~ archived since 2018 ~

"Shock" testosterone therapy reverses prostate cancer in a new study

Original_Dankster

December 4, 2016

17 upvotes

Background:

In my 40s, and the doctor has started checking my prostate. Not fun, but necessary. When you're in your 40s, you're going to 'enjoy' the same experience.

Body

Quick one here. A bit late for Movember, but here it is anyways... Researchers have found "shock" testosterone treatment reversed, and in one case even cured prostate cancer.

"The trial involved three cycles of “bipolar androgen therapy” which involves alternately flooding and starving the body of testosterone. The men received high dose injections once every 28 days. At the same time, they were given a drug that stopped testosterone being produced naturally."

http://archive.is/8faqK#selection-1235.0-1235.287

Lessons Learned

If you're over 40, get your prostate checked - preferably annually. But if you do find something wrong, there's a good treatment regimen if detected early.

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	"Shock" testosterone therapy reverses prostate cancer in a new study
Author	Original_Dankster
Upvotes	17
Comments	29
Date	December 4, 2016 4:00 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/5gdnf3/shock_testosterone_therapy_reverses_prostate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/shock-testosterone-therapy-reverses-prostate.65036 https://theredarchive.com/post/65036

Comments

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

You've got 10 years on me.

The aging process is quite a thing. Lost a lot of my hearing from unsuppressed gunfire, but I've always had incredibly sharp eyes. Now I notice that my visual acuity isn't what it was. Mind and reflexes are sharper than my teens- but that is the result of effort and discipline.

Nature (and her love of that 2nd thermodynamic law) is an unforgiving cunt...but I suppose we lose our senses and health- including that prostate thing- for evolutionary reasons, too. Once we pass reproductive peak, our DNA begins to stop repairing itself (including reproductive stuff)- we're not as useful. Perhaps she intended for us, in a primitive world, to become the first of our little hominid group to get eaten by something we didn't see, hear or were too old to run from.

Running is for faggots, anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joSPPrR1l34

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio15 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Good point. The other fact to keep in mind is that the vast majority of us died before thirty.

We mated and reproduced in our early teens to early twenties. And we were dead from disease, injury, infection or war by the time we were 30.

40 was considered old age. For women too: Women died in child birth all the fucking time.

Biologically, evolution didn't provide a whole lot of natural selection past the age of 30 for humans, because it didn't matter much for either gender at that point.

There's good evidence that our roles past 30 (for the few of us that we're left), were to be housebound educators, surrogate child rearers, decision makers and to pass knowledge to the "doers" of the next generation. Being housebound was a likely result of injury and disease anyway.

It's also why we find women to be attractive from teens to early twenties. We're not designed to find old women attractive. And "old" and 30 are synonymous in historical / evolutionary terms.

Likewise, our prostate glands were built with a 'warranty' of about 40 years for humans that typically lived around 30. 'Seemed like plenty of time not long ago. Now we're trying to squeeze an extra 40-50 years out of our prostates. They were never built for that.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mckallidon10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scrodzilla8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

also for the benefit of any men who read this, here is the real deal about IGF-1 and cancer and meat.

http://www.saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/

the TLDR is, this hormone isn't bad for you, and low levels cause many health problems. BUT if you already have cancer, it might make SOME cancers grow faster. basically its the same as testosterone, T isn't bad by any means, and many of us want as much of it as we can produce, but it can make SOME cancers grow fast.

The guy im replying too is basically lying by saying meat "causes" cancer by raising IGF-1. IGF-1 doesn't cause it, it makes some grow faster. Therefore it makes no sense to blame meat on having more cancer than india, since IGF-1 doesn't cause it in the first place.

The guy in other posts talks about cancer "feeding " of methionine, well that isn't causing cancer either... some cancers also feed on iron, are we going to claim iron "causes" cancer? cancers feed on sugar mostly anyway, i dont know why he is ignoring that fact.

TLDR of it all is, no , cancer isn't caused by meat, some nutrients in meat are things cancer feeds off, but cancer also feeds off sugar (present in fruit and many plants), and iron (present in many plants too), and a hormone that meat raises may make some cancers grow faster, just like testosterone, but no one considers low amounts of testosterone "good", same with IGF-1. please look into things before believing random vegan fanatics like this guy and vegan gains, who outright exaggerate things and lie to make meat sound like the devil himself.

PS: this is the for the benefit of men reading the bullshit you posted, its not a reply to you, you vegan nutjob.

[–]Mr_Annette 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Browsing the article was interesting, the comments less so. As a reader in cardiovascular biochemistry please stop trying to spread misinformation like this..

'Cancer isn't caused by meat, some nutrients in meat are things cancer feeds off' my word.. I could task a 9 year old to read to me the Wikipedia definition of cancer and they would already have a higher understanding of it versus you.

'Cancer also feeds off sugar (present in fruit and many plant)' do you know how many sugars there are? There's sugar to some extent in everything you complete ape.

You're comparing IGF-1 to testosterone on the loose basis that they are both hormones, and a low level of a hormone = bad. Good fucking god give this man his doctorate and get him researching the drugs for us.

I'm not vegan, I eat chicken every week. But as someone who is well versed in the area you're rambling incoherently about, this is cringe worthy. Please, do not speak about biochemistry, metabolism, cancer nor even basic fucking hormones as if you're teaching something. I don't know what country you're from but the way your comment is phrased as if you know what you're talking about and how op is a 'vegan nutjob', coupled with the shit show in pace of any understanding of the topic, really makes me wonder what the education system has tried to attempt.

If you'd like a lesson (or 8), so that you could actually be of some use, come down to London sometime and hmu. Literally can't believe the amount of bs I've read in one comment, from a guy acting like he knows what he's talking about, talking as if the other guy is spreading misinformation.

Also just reading it again and fucking hell hahahahaha another piece of gold comment: 'cancers feed on sugar mostly anyway'. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! YOU MEAN TO TELL ME, THAT UNCONTROLLED GROWTHS OF CELLS FEED ON... SUGARS?! THE MAIN METABOLITE OF THE HUMAN BODY?!!! YOURE TELLING ME CELLS WHICH REPLICATE UNCONTROLLABLY THEREFORE REQUIRING A CONSTANT SUPPLY OF METABOLITE WILL USE... SUGAR?! YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THE FACT THAT THEY REPLICATE UNCONTROLLABLY HAS NO EFFECT ON THEIR CHOICE OF METABOLITE?! But seriously it's a joke, you talk about cancer cells like they're some kind of fucking alien matter in the body, foreign entity's like bacteria which will metabolise with special requirements (you talked about 'cancers feeding on iron as if cancer patients have some tapeworm-esq creature inside of them waiting to chow down on all the glorious iron we eat). Well here's the big news bud, cancer isn't some malignant pathogen like a virus, the disease is characterised by the uncontrollable divisions of cells (these form tumors). And guess what, much like other body cells, they will metabolise in similar ways.

Barely ever leave comments this long. Your comment was a spit in the face to the area I research in. Spread unintelligent and half-assed 'truths' in some other area. Even showed your comment to my colleagues, Christ almighty the quotes get funnier every time..

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Annette 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any sources for that or are you just pulling it out of your ass? The largest population studies to date have found a significant correlation between animal products and mortality and we even know the mechanisms as to why.

Animal protein has numerous mechanisms by which it promotes cancer in humans. It isn't so much about "diet curing cancer", your immune system is naturally suppose to be able to deal with cancer, but the foods we eat today make our blood incredibly nutritious for cancer. IGF-1 is a well known hormone that is produced by our liver when we ingest animal protein, and it raises your risk of cancer promotion massively. We also are aware most forms of cancer feed off methionine, a sulfur-containing amino acid that is found in the highest quantities in animal protein (dairy, meat, mainly found in fish and eggs). We ALSO know that animal protein activates the mTOR pathway which causes cell reproduction and aging, furthering your risk for cancer.

We have data backing all of this up now. And I'd love to hear about what countries eat ten times more meat and have less cancer, because as far as I know Australia eats the most meat and surprise surprise, Coronary Heart Disease and Colorectal Cancer are some of their leading causes of death.

Again, people thinking diet is "the cure" just shows how little you know about cancer. It isn't about magically killing the cancer, your body will do that on its own. It's about taking away the growth hormones and amino acids that cancer feeds off of, that are so high in our westernized diets.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

there are more factors in cancer than just eating meat, its pretty hard to link cancer to one cause by studying country vs country, those kinds of studies are almost useless. people in western countries do 1000 unhealthy things, like not exercising and eating shit tons of sugar, how can you blame it 100% on meat? makes no sense. everyone knows about the Inuits and the masai, who have extremely low cancer rates. there are also places in tibet and china that consume meat regular and do just fine. you can spam all the cherry picked links you want, there are studies that contradict every one of them. also the colon cancer is PROCESSED MEAT, not normal meat. most studies don't separate processed from regular red meat, which fucks up the study. australians eat the most processed meat. people in western countries eat JUNK FOOD, not 100% healthy organic lean red meat.

there is no point posting "sources" on reddit, we aren't scientists and no one else but us is going to care what we post, im not willing to get into a link war, i just don't care. you can have your little victory and claim you won because im too lazy or w/e. idgaf. i know im not going to turn you anti- vegan by posting studies that contradict yours, you've already made up your mind and you'll only pay attention to studies that prove your point, and ignore ones that contradict it, science is never as clear and unified in proving something as you are pretending it is, there are literally hundreds of studies that show no correlation between sat fat and heart disease, or meat and health problems. i've been in too many of these arguments with vegans and its draining. im putting no effort in this time.

the rest of your post is dangerous alternative medicine nonsense that has killed people, and you seem like a nutjob. there was some famous aussie blogger who believed the same nonsense you do, she went on that "gerson" diet bullshit, and so did her mother. all raw vegan food etc etc same nonsense you are spouting, about how it should "allow her body to cure the cancer", and guess what? her and her fucking mother died from CANCER, which they could have gotten treated for by doctors. also steve jobs died by trying to cure cancer with vegan bullshit. my gf's dad also recently died from cancer, and he did all the same diet stuff you talk about. sorry but you're a fucking retard. why would i take you seriously enough to hunt down studies lol.

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

there are more factors in cancer than just eating meat

Diet plays a hugely significant role in cancer progression. This only makes sense. Again, animal protein (not just meat) introduces a large amount of methionine into your blood, as well as activates the mTOR pathway, and stimulates a lot of IGF-1 production, which all feed cancer cells significantly. I'm not just targeting meat here. Soy protein isolate will have a similar IGF-1 effect, making it also unhealthy.

its pretty hard to link cancer to one cause by studying country vs country

The point of the population studies isn't to point out one specific cause, it's to further evaluate whether the existing mechanisms we know have an effect in real life. And according to the largest population studies to date, our diets are in fact a big problem, because populations who eat a more whole-foods centric diet have much lower rates of cancer and almost no cardiovascular disease.

how can you blame it 100% on meat?

That's not what I'm claiming. I'm simply saying animal products (not just meat) are a large contributor to the problem, due to the mechanisms I've already stated.

people in western countries do 1000 unhealthy things, like not exercising

Strenuous hour-long a day exercise helps, but only about half as much as a plant-based diet with mild exercise. meaning exercise in itself is not nearly as helpful as eating whole-foods.

people in western countries eat JUNK FOOD, not 100% healthy organic lean red meat.

Sure. Any animal products, regardless of whether they're raw/organic or not, still contribute to all the mechanisms I've listed before. It's a problem with the amino acid profile, not anything to do with the processing. Regardless, animal products still also contain cholesterol and saturated fat.

you've already made up your mind and you'll only pay attention to studies that prove your point, and ignore ones that contradict it, science is never as clear and unified in proving something as you are pretending it is, there are literally hundreds of studies that show no correlation between sat fat and heart disease, or meat and health problems.

You're going full retard. It's important to check the actual studies and how they're performed/who funds them. Yeah you can find a shit ton of studies that contradict mine, but it's about QUALITY not quantity. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies is way more valuable than any study funded by the National Egg Board lol. I think maybe you just have a very layman understanding of nutrition because yeah, it is hard to get into.

the rest of your post is dangerous alternative medicine nonsense that has killed people, and you seem like a nutjob.

Wow fantastic ad hominem. And then you go on to give anecdotal evidence.. Do you realize how ridiculous your entire reply was? If you aren't going to "put in effort" then don't comment back because you sound like a dumbass. Whole-foods plant-based diets have been shown time and time again to reverse our number one killer (heart disease). It also prevents type 2 diabetes (which is caused by toxic byproducts of saturated fat), and prevents Alzheimer's (which is caused by atherosclerosis in the brain). I'm not going to kill anybody by telling them to not eat animal products, humans aren't suppose to consume dietary cholesterol and saturated fat. Our lipid metabolism clearly demonstrates this.

And I'm not saying that if you have cancer you can "cure" it by going plant-based, but it is MUCH more likely that you will be able to reverse it. This makes sense if you put two and two together and realize "oh, animal protein is really good for feeding cancer and antioxidants (which only come from plants) are bad for cancer... hmm. it's almost like eating plants is better than eating animals!"

The American Dietetics Association has stated a vegan diet is healthy for anybody at any stage of life, even during pregnancy. There is no reason to not go vegan, especially when you know the effects animal products have on us.

[–]FallacyExplnationBot0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

the massive market for statins

And what do you think the statin industry wants? You think they want people to eat healthy and not need their statins? You have to realize how silly that sounds.

The study you cited brings up a really good question. Why do people who are within the "safe" range of LDL cholesterol suffer heart attacks? The answer is probably going to make you feel pretty depressed.

Optimal low-density lipoprotein is 50 to 70mg/dl according to this META-ANALYSIS of RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS. The people in your study who were within the "safe" range of cholesterol.. weren't. The UCLA even states in your study "Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit,"

The problem isn't that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, the problem is that our current guidelines are way too high and it tricks people into thinking they won't have a heart attack if they stay around 100mg/dl. The reason? Animal products is a big industry my friend.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

i pretty much knew you would reply with that nonsense. "we need to lower cholesterol even LOWER because its obviously not low enough !". no, low cholesterol to that extreme promotes health problems. you do know we need cholosterol to actually function right? the logical conclusion is that cholesterol isn't as important in predicting heart attacks as we think. extremely low cholesterol is a huge predictor of early mortality, its important in cell and brain and hormone function.

once again you blame the conspiracy of the meat industry. you know i do believe vegan diets are pretty much healthy, as long as you make sure to get the things people would normally get from meat, but i don't believe its NECESSARY to cut out meat for health. i dont know why you guys have to make up insane conspiracy theories and twist logic and facts like this.

also i linked you another study that showed that lower cholesterol in heart attack patients predicted HIGHER MORTALITY, which shits all over you stupid theory about needing to lower it to even more insane amounts. lower cholesterol to the extremes you recommend = early death.

also the study you linked used primates as an example and compared it to humans. "because monkeys have cholesterol around this level, humans should too ".

also to be frank, literally all of this ignores the fact that many people believe its not cholesterol, but oxidation that is the problem. in the west we are fuckign obsessed with lowering cholesterol to insanely lower and lower and lower amounts, instead of adressing the problem that our shitty diets (including tons of sugar) cause tons of inflammation and oxidation which is probably why the fat clogs our arteries in the first place. its the oxidation of the cholesterol, not the cholesterol itself that is the problem. cholesterol is one factor in heart disease. the main reason we are obsessed with lowering it that much, is that doctors treat things with drugs, not complex dietary approaches. if lowering cholesterol doesn't work, they just use MORE DRUGS to lower it EVEN MORE. they never think to take a look at the complexities of diet and realise it might be combination factors and not just cholesterol itself. go google some of the cultures in the world that eat tons of meat and have less heart attacks, its not hard to find. guess what? these people dont eat processed food and sugar....

[–]kruxofthemimed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

low cholesterol to that extreme promotes health problems.

Source?

you do know we need cholosterol to actually function right?

That's why we produce our own cholesterol dumb dumb.

also the study you linked used primates as an example and compared it to humans. "because monkeys have cholesterol around this level, humans should too ".

That's not at all what the study had said. It was a compilation of evidence that paleolithic humans had lower cholesterol (leaner meat, a lot more fiber, more omega 3s, generally a much healthier diet) and that's why they didn't suffer from atherosclerosis in the way that we do now. I'm glad you were excited to respond to me but next time you should take the time to actually look through my evidence rather than reading the first sentence and giving me a kneejerk reaction.

also i linked you another study that showed that lower cholesterol in heart attack patients predicted HIGHER MORTALITY

The study you linked was comparing patients who were low-Killip and high-Killip. Now, I'm sure you didn't take the time to look up what that actually means, but the Killip scale is designed to measure how bad somebody's heart attack was. The study you cited also doesn't give any information on whether the patients were on statins or not, but regardless, it was comparing people who had minor heart attacks and high blood cholesterol to people who had already had severe heart attacks and happened to have "low" blood cholesterol at the time of the analysis. Not to mention the high-Killip patients had blood cholesterol just under 110mg/dl, which is still high as fuck, and considering they had an incredibly severe heart attack it isn't surprising they died. Mortality rate in people who are rated 4 on the Killip scale is 81% as compared to those rated 2 at 6%.

This is very likely a study that was designed to mislead you, and that further proves my point that this is an incredibly powerful industry.

literally all of this ignores the fact that many people believe its not cholesterol, but oxidation that is the problem

HMM wow antioxidants sound pretty good right now huh? Heme-iron (iron from animal products) increases oxidative stress btw.

Do us both a favor and read this. there are literally pictures showing plaque formation completely disappearing after 3 weeks of a plant-based diet. Dr. Esselstyn has a Ted Talk about this that you should watch. Yes, oxidation causes inflammation that bursts the endothelial wall, but plaque build up is the reason it is even able to burst in the first place.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

they would have no idea what levels cavemen had, they were just guessing. it was a theory that humans should have much lower levels they couldn't prove it.

That's why we produce our own cholesterol dumb dumb.

ummm, in the study you linked they were advocating lowering levels to that low, with statin drugs, not diet. i could cry conspiracy and say "ohh look the statin industry strikes again !" like you keep doing with the meat industry boogey man, but i wont. i dont think anywhere in that article it said that there are humans with levels that low from diet. hence why they talked about apes, and made up stuff about cavemen. no regular humans in society even have levels that low.

I'm not posting links, just google some of the studies related to people taking statins and higher level of health problems in the elderly, you'll find a bunch. one confirmed thing is lower memory in people with lower cholesterol (the brain is made of it).

it could technically be true that lower cholesterol lowers risk of heart disease but RAISES risks of other problems as well. frankly lots of things in the body are like that, its a complex thing, there is no magic bullet diet. one certain healthy diet will increase risk of certain disease but lower risk of other disease.

lots of minerals from plants and meat increase oxidation. so does glucose in general, so does breathing fucking oxygen lol. this is a bit of a moot point. all you can do is not eat absurd amounts of things that you dont need to eat that raise oxidation.

anyway this could go on all day. any study that goes against what you say is "a misleading study, ohh look, the meat industry again !". what is the point of arguing with you? honestly you have no hope of remotely listening to anything that doesn't circle jerk your own conclusions. just call it a day friendo.

also fuck ted talks, there are ted talks on any nonsense you can imagine. there are ted talks that state watching porn messes up your brain like meth. i could probably find a ted talk that says eating buckets of saturated fat all day will make you immortal.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhorehouseVet2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]1Original_Dankster[S] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lordoffunk2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link