post vasectomy
Diz
for the first few days with ice and plenty of rest. I never experienced any
severe pain and had only minor swelling and bruising. My question is this.
How long before everything feels like it did before? I still have mild
discomfort , and am anxious for everything to feel good again. Thanks.
tri...@my-deja.com
I think there is a lot of variation. But I was back to normal pretty
quickly, except for an occasional twinge of soreness--the kind you might
feel when knocked slightly in the nuts. (Usually that came if I stepped
heavily while coming down stairs, or moved oddly.) The soreness lasted
maybe two weeks, and I controlled it easily by wearing a jock strap. For
the first week I even wore the strap to bed--removing it for "special
occasions," of course ;-)
(By the way, "special occasions" resumed the first night, although I was
pretty careful the first few times. I was was back to my old ways by the
end of the second week.)
Check out our website (address below), where you will find a survey of
guys who have been through vasectomy. It addresses recovery time, etc.
And don't forget to take the survey yourself!
--
Check out the Vasectomy Support webpage:
http://www.vasectomy.fsnet.co.uk (includes survey and survey results)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Brown
>guys who have been through vasectomy. It addresses recovery time, etc.
>And don't forget to take the survey yourself!
The survey is certainly interesting, and it's worth looking at the personal
experiences page as there are some good descriptions of the recovery process
there. Personally I felt Ok after a few days, but took it easy as long as I
could. I had it done on a Friday and was back at work as normal on the
Monday. After the stitches had come out (about 10days) things were all back
to normal.
David
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Vasectomy Information site at http://www.vasectomy.fsnet.co.uk
Please participate in the on-line survey!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
norther...@my-deja.com
It's been about 16 days since my traditional. And, I am about 90% back
to "normal." I still have a slight pain in my right testicle. I
expect this to clear up since I had a similar pain in my left testicle
that has since cleared up. I had a lot of swelling on the right side
(the doc gave me Celebrex which helped). Now the "bad" news, it may be
all in my head, but I don't think my orgasms are as intense as they
were pre-vasectomy. It may be that I'm still somewhat leary since I am
still having some slight pain. I can only attribute the pain to
inflamation caused my sperm backup in the vas, but that's just a
guess. I have no idea why I took so long to heal, but I am glad that I
do feel better than I did last week.
tri...@my-deja.com
norther...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Now the "bad" news, it may be
> all in my head, but I don't think my orgasms are as intense as they
> were pre-vasectomy. It may be that I'm still somewhat leary since I am
> still having some slight pain.
This seems likely. In my experience, orgasms have always been subjective
and occasion-specific. Sometimes they are better than other times. I
think if you are still a little worried about testicle pain, that could
negatively affect what you feel when you cum. (In the same way, being
extra turned on could make it feel better.) I bet you will find
everything returning to normal very soon--as long as you keep
practicing ;-)
(BTW, how specifically are they "less intense?")
--
Check out the Vasectomy Support webpage:
http://www.vasectomy.fsnet.co.uk (includes survey and survey results)
norther...@my-deja.com
vasectomy "intesity." I'm still having what could best be described as
an ache in my right testicle. Some days are better than others. I can
feel where there is a nodule and I think it's causing some irritation
to the surrounding tissue. On this side during the procedure, I
recall, the MD had difficulty finding the vas. I'm not sure if two
issues are related. I told myself I would give it 3 months, if there
was still a problem, I would report it to the doctor. I think part of
my problem is fear of the unknown. It's been just over a month now, I
may go back sooner if the irritation doesn't feel like it's dissipating.
In article <8l1oi2$nhu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Peter K Tan
strength of the erection, etc. soon after the vasectomy. It
seems to me that the less I think of it, the better it is! So my
advice is not to be overly concerned about it. (By the way, I
suffered an infection, and there was some dull pain - very dull
- for up to a month. That's all gone now, about 5 and a half
months from the vasectomy.) It does get better!
Peter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
norther...@my-deja.com
Did you get any antibiotics??
In article <0bc164d8...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com>,
Peter K Tan
>I have a feeling (no pun) that's what I have since it's been a
while.
>Did you get any antibiotics??
>
Yes, I had antibiotics. I had a conventional vasectomy and the
stitches burst too soon and there was some bleeding. I didn't
get to see the urologist - only the hospital registrar in the
urology department, and he started off conservatively by making
me go to the hospital for a daily dressing. In the end the
decided to restitch, and it was all right after that.
Cheers,
stev...@my-deja.com
Keep using the ice, it reduces swelling and will help reduce the
scarring.
As to the pain. I know some men who have reported chronic pain
continuousy after the surgery. My own vasectomy healed pretty quickly
and was back to speed in about month without notice of difference.
However, long term I paid a price. Testosterone dropped about year 7.
At year 5 I had pain and swelling in the epydimis (sic) tissue. It has
affected me off and on until now, some 15 years after vasectomy. I had
a reversal which helped marginally on pain and hormone level.
I know of men who have had pain continuously since their vasectomy with
no relief and those whose hormones from testicles went to near zero.
I have found references to altered hormone level in vasectomized men.
The medical establishment has not published any 5 year, 10 year, and 15
year studies of hormome levels, despite the reporting of problems and
the number of men from which to economically perform such tests.
Steve (aka: "Been There, Done That, Paying the Price")
In article <8m6hmu$nrf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Peter K Tan
levels in vasectomised men as you mentioned in your post?
tri...@my-deja.com
You have claimed before that testosternone levels drop after vasectomy.
And you have claimed before that you have medical references documenting
this claim. But you have never supplied us these references, despite our
requests. I would be especially interested to see these references, as
my understanding is that the medical testing done suggests testosterone
levels in vasectomized men remain HIGHER, longer into life. These HIGHER
testosternone levels in vasectomized men were once a cause for worry, as
some researchers thought they might lead to prostate cancer. (Later
research showed vasectomized men are not at greater risk of prostate
cancer.) So where are the references, Steve? If you can't produce them,
you should stop claiming you can. And you should also stop spreading
scare stories you can't document.
kev...@my-deja.com
Your choice of a Bilateral Orchiectomy would explain you being sterile
and loss of hormone level.
tri...@my-deja.com
kev...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Your choice of a Bilateral Orchiectomy would explain you being sterile
> and loss of hormone level.
Ummmm. . .Did he say he had been castrated?
--
Check out the Vasectomy Support webpage:
http://www.vasectomy.fsnet.co.uk (includes survey and survey results)
norther...@my-deja.com
(aka horny), an indication of decreased testosterone. I just stated
that I felt my orgasms were a little less orgasmic than what I seem
remember, if that makes sense. I fully believe that it was due to the
anxiety associated with my post-vas pain. As each day progresses, I
feel less tenderness. Although, I am frustrated that it is taking soo
long to go away, I feel there is progress. In my own "heal thyself"
mind, I believe the extraordinary tenderness is related to the doc
having trouble finding the vas on the right side. I think he did some
extra searching resulting in more tissue disturbance.
In article <080a4440...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com>,
Peter K Tan <peter_k_t...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
stev...@my-deja.com
You might do a search of this newsgroup of my posts over the last year.
However, here is a quick summary:
"Vasectomy: You May Be Cutting Off More Than You Think," by Thomas D.
Facey; Muscle & Fitness, June 1995, page 120; describes the potential
loss of testosterone due to vasectomy and cites studies on increased
risk of prostrate cancer due to vasectomies. Includes references.
Vasectomy and Prostate Cancer: Results From a Multiethnic Case-Control
Study, by many doctors. Abstract of study to look for correlation
between prostrate cancer and vasectomy. Study found correlation between
vasectomy and lower testosterone. [Abstract Available]
http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/jnci/issue9/87-662.html
In the above they talk about hormone or edocrine ratios; it is actually
the ratio of free testosterone to DHT and breakdown product from
testosterone. The higher the ratio the better for muscle development
and sexual functioning (lower ratio if you put DHT first). They found
vasectomized men had a lower ratio over time, meaning that free
testosterone was dropping (body generally keeps DHT constant).
Considering the 'selling' of vasectomies. Would it not be nice if the
medical community published the 5yr, 10yr, and 15yr hormone levels.
They do not, because that would rain on the parade.
The best advice: Consult only with doctors who have had the procedure
in the last ten years -- if you can't find many to consult with -- take
the hint.
Good Luck,
Steve (been there, done that, still paying the price)
stev...@my-deja.com
Keep up the ice. Even after the pain subsides. A couple of points:
[] Testosterone does not drop immediately, in fact, may increase as the
body tries to repair it self. See references in post to Peter. It drops
over time particulary the second 5 years (years 5 to 10).
[] Keep in mind that though the sperm only make up 5% of the semem
level, that 5% may make a difference in your 'feeling.' Plus without
the sperm and associated hormones getting to the prostate, the prostate
may not react as it did before.
Best thing: Ask your doctor about his and his fellow doctors
vasectomies. If they didn't have one, then OOPS!!
Most of all ice, ice, ice. It will get better before it gets worse.
Good Luck (truly),
Steve (been there, done that, still paying the price)
In article <8muimj$p0c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
norther...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Let's get something clear here. I am not any less sexually inclined
> (aka horny), an indication of decreased testosterone. I just stated
> that I felt my orgasms were a little less orgasmic than what I seem
> remember, if that makes sense. I fully believe that it was due to the
> anxiety associated with my post-vas pain. As each day progresses, I
> feel less tenderness. Although, I am frustrated that it is taking soo
> long to go away, I feel there is progress. In my own "heal thyself"
> mind, I believe the extraordinary tenderness is related to the doc
> having trouble finding the vas on the right side. I think he did some
> extra searching resulting in more tissue disturbance.
>
David Brown
>in the last ten years -- if you can't find many to consult with -- take
>the hint.
This daft theory proves sod all.
Because a doctor hasn't had a vasectomy doesn't mean the procedure is
unsafe. Many doctors are in fact WOMEN (who generally speaking don't get
vasectomies done), some are probably not in relationships or gay, and some
just plain arrogant gits who are positively Neanderthal in attitude and
insist that birth control is the womans responsibility. We have had people
posting here every time the question is asked who's doctors have been
snipped.
It's my guess that if somebody ACTUALLY DID a survey of doctors, there would
be no real disparity amongst doctors and the rest of the planet. Lets see
some published facts on this point before making assumptions please.
--
"Dump the pump" - www.boycott-the-pumps.com
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Vasectomy Information site at http://www.vasectomy-information.com
David Brown
the website. If it doesn't work online then download the PDF version to read
off line.
It's published in 1999/2000, for the American Society for reproductive
medicine. Part of it is devoted to the issues you speak of. The studies
mentioned also examine men who had a vasectomy over 20 years ago where data
exists.
It puts together all major studies world-wide on the prostate cancer front,
and analyses how they were done. Yet again it makes the point that increased
detection is the case, NOT an increase in cancer incidence. The medical
profession in general world-wide have discounted this risk.
I speak as a layman here:- I do know that SOME men have problems, and they
also have difficulties being heard at times, but it strikes me that if these
links between vasectomy and all these terrible problems are really as common
as some make out we would hear more about it. The percentages of men who
have a vasectomy are very high - say 0.01% of men had a problem and were
vociferous on it, we really would hear an awful lot more about it.
> Considering the 'selling' of vasectomies. Would it not be nice if the
> medical community published the 5yr, 10yr, and 15yr hormone levels.
> They do not, because that would rain on the parade.
I'm sure that they exist somewhere, and somebody has done a study - we just
need to find it! I'd like to see some major comparative studies between men
in general and vasectomised men. Hormones change in all of us throughout our
lives, so I guess that unless there is a huge disparity between the two
groups, drawing definite conclusions would not be possible. This (IMHO) is
the flaw of many surveys (medical and otherwise) that people use them to
prove what they want to prove, by asking leaning questions and interpreting
the results accordingly.
In my view, as intelligent adults it's up to us to read up on the
information available, assess the risks according to our circumstances and
make a decision for ourselves.
As dear old Oscar once said "Lies, damned lies and statistics".
David Brown
The study was 1,642 recently diagnosed prostate cancer patients, the purpose
being to asses if there was a correlation between vasectomy and prostate
cancer.
"Conclusions: The findings of this study do not support previous reports of
increased prostate cancer risk associated with vasectomy. However, the
altered endocrine profiles of vasectomized control subjects seen in this
cross-sectional comparison warrant further evaluation in longitudinal
studies. [J Natl Cancer Inst 87:662-669, 1995]"
Is what the conclusion says. The altered endocrine profile is actually based
on a handful of this study's sample. The doctors have suggested that this
aspect be investigated by more research - they are not saying it is proven
fact.
--
"Dump the pump" - www.boycott-the-pumps.com
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Vasectomy Information site at http://www.vasectomy-information.com
Please participate in the on-line survey!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
stev...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8n6vke$j25$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Peter,
>
>You might do a search of this newsgroup of my posts over the last year.
>
>However, here is a quick summary:
>"Vasectomy: You May Be Cutting Off More Than You Think," by Thomas D.
>Facey; Muscle & Fitness, June 1995, page 120; describes the potential
>loss of testosterone due to vasectomy and cites studies on increased
>risk of prostrate cancer due to vasectomies. Includes references.
>
>Vasectomy and Prostate Cancer: Results From a Multiethnic Case-Control
>Study, by many doctors. Abstract of study to look for correlation
>between prostrate cancer and vasectomy. Study found correlation between
>vasectomy and lower testosterone. [Abstract Available]
>http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/jnci/issue9/87-662.html
>
>In the above they talk about hormone or edocrine ratios; it is actually
>the ratio of free testosterone to DHT and breakdown product from
>testosterone. The higher the ratio the better for muscle development
>and sexual functioning (lower ratio if you put DHT first). They found
>vasectomized men had a lower ratio over time, meaning that free
>testosterone was dropping (body generally keeps DHT constant).
>
>Considering the 'selling' of vasectomies. Would it not be nice if the
>medical community published the 5yr, 10yr, and 15yr hormone levels.
>They do not, because that would rain on the parade.
>
>The best advice: Consult only with doctors who have had the procedure
>in the last ten years -- if you can't find many to consult with -- take
>the hint.
>
>Good Luck,
>
>Steve (been there, done that, still paying the price)
>
tri...@my-deja.com
Thanks for finally posting some citatations. I do have comments.
The second study you mention (the one from NIH, for which you supply a
url) contradicts the claim in the first study you cite, that there is a
link between vasectomy and prostate cancer. The authors of the second
study state clearly that their study suggests NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN
VASECTOMY AND PROSTATE CANCER. (In fact, their study seems to confirm
conclusions of studies included at our website that assocations between
vasectomy and prostate cancer in various early studies are in fact due to
the fact that prostate cancer is often diagnosed earlier in vasectomised
men because they tend to see doctors more often.) So why don't you stop
claiming that there is a link between prostate cancer and vasectomy?
As for the second study's finding that vasectomised men in that study
seem to have a higher ratio of DHT to testosterone than non-vasectomised
men, I have three observations:
1) What does this mean? After about an hour of websearching, I have not
been able to confirm your claim that this ratio has any bearing at all on
muscle development or sexual function. Could you point us to a source
that states clearly that a higher DHT/testosterone ratio is associated
with decreased muscle develpment and sexual function in healthy men? (I
*have* come across evidence that DECREASING DHT--sometimes advocated as a
means of controlling prostate enlargment in older men--is contraindicated
in those men because decreasing DHT also tends to reduce libido and
erectile function.) Another thing we need to know: if a higher ratio of
DHT/testsosterone is associated with decreased sexual function and muscle
development, how high does it need to be before it becomes meaningful?
(eg. there may have been only a slight difference in this ration between
the two groups involved in the study, and both may have been within
normal parameters).
2) I argree it would be interesting to see whether there has been
further research into the study's finding of higher ratio's of DST to
testosterone in vasectomised men with prostate cancer as opposed to non-
vasectomised men with prostate cancer. One reason is that this research
could determine, for example, whether vasectomy is truly
correlated with this difference in ratio, or whether other factors not
controlled for by the authors are more significant. For example, does
age play a role? Unless the authors in their study took care to insure
that the age distribution in the men with vasectomies was the same as
that of the non-vasectomised men, the differences they observed could
have been due to age. Remember, too, this study is ONLY OF MEN ALREADY
DIAGONOSED WITH PROSTATE CANCER. So its relevance to the vast majority
of men, vasectomised or not, who have not been diagnosed with cancer, is
not at all clear. Perhaps only men with prostate cancer show this
difference.
3) I want to once again question a subtheme of all your postings on this
subject, which is that the medical establishment has some vested interest
in hiding information about the harmful effects of vasectomy. From
everything I have seen, there has been LOTS of research into the possible
negatives of vasectomy. Just look over the cite David mentions, which is
an exhausive (almost exhausting!) survey of years of research into
vasectomy and its consequences. You also that
vasectomy is so big a money maker for doctors, that they have reason to
hide its negative consequences. But vasectomy has got to be very low on
the medical profit scale. How much more lucrative would it be to instead
continue to dispense oral contraceptives, fit IUDs, etc.--not to mention,
charge for all that pregancy stuff? Get real!
--
Check out the Vasectomy Support webpage:
http://www.vasectomy.fsnet.co.uk (includes survey and survey results)
stev...@my-deja.com
As always I admire the time you spend here and on your web site. A few
discussion points:
[] I agree that if a given doctor does not have a particular medical
procedure it does not make it necessariy suspect.
[] I obviously do not include women urologist or surgeons in my
comments.
[] I have asked 10 urologists (or their office) (all male) in my local
city of over 1 million. 8 said they did not have a vasectomy, the other
2 failed to give an answer (I was talking with the office staff).
[] I have never stated that Birth Control lies solely with the female.
I believe just the opposite. I had a vasectomy, and subsequently a
reversal after I realized the long term affects. There are ways a male
can assure himself and his partner of no inadvertant births.
[] In asking the above 10 urologists (or office staff) for
recommendations on consulting with a urologist with a vasectomy, some 6
said they were not aware on any urologist with a vasectomy, the other 4
said they would not make recommendations on that criteria if they had
the knowledge.
[] Doctors (male) should have a higher rate of vasectomies, they are
supposed to be more sure of the medical neutrality of the procedure.
[] I look forward to an actual scientific sampling of doctors who have
had vasectomies (mine cetainly was not - though disheartening). Until
then I believe the safest route for men is to find a urologist or
surgeon that has actully had the procedure. If it is as common as you
state, it should not be a problem and add a lot of confidence in the
procedure.
My total support to all who have had vasectomies and especially to
those that had problems that have been dismissed without true studies
being done to determine the long term affects of the procedure.
Steve L. (been there, done that, still paying the price)
In article <8n83bb$fqr$1...@supernews.com>,
"David Brown" <da...@davidbrown.uk.com> wrote:
> >The best advice: Consult only with doctors who have had the procedure
> >in the last ten years -- if you can't find many to consult with --
take
> >the hint.
>
> This daft theory proves sod all.
>
> Because a doctor hasn't had a vasectomy doesn't mean the procedure is
> unsafe. Many doctors are in fact WOMEN (who generally speaking don't
get
> vasectomies done), some are probably not in relationships or gay, and
some
> just plain arrogant gits who are positively Neanderthal in attitude
and
> insist that birth control is the womans responsibility. We have had
people
> posting here every time the question is asked who's doctors have been
> snipped.
>
> It's my guess that if somebody ACTUALLY DID a survey of doctors,
there would
> be no real disparity amongst doctors and the rest of the planet. Lets
see
> some published facts on this point before making assumptions please.
>
> --
> "Dump the pump" - www.boycott-the-pumps.com
>
> David
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Visit the Vasectomy Information site at http://www.vasectomy-
information.com
> Please participate in the on-line survey!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
stev...@my-deja.com
Again, I do admire your tireless efforts in maintaining a Web Site and
taking the time to discuss these important issues to men's health.
I do find that you did not fully represent the study's findings in your
post. Below is a quote from the article:
"We found a lower serum concentration of sex hormone-binding globulin
and a higher ratio of dihydrotestosterone to testosterone among
vasectomized control subjects than among nonvasectomized control
subjects."
Since the body tries to keep DHT constant (and DHT is created from free
testosterone), the results mean that overall free testosterone is lower
in vasectomized men than in non-vasectomized men.
As you state, the study says more longitudinal studies (drop in
testosterone over time) are needed. I could not agree more. In fact,
with the findings above, would it not be prudent to not have a
vasectomy until the studies are performed?
Also, the fact that the study was for the purpose of determining if
there was a link between prostate cancer and vasectomies and the group
of research doctors decided to include this information in their
summary report should not be considered insignificant.
But readers can read it for themselves:
http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/jnci/issue9/87-662.html
As always a vasectomy should be a very informed choice. To help assure
that information and comfort, seek out only doctors who have had the
procedure themselves.
Steve L. (been there, done that, still paying the price)
P.S. Where does it say 'handful' etc.
In article <8n8afh$bkv$1...@supernews.com>,
"David Brown" <da...@davidbrown.uk.com> wrote:
> Re the link:-
>
> The study was 1,642 recently diagnosed prostate cancer patients, the
purpose
> being to asses if there was a correlation between vasectomy and
prostate
> cancer.
>
> "Conclusions: The findings of this study do not support previous
reports of
> increased prostate cancer risk associated with vasectomy. However, the
> altered endocrine profiles of vasectomized control subjects seen in
this
> cross-sectional comparison warrant further evaluation in longitudinal
> studies. [J Natl Cancer Inst 87:662-669, 1995]"
>
> Is what the conclusion says. The altered endocrine profile is
actually based
> on a handful of this study's sample. The doctors have suggested that
this
> aspect be investigated by more research - they are not saying it is
proven
> fact.
>
> --
> "Dump the pump" - www.boycott-the-pumps.com
>
> David
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Visit the Vasectomy Information site at http://www.vasectomy-
information.com
> Please participate in the on-line survey!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> stev...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8n6vke$j25
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Peter,
> >
> >You might do a search of this newsgroup of my posts over the last
year.
> >
> >However, here is a quick summary:
> >"Vasectomy: You May Be Cutting Off More Than You Think," by Thomas D.
> >Facey; Muscle & Fitness, June 1995, page 120; describes the potential
> >loss of testosterone due to vasectomy and cites studies on increased
> >risk of prostrate cancer due to vasectomies. Includes references.
> >
> >Vasectomy and Prostate Cancer: Results From a Multiethnic Case-
Control
> >Study, by many doctors. Abstract of study to look for correlation
> >between prostrate cancer and vasectomy. Study found correlation
between
> >vasectomy and lower testosterone. [Abstract Available]
> >http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/jnci/issue9/87-662.html
> >
> >In the above they talk about hormone or edocrine ratios; it is
actually
> >the ratio of free testosterone to DHT and breakdown product from
> >testosterone. The higher the ratio the better for muscle development
> >and sexual functioning (lower ratio if you put DHT first). They found
> >vasectomized men had a lower ratio over time, meaning that free
> >testosterone was dropping (body generally keeps DHT constant).
> >
> >Considering the 'selling' of vasectomies. Would it not be nice if the
> >medical community published the 5yr, 10yr, and 15yr hormone levels.
> >They do not, because that would rain on the parade.
> >
> >The best advice: Consult only with doctors who have had the procedure
> >in the last ten years -- if you can't find many to consult with --
take
> >the hint.
> >
> >Good Luck,
> >
> >Steve (been there, done that, still paying the price)
> >
> >In article <080a4440...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com>,
> > Peter K Tan <peter_k_t...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >> Steve - Can you give details or references to decreased hormone
> >> levels in vasectomised men as you mentioned in your post?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> >> Up to 100 minutes free!
> >> http://www.keen.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
stev...@my-deja.com
I have noticed your diligence in supporting rational discussions of the
subject and your discussion below is well received. Hopefully, I will
keep my commnets brief:
[] Prostate Cancer Studies: Yes, there has been some differences in
findings between the various studies. Even the studies that have found
a link, found the increased incidence to be less than a factor of two
between vasctomized and non-vasectomized men. Considering the age that
one usually is when detected make the comparisons difficult to
correlate. Not having studied the full report of each, I cannot say if
there is any significance that can be given to one report over another.
{It is not uncommon for researchers who come up with differences, to
try to explain away others research which does not agree.]
[] It is not the DHT/T ratio that determines muscle building
effectiveness or sexual response, but Free Testosterone. The ratio is
different due to lower Free Testosterone. I believe if you search the
Web for correlation between Free Testosterone (or just Testosterone for
short) and muscle building and sexual response you will have no
trouble. I have been to this following site once, so I am not sure of
its slant, but you might take browse: www.testosterone.net
[] Again, you make a good point on their being no medical studies (that
I have found) that explain the 'In Total' relationship between 'levels'
of testosterone and sexual response. In other words, if there is drop,
does it even matter? Well most men on Testosterone replacement will
report higher libido and function. Again, this information is available
on the net, just searh Northernlight or Google for 'Testosterone
Replacement."
[] Do I distrust the Medical Establishment? Not overall. Do I believe
that there are long term affects due to vasectomy that are not being
researched? Yes. Do I believe that men should have vasectomies until
proper long term studies are carried out and reported? No.
[] Therefore, if a man desires to have a vasectomy, he certainly has
that right (except in France, which does not allow them). I do believe
that the best way currently, due to the lack of actual published
studies, is to seek out only doctors who have had the procedure
themselves. Should not be that difficult given the number of doctors
that perform the procedure - should it?
Steve L. (been there, done that, still paying the price)
In article <8n9a2c$7lq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
David Brown
>
>As always I admire the time you spend here and on your web site. A few
>discussion points:
That's good to hear Steve, and thanks!
>
>[] I agree that if a given doctor does not have a particular medical
>procedure it does not make it necessariy suspect.
>
>[] I obviously do not include women urologist or surgeons in my
>comments.
>
>[] I have asked 10 urologists (or their office) (all male) in my local
>city of over 1 million. 8 said they did not have a vasectomy, the other
>2 failed to give an answer (I was talking with the office staff).
>
>[] I have never stated that Birth Control lies solely with the female.
>I believe just the opposite. I had a vasectomy, and subsequently a
>reversal after I realized the long term affects. There are ways a male
>can assure himself and his partner of no inadvertant births.
>
>[] In asking the above 10 urologists (or office staff) for
>recommendations on consulting with a urologist with a vasectomy, some 6
>said they were not aware on any urologist with a vasectomy, the other 4
>said they would not make recommendations on that criteria if they had
>the knowledge.
>
>[] Doctors (male) should have a higher rate of vasectomies, they are
>supposed to be more sure of the medical neutrality of the procedure.
>
>[] I look forward to an actual scientific sampling of doctors who have
>had vasectomies (mine certainly was not - though disheartening). Until
>then I believe the safest route for men is to find a urologist or
>surgeon that has actually had the procedure. If it is as common as you
>state, it should not be a problem and add a lot of confidence in the
>procedure.
>
I don't believe I stated that. The point I was making is that there are many
reasons why a doctor wouldn't have a vasectomy - because they haven't had
one that doesn't mean they think there is a problem with the procedure. Both
of us know that unless somebody does a study on this we will never know the
answer as to how many have, and how many haven't. I appreciate your efforts
to answer the question by phoning round, but unless you get to talk to the
doctor you won't get a straight answer, and the answer you might get is
"It's none of your business, I'm not answering that". In any case, the
answer you will get varies from place to place. It might be that in wherever
you live not many have had one, but in NZ (who seem to have the highest
proportion of vasectomised men) the percentage of ten doctors asked may be
over the average - who knows.
I'd also be interested in a comparative study with other professions - it
may be that professionals tend to get the chop less for all we know.
>My total support to all who have had vasectomies and especially to
>those that had problems that have been dismissed without true studies
>being done to determine the long term affects of the procedure.
>
David Brown
>that there are long term affects due to vasectomy that are not being
>researched? Yes.
The study on the website "Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy" we point to
on the website does suggest further research in two area's - namely long
term effectiveness comparing methods of the procedure, and short term
studies to determine if you are sterile or not. It doesn't recommend further
research into the prostate cancer issue - the medical profession seem to be
fairly satisfied on this point.
>Do I believe that men should have vasectomies until
>proper long term studies are carried out and reported? No.
I have no idea how you are going to stop all the millions carried out
planet-wide per year, but good luck in trying.
>
>[] Therefore, if a man desires to have a vasectomy, he certainly has
>that right (except in France, which does not allow them). I do believe
>that the best way currently, due to the lack of actual published
>studies, is to seek out only doctors who have had the procedure
>themselves. Should not be that difficult given the number of doctors
>that perform the procedure - should it?
So despite the HUGE numbers of studies available you have to trust your GP
as the font of all knowledge? There isn't a lack of published material on
the subject - I don't get your point I'm afraid.
David Brown
>
>Again, I do admire your tireless efforts in maintaining a Web Site and
>taking the time to discuss these important issues to men's health.
Again thanks - I hope you appreciate that we are trying to promote
education, discussion and educated choices both here and at the website.
>
>I do find that you did not fully represent the study's findings in your
>post. Below is a quote from the article:
>
>"We found a lower serum concentration of sex hormone-binding globulin
>and a higher ratio of dihydrotestosterone to testosterone among
>vasectomized control subjects than among nonvasectomized control
>subjects."
It's making an observation they feel needs further research - not stating it
as an established medical fat though. It may be that men with prostate
cancer have different profiles to those without - we need to know what is
normal over a wide cross section of individuals, and studies to answer the
question of vasectomised me.
>
>As you state, the study says more longitudinal studies (drop in
>testosterone over time) are needed. I could not agree more. In fact,
>with the findings above, would it not be prudent to not have a
>vasectomy until the studies are performed?
I have always said that the more medical research done, the better. My gut
feeling is that as vasectomy is a) not a new procedure, and b) A LOT of men
world-wide have had them and if they were inherently unsafe we would know
about it by now.
The other point here is that it is still a lot less risky than other methods
of contraception - no contraceptive method is risk free except abstinence.
>
>Also, the fact that the study was for the purpose of determining if
>there was a link between prostate cancer and vasectomies and the group
>of research doctors decided to include this information in their
>summary report should not be considered insignificant.
Agreed - but it is also quite normal for surveys to make points for further
research of things they find.
>
>But readers can read it for themselves:
>http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/jnci/issue9/87-662.html
>
>As always a vasectomy should be a very informed choice. To help assure
>that information and comfort, seek out only doctors who have had the
>procedure themselves.
Sorry - this doesn't help.
stev...@my-deja.com
As previously stated, I appreciate your efforts. A couple of comments
(then I start my Fall schedule -- my break ends today):
[] You site also points to an article titled, "Safety and effectiveness
of vasectomy," at http://www.vasectomy-information.com If you go to
the section on "Other potential long-term effects" you will find "Long-
term alterations in testicular morphology and endocrine function...."
[] Since testosterone is produced by the testis, it is not good news
that there is morphology and endocrine alterations.
[] With the known effects of lower testosterone on male libido, muscle
development, and overall physical and mental health, then why I are we
performing a procedure that directly effects that health?
[] If you need information on testosterone's effects, then go to google
search, northernlight, or yahoo and type in "testosterone replacement"
the links will provide the why and some good explanation of this
hormone and male health. You might have to wade though some commercial
sites selling all of sorts of andro products to get to the science
articles.
[] So as always, we as men, need to be aware and made aware of all
dangers related to vasectomy.
[] I do challenge your logic that doctors may have other reasons for
not having a vasectomy. I would venture to say the other reasons would
be as valid for non-doctors as for doctors. Therefore any differences
in rates of vasectomy between doctors and other professional or even
non-professionals might point to a distrust of the procedure itself.
[] Again, I believe that the lowering of testosterone is of enough
danger that it warrants further study prior to undergoing a vasectomy.
[] I had a vasectomy. It was not until I experienced first hand the
effects that I began my research. I had no ill effects until 5+ years
post vasectomy.
[] I maintain the safest method of assuring yourself of proper
information is to seek out a doctor who has had the procedure himself;
if you find that difficult among the millions of men who have had the
procedure then something might be remiss and one should consider the
reasons why.
[] I would appreciate a link to why there is now 'the open ended'
procedure. What long term affects is this preventing? Or is it just a
guess that by not damming up the sperm maybe some of the damage to the
testis might be prevented. Are there studies to back up the new
procedure?
Again, I truly am only trying to make sure that men are given the
proper information. That the discussion is based, as best as possible,
on reason, and not faulty logic.
Steve L. (been there, done that, still paying the price)
P.S. Sometimes the hardest things in life are to give up our pre-
conceived ideas, to admit to a disasterous mistake, to truly see things
as they are not as we wish them to be. As a man who has had a
vasectomy, I truly would like it to be as benign a procedure as it is
made out to be, but unfortunately I know first hand it is not, I know
many who are suffering still today, and I know that admitting to loss
due to lower testosterone does not come easily to men, nor the
admission of having made a mistake of this type. Good luck to all.
In article <8nnu1v$778$1...@supernews.com>,
tri...@my-deja.com
stev...@my-deja.com wrote:
Hey Steve,
> [] Prostate Cancer Studies: Yes, there has been some differences in
> findings between the various studies.
NO recent studies support ANY significant link between vasectomy and
prostate cancer. In fact, recent studies--including the one you yourself
cited--suggest that the assocations suspected in earlier
studies were due to earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in vasectomised
men, probably because these men tend to see doctors more, not to higher
incidence of prostate cancer among them.
> [] It is not the DHT/T ratio that determines muscle building
> effectiveness or sexual response
Then we have nothing to discuss. The study you quoted (for which you
give the url) does NOT refer to less free testosterone in
the vasectomised men studied, but a higher DHT/T ratio in them, as well
as a
lower concentration of sex hormone-binding globulin. You concluded that
this meant the vasectomised men in the study had less free testosterone.
than then non-vasectomised. In fact, I
should think they had MORE free testosterone. This is not only because
they had more DHT--the "active" variety of testosterone--relative to the
inactive variety of testosterone (T), but also because
less of it would be taken up by the binding globulins. (Non-bound
testosterone is free testosterone.) There is a good basic discussion of
endocrinological role of testosterone in sexual function and libido in
men at:
http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~hs0ror/physnet/unit88.htm#unit8821
> [] Again, you make a good point on their being no medical studies (that
> I have found) that explain the 'In Total' relationship between 'levels'
> of testosterone and sexual response. In other words, if there is drop,
> does it even matter? Well most men on Testosterone replacement will
> report higher libido and function. Again, this information is available
> on the net, just searh Northernlight or Google for 'Testosterone
> Replacement."
Actually, studies suggest the verdict is out on the effectiveness of
testosterone replacement in sexual function (as opposed to libido). What
seems to be important is the process by whichy T is converted to DHT.
Vasectomised men, according to the study you yourself quote, seem to do
this very well. Maybe even better than non-vasectomised men.
>
> [] Do I distrust the Medical Establishment? Not overall. Do I believe
> that there are long term affects due to vasectomy that are not being
> researched? Yes. Do I believe that men should have vasectomies until
> proper long term studies are carried out and reported? No.
Why do you believe there are long term effects of vasectomy that are not
being researched? And why do you believe they are not being researched,
when so many other long term effects have been? It seems rational, if
you trust the medical establishment generally, as you say you do (and
given the huge amount of vasectomy research that has been done already)
that you might conclude that the particular kind of research you think
hasn't been done hasn't been done because doctors don't believe it is
necessary (that is, that the kinds of effects you imagine from vasectomy
are not the kinds of effects that are remotely likely to develop, given
the way the body works).
I could be abducted by aliens on my way for a beer, but that does not
stop me from going out, because the chances are very very very slight,
even non existent, this will happen (or if it happens, that it is related
to going for a beer). I don't need to wait for a massive study of all
men who ever went for a beer to find out how many were abducted by aliens
before they got there. And you know, if there were such a study, and
some guys were abducted by aliens on their way for a beer, I would not
conclude they were abducted by aliens *because* they went for a beer.
(Also, I'm not sure I would believe every guy who told the story!)
>
> [] Therefore, if a man desires to have a vasectomy, he certainly has
> that right (except in France, which does not allow them).
In France there are very old laws (dating from the reign of Napoleon)
forbidding doctors from performing vasectomies. But no doctor has been
prosecuted under these laws in over 40 years. Do you have any evidence
modern French doctors believe vasectomies are dangerous? Do you know
what the basis for the original law was? (Frankly, I think it had more
to do with Napoleon's desire to have every pair of balls in France
working overtime to make new soldiers for his armies than the health of
those balls or the guys attached to them!)
tri...@my-deja.com
stev...@my-deja.com wrote:
Hey, Steve. It's trifold again:
> As previously stated, I appreciate your efforts. A couple of comments
> (then I start my Fall schedule -- my break ends today):
I hope this does not mean you will no longer participate in these
discussions, as I believe there is much more to discuss re: the substance
of your concerns. (It is always more productive to discuss specific
studies, and we are just now beginning to do that!)
>
> [] You site also points to an article titled, "Safety and effectiveness
> of vasectomy," at http://www.vasectomy-information.com If you go to
> the section on "Other potential long-term effects" you will find "Long-
> term alterations in testicular morphology and endocrine function...."
The two studies reference in this section of the the article at our site
are fairly old, dating from 1985 and 1989. And neither suggests any link
between vasectomy and reduction in testosterone levels. I quote the 1989
study:
"We measured the serum gonadotropin response to gonadotropin-releasing
hormone in 25 men who underwent vasectomy 2 to 64 months before the
study. Ten age-matched fertile men were used as controls. Baseline serum
follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone and testosterone levels
were not significantly different between vasectomized men and controls."
>
> [] Since testosterone is produced by the testis, it is not good news
> that there is morphology and endocrine alterations.
See above.
> [] With the known effects of lower testosterone on male libido, muscle
> development, and overall physical and mental health, then why I are we
> performing a procedure that directly effects that health?
There is no evidence of this. See above.
>
> [] I do challenge your logic that doctors may have other reasons for
> not having a vasectomy. I would venture to say the other reasons would
> be as valid for non-doctors as for doctors. Therefore any differences
> in rates of vasectomy between doctors and other professional or even
> non-professionals might point to a distrust of the procedure itself.
Maybe. Maybe not. It would be interesting how often doctors choose
other forms of non-elective surgery besides vasectomy. But the bottom
line is, there is no significant evidence doctors choose vasectomy less
often than other men. (Also, do you mean to imply thousands of doctors
are performing vasectomies on thousands and thousands of men in full
knowledge it makes men impotent? This would not be very responsible.
Why would they do it? Why has no one called them on this--like all those
researchers eager to do the other studies that have been done; not to
mention all those lawyers? )
> [] Again, I believe that the lowering of testosterone is of enough
> danger that it warrants further study prior to undergoing a vasectomy.
If vasectomy were associated with lower levels of testosterone, that
would be true. But it isn't!
>
> [] I had a vasectomy. It was not until I experienced first hand the
> effects that I began my research. I had no ill effects until 5+ years
> post vasectomy.
It would really be useful to us if you discussed your case more
completely. I for one would like to know 1) what your problems are; 2)
whether you have been tested to determine you have low testosterone
levels; 3) whether other conditions might explain your problems; 4) what
remedies you have pursued.
>
> [] I would appreciate a link to why there is now 'the open ended'
> procedure. What long term affects is this preventing? Or is it just a
> guess that by not damming up the sperm maybe some of the damage to the
> testis might be prevented. Are there studies to back up the new
> procedure?
Our site already indicates why some doctors think the open-ended
procedure is better: 1) it may be associated with less post-vasectomy
pain in the epididymis, due to less sperm "back-up" (reported incidents
of this pain are rare, and generally easily treated). 2) open-ended
vasectomies may be easier to reverse with restoration of fertility, since
it causes less damage to the tubules inside the testicles through which
sperm has to move. (By the way, the reference to morphological changes
in the testes of vasectomised men in the study that is referenced in the
"Safety and Effectiveness" article at our website is a reference to
thickening of these tubes, and is explicitly focused on why vasectomy
reversal is not always successful at restoring fertility. IT IS NOT
ABOUT TESTOSTERONE LEVELS.) I think follow up studies on the effects of
the open ended procedure have not yet been done because it is too new.
> Again, I truly am only trying to make sure that men are given the
> proper information. That the discussion is based, as best as possible,
> on reason, and not faulty logic.
Well, on this point we all agree. That is why I hope you stick around to
talk about some of these points. With all due respect, in the past you
have tended to drop out of these discussions as soon as people start
answering you. I am glad you are not doing that this time!
>
> P.S. Sometimes the hardest things in life are to give up our pre-
> conceived ideas, to admit to a disasterous mistake, to truly see things
> as they are not as we wish them to be. As a man who has had a
> vasectomy, I truly would like it to be as benign a procedure as it is
> made out to be, but unfortunately I know first hand it is not, I know
> many who are suffering still today, and I know that admitting to loss
> due to lower testosterone does not come easily to men, nor the
> admission of having made a mistake of this type. Good luck to all.
It is always hard to admit a mistake. Why did you have your vasectomy?
It is also hard to accept that sometimes things--like a reduction in a
man's testosterone level--may happen for reasons that are not understood.
When bad things happen, it is natural to want to find someone/something
to blame. But that is not always the best way to deal with it.
--
Check out the Vasectomy Support webpage:
http://www.vasectomy.fsnet.co.uk (includes survey and survey results)
Nigel McKenzie
From reading the posts here and following the leads, to various reports
on the web. The evidence seems to point towards the fact that
undesirable things can happen to men, decades after having a vasectomy.
It's called getting older and I can see no evidence that the vasectomy
has any statistically significant effect.
As for doctors and urologists not having vasectomies. I think I could
understand this. They must see a lot of men post-operation with dramatic
and unsightly problems (which I do believe are under reported).
However both my urologist and general practitioner have had vasectomies.
They both firmly believed that in the long term it was a good idea.
If you want a few things that do have a dramatic effect on your long
term sexual health, try: not smoking, don't eat too much, drink alcohol
in moderation, keep fit and use it.
--
Nigel McKenzie
David Brown
>David,
>
>As previously stated, I appreciate your efforts. A couple of comments
>(then I start my Fall schedule -- my break ends today):
Ha! I'm on holiday this week! Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of house
to paint......
>
>[] You site also points to an article titled, "Safety and effectiveness
>of vasectomy," at http://www.vasectomy-information.com If you go to
>the section on "Other potential long-term effects" you will find "Long-
>term alterations in testicular morphology and endocrine function...."
It certainly does. Like you, I want people to make educated and informed
decisions and I like to find (and link to) quality medical sites that
intelligently discuss the pro's and cons. Then people can read them and make
informed decisions. We are never going to agree on a whole lot of things
Steve, but I feel we do both want people to research vasectomy prior to the
procedure and make an informed choice.
>
>[] Since testosterone is produced by the testis, it is not good news
>that there is morphology and endocrine alterations.
The article actually states that CERTAIN men - not ALL men exhibit this. It
also says that the findings are unrelated to the interval after vasectomy,
and that these men were also less likely to have antisperm antibodies. It
does rather imply that it may not necessarily be related to vasectomy -
genetic
makeup may play a part here. Clearly more research is needed.
>
>[] With the known effects of lower testosterone on male libido, muscle
>development, and overall physical and mental health, then why I are we
>performing a procedure that directly effects that health?
I'm not going to get into a "Ban vasectomy" debate - my intention is to get
informed decisions made on the basis of personal research. It's a decision
for each individual, and I personally don't believe banning it serves any
purpose whatever. I do believe better education has a part to play.
>
>[] If you need information on testosterone's effects, then go to google
>search, northernlight, or yahoo and type in "testosterone replacement"
>the links will provide the why and some good explanation of this
>hormone and male health. You might have to wade though some commercial
>sites selling all of sorts of andro products to get to the science
>articles.
So why aren't they marketing it to us vasectomised men as we are clearly the
only ones that need it? Could it be that testosterone loss affects men other
than vasectomised ones? Surely not.
>
>[] So as always, we as men, need to be aware and made aware of all
>dangers related to vasectomy.
Danger is an emotive word, and I do understand why you use it. I also agree
that anyone undergoing the procedure should be able to make an informed
decision.
>
>[] I do challenge your logic that doctors may have other reasons for
>not having a vasectomy. I would venture to say the other reasons would
>be as valid for non-doctors as for doctors. Therefore any differences
>in rates of vasectomy between doctors and other professional or even
>non-professionals might point to a distrust of the procedure itself.
>[] I maintain the safest method of assuring yourself of proper
>information is to seek out a doctor who has had the procedure himself;
>if you find that difficult among the millions of men who have had the
>procedure then something might be remiss and one should consider the
>reasons why.
I'll simplify matters. Your message is always "Most doctors dont have a
vasectomy - they obviously know something we dont, so dont get one done
either". I have no problem with pet theories - I have a few myself, but I
keep them to myself as I can't substantiate them. My problem with this
theory of yours is that you always present it as scientific fact when it's
nothing of the kind. It's your pet theory. The only research into this
theory seems to be you phoning 10 urologists secretaries and asking
questions they either don't have any information on, or are not at liberty
to answer. The findings of your research don't prove anything IMHO - but
thanks for the effort!
I am simply trying to make the point that it is not mandatory for someone
who performs a medical procedure to have had it done themselves, and many
have no need or reason to have one! Therefore not having one should not be
read as inherent distrust.
>
>[] Again, I believe that the lowering of testosterone is of enough
>danger that it warrants further study prior to undergoing a vasectomy.
But as we all know the fact that testosterone levels don't go down - they
stay higher for longer in vasectomised men led to the prostate cancer theory
some years back. We seem to be going round in circles here!
>
>[] I would appreciate a link to why there is now 'the open ended'
>procedure. What long term affects is this preventing? Or is it just a
>guess that by not damming up the sperm maybe some of the damage to the
>testis might be prevented. Are there studies to back up the new
>procedure?
I do believe it is mentioned in some of the links. I personally believe that
scientific research should always be ongoing and not stopped at an arbitrary
point saying "We know enough we can stop now". Maybe the open ended
technique proves good in the long term, maybe not but alternatives to
anything always need to be researched. After all, some of the alternatives
doctors came up with must have been poo-pooe'd by physicians of old who
relied on leeches and blood letting as cure-alls.
>
>Again, I truly am only trying to make sure that men are given the
>proper information. That the discussion is based, as best as possible,
>on reason, and not faulty logic.
Same here.
stev...@my-deja.com
You are doing a good job of researching and making some very good
arguments. I will counter-point.
[] I read your cite to 'sunderland' I did not see a discussion on DHT,
but just testosterone and FSH and LH. And from my understanding of the
research I have seen to date the abnormal levels of these hormones in
vasectomized men is not good for libido, sexual function, mental
health, or muscle building.
[] Please go and read the following, you may decide to rethink the
logic of your post:
http://www.duj.com/Article/Hellstrom2/Hellstrom2.html
http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcls-txt/t-prtcl-130.html
http://www.renewyouth.com/hormonesnaging.shtml
[] If you read the articles I previously cited, plus the cites in
article posted on Web site that David Brown maintains; see below; you
will have a better understanding of the total hormone situation.
[] In addition, as my prior post suggests use a good search engine such
as Northernlight or Google and type in "Testosterone Replacement"
or "DHT and Testosterone."
[] Also note that the link on the web information that David Brown
maintains also mentions changes to the testis in their function. See
prior posting. Link: http://www.vasectomy-information.com then go
to 'links' then to 'Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy' then 'other
potential long term affects.'
[] Prostate Studies: I don't want to sound paranoid like Mulder from X-
files. However, it was stated that one possible explanation for higher
rates of 'reported' prostate cancer was that vasectomized were more
likely to see a doctor. That conclusion should hold up in all studies,
including the recent ones. If you look at the chart on the link from
the Vasectomy Web site, the chart shows increasing risk the farther
from date of vasectomy. I do believe with vasectomy so pervalent, there
is a built in prejudice by the medical community to find no reason to
change their current 'belief.' Does that mean I believe the medical
community is corrupt -- not at all -- but the medical community has
been known to change their built-in beliefs and practices slowly. The
best way to prove no problems with vasectomies is to do an actual
scientific survey of medical professionals who have had the procedure --
that would go a very long way to showing 'good faith.'
[] If you look at the chart any thing over a 1.0 shows increase risk of
prostate cancer due to vasectomy. The vast majority, including some
racial groups in the later studies show increased risk of prostate
cancer.
[] Now that we have a study that shows little risk, lets not do any
more studies? Maybe the latest study is flawed, not the earlier ones.
What gives validity to any one study over another. I believe when it
comes to your health you should be naturally suspicious, and expect to
have hard questions answered and complete disclosure of all pertinent
information.
[] Corroallary to Above: If you are going to have a vasectomy find a
surgeon who has had one. Why not trust yourself and your health to
someone who practices what they cut. Or put another way, reward those
doctors who put themselves in the boat with you.
[] I noticed in the Web article posted by David's site, that they say
there was little regret after 5 years. Why not publish the results of
10 and 15 year regrets rates, which I know have been around for over 10
years and are much, much higher than the 5 year rates.
[] If you get a chance check out the following books:
Is Vasectomy Worth the Risk? A PHYSICIAN'S CASE AGAINST VASECTOMANIA,
by H. J. Roberts, M.D.; Sunshine Press, c1993. A book detailing the
potential anti-body, anti-immune responses to vasectomy, including the
negative effects seen in FSH and LH levels to normal and how they
affect the production and binding of testosterone.
The Vasectomy Book : A Complete Guide To Decision Making, by Marc
Goldstein, M.D.; Los Angeles : J.P. Tarcher ; Boston : Distributed by
Houghton Mifflin, c1982. A book detailing all the potential adverse
affects to vasectomy with a reasonable discussion on their reality
citing research done to date (as of 1982). Says regret rate exceeds 70%
after ten years.
[] Please remember: I had a vasectomy. I started my research after 5+
years and noticed symptoms due to low testosterone. I would be more
than happy to know that vasectomy was not the cause. I recommended
vasectomy based on my 'no problem' first five years. I then began
asking urologists and doctors the hard questions; in particular --
"Have you had or know of a urologist who has had a vasectomy?"
Sometimes it takes courage to admit that what is presented is not the
case, sometimes it is difficult to pull back the curtain.
[] I have talked to some doctors (non surgeons, non-urologists) that
were honest to the point that they said they would not recommend a
vasectomy if asked by a patient, but would not speak in general against
the practice.
Again, serious discussion requires serious thinking, which comes from
serious reading and the ability to ask the unpleasant and disheatening
questions. I respect you too much to ever use emotional arguments, to
ever resort to name calling, or to dismiss your intentions.
Steve L. (been there, done that, paying the price)
In article <8nre91$eat$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
tri...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8nn41i$r8a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> stev...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Hey Steve,
>
> > [] Prostate Cancer Studies: Yes, there has been some differences in
> > findings between the various studies.
>
> NO recent studies support ANY significant link between vasectomy and
> prostate cancer. In fact, recent studies--including the one you
yourself
> cited--suggest that the assocations suspected in earlier
> studies were due to earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in
vasectomised
> men, probably because these men tend to see doctors more, not to
higher
> incidence of prostate cancer among them.
>
> > [] It is not the DHT/T ratio that determines muscle building
> > effectiveness or sexual response
>
> Then we have nothing to discuss. The study you quoted (for which you
> give the url) does NOT refer to less free testosterone in
> the vasectomised men studied, but a higher DHT/T ratio in them, as
well
> as a
> lower concentration of sex hormone-binding globulin. You concluded
that
> this meant the vasectomised men in the study had less free
testosterone.
> than then non-vasectomised. In fact, I
> should think they had MORE free testosterone. This is not only
because
> they had more DHT--the "active" variety of testosterone--relative to
the
> inactive variety of testosterone (T), but also because
> less of it would be taken up by the binding globulins. (Non-bound
> testosterone is free testosterone.) There is a good basic discussion
of
> endocrinological role of testosterone in sexual function and libido in
> men at:
> http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~hs0ror/physnet/unit88.htm#unit8821
>
> > [] Again, you make a good point on their being no medical studies
(that
> > I have found) that explain the 'In Total' relationship
between 'levels'
> > of testosterone and sexual response. In other words, if there is
drop,
> > does it even matter? Well most men on Testosterone replacement will
> > report higher libido and function. Again, this information is
available
> > on the net, just searh Northernlight or Google for 'Testosterone
> > Replacement."
>
> Actually, studies suggest the verdict is out on the effectiveness of
> testosterone replacement in sexual function (as opposed to libido).
What
> seems to be important is the process by whichy T is converted to DHT.
> Vasectomised men, according to the study you yourself quote, seem to
do
> this very well. Maybe even better than non-vasectomised men.
>
> >
> > [] Do I distrust the Medical Establishment? Not overall. Do I
believe
> > that there are long term affects due to vasectomy that are not being
> > researched? Yes. Do I believe that men should have vasectomies until
> > proper long term studies are carried out and reported? No.
>
> Why do you believe there are long term effects of vasectomy that are
not
> being researched? And why do you believe they are not being
researched,
> when so many other long term effects have been? It seems rational, if
> you trust the medical establishment generally, as you say you do (and
> given the huge amount of vasectomy research that has been done
already)
> that you might conclude that the particular kind of research you think
> hasn't been done hasn't been done because doctors don't believe it is
> necessary (that is, that the kinds of effects you imagine from
vasectomy
> are not the kinds of effects that are remotely likely to develop,
given
> the way the body works).
>
> I could be abducted by aliens on my way for a beer, but that does not
> stop me from going out, because the chances are very very very slight,
> even non existent, this will happen (or if it happens, that it is
related
> to going for a beer). I don't need to wait for a massive study of all
> men who ever went for a beer to find out how many were abducted by
aliens
> before they got there. And you know, if there were such a study, and
> some guys were abducted by aliens on their way for a beer, I would not
> conclude they were abducted by aliens *because* they went for a beer.
> (Also, I'm not sure I would believe every guy who told the story!)
> >
> > [] Therefore, if a man desires to have a vasectomy, he certainly has
> > that right (except in France, which does not allow them).
>
> In France there are very old laws (dating from the reign of Napoleon)
> forbidding doctors from performing vasectomies. But no doctor has
been
> prosecuted under these laws in over 40 years. Do you have any
evidence
> modern French doctors believe vasectomies are dangerous? Do you know
> what the basis for the original law was? (Frankly, I think it had
more
> to do with Napoleon's desire to have every pair of balls in France
> working overtime to make new soldiers for his armies than the health
of
> those balls or the guys attached to them!)
>
tri...@my-deja.com
stev...@my-deja.com wrote:
> [] I read your cite to 'sunderland' I did not see a discussion on DHT,
> but just testosterone and FSH and LH. And from my understanding of the
> research I have seen to date the abnormal levels of these hormones in
> vasectomized men is not good for libido, sexual function, mental
> health, or muscle building.
I did not recommend the site for discussion of DHT. If you want a
thorough discussion of male endocrinolgy and sexual dysfuntion (inluding
the importance of DHT), try:
http://www.impotence-center.com/clinguide.htm
This discussion began when you answered our requests for evidence that
vasectomy is associated with low testosterone levels by referencing a
study that found high DHT/T ratios, and low concentrations of sex hormone
binding globulins, in a group of vasectomised men with prostate cancer as
opposed to a non-vasectomised group of men with prostate cancer. I
answered, among other things, that a high DHT/T ratio is a good thing for
sexual function. Now you seem to be saying that vasectomies are bad not
because they produce high DHT/T ratios, but because they are associated
with abnormal levels of FSH and LH. What is the evidence of these
abnormal levels of FSH and LH?
>
> [] Please go and read the following, you may decide to rethink the
> logic of your post:
> http://www.duj.com/Article/Hellstrom2/Hellstrom2.html
> http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcls-txt/t-prtcl-130.html
> http://www.renewyouth.com/hormonesnaging.shtml
Nothing here to cause me to rethink. They merely assert that high
testosterone levels are good, that they decline with age, and that this
decline can be countered. But there is nothing here about vasectomy.
Nor anything to contradict the claim above that a high DHT/T ratio is not
associated with sexual dysfunction.
>
> [] If you read the articles I previously cited, plus the cites in
> article posted on Web site that David Brown maintains; see below; you
> will have a better understanding of the total hormone situation.
I refer you to my post in response to yours, explaining that the article
to which you refer on our website, when it mentions endocrinological
changes associated with vasectomy, states specifically that there were no
differences in testosterone levels between the vasectomised men studied
and the control group.
>
> [] In addition, as my prior post suggests use a good search engine such
> as Northernlight or Google and type in "Testosterone Replacement"
> or "DHT and Testosterone."
Been there, done that. The consensus, even among some of the dodgier
commercial sites you will find this way, is that high DHT is important to
sexual function.
> [] Also note that the link on the web information that David Brown
> maintains also mentions changes to the testis in their function. See
> prior posting. Link: http://www.vasectomy-information.com then go
> to 'links' then to 'Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy' then 'other
> potential long term affects.'
Been there, done that. See my response above--and my recent posting.
>
> [] Prostate Studies: I don't want to sound paranoid like Mulder from X-
> files. However, it was stated that one possible explanation for higher
> rates of 'reported' prostate cancer was that vasectomized were more
> likely to see a doctor. That conclusion should hold up in all studies,
> including the recent ones. If you look at the chart on the link from
> the Vasectomy Web site, the chart shows increasing risk the farther
> from date of vasectomy.
This can easily be explained by the fact that "years from vasectomy" also
simply means "older." As men age, whether they have been vasectomised or
not, they are more likely to develop prostate cancer (also poor
eyesight!).
> I do believe with vasectomy so pervalent, there
> is a built in prejudice by the medical community to find no reason to
> change their current 'belief.'
What you leave out is that prior to the latest study of vasectomy and
prostate cancer, the American Urological Association "believed" it was
good medicine to screen men for prostate cancer more regularly if they
had been vasectomised. After the publication of the latest studies, the
American Urological Association formally withdrew this recommendation.
(This information is at the website in more than one place.) So, in the
matter of prostate cancer, the medical establishment seems to have moved
away from slight reserve about vasectomy, to no reserve at all. This
change has been due to research. Interestingly, the "Safety and
Effectivness" article at the website makes the point that because doctors
for a while did monitor vasectomised men more closely than other
patients, this may have contributed to the findings of higher incidence
of prostate cancer among them. And continuing this practice will
continue to muddy the waters.
>
> [] If you look at the chart any thing over a 1.0 shows increase risk of
> prostate cancer due to vasectomy. The vast majority, including some
> racial groups in the later studies show increased risk of prostate
> cancer.
No. The study you yourself cite shows no significant increased risk
among any group. And any study such as this needs to take into account
(control for) other factors that might lead to cancer independently of
vasectomy. The summary conclusions that accompany the article interpret
the statistics. Conclusion: No significant correlation vasectomy and
prostate cancer.
>
> [] Now that we have a study that shows little risk, lets not do any
> more studies? Maybe the latest study is flawed, not the earlier ones.
> What gives validity to any one study over another.
This is a good question we should discuss. To an extent it is discussed
at our website. One big reason more recent studies are more valid is
that they take into account that vasectomised men are diagnosed with
prostate cancer earlier than the non-vasectomised.
I believe when it
> comes to your health you should be naturally suspicious, and expect to
> have hard questions answered and complete disclosure of all pertinent
> information.
Sure. This disclosure has happened.
>
> [] Corroallary to Above: If you are going to have a vasectomy find a
> surgeon who has had one. Why not trust yourself and your health to
> someone who practices what they cut. Or put another way, reward those
> doctors who put themselves in the boat with you.
Hope you never need a heart transplant!
>
> [] I noticed in the Web article posted by David's site, that they say
> there was little regret after 5 years. Why not publish the results of
> 10 and 15 year regrets rates, which I know have been around for over 10
> years and are much, much higher than the 5 year rates.
Would be interesting to see. Also would be interesting to confirm the
source of the "regret." Our own survey finds most regret is not due to
medical problems, but changes of mind.
>
> [] If you get a chance check out the following books:
> Is Vasectomy Worth the Risk? A PHYSICIAN'S CASE AGAINST VASECTOMANIA,
> by H. J. Roberts, M.D.; Sunshine Press, c1993. A book detailing the
> potential anti-body, anti-immune responses to vasectomy, including the
> negative effects seen in FSH and LH levels to normal and how they
> affect the production and binding of testosterone.
>
> The Vasectomy Book : A Complete Guide To Decision Making, by Marc
> Goldstein, M.D.; Los Angeles : J.P. Tarcher ; Boston : Distributed by
> Houghton Mifflin, c1982. A book detailing all the potential adverse
> affects to vasectomy with a reasonable discussion on their reality
> citing research done to date (as of 1982). Says regret rate exceeds 70%
> after ten years.
I might try to look up the first one, for the sake of argument. In the
meantime, can you reference for us the studies of FSH and LH that the
book relies on? When was it published? Where was it published? How
many persons were involved in the study? Was age controlled for?
> [] Please remember: I had a vasectomy. I started my research after 5+
> years and noticed symptoms due to low testosterone.
How old were you when you noticed these symptoms? Was low T discovered
to be present by testing? Were there other possible explanations of the
symptoms?
>
> Again, serious discussion requires serious thinking, which comes from
> serious reading and the ability to ask the unpleasant and disheatening
> questions. I respect you too much to ever use emotional arguments, to
> ever resort to name calling, or to dismiss your intentions.
Thank you.
David Brown
>[] Also note that the link on the web information that David Brown
>maintains also mentions changes to the testis in their function. See
>prior posting. Link: http://www.vasectomy-information.com then go
>to 'links' then to 'Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy' then 'other
>potential long term affects.'
And you keep misquoting the text and conclusions.
>
>[] Prostate Studies: I don't want to sound paranoid like Mulder from X-
>files. However, it was stated that one possible explanation for higher
>rates of 'reported' prostate cancer was that vasectomized were more
>likely to see a doctor. That conclusion should hold up in all studies,
>including the recent ones. If you look at the chart on the link from
>the Vasectomy Web site, the chart shows increasing risk the farther
>from date of vasectomy. I do believe with vasectomy so prevalent, there
>is a built in prejudice by the medical community to find no reason to
>change their current 'belief.'
We've heard conspiracy theories before Steve, and they don't stand up to
scrutiny.
>Does that mean I believe the medical
>community is corrupt -- not at all -- but the medical community has
>been known to change their built-in beliefs and practices slowly. The
>best way to prove no problems with vasectomies is to do an actual
>scientific survey of medical professionals who have had the procedure --
> that would go a very long way to showing 'good faith.'
You've yet to come up with a convincing argument on this one.
>
>[] If you look at the chart any thing over a 1.0 shows increase risk of
>prostate cancer due to vasectomy. The vast majority, including some
>racial groups in the later studies show increased risk of prostate
>cancer.
Where do you get the 1.0 figure from? The text doesn't say what you are
saying. It does mention that your interpretation of the results is limited
to small surveys and refuted by larger ones. Also in the past at this
newsgroup we have noticed that those fervent anti's always quote these
particular studies as it suits their political cause.
>
>[] Corollary to Above: If you are going to have a vasectomy find a
>surgeon who has had one. Why not trust yourself and your health to
>someone who practices what they cut. Or put another way, reward those
>doctors who put themselves in the boat with you.
OK - prove it. It's your theory after all!
>
>[] I noticed in the Web article posted by David's site, that they say
>there was little regret after 5 years. Why not publish the results of
>10 and 15 year regrets rates, which I know have been around for over 10
>years and are much, much higher than the 5 year rates.
Find us a reputable medical body that states this and I'll link to it.
>
>Sometimes it takes courage to admit that what is presented is not the
>case, sometimes it is difficult to pull back the curtain.
You seem to be saying that all men have problems but won't admit it.
>
>[] I have talked to some doctors (non surgeons, non-urologists) that
>were honest to the point that they said they would not recommend a
>vasectomy if asked by a patient, but would not speak in general against
>the practice.
And did they say why?
>
>Again, serious discussion requires serious thinking, which comes from
>serious reading and the ability to ask the unpleasant and disheatening
>questions. I respect you too much to ever use emotional arguments, to
>ever resort to name calling, or to dismiss your intentions.
I'm glad we have mutual respect for each other here. I know that in these
discussions we can get quite passionate, and that's fine with me! However
you seem to be accusing Trifold of not thinking about things seriously in
open contradiction to your opener. Because someone doesn't agree with you,
that doesn't mean to say they are not well researched in their argument -
try telling THAT to my five year old daughter!