The definitive model of prostate cancer
Ed Friedman
reviewed journal. My model of prostate cancer is the only one to date
that is totally consistent with all known experimental findings. For
those who want to read it, the full text is available for free online
viewing at: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/10
Ed Friedman
ron
yet. So at this point I just want to say thanks. Anyone who makes an
effort, as you have done, to sort things out helps us all...Best wishes
and good health, Ron
Ed Friedman
Ron,
Thank you for your kind words. If you have any questions about my
model, feel free to ask.
My model explains complex experimental results with surprising ease.
Take the following facts, which appear to represent a paradox:
1. Consumption of soy has been shown to prevent prostate cancer.
2. Dr. Leibowitz reports that the PSA goes up for any of his patients
who consume soy products.
3. Other doctors report no correlation between soy consumption and PSA.
Before completing my model, I assumed that Dr. Leibowitz must be
mistaken. After finishing my model, however, I realized that:
1. Soy protein binds specifically to ER-beta. Since both ER-alpha and
ER-beta are needed to form telomeres in prostate cells, soy would
prevent telomere formation and thus prevent prostate cancer.
2. Since bcl-2 prevents apoptosis, you want to have as little bcl-2 as
possible in your prostate cancer cells. Bcl-2 production is inhibited
by DHT+iAR and by E2+ER-beta. Since all of Dr. Leibowitz's patients are
on 5AR2 inhibitors, they are dependent on E2+ER-beta to keep bcl-2
levels low. Soy binds to ER-beta preventing E2 from binding to ER-beta,
resulting in increased bcl-2 production. Therefore, Dr. Leibowitz's
patients have an increased PSA when eating soy, not because the prostate
cancer is growing faster, but because apoptosis is occuring at a much
lower rate.
3. Since other doctors do not use 5AR2 inhibitors on their patients,
bcl-2 levels are kept low by DHT+iAR even when the soy binds to the
ER-beta. Therefore, no major change in PSA is observered.
The take home lesson from the above is that everyone on 5AR2 inhibitors
should be avoiding soy, flaxseed, and any other foods which bind
specifically to ER-beta.
Ed Friedman
ron
Ed Friedman wrote:...snip...
Therefore, Dr. Leibowitz's patients have an increased PSA when eating
soy, not because the prostate cancer is growing faster, but because
apoptosis is occuring at a much lower rate.
Ed...I thought prostate cell infarction, or apoptosis, released PSA
into the bloodstream (e.g. infections such as prostatitis result in
prostate cell death and lead to a PSA spike). Yet you state above that
a lower apoptosis rate leads to a rising PSA? Am I just plain
wrong?..Ron
Ed Friedman
> Ed...I thought prostate cell infarction, or apoptosis, released PSA
> into the bloodstream (e.g. infections such as prostatitis result in
> prostate cell death and lead to a PSA spike). Yet you state above that
> a lower apoptosis rate leads to a rising PSA? Am I just plain
> wrong?..Ron
>
Ron,
I've never heard that prostatitis causes apoptosis. Do you have any
references on that?
As far as I know, PSA is released by normal prostate cells as a response
to pressure, and by prostate cancer(PCa) cells as they grow. Normal
cells will produce an average increase of 0.4 in PSA as a response to
DRE. Also, infections, inflammation, even bicycle riding have all been
shown to raise normal PSA scores.
When someone undergoes RP, however, whatever PSA shows up in the
following years is a direct measure of the amount of PCa cells present.
Men in that situation are definitely not celebrating if they see a
rise in their PSA scores.
In the case of soy for Dr. Leibowitz's patients, we are talking about
continual increase in PSA until the soy is discontinued. This is
definitely not a sign of increased apoptosis, but of increased number of
PCa cells.
Keep in mind that the average growth rate for individual prostate cancer
cells is 56 days, but the average doubling time for the overall
population of PCa cells in 475 days. The difference is due to the fact
that the rate of apoptosis is almost the same as the rate of growth. So
lots of apoptosis is going on all of the time for PCa.
My model predicts that the lower the level of T, the lower the level of
apoptosis, until you get to castrate level of T, at which point the
cessation of calreticulin production leaves the PCa vulnerable to
calcium overload and you see a huge spike in the amount of apoptosis.
Basically, castrati and teenagers don't have to worry about getting PCa,
but the rest of us do.
Ed
George Conklin
"Ed Friedman" <e...@math.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:y2V6e.14$45....@news.uchicago.edu...
For most men, it is not an issue., except if the PSA, which has never been
proven to save actual lives, makes it one.
ron
George Conklin wrote...snip...
PSA, which has never been proven to save actual lives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 1990-92 and 2000-02, the prostate cancer death rate in Iowa
declined around 30 percent in men in the age groups less than 85 years
of age, but de-clined only 10 percent in those 85 years and older.
"This correlates with the stage shift information and supports the
hypothesis that prostate cancer screening is saving lives," Lynch said.
A recently published study from researchers at the Mayo Clinic has
provided further evidence that screening for levels of prostate
specific antigen (PSA) leads to earlier diagnosis and increased
survival from prostate cancer.
The researchers found a 22% decline in prostate cancer deaths from a
period when the PSA test did not exist (1980-'84) compared with when it
was utilized (1993-'97). The cases were in Olmstead County in
Minnesota, where the clinic is located.
In the United States, following several decades of gradually increasing
death rates that reached their peak in 1993, the prostate cancer
mortality rate began to decline steadily in the late 1990s. Since 1993,
the prostate cancer mortality rate has decreased by 17.6%, at an annual
mean rate of 4.4% between 1994 and 1997
Evidence for a possible beneficial effect of prostate cancer screening
came from the urology department of the University of Innsbruck,
Austria, where, in contrast to other parts of Austria, the PSA test had
been made freely available to the population in 1993 and acceptance of
testing was high.17 The investigators reported 33% fewer prostate
cancer deaths than expected in the Innsbruck area between 1996 and 1999
in men aged 40-79 years. The authors concluded that the policy of
making the PSA assay universally available to the population (and at no
cost) might have reduced the prostate cancer mortality rate in that
population.17
George Conklin
"ron" <oit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113358173.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Conklin wrote...snip...
> PSA, which has never been proven to save actual lives
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> Between 1990-92 and 2000-02, the prostate cancer death rate in Iowa
> declined around 30 percent in men in the age groups less than 85 years
> of age, but de-clined only 10 percent in those 85 years and older.
> "This correlates with the stage shift information and supports the
> hypothesis that prostate cancer screening is saving lives," Lynch said.
>
>
Still, the studies have not been done. If you want to cite demography,
as life expectancy goes UP in general, there will be declines in specific
diseases. History shows that of the 35 year life expectany increase since
1900, 30 years came from social improvemnts and 5 years from medicine. Your
logic would impute the entire improvemnt to some medical change. So why
have not the real studies been done? Why interrupt the money train?
Further, knowing you have a disease longer does mean you live longer. The
high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer is good example. It failed.
> A recently published study from researchers at the Mayo Clinic has
> provided further evidence that screening for levels of prostate
> specific antigen (PSA) leads to earlier diagnosis and increased
> survival from prostate cancer.
> The researchers found a 22% decline in prostate cancer deaths from a
> period when the PSA test did not exist (1980-'84) compared with when it
> was utilized (1993-'97). The cases were in Olmstead County in
> Minnesota, where the clinic is located.
>
>
> In the United States, following several decades of gradually increasing
> death rates that reached their peak in 1993, the prostate cancer
> mortality rate began to decline steadily in the late 1990s. Since 1993,
> the prostate cancer mortality rate has decreased by 17.6%, at an annual
> mean rate of 4.4% between 1994 and 1997
>
>
> Evidence for a possible beneficial effect of prostate cancer screening
> came from the urology department of the University of Innsbruck,
> Austria, where, in contrast to other parts of Austria, the PSA test had
> been made freely available to the population in 1993 and acceptance of
> testing was high.17 The investigators reported 33% fewer prostate
> cancer deaths than expected in the Innsbruck area between 1996 and 1999
> in men aged 40-79 years. The authors concluded that the policy of
> making the PSA assay universally available to the population (and at no
> cost) might have reduced the prostate cancer mortality rate in that
> population.17
>
But was life expectany higher? That was the original point. Those
studies in the USA have run for about 10 years now with NO announcements.
Leonard Evens
> "ron" <oit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113358173.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>George Conklin wrote...snip...
>>PSA, which has never been proven to save actual lives
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>>Between 1990-92 and 2000-02, the prostate cancer death rate in Iowa
>>declined around 30 percent in men in the age groups less than 85 years
>>of age, but de-clined only 10 percent in those 85 years and older.
>>"This correlates with the stage shift information and supports the
>>hypothesis that prostate cancer screening is saving lives," Lynch said.
>>
>>
>
>
> Still, the studies have not been done.
It seems to me he has cited several studies.
> If you want to cite demography,
> as life expectancy goes UP in general, there will be declines in specific
> diseases. History shows that of the 35 year life expectany increase since
> 1900, 30 years came from social improvemnts and 5 years from medicine.
It is hard to see how "social improvements" could lead to a decrease in
prostate cancer specific death rates. Also, it would help if you quoted
specific studies which made such estimates, so we could evaluate the
validity of the claims.
> Your
> logic would impute the entire improvemnt to some medical change.
No. His logic doesn't lead to any such conclusion. There are
significant differences between general increases in life expectancy
over a 100 year period and differences in prostate cancer death rates
over a 10-15 year period.
> So why
> have not the real studies been done?
As you know there is one large scale study, PLCO, under way. It may or
may not be more scientifically valid than those that ron quoted.
> Why interrupt the money train?
Statements about money trains are scientifically irrelevant and show
your bias.
> Further, knowing you have a disease longer does mean you live longer. The
> high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer is good example. It failed.
Agreed. One problem with the PLCO study is that followup treatment is
not a standard part of the protocol.
Actually they have published some results on the how often PSA testing
might be warranted.
>
>
George Conklin
"Leonard Evens" <l...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:r5mdnRkP-Ze...@comcast.com...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "ron" <oit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1113358173.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>George Conklin wrote...snip...
> >>PSA, which has never been proven to save actual lives
> >>
>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> >
> >>Between 1990-92 and 2000-02, the prostate cancer death rate in Iowa
> >>declined around 30 percent in men in the age groups less than 85 years
> >>of age, but de-clined only 10 percent in those 85 years and older.
> >>"This correlates with the stage shift information and supports the
> >>hypothesis that prostate cancer screening is saving lives," Lynch said.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Still, the studies have not been done.
>
> It seems to me he has cited several studies.
And you the man who trashes correlational analysis!!!!
>
> > If you want to cite demography,
> > as life expectancy goes UP in general, there will be declines in
specific
> > diseases. History shows that of the 35 year life expectany increase
since
> > 1900, 30 years came from social improvemnts and 5 years from medicine.
>
> It is hard to see how "social improvements" could lead to a decrease in
> prostate cancer specific death rates. Also, it would help if you quoted
> specific studies which made such estimates, so we could evaluate the
> validity of the claims.
>
That is because you are back trashing correlations once again. Can't be
consistent even for one post can you? As death rates decline, most diseases
decline too.
> > Your
> > logic would impute the entire improvemnt to some medical change.
>
> No. His logic doesn't lead to any such conclusion. There are
> significant differences between general increases in life expectancy
> over a 100 year period and differences in prostate cancer death rates
> over a 10-15 year period.
>
Any special interest group could say the same thing about any specific
disease. Like YOU.
> > So why
> > have not the real studies been done?
>
> As you know there is one large scale study, PLCO, under way. It may or
> may not be more scientifically valid than those that ron quoted.
>
> > Why interrupt the money train?
>
> Statements about money trains are scientifically irrelevant and show
> your bias.
>
The reason why surgical and other treatments go unevaluated (and in this
case for 100 years) is that the MONEY is in the procedure, and NEVER in the
evaluation, which is not desired in any case by those who are making the
money.
Alan Meyer
news:E387e.5782$An2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> ...
> Still, the studies have not been done. If you want to cite demography,
> as life expectancy goes UP in general, there will be declines in specific
> diseases. History shows that of the 35 year life expectany increase since
> 1900, 30 years came from social improvemnts and 5 years from medicine. Your
> logic would impute the entire improvemnt to some medical change. So why
> have not the real studies been done? Why interrupt the money train?
> Further, knowing you have a disease longer does mean you live longer. The
> high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer is good example. It failed.
On the one point about "social improvements", I think that
actually counts against the argument you're making.
If by "social improvements", you mean increased sanitation,
reduced auto accidents, improved diet, and things like that,
those improvements reduce the death rate from preventable
diseases and accidents, but increase the death rate from
diseases of old age like cancer and heart disease.
It's true that "as life expectancy goes UP in general, there
will be declines in specific diseases". But I would expect that
prostate cancer wouldn't be one of those specific diseases.
Alan