ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Prostate Related Issues
Lowered PSA, 2.99 to 0.92, in Three Months
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Guided_by_Voices" data-source="post: 145450" data-attributes="member: 15235"><p>Regarding biopsy, I'll be very interested to hear coastwatcher's thoughts, however here's my two cents based on never having gone through such a scare but being superficially aware of potential issues..</p><p></p><p>- There is a school of thought that says doing biopsies has the the potential to allow a cancer to spread (which is the really dangerous part of most cancers) so I would want to hear really convincing evidence that a biopsy is superior to an MRI and is actually going to lead to an actionable outcome based on my risk tolerance. Aand yes, I know that an MRI doesn't withdraw samples to analyze</p><p>- For any test of any kind, my first question is "what actions could I take based on the outcome?". If I thought I had a high risk of cancer I would first go on an even more aggressive anti-cancer program than I already am (such as in questtocurecancer.com) before ever doing any kind of test, since that would be my action if the test was positive, and after having done such a program see if there were still signs of cancer before doing an invasive test</p><p>- I would do a decision tree of possible outcomes and if the answer is watchful waiting, then I would watch and wait first.</p><p>- Related to the last point, I would get up to speed on current "treatments" and if they all have significant risk of loss of sexual function, I would likely roll the dice and stick to an aggressive anti-cancer program. I am aware of people who followed the standard of care and now have horrible quality-of-life damage so I doubly cautious.</p><p>- I am even more distrustful of the urology prostate-chopping industry than I am of the rest of chronic-care medicine industry so I would look for views from outside of that sphere and by no means blindly trust the standard of care. </p><p>- As an aside, there was a study several years ago that gave evidence that periodic high pulses of testosterone actually have an anti-PC affect, so if anything, I would add such pulses to my TRT, after researching that further of course.</p><p></p><p>But most importantly, I'm very happy for Coastwatcher! Congratulations</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guided_by_Voices, post: 145450, member: 15235"] Regarding biopsy, I'll be very interested to hear coastwatcher's thoughts, however here's my two cents based on never having gone through such a scare but being superficially aware of potential issues.. - There is a school of thought that says doing biopsies has the the potential to allow a cancer to spread (which is the really dangerous part of most cancers) so I would want to hear really convincing evidence that a biopsy is superior to an MRI and is actually going to lead to an actionable outcome based on my risk tolerance. Aand yes, I know that an MRI doesn't withdraw samples to analyze - For any test of any kind, my first question is "what actions could I take based on the outcome?". If I thought I had a high risk of cancer I would first go on an even more aggressive anti-cancer program than I already am (such as in questtocurecancer.com) before ever doing any kind of test, since that would be my action if the test was positive, and after having done such a program see if there were still signs of cancer before doing an invasive test - I would do a decision tree of possible outcomes and if the answer is watchful waiting, then I would watch and wait first. - Related to the last point, I would get up to speed on current "treatments" and if they all have significant risk of loss of sexual function, I would likely roll the dice and stick to an aggressive anti-cancer program. I am aware of people who followed the standard of care and now have horrible quality-of-life damage so I doubly cautious. - I am even more distrustful of the urology prostate-chopping industry than I am of the rest of chronic-care medicine industry so I would look for views from outside of that sphere and by no means blindly trust the standard of care. - As an aside, there was a study several years ago that gave evidence that periodic high pulses of testosterone actually have an anti-PC affect, so if anything, I would add such pulses to my TRT, after researching that further of course. But most importantly, I'm very happy for Coastwatcher! Congratulations [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Prostate Related Issues
Lowered PSA, 2.99 to 0.92, in Three Months
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top