Prev: MI5 Persecution: MI5 Waste Taxpayer Millions on Pointless Hate-Campaign (7157)
Next: Understanding the Partin Tables
From: Steve Kramer on 2 Dec 2007 07:32
"Bert" <bertxavier(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6Hp4j.5858$Lg.591(a)trndny09...

> I've been off treatment since March 06. Will likely restart treatment in
> March. So it will be two years without treatment. That's a good run.

WOW! That is a good run. I wish I had the balls to do that.


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


From: Sy on 2 Dec 2007 19:36
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]


Hi Les,

That migration seems to be a negative, but what do you make of the
undetectable PSA?

Is that because of the RT & Brachy and what do your doctors tell you
about whether this is a temporary "undetectability" or whatever?

Also, isn't it common to expect a PSA "bounce" (upwards) after these
procedures?

Keep positive.

Sy




In article
<97be0fcf-658b-49db-9e4f-7419ea02bcf2(a)n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<alva36(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 29, 12:42 pm, e...(a)math.uchicago.edu wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 5:44 am, Sy <stuttga...(a)lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Was wondering if anyone could provide feedback on the following:
> >
> > > If Prostate cancer cells have migrated to the lymph glands or to bone
> > > do they continue to produce PSA? If so is there any way to quantify
> > > that?
> >
> >
>
> Sy-
>
> My PCa has mutated and migrated to bone (pelvis) and lungs - large and
> small nodules on both lungs and my PSA is undetectable and has been
> since RT and HDR brachy on prostate.
>
> -Les
From: Leonard Evens on 4 Dec 2007 16:42
ed(a)math.uchicago.edu wrote:
> On Dec 1, 11:45 am, "Bert" <bertxav...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If Ed Friedman is right about Dr. Leibowitz, why isn't everyone beating a
>> path to his office? It seems to me, that it would be a fairly significant
>> event in the annals of prostate cancer treatment if someone had an effective
>> treatment for end stage prostate cancer. But other than a periodic anecdote
>> here and there, one doesn't hear about this.
>>
>> Bert
>
>
> Bert,
>
> I was only half-serious about my comment about Dr. Leibowitz, which
> was why I put in the smiley face. However, you ask a very valid
> question, so I'll try to give you my viewpoint as to why the general
> medical establishment is ignoring the work of Dr. Leibowitz (besides
> the fact that almost all are ignorant of his work).
>
> 1. Dr. Leibowitz's treatment does not cure any of his patients.
> Using RP at an early enough stage of PC, a urologist has a reasonable
> shot at over a 90% cure rate, so why would he consider a treatment
> with 0% cure rate? Most doctors seek to cure their cancer patients
> and give up on curing and seek to prolong their lives only near the
> end of their disease.
>
> 2. Dr. Leibowitz does not perform randomized, scientific studies of
> his treatment.
> Dr. Leibowitz is not a researcher, but simply a urologist treating his
> patients. He does not have the resources to perform the type of major
> randomized study that would reach a larger audience, nor it is likely
> that he would, considering the greatly increased death rate of RP
> compared to his treatment.
>
> 3. Other doctors have not been able to reproduce Dr. Leibowitz's
> results.
> E.g., the following excerpts are from a posting by Dr. Stephen Strum
> (you can read the full article plus lots more at:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030816154313/http://www.prostate-help.org/caleibo.htm#po28020)
> "I have not seen any patient of Bobs that I can recall that has had
> progressive disease using his approach. If there are any out there,
> speak up now and declare yourself. I just can't think of any." "I am
> puzzled that Bob is not seeing the PSA recurrences that we are seeing
> in those men treated with ADT for less than 12 months of UD-PSA. In
> fact, 12 months or more of UD-PSA has kept patients in our practice
> off ADT for years (average is 29 months of OFF-TIME with the longest
> off-time being 7 years) but according to Bob, none of his patients
> need to be retreated, ever. I can't figure this out. We are treating
> longer, with the same agents, and only including in our data highly
> selected patients that reach UD-PSA. If anything, our patients should
> do better." "With all that has been said above, I want to go on record
> as saying that I have great respect for Bob Leibowitz as a brilliant
> physician who goes all out for his patients. In this context, I refer
> patients frequently to Bob; I do not refer patients to docs I do not
> respect."
> I have discussed this issue with Dr. Tucker, who is Dr. Leibowitz's
> former partner. Dr. Tucker thought that the difference might be due
> to a drug that was given to the patients during ADT to minimize bone
> loss which later was shown to have some tumoricidal effect against
> PC. My own opinion is that the difference is due to Dr. Leibowitz's
> patients being told to avoid ingesting phytoestrogens. (The issue of
> phytoestrogens is extremely complicated. In a nutshell, they have
> tumoricidal properties but also end up increasing bcl-2. Usually, the
> increase in bcl-2 is too small to make any difference, however, when
> you use a 5AR2 inhibitor such as Proscar - which every one of Dr.
> Leibowitz's patients receives - then Proscar increases bcl-2 and the
> combination of it and phytoestrogens tends to hit a threshhold which
> is very protective of the PC. For more detailed info, read my paper
> at http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/28). Also, many of Dr.
> Leibowitz's patients receive very high T supplements in addition to
> the Proscar, and in animal studies, that combination has been shown to
> be ~5 times more effective than continual ADT. None of these three
> factors were mentioned in the Materials and Methods section of Dr.
> Leibowitz's published paper (http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/
> cgi/content/full/6/2/177). In that paper he reported on 110 patients
> with a mean of 36 months of treatment, with the PC specific death rate
> being 0%.
>
> 4. Dr. Leibowitz's results contradicts what doctors are taught in
> medical school.
> Doctors are being taught that T causes PC, that it fuels PC, and that
> removal of T "starves" PC cells. My paper (the same one I just gave
> the link to) shows that almost all of these statements are just flat
> out wrong. The only statement that has a grain of truth in it is that
> T causes PC. Almost all PC starts as a result of high local levels of
> estradiol, and the only way males produce estradiol is by the action
> of the aromatase enzyme on T. However, my paper just came out in
> August, 2007, and typically it will take a decade or more for the
> science to filter down to the medical profession (I.P. has unusually
> knowledgeable doctors to be aware of my paper so quickly). I should
> point out that researchers are well aware that what is being taught in
> medical school is incorrect. In reading the literature, I would come
> across statements like "these findings are paradoxical" or "this
> treatment is counterintuitive" when describing experiments involving
> T. From what I can tell, most doctors believe what they are taught in
> medical school almost as a religion. They don't let things like facts
> that prove that they are wrong get in the way of their beliefs. In
> contrast, my own model is consistent with all known experimental
> findings. This is not a matter of luck or prescience. It just took
> years for me to continually modify my model as I uncovered any
> experiments not consistent with it until I had a finished model which
> is consistent with all known experiments. It also is readily testable
> and for the most part can be used with existing drugs to great
> effect. If new drugs are developed as called for in my paper, then we
> might be talking about achieving cures.
>
> 5. In terms of PC specific death rate, Dr. Leibowitz's results seem
> too good to be true.
> In studying 183 men treated initially by Dr. Leibowitz (stage T1-T3),
> the PC specific death rate after 75 months was 0.6% (http://
> www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=37&index=y&abstractID=20271)
> This is in sharp contrast to a Swedish study which showed 4.6% PC
> specific death rate for RP after 75 months for stage T1-T2. The mean
> PSA was about the same, so the patients should have been at less risk
> for the starting point of the Swedish study. Even more troublesome,
> before someone dies of PC, they first have distant mets. The RP study
> had 10.1% of its patients with distant mets after 75 months, vs. 0.6%
> for Dr. Leibowitz's patients. So in a few years, instead of Dr.
> Leibowitz having a PC specific death rate over 7 times better than RP,
> he will have a rate over 16 times better than RP. Needless to say,
> the quality of life is extremely better for Dr. Leibowitz's patients
> vs. RP patients. Of course, there is always the possibility that many
> of the patients treated by Dr. Leibowitz will suddenly take a rapid
> downturn for the worse. Also, scientifically speaking, these two
> studies can't be directly compared since they weren't randomized from
> the same starting pool of men.
> For men with locally advanced PC, Dr. Leibowitz's statistics are also
> impressive. After 3.5 years, he had a PC specific death rate of
> 7.4%. You can read this abstract at:
> http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=34&index=y&abstractID=34127
> Around 15 years ago, the 5 year PC specific death rate for this was
> 75%. More recently, it has improved to 50%. It is not certain what
> Dr. Leibowitz's percentage will be at 5 years, but considering that he
> dropped the mean PSA from 23 to 11.5, I wouldn't be surprised if he is
> the first one to achieve a less than 10% PC specific death rate for 5
> years.
>
> In summary, there is no question that the vast majority of men with
> 3-6 months left to live will die even if treated by Dr. Leibowitz at
> that point, but some would be saved. And as Dr. Leibowitz states on
> his web site, the earlier patients start his systemic treatment, the
> more likely they are to end up with a favorable outcome. In my
> opinion, Dr. Leibowitz is legitimate in what he claims, and it is only
> a matter of time before other doctors realize this. If he
> incorporates improvements detailed in my paper, he might even end up
> curing some of his patients.
>
> Ed Friedman
>
Ed,

One thing I wonder about is the following. At what stage of the disease
are his patients when he starts treating them. It is not hard to have
success with any treatment method for five years if you start treating
your patients early enough.
From: Bert on 6 Dec 2007 20:23
Hi Ed, thank you for your response.

On your point #2, I realize that a lone urologist might not have the
resources to conduct such a study. However, if Dr. Leibowitz's claims are
so promising and he can demonstrate success, why wouldn't the drug companies
fund such a study? Do you know if any of the cancer research centers
like Dana Farber, Sloan-Kettering, MD Anderson, Stanford or Norris
are focusing on approaches similar to Dr. Leibowitz.

On your point #3 regarding other doctors not being able to reproduce Dr.
Leibowitz's results, it appears that he has not published a specific
protocol
that others could follow.

On point #4, that Dr. Leibowitz's results contradict what doctors are taught
in medical school. I agree that many doctors do not deviate from their
training... but I don't believe that all the
researchers in this field would avoid findings that contradict
their training or are conterintuitive.... If there exists a
treatment for recurrent prostate cancer that stops its progression
indefinitely, it would be a home run for the drug company and doctors --
with millions, perhaps billions in profits... with that kind of financial
opportunity, it is hard to believe that someone would not pursue this.

On point #5, that the results are too good to be true. If the results can
not be reproduced by someone else, then the results are be too good to be
true.

I remain sceptical...but also hopeful... Thanks again,

Bert


<ed(a)math.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:5a889292-7142-42d0-84a8-d2c302382275(a)n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 1, 11:45 am, "Bert" <bertxav...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If Ed Friedman is right about Dr. Leibowitz, why isn't everyone beating a
>> path to his office? It seems to me, that it would be a fairly significant
>> event in the annals of prostate cancer treatment if someone had an
>> effective
>> treatment for end stage prostate cancer. But other than a periodic
>> anecdote
>> here and there, one doesn't hear about this.
>>
>> Bert
>
>
> Bert,
>
> I was only half-serious about my comment about Dr. Leibowitz, which
> was why I put in the smiley face. However, you ask a very valid
> question, so I'll try to give you my viewpoint as to why the general
> medical establishment is ignoring the work of Dr. Leibowitz (besides
> the fact that almost all are ignorant of his work).
>
> 1. Dr. Leibowitz's treatment does not cure any of his patients.
> Using RP at an early enough stage of PC, a urologist has a reasonable
> shot at over a 90% cure rate, so why would he consider a treatment
> with 0% cure rate? Most doctors seek to cure their cancer patients
> and give up on curing and seek to prolong their lives only near the
> end of their disease.
>
> 2. Dr. Leibowitz does not perform randomized, scientific studies of
> his treatment.
> Dr. Leibowitz is not a researcher, but simply a urologist treating his
> patients. He does not have the resources to perform the type of major
> randomized study that would reach a larger audience, nor it is likely
> that he would, considering the greatly increased death rate of RP
> compared to his treatment.
>
> 3. Other doctors have not been able to reproduce Dr. Leibowitz's
> results.
> E.g., the following excerpts are from a posting by Dr. Stephen Strum
> (you can read the full article plus lots more at:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030816154313/http://www.prostate-help.org/caleibo.htm#po28020)
> "I have not seen any patient of Bobs that I can recall that has had
> progressive disease using his approach. If there are any out there,
> speak up now and declare yourself. I just can't think of any." "I am
> puzzled that Bob is not seeing the PSA recurrences that we are seeing
> in those men treated with ADT for less than 12 months of UD-PSA. In
> fact, 12 months or more of UD-PSA has kept patients in our practice
> off ADT for years (average is 29 months of OFF-TIME with the longest
> off-time being 7 years) but according to Bob, none of his patients
> need to be retreated, ever. I can't figure this out. We are treating
> longer, with the same agents, and only including in our data highly
> selected patients that reach UD-PSA. If anything, our patients should
> do better." "With all that has been said above, I want to go on record
> as saying that I have great respect for Bob Leibowitz as a brilliant
> physician who goes all out for his patients. In this context, I refer
> patients frequently to Bob; I do not refer patients to docs I do not
> respect."
> I have discussed this issue with Dr. Tucker, who is Dr. Leibowitz's
> former partner. Dr. Tucker thought that the difference might be due
> to a drug that was given to the patients during ADT to minimize bone
> loss which later was shown to have some tumoricidal effect against
> PC. My own opinion is that the difference is due to Dr. Leibowitz's
> patients being told to avoid ingesting phytoestrogens. (The issue of
> phytoestrogens is extremely complicated. In a nutshell, they have
> tumoricidal properties but also end up increasing bcl-2. Usually, the
> increase in bcl-2 is too small to make any difference, however, when
> you use a 5AR2 inhibitor such as Proscar - which every one of Dr.
> Leibowitz's patients receives - then Proscar increases bcl-2 and the
> combination of it and phytoestrogens tends to hit a threshhold which
> is very protective of the PC. For more detailed info, read my paper
> at http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/28). Also, many of Dr.
> Leibowitz's patients receive very high T supplements in addition to
> the Proscar, and in animal studies, that combination has been shown to
> be ~5 times more effective than continual ADT. None of these three
> factors were mentioned in the Materials and Methods section of Dr.
> Leibowitz's published paper (http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/
> cgi/content/full/6/2/177). In that paper he reported on 110 patients
> with a mean of 36 months of treatment, with the PC specific death rate
> being 0%.
>
> 4. Dr. Leibowitz's results contradicts what doctors are taught in
> medical school.
> Doctors are being taught that T causes PC, that it fuels PC, and that
> removal of T "starves" PC cells. My paper (the same one I just gave
> the link to) shows that almost all of these statements are just flat
> out wrong. The only statement that has a grain of truth in it is that
> T causes PC. Almost all PC starts as a result of high local levels of
> estradiol, and the only way males produce estradiol is by the action
> of the aromatase enzyme on T. However, my paper just came out in
> August, 2007, and typically it will take a decade or more for the
> science to filter down to the medical profession (I.P. has unusually
> knowledgeable doctors to be aware of my paper so quickly). I should
> point out that researchers are well aware that what is being taught in
> medical school is incorrect. In reading the literature, I would come
> across statements like "these findings are paradoxical" or "this
> treatment is counterintuitive" when describing experiments involving
> T. From what I can tell, most doctors believe what they are taught in
> medical school almost as a religion. They don't let things like facts
> that prove that they are wrong get in the way of their beliefs. In
> contrast, my own model is consistent with all known experimental
> findings. This is not a matter of luck or prescience. It just took
> years for me to continually modify my model as I uncovered any
> experiments not consistent with it until I had a finished model which
> is consistent with all known experiments. It also is readily testable
> and for the most part can be used with existing drugs to great
> effect. If new drugs are developed as called for in my paper, then we
> might be talking about achieving cures.
>
> 5. In terms of PC specific death rate, Dr. Leibowitz's results seem
> too good to be true.
> In studying 183 men treated initially by Dr. Leibowitz (stage T1-T3),
> the PC specific death rate after 75 months was 0.6% (http://
> www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=37&index=y&abstractID=20271)
> This is in sharp contrast to a Swedish study which showed 4.6% PC
> specific death rate for RP after 75 months for stage T1-T2. The mean
> PSA was about the same, so the patients should have been at less risk
> for the starting point of the Swedish study. Even more troublesome,
> before someone dies of PC, they first have distant mets. The RP study
> had 10.1% of its patients with distant mets after 75 months, vs. 0.6%
> for Dr. Leibowitz's patients. So in a few years, instead of Dr.
> Leibowitz having a PC specific death rate over 7 times better than RP,
> he will have a rate over 16 times better than RP. Needless to say,
> the quality of life is extremely better for Dr. Leibowitz's patients
> vs. RP patients. Of course, there is always the possibility that many
> of the patients treated by Dr. Leibowitz will suddenly take a rapid
> downturn for the worse. Also, scientifically speaking, these two
> studies can't be directly compared since they weren't randomized from
> the same starting pool of men.
> For men with locally advanced PC, Dr. Leibowitz's statistics are also
> impressive. After 3.5 years, he had a PC specific death rate of
> 7.4%. You can read this abstract at:
> http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=34&index=y&abstractID=34127
> Around 15 years ago, the 5 year PC specific death rate for this was
> 75%. More recently, it has improved to 50%. It is not certain what
> Dr. Leibowitz's percentage will be at 5 years, but considering that he
> dropped the mean PSA from 23 to 11.5, I wouldn't be surprised if he is
> the first one to achieve a less than 10% PC specific death rate for 5
> years.
>
> In summary, there is no question that the vast majority of men with
> 3-6 months left to live will die even if treated by Dr. Leibowitz at
> that point, but some would be saved. And as Dr. Leibowitz states on
> his web site, the earlier patients start his systemic treatment, the
> more likely they are to end up with a favorable outcome. In my
> opinion, Dr. Leibowitz is legitimate in what he claims, and it is only
> a matter of time before other doctors realize this. If he
> incorporates improvements detailed in my paper, he might even end up
> curing some of his patients.
>
> Ed Friedman
>

From: Leonard Evens on 6 Dec 2007 22:01
Bert wrote:
> Hi Ed, thank you for your response.
>
> On your point #2, I realize that a lone urologist might not have the
> resources to conduct such a study. However, if Dr. Leibowitz's claims are
> so promising and he can demonstrate success, why wouldn't the drug
> companies
> fund such a study? Do you know if any of the cancer research centers
> like Dana Farber, Sloan-Kettering, MD Anderson, Stanford or Norris
> are focusing on approaches similar to Dr. Leibowitz.
>
> On your point #3 regarding other doctors not being able to reproduce Dr.
> Leibowitz's results, it appears that he has not published a specific
> protocol
> that others could follow.
>
> On point #4, that Dr. Leibowitz's results contradict what doctors are
> taught
> in medical school. I agree that many doctors do not deviate from their
> training... but I don't believe that all the
> researchers in this field would avoid findings that contradict
> their training or are conterintuitive.... If there exists a
> treatment for recurrent prostate cancer that stops its progression
> indefinitely, it would be a home run for the drug company and doctors --
> with millions, perhaps billions in profits... with that kind of financial
> opportunity, it is hard to believe that someone would not pursue this.
>
> On point #5, that the results are too good to be true. If the results can
> not be reproduced by someone else, then the results are be too good to be
> true.
>
> I remain sceptical...but also hopeful... Thanks again,
>
> Bert

I find it highly unlikely that the experts who do research in medical
oncology, such as Eisenberg at Johns Hopkins, are unaware of Leibowitz's
claims or that they are just doing what they learned in medical school.

I think it is much more likely that they are aware of his claims, but
for whatever reasons, they don't believe them. Perhaps they are wrong,
but then again maybe they have good reasons for ignoring him.

>
>
> <ed(a)math.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:5a889292-7142-42d0-84a8-d2c302382275(a)n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 1, 11:45 am, "Bert" <bertxav...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If Ed Friedman is right about Dr. Leibowitz, why isn't everyone
>>> beating a
>>> path to his office? It seems to me, that it would be a fairly
>>> significant
>>> event in the annals of prostate cancer treatment if someone had an
>>> effective
>>> treatment for end stage prostate cancer. But other than a periodic
>>> anecdote
>>> here and there, one doesn't hear about this.
>>>
>>> Bert
>>
>>
>> Bert,
>>
>> I was only half-serious about my comment about Dr. Leibowitz, which
>> was why I put in the smiley face. However, you ask a very valid
>> question, so I'll try to give you my viewpoint as to why the general
>> medical establishment is ignoring the work of Dr. Leibowitz (besides
>> the fact that almost all are ignorant of his work).
>>
>> 1. Dr. Leibowitz's treatment does not cure any of his patients.
>> Using RP at an early enough stage of PC, a urologist has a reasonable
>> shot at over a 90% cure rate, so why would he consider a treatment
>> with 0% cure rate? Most doctors seek to cure their cancer patients
>> and give up on curing and seek to prolong their lives only near the
>> end of their disease.
>>
>> 2. Dr. Leibowitz does not perform randomized, scientific studies of
>> his treatment.
>> Dr. Leibowitz is not a researcher, but simply a urologist treating his
>> patients. He does not have the resources to perform the type of major
>> randomized study that would reach a larger audience, nor it is likely
>> that he would, considering the greatly increased death rate of RP
>> compared to his treatment.
>>
>> 3. Other doctors have not been able to reproduce Dr. Leibowitz's
>> results.
>> E.g., the following excerpts are from a posting by Dr. Stephen Strum
>> (you can read the full article plus lots more at:
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20030816154313/http://www.prostate-help.org/caleibo.htm#po28020)
>>
>> "I have not seen any patient of Bobs that I can recall that has had
>> progressive disease using his approach. If there are any out there,
>> speak up now and declare yourself. I just can't think of any." "I am
>> puzzled that Bob is not seeing the PSA recurrences that we are seeing
>> in those men treated with ADT for less than 12 months of UD-PSA. In
>> fact, 12 months or more of UD-PSA has kept patients in our practice
>> off ADT for years (average is 29 months of OFF-TIME with the longest
>> off-time being 7 years) but according to Bob, none of his patients
>> need to be retreated, ever. I can't figure this out. We are treating
>> longer, with the same agents, and only including in our data highly
>> selected patients that reach UD-PSA. If anything, our patients should
>> do better." "With all that has been said above, I want to go on record
>> as saying that I have great respect for Bob Leibowitz as a brilliant
>> physician who goes all out for his patients. In this context, I refer
>> patients frequently to Bob; I do not refer patients to docs I do not
>> respect."
>> I have discussed this issue with Dr. Tucker, who is Dr. Leibowitz's
>> former partner. Dr. Tucker thought that the difference might be due
>> to a drug that was given to the patients during ADT to minimize bone
>> loss which later was shown to have some tumoricidal effect against
>> PC. My own opinion is that the difference is due to Dr. Leibowitz's
>> patients being told to avoid ingesting phytoestrogens. (The issue of
>> phytoestrogens is extremely complicated. In a nutshell, they have
>> tumoricidal properties but also end up increasing bcl-2. Usually, the
>> increase in bcl-2 is too small to make any difference, however, when
>> you use a 5AR2 inhibitor such as Proscar - which every one of Dr.
>> Leibowitz's patients receives - then Proscar increases bcl-2 and the
>> combination of it and phytoestrogens tends to hit a threshhold which
>> is very protective of the PC. For more detailed info, read my paper
>> at http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/28). Also, many of Dr.
>> Leibowitz's patients receive very high T supplements in addition to
>> the Proscar, and in animal studies, that combination has been shown to
>> be ~5 times more effective than continual ADT. None of these three
>> factors were mentioned in the Materials and Methods section of Dr.
>> Leibowitz's published paper (http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/
>> cgi/content/full/6/2/177). In that paper he reported on 110 patients
>> with a mean of 36 months of treatment, with the PC specific death rate
>> being 0%.
>>
>> 4. Dr. Leibowitz's results contradicts what doctors are taught in
>> medical school.
>> Doctors are being taught that T causes PC, that it fuels PC, and that
>> removal of T "starves" PC cells. My paper (the same one I just gave
>> the link to) shows that almost all of these statements are just flat
>> out wrong. The only statement that has a grain of truth in it is that
>> T causes PC. Almost all PC starts as a result of high local levels of
>> estradiol, and the only way males produce estradiol is by the action
>> of the aromatase enzyme on T. However, my paper just came out in
>> August, 2007, and typically it will take a decade or more for the
>> science to filter down to the medical profession (I.P. has unusually
>> knowledgeable doctors to be aware of my paper so quickly). I should
>> point out that researchers are well aware that what is being taught in
>> medical school is incorrect. In reading the literature, I would come
>> across statements like "these findings are paradoxical" or "this
>> treatment is counterintuitive" when describing experiments involving
>> T. From what I can tell, most doctors believe what they are taught in
>> medical school almost as a religion. They don't let things like facts
>> that prove that they are wrong get in the way of their beliefs. In
>> contrast, my own model is consistent with all known experimental
>> findings. This is not a matter of luck or prescience. It just took
>> years for me to continually modify my model as I uncovered any
>> experiments not consistent with it until I had a finished model which
>> is consistent with all known experiments. It also is readily testable
>> and for the most part can be used with existing drugs to great
>> effect. If new drugs are developed as called for in my paper, then we
>> might be talking about achieving cures.
>>
>> 5. In terms of PC specific death rate, Dr. Leibowitz's results seem
>> too good to be true.
>> In studying 183 men treated initially by Dr. Leibowitz (stage T1-T3),
>> the PC specific death rate after 75 months was 0.6% (http://
>> www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=37&index=y&abstractID=20271)
>>
>> This is in sharp contrast to a Swedish study which showed 4.6% PC
>> specific death rate for RP after 75 months for stage T1-T2. The mean
>> PSA was about the same, so the patients should have been at less risk
>> for the starting point of the Swedish study. Even more troublesome,
>> before someone dies of PC, they first have distant mets. The RP study
>> had 10.1% of its patients with distant mets after 75 months, vs. 0.6%
>> for Dr. Leibowitz's patients. So in a few years, instead of Dr.
>> Leibowitz having a PC specific death rate over 7 times better than RP,
>> he will have a rate over 16 times better than RP. Needless to say,
>> the quality of life is extremely better for Dr. Leibowitz's patients
>> vs. RP patients. Of course, there is always the possibility that many
>> of the patients treated by Dr. Leibowitz will suddenly take a rapid
>> downturn for the worse. Also, scientifically speaking, these two
>> studies can't be directly compared since they weren't randomized from
>> the same starting pool of men.
>> For men with locally advanced PC, Dr. Leibowitz's statistics are also
>> impressive. After 3.5 years, he had a PC specific death rate of
>> 7.4%. You can read this abstract at:
>> http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=34&index=y&abstractID=34127
>>
>> Around 15 years ago, the 5 year PC specific death rate for this was
>> 75%. More recently, it has improved to 50%. It is not certain what
>> Dr. Leibowitz's percentage will be at 5 years, but considering that he
>> dropped the mean PSA from 23 to 11.5, I wouldn't be surprised if he is
>> the first one to achieve a less than 10% PC specific death rate for 5
>> years.
>>
>> In summary, there is no question that the vast majority of men with
>> 3-6 months left to live will die even if treated by Dr. Leibowitz at
>> that point, but some would be saved. And as Dr. Leibowitz states on
>> his web site, the earlier patients start his systemic treatment, the
>> more likely they are to end up with a favorable outcome. In my
>> opinion, Dr. Leibowitz is legitimate in what he claims, and it is only
>> a matter of time before other doctors realize this. If he
>> incorporates improvements detailed in my paper, he might even end up
>> curing some of his patients.
>>
>> Ed Friedman
>>
>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: MI5 Persecution: MI5 Waste Taxpayer Millions on Pointless Hate-Campaign (7157)
Next: Understanding the Partin Tables