Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
21 Nov 16
00:59
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
what is this? years ago they showed a documentary on this.
they told you that the Africans diet was rich in Bran. superior to the western diet that was causing
prostrate cancer. I remember it well, because i bought a big bag o bran that i couldn't eat the next day.
the bbc news item is looking at research, why Africans are worse off once they leave Africa, the Nigerian population is being looked at genetically? results in three years? Did they FKin forget about the bran? Does nothing ever penetrate?
they told you that the Africans diet was rich in Bran. superior to the western diet that was causing
prostrate cancer. I remember it well, because i bought a big bag o bran that i couldn't eat the next day.
the bbc news item is looking at research, why Africans are worse off once they leave Africa, the Nigerian population is being looked at genetically? results in three years? Did they FKin forget about the bran? Does nothing ever penetrate?
Show More
they keep banging on about prostrate cancer and getting yourself checked out and if it was a free blood test i,d do it tomorrow,but the blood test is only given after some hairy arsed doc has bent you over and shoved his finger up your arris,i,d rather take the chance than volunteer for that, obviously in future the blood test will become the norm so why dont they just get on with it
1st - I assume your post is not serious but for those that think it might be - The blood test is often available free (Had my last one via a drop-in session organised by the Lions). The problem is that the blood test is not reliable - false positives and false negatives.
The "finger up the bum" seems crude but is actually a pretty good guide. Do your own research but a good blood reading plus a clean (relatively
) bum test should give you a high level of confidence.
The "finger up the bum" seems crude but is actually a pretty good guide. Do your own research but a good blood reading plus a clean (relatively
) bum test should give you a high level of confidence.
The finger up the bum is a minor inconvenience and good indicator of prostate problems. Most signs of enlargement turn out to be benign and if accompanied by poor urine flow, medication can alleviate the problem.
we no all this but want a test that encourages people to take it not give it a miss like the finger up the arris does,all intrusive testing puts people off going
1st - to be fair you didn't "no all this" when you posted
. Why don't you just google the subject rather than continuing to post ill-informed Boll ocks.
. Why don't you just google the subject rather than continuing to post ill-informed Boll ocks.
i think the fact that in my 1st post i said the dr,s will give you the finger test before the blood test rather proves i have looked up and read about the subject
The doc's digit is the least of your worries in this domain. If the intrusiveness stops there be thankful.
A study in the USA in which the prostate
histology was examined in a series of routine postmortems
(ie post-mortems carried out on men who were
not known to have prostate cancer) showed that the proportion
of men with evidence of disease increased with
age. About 28 per cent of men aged 30–39 years had
prostate cancer. This proportion increased to 75 per cent
among men over the age of 85 years. It has been suggested
that all men could develop histological prostate
cancer if they live long enough.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tre.71/pdf
As the study says in the summary: "it is likely that many more men die with prostate cancer than from the disease." (my emphasis)
Or to put it another way, there's an argument that nobody actually lives longer because of cancer screening. You die at the same age, but of something else instead. Certainly mortality rates due to the cancer being screened show small dips, but the overall mortality rate among the patients never changes.
histology was examined in a series of routine postmortems
(ie post-mortems carried out on men who were
not known to have prostate cancer) showed that the proportion
of men with evidence of disease increased with
age. About 28 per cent of men aged 30–39 years had
prostate cancer. This proportion increased to 75 per cent
among men over the age of 85 years. It has been suggested
that all men could develop histological prostate
cancer if they live long enough.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tre.71/pdf
As the study says in the summary: "it is likely that many more men die with prostate cancer than from the disease." (my emphasis)
Or to put it another way, there's an argument that nobody actually lives longer because of cancer screening. You die at the same age, but of something else instead. Certainly mortality rates due to the cancer being screened show small dips, but the overall mortality rate among the patients never changes.
Your probably more likely to die from the treatment for it.
Well, something is causing patients who undergo cancer screening to die. Whether it's infection or trauma from having things stuck up your jacksie and bits cut out, or just the misery and depression of an old age spent waiting and travelling for hospital appointments and worrying over the results, who knows?
From the British Medical Journal:
Disease specific mortality is used in cancer
screening trials primarily because it allows
the identification of very small reductions in
mortality from the target disease. Without it,
there would be nothing to support current
cancer screening programmes. But this is
no reason to accept flawed data. On the
contrary, we should prefer the evidence of
all cause mortality, recognise that bowel
and breast cancer screening do not improve
overall survival, and question whether these
programmes should continue.
http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/187371?path=/bmj/343/7830/Head_to_Head.full.pdf
Worth a read. Presents the arguments for and against cancer screening in a brief and comprehensible format.
From the British Medical Journal:
Disease specific mortality is used in cancer
screening trials primarily because it allows
the identification of very small reductions in
mortality from the target disease. Without it,
there would be nothing to support current
cancer screening programmes. But this is
no reason to accept flawed data. On the
contrary, we should prefer the evidence of
all cause mortality, recognise that bowel
and breast cancer screening do not improve
overall survival, and question whether these
programmes should continue.
http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/187371?path=/bmj/343/7830/Head_to_Head.full.pdf
Worth a read. Presents the arguments for and against cancer screening in a brief and comprehensible format.
I totally agree with you, screamingfbtw, about these screening programmes.
For years men have been urged to get the prostrate test and then when it has come back positive then they might have been subjected to surgery that have rendered them incontinent and/or impotent. A horrible outcome for men, much worse in a way than losing a breast. Now the advice has radically changed and they are saying that in some circumstances 'watchful waiting' is more appropriate. So what do they say to all those men whose lives have been ruined?
I decided a long time ago not to continue with screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer. I think that repeated x rays and intrusive tests could actually induce cancer.
For years men have been urged to get the prostrate test and then when it has come back positive then they might have been subjected to surgery that have rendered them incontinent and/or impotent. A horrible outcome for men, much worse in a way than losing a breast. Now the advice has radically changed and they are saying that in some circumstances 'watchful waiting' is more appropriate. So what do they say to all those men whose lives have been ruined?
I decided a long time ago not to continue with screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer. I think that repeated x rays and intrusive tests could actually induce cancer.
Yes, annie. I remember my dad around the age of 50 having endless hospital appointments, operations, temporary catheters etc, owing to prostate problems. Being only 10 years old at the time I took no notice of what the actual problem was, but I was aware of him becoming an old man in outlook and appearance.
I'm 55 myself now, and the flow from the trouser dept tends to finish in drips and dribbles. Also I've learnt to remember to make use of the toilet before walking back from the betting shop, or I know I'll be looking for one before I reach home. Symptoms of an enlarged prostate in other words. But as that piece I quoted above makes clear, about half of all men my age have prostate cancer, yet only a tiny number go on to actually die of it. It seems that an enlarged prostate and a cancerous prostate are the same thing.
One thing's for sure. No way am I going to hand the rest of my life over to medical professionals, invasive examinations and debilitating surgery "just in case". It seems to make more sense to work out ways to live with the problems that develop as you age and retain an otherwise youthful outlook and a bit of optimism.
I think you are very wise to forgo the screenings urged upon women for much the same reasons: the vast number of false positives compared to actual cases and the long and grim procedures based upon the principle of being "better safe than sorry".
But it's not easy, because the pressure to turn up for the pre-booked screenings is remorseless, deliberately frightening and sometimes slyly misleading, particularly regarding the pain and complications of these procedures. For instance, as a Taunton resident I received out of the blue an appointment to have a reusable sigmoidoscope stuck up my arse at Bridgwater hospital as part of a rollout for bowel cancer screening for 55-year-olds. The leaflet cheerfully claims that 4 out of 5 patients report no more than mild pain from the procedure, with only 3 out of 100 reporting severe pain. I read that as 1 in 5 patients find it genuinely painful (as you'd expect). You then have to drill down through the stats to find that a polyp is actually discovered in just one patient out of 20. And then only 1 polyp in 15 is actually malignant. And even then a death from such a polyp at that age is exceedingly rare. And there is still no reduction in the death rate due to bowel cancer unless it's followed up with a full colonoscopy under anaesthetic. And all that comes from counting everyone, the fittest, the fattest, the booziest and the smokers, all together.
You have to go elsewhere to discover that there is no reduction whatsoever in overall death rate among patients who have been screened.
Oh, and ruptured bowels are only very rare occurrences from this, the leaflet says, so don't worry about that, nor about bleeding afterwards, unless it persists for several days. No mention at all of the risk of infection from an instrument that cannot be sterilized with heat.
For all that I have to administer an enema to myself before cycling into town to get a bus to Bridgwater hospital and somehow time it that my bowel doesn't refill.
So far I've had 4 letters detailing the appointment and asking me to confirm I'll be there. For my own good.
I'm 55 myself now, and the flow from the trouser dept tends to finish in drips and dribbles. Also I've learnt to remember to make use of the toilet before walking back from the betting shop, or I know I'll be looking for one before I reach home. Symptoms of an enlarged prostate in other words. But as that piece I quoted above makes clear, about half of all men my age have prostate cancer, yet only a tiny number go on to actually die of it. It seems that an enlarged prostate and a cancerous prostate are the same thing.
One thing's for sure. No way am I going to hand the rest of my life over to medical professionals, invasive examinations and debilitating surgery "just in case". It seems to make more sense to work out ways to live with the problems that develop as you age and retain an otherwise youthful outlook and a bit of optimism.
I think you are very wise to forgo the screenings urged upon women for much the same reasons: the vast number of false positives compared to actual cases and the long and grim procedures based upon the principle of being "better safe than sorry".
But it's not easy, because the pressure to turn up for the pre-booked screenings is remorseless, deliberately frightening and sometimes slyly misleading, particularly regarding the pain and complications of these procedures. For instance, as a Taunton resident I received out of the blue an appointment to have a reusable sigmoidoscope stuck up my arse at Bridgwater hospital as part of a rollout for bowel cancer screening for 55-year-olds. The leaflet cheerfully claims that 4 out of 5 patients report no more than mild pain from the procedure, with only 3 out of 100 reporting severe pain. I read that as 1 in 5 patients find it genuinely painful (as you'd expect). You then have to drill down through the stats to find that a polyp is actually discovered in just one patient out of 20. And then only 1 polyp in 15 is actually malignant. And even then a death from such a polyp at that age is exceedingly rare. And there is still no reduction in the death rate due to bowel cancer unless it's followed up with a full colonoscopy under anaesthetic. And all that comes from counting everyone, the fittest, the fattest, the booziest and the smokers, all together.
You have to go elsewhere to discover that there is no reduction whatsoever in overall death rate among patients who have been screened.
Oh, and ruptured bowels are only very rare occurrences from this, the leaflet says, so don't worry about that, nor about bleeding afterwards, unless it persists for several days. No mention at all of the risk of infection from an instrument that cannot be sterilized with heat.
For all that I have to administer an enema to myself before cycling into town to get a bus to Bridgwater hospital and somehow time it that my bowel doesn't refill.
So far I've had 4 letters detailing the appointment and asking me to confirm I'll be there. For my own good.
I can't remember exact dates etc, but very approximately about when my dad was about 70 we were told that he had lung cancer but that is was small and very slow growing so he did not need surgery or anything else. He died twenty years later at ninety, of sepsis, not of cancer.
On the other side of the coin ... One of my brothers died at 61 from prostate cancer. He ignored things till it was too late. So I'm sure if he had his time again he wouldn't ignore signs that something might be wrong and would go straight to the doctors to be checked out.
Dr Crippen - "Your(sic) probably more likely to die from the treatment for it".
A candidate for easily the stupidest post of this year, or perhaps any other.
A candidate for easily the stupidest post of this year, or perhaps any other.
About six years ago, after the menopause, I started bleeding almost every day - a sure sign of cancer. I did nothing, I carried on bleeding for about three months then it stopped and I have been fine since then.
My dad also had prostrate problems up to the day he died, at ninety.
Fair enough, crags. Genuinely sorry about your brother. I mean, if I had blood in the urine or faeces, or pain down in the groin area or behind it, or long-term diarrhoea or constipation, or lumps, then I'd be onto the GP like a shot.
But screening for cancer without symptoms, or worrying that an hour after a cup of tea I really need to have p1ss these days, so I'd better start worrying about cancer. No thanks.
But screening for cancer without symptoms, or worrying that an hour after a cup of tea I really need to have p1ss these days, so I'd better start worrying about cancer. No thanks.
Why can't people spell "prostate" given how common it is!... My mate has just got the all clear after "brachy" treatment and he still can't spell it
Nov 21, 2016 -- 11:36PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:
Fair enough, crags. Genuinely sorry about your brother. I mean, if I had blood in the urine or faeces, or pain down in the groin area or behind it, or long-term diarrhoea or constipation, or lumps, then I'd be onto the GP like a shot.But screening for cancer without symptoms, or worrying that an hour after a cup of tea I really need to have p1ss these days, so I'd better start worrying about cancer. No thanks.
Thank you, and you've made some fair points there.
1st time poster 21 Nov 16 15:18
my post was completely serious
Suggest you get yourself educated on the current process.
You ring the Doctors, speak to the Receptionist , ask for a PSA Blood Test by the Nurse.
Simple.
Have been doing this every year for the past twenty years.
In addition, since partial removal of my Gall Bladder, I also have a blood test for Liver Function.
Of course there's no charge - it's still the NHS. And hopefully always will be..
my post was completely serious
Suggest you get yourself educated on the current process.
You ring the Doctors, speak to the Receptionist , ask for a PSA Blood Test by the Nurse.
Simple.
Have been doing this every year for the past twenty years.
In addition, since partial removal of my Gall Bladder, I also have a blood test for Liver Function.
Of course there's no charge - it's still the NHS. And hopefully always will be..
It seems that an enlarged prostate and a cancerous prostate are the same thing.
Wrong
As you get older the prostate can expand. This causes additional pressure on the bladder which makes you urinate more often. In this instance it's called a benign tumour. This is very different from being diagnosed with Prostate Cancer.
Wrong
As you get older the prostate can expand. This causes additional pressure on the bladder which makes you urinate more often. In this instance it's called a benign tumour. This is very different from being diagnosed with Prostate Cancer.
Also I've learnt to remember to make use of the toilet before walking back from the betting shop, or I know I'll be looking for one before I reach home.
Always found it's best to leave going to the toilet until you really need to go, because if you go when the tank is only half or quarter full, you feel the need to go again quicker than you would if you'd left it longer.
Always found it's best to leave going to the toilet until you really need to go, because if you go when the tank is only half or quarter full, you feel the need to go again quicker than you would if you'd left it longer.
You wait till you get to my age etc...
Morning cup of char followed by an hour's walk with the dog into town. Half an hour trying to get a price in Ladbrokes or Baldfred while cashiers ring up, won't let you take the price, the price has shortened, £25 win only, sir etc. Then half way back home ordering the dog to stay while I try to find some bushes next to the River Tone (not easy this time of year, when the leaves have fallen off).
Just seems simpler to make use of the swamp at the back of Ladbrokes.
But I take your point. And waiting till you have to go, then keeping calm and walking steadily to the bog, is good training for the muscles down there to prevent genuine incontinence developing.
Morning cup of char followed by an hour's walk with the dog into town. Half an hour trying to get a price in Ladbrokes or Baldfred while cashiers ring up, won't let you take the price, the price has shortened, £25 win only, sir etc. Then half way back home ordering the dog to stay while I try to find some bushes next to the River Tone (not easy this time of year, when the leaves have fallen off).
Just seems simpler to make use of the swamp at the back of Ladbrokes.
But I take your point. And waiting till you have to go, then keeping calm and walking steadily to the bog, is good training for the muscles down there to prevent genuine incontinence developing.
Four posts from blackbarn here.
Three included criticism of other posters' English, with one containing an insult directed at me.
He seems a right little jumped up berk.
Three included criticism of other posters' English, with one containing an insult directed at me.
He seems a right little jumped up berk.
Well spotted Crippen. The only "english" criticism was my general comment about people misspelling prostate. I am sorry if you think I insulted you, BUT if you post b ollocks like "..... more likely to die from the treatment for it" you should expect it to be challenged.
I am perhaps a bit touchy on this subject as I have two friends and an uncle with prostate cancer. One is clean after "brachy", one just diagnosed and very fearful and my uncle probably won't make Christmas.
I am perhaps a bit touchy on this subject as I have two friends and an uncle with prostate cancer. One is clean after "brachy", one just diagnosed and very fearful and my uncle probably won't make Christmas.
Are rates of Prostate cancer any higher now than years ago?
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statis...
Enlarged prostates are the same as cancer and it's caused by eating Bran?
When the great medical minds of the world come across this thread, it'll be the biggest medical breakthrough since the invention of the leech.. FFS.
When the great medical minds of the world come across this thread, it'll be the biggest medical breakthrough since the invention of the leech.. FFS.
At what age do people stop going for tests? I heard a 78 yr old saying he had been asked to go for a Prostate test. What's the bleedin point? Even if you got it do you really want to go through all the Chemo etc...and for what, a couple of extra years that you'll spend in and out of hospital.
The patient has a choice. He have a blood test, to check PSA count. If it's too high , he can elect to have further tests ( biopsies) to determine if he indeed has Prostate cancer. If he has, he can be informed whether it's slow/ fast growing. If it's slow, then he's more than likely to die of old age before he dies of cancer. If it's fast growing, he has a choice to receive treatment ( radiotherapy or chemo.)
If 's his choice whether to go with the treatment or not.
If 's his choice whether to go with the treatment or not.
Nov 22, 2016 -- 6:28PM, TheBaron wrote:
At what age do people stop going for tests?
The patient has a choice. No one forces you to go for a test.
Personally, I'd go for tests for as long as I was able to drive to the Drs for a 2 min blood test , once a year.
dunno what happened to my quoted post, so I'll try again
At what age do people stop going for tests? I heard a 78 yr old saying he had been asked to go for a Prostate test. What's the bleedin point? Even if you got it do you really want to go through all the Chemo etc...and for what, a couple of extra years that you'll spend in and out of hospital.
My dad was diagnosed with prostate cancer a couple of years ago at the age of 87. Why assume chemo ? After tests to to make sure it hadn't spread to kidneys/bones, he's been on hormone injections that he has every 4 months to reduce testosterone and his PSA is fine.
Too much scaremongering/misinformation on this thread.
At what age do people stop going for tests? I heard a 78 yr old saying he had been asked to go for a Prostate test. What's the bleedin point? Even if you got it do you really want to go through all the Chemo etc...and for what, a couple of extra years that you'll spend in and out of hospital.
My dad was diagnosed with prostate cancer a couple of years ago at the age of 87. Why assume chemo ? After tests to to make sure it hadn't spread to kidneys/bones, he's been on hormone injections that he has every 4 months to reduce testosterone and his PSA is fine.
Too much scaremongering/misinformation on this thread.
Facts is absolutely right on this.
Flow problems caused by benign enlargement of the prostate can often be alleviated by drugs. This is very common in men over fifty.
A friend of mine has slow growing prostate cancer. The situation is just monitored at the moment.
Another friend had fast-growing prostate cancer. He died of complications following chemotherapy earlier this year.
Last year I had two biopsies which were negative for cancer. This year I was offered another biopsy which I declined.
There comes a point where you have to exercise choice as once you are on the "pathway" you stay on it.
If you are concerned by flow problems for goodness sake see your doctor who will give you a PSA test (simple blood test)
and then put you on medication. In most cases, it's benign enlargement and easily treated.
Flow problems caused by benign enlargement of the prostate can often be alleviated by drugs. This is very common in men over fifty.
A friend of mine has slow growing prostate cancer. The situation is just monitored at the moment.
Another friend had fast-growing prostate cancer. He died of complications following chemotherapy earlier this year.
Last year I had two biopsies which were negative for cancer. This year I was offered another biopsy which I declined.
There comes a point where you have to exercise choice as once you are on the "pathway" you stay on it.
If you are concerned by flow problems for goodness sake see your doctor who will give you a PSA test (simple blood test)
and then put you on medication. In most cases, it's benign enlargement and easily treated.
blackbarn,a sensitive subject but crippen may have a point. I am sure I have read somewhere that a report was issued elsewhere in the world where treatment for prostate cancer was ineffective compared to merely watching and accepting the inevitable.The survival rates were apparently quite similar.I can't link to that but it may explain crippen's comment.
If rapidly developing prostate cancer is caught in time, removal of the gland cures it. If secondary cancers have started then it's a different ball-game. Chemotherapy can suppress the immune system leaving the patient susceptible to other infections such as pneumonia or sepsis which could kill the patient before cancer does.
I've had 3 PSA tests in about 6 years. The results were as follows:
1.2
1.3
1.6
A slow rise over 6 years. Doctor's recommendation is 'no action required' as long as the value is less than 4. Passing water first thing in the mornings is sometimes a little slow, but other mornings it seems perfectly normal. So nothing to worry about it seems (for the moment at least).
1.2
1.3
1.6
A slow rise over 6 years. Doctor's recommendation is 'no action required' as long as the value is less than 4. Passing water first thing in the mornings is sometimes a little slow, but other mornings it seems perfectly normal. So nothing to worry about it seems (for the moment at least).
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539