm sure the funding is far greater. The only charity I know of which
>> specifically raises money for prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for
>> dad' held each spring here in Ottawa and now in several other canadian
>> cities.
>
> So start another.

Better yet, lets *take* money from the breats cancer people, until
its the same as the prostate cancer, and then, divvy up the difference
50/50...

Thats, like, ya know... *equality*...

> There are some in UK, I've never heard of a motorcycle ride for dad.
>
> Sweeping statements aren't credible.

<laughs> Then, neither was yours, toots !

Andre

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:14:05 -0500, "Wayne" <wrjones@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'. Men don't
>admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the other hand
>do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for help and they
>are quite militant about it. The incidence of breast cancer is much lower
>than prostate cancer in my experience but I'm sure the funding is far
>greater. The only charity I know of which specifically raises money for
>prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for dad' held each spring here in
>Ottawa and now in several other canadian cities.
>Wayne
>In Otawa
>
Part of that is many prostate cancers are of little to no clinical
significance. If you live long, enough, the odds on being able to find
a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.

Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
high the patient will die with it, but not of it.

A similiar problem is now beginning to turn up on whole body scans,
and Virtucal Colonoscopy. A lot are turning up suspicious findings,
That result in significant (expensive and potentially hazardous)
investigations, only to discover that the there is nothing of
consequence. For example Virtual Colonoscopy (a CT scan) turns up
unrelated findings in about 1/3 of all patients, and the resulting
investigations add about $250 to the average cost. Optical colonoscopy
doesn't usually find anything outside the colon.

"matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
....
>
> A similiar problem is now beginning to turn up on whole body scans,
> and Virtucal Colonoscopy. A lot are turning up suspicious findings,
> That result in significant (expensive and potentially hazardous)
> investigations, only to discover that the there is nothing of
> consequence. For example Virtual Colonoscopy (a CT scan) turns up
> unrelated findings in about 1/3 of all patients, and the resulting
> investigations add about $250 to the average cost. Optical colonoscopy
> doesn't usually find anything outside the colon.

That's interesting, I didn't know that, thanks.

Mary

"matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:14:05 -0500, "Wayne" <wrjones@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'. Men don't
>>admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the other
>>hand
>>do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for help and
>>they
>>are quite militant about it. The incidence of breast cancer is much lower
>>than prostate cancer in my experience but I'm sure the funding is far
>>greater. The only charity I know of which specifically raises money for
>>prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for dad' held each spring here in
>>Ottawa and now in several other canadian cities.
>>Wayne
>>In Otawa
>>
> Part of that is many prostate cancers are of little to no clinical
> significance.

The same may be true of many early breast cancers.

> If you live long, enough, the odds on being able to find
> a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.
>
> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> A similiar problem is now beginning to turn up on whole body scans,
> and Virtucal Colonoscopy. A lot are turning up suspicious findings,
> That result in significant (expensive and potentially hazardous)
> investigations, only to discover that the there is nothing of
> consequence. For example Virtual Colonoscopy (a CT scan) turns up
> unrelated findings in about 1/3 of all patients, and the resulting
> investigations add about $250 to the average cost. Optical colonoscopy
> doesn't usually find anything outside the colon.

matt weber wrote:
> >
>> a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.
>
> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> Supposing you're one of the unlucky ones who die "with it." I guess you're willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Bottom line is baby boomers are getting into their 50s and 60s and i guess the society at large done't want't to be inundated with expenses for aggressive treatment for these people.bec the gov't ends a lot of the expensive.

Why do they keep on saying a person is more likely to die of natural
causes than of pca. Obviously some do (the oldest ones) but some
don't.

If society doesn't want to be deluged with medical bills as a result of
widespread pca testing and treatment their emphasis as far as testing
should be to devise that that could more accurately predict the outcom
(separate the "natural diers" from the "artificial."

Leah.

matt weber wrote:
> >
>> a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.
>
> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> Supposing you're one of the unlucky ones who die "with it." I guess you're willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Bottom line is baby boomers are getting into their 50s and 60s and i guess the society at large done't want't to be inundated with expenses for aggressive treatment for these people.bec the gov't ends a lot of the expensive.

Why do they keep on saying a person is more likely to die of natural
causes than of pca. Obviously some do (the oldest ones) but some
don't.

If society doesn't want to be deluged with medical bills as a result of
widespread pca testing and treatment their emphasis as far as testing
should be to devise that that could more accurately predict the outcom
(separate the "natural diers" from the "artificial."

Leah.

callalily wrote:

> If society doesn't want to be deluged with medical bills as a result of
> widespread pca testing and treatment their emphasis as far as testing
> should be to devise that that could more accurately predict the outcom
> (separate the "natural diers" from the "artificial."
>
They're working on all that -- and on finding new markers better than
PSA at identifying PC -- as we type. In fact, all SORTS of PC studies
are blooming at record rates lately. My research uro onc tells me
research and studies are on a track which may lead to vaccine approval
within a couple of years, much more effective chemo tx in maybe 5 years,
and nanoparticle treatments at 7 years . . . to name just a scant few of
new studies and research topics. There's MONEY in this stuff, and it's
being pursued with capitalistic vigor. There's even a study to determine
the effects of statins on prostates.

And you accidentally hit one nail on its head with the "artificial"
(i.e., all non-PC) causes of death. So MANY of them are self-induced
that maybe "artificial" is a valid term.

I.P.

"matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...

> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.

What a load of equestrian feces!

Watchful waiting in most cancers is essentially suicide by stupidity.






--
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
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:O4C3h.24997$OE1.12617@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>
> "matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
>
> > Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> > for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> > These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> > high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> What a load of equestrian feces!
>
> Watchful waiting in most cancers is essentially suicide by stupidity.
>
>
Of course, the self-selected studies done so far always favor what the
author wanted. The randomized controls are just now being done, the PIVOT
studies. It is tragic that after 100 years of surgery, this is the first
large-scale evaluation, outside the usual 'my patient' books. And the
results are still out after 10 years of what was reported on NPR a few years
ago as the Minneapolis study. 10 years is a long time with no results to
report.

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:O4C3h.24997$OE1.12617@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>
> "matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
>
>> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
>> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
>> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
>> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> What a load of equestrian feces!
>
> Watchful waiting in most cancers is essentially suicide by stupidity.
>


But not in many prostate cancers

"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:2YI3h.264432$5R2.18721@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:O4C3h.24997$OE1.12617@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
>>> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
>>> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
>>> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>>
>> What a load of equestrian feces!
>>
>> Watchful waiting in most cancers is essentially suicide by stupidity.
>>
>
> But not in many prostate cancers

His statement does not address prostate cancer. But, if it had, I would
have more accurately finished my statement by adding, "including almost all
prostate cancer"

In a recent study (mine) of 700 prostate cancer patients (those that have
come to this NG in the last 5 years) researchers (me) found that only eight
(1.1%) were, upon their last communication, using WW. Of those, none
reported an initial PSA greater that 6.2. And none have reported a steadily
rising PSA.

I realize that doesn't mean that some of us who selected treatment might not
have died, but I think the voting would be very lopsided with few
undecideds.

Speaking of which, I am sure most of those have ceased in their WW. If you
are still here, please comment on your current status.

ab@c.d rosbif
alle1013@hotmail.com alle
ankkurit@hotmail.com sisu
auerbach@aapr.com] Alex Auerbach
keith@hasler6516.fsnet.co.uk KEITHHASLER
lawrence@psychological-hug.com Lawrence J. Bookbinder
lyman@ruaturtle.com Ly
x@x.net roger




--
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
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in a cross posted message
news:tPJ3h.23130$pq4.11692@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..

>> But not in many prostate cancers
>
> His statement does not address prostate cancer. But, if it had, I would
> .................


Please let me apologize for my accidental rudeness... again... in cross
posting.

Steve Kramer wrote:

> Please let me apologize for my accidental rudeness... again... in cross
> posting.
>
Don't sweat it, Steve. X-posting makes sense as long as the topic is
appropriate, as yours is, to the forums involved. (Don't know what
soc.men is, so I don't include it when X-posting, but "cancer" is on
topic in all these forums.)

I.P.