The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: prostate cancer risk  (Read 4988 times)

lyner

  • Guest
prostate cancer risk
« on: 23/10/2007 13:05:49 »
Are there any opinions about the relationship between the probablilty of the  occurence of prostate cancer and the frequency of orgasm? That is to say, is total abstinence any safeguard  or is 'regular flushing out' a good thing? (Well, of course it is, but I meant with regard to the prostate).
The same question could apply to testicular cancer, too.


 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #1 on: 23/10/2007 17:09:26 »
Are there any opinions about the relationship between the probablilty of the  occurence of prostate cancer and the frequency of orgasm? That is to say, is total abstinence any safeguard  or is 'regular flushing out' a good thing? (Well, of course it is, but I meant with regard to the prostate).
The same question could apply to testicular cancer, too.


I have heard that the frequency of male ejaculation does in fact correlate to the frequency of testicular and prostate cancer.

It has been discussed here before....years ago...so it's good to get a fresh perspective on it.

My comment refers to the more orgasms the less the risk.......though....this is a memory but one that stuck with me.
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #2 on: 23/10/2007 17:17:56 »
 

lyner

  • Guest
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #3 on: 23/10/2007 18:16:53 »
I like it.
I'll buy it..
I intend to be as healthy as I possibly can. 
Will I need stronger glasses, though?
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #4 on: 23/10/2007 18:18:02 »
I like it.
I'll buy it..
I intend to be as healthy as I possibly can. 
Will I need stronger glasses, though?


I use 20x magnification just to type !!
 

another_someone

  • Guest
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #5 on: 25/10/2007 00:00:28 »
Check this out from 2004

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/07/MNGS161ML91.DTL

But how do you prove which is cause and which is effect?
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #6 on: 25/10/2007 03:44:22 »
Sniffle - I am living proof of the actuality of this. The gland is no longer in the building - er, body. The area has been irradiated. This is right on.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/07/MNGS161ML91.DTL

I cry myself to sleep every night -

Why, God, was I raised Baptist ????????
 

lyner

  • Guest
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #7 on: 25/10/2007 14:21:27 »
Quote
But how do you prove which is cause and which is effect?

So a propensity for prostate cancer suppresses libido for all your life?. Could be, but the article can reassure quite a few of us.
And it gives the excuse for quite an enjoyable experiment.
Just what would we do if the reverse was shown to apply?
 

another_someone

  • Guest
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #8 on: 25/10/2007 17:00:26 »
So a propensity for prostate cancer suppresses libido for all your life?. Could be, but the article can reassure quite a few of us.
And it gives the excuse for quite an enjoyable experiment.
Just what would we do if the reverse was shown to apply?

At present, there is much controversy as to the efficacy of early prostate cancer detection (because most prostate cancers are very slow growing, and the treatment for is is quite radical) - otherwise one could suggest that low libido may be used to indicate one should check more rigorously for cancers.

On the other hand, from the point of view of future research, it is very critical to understand whether we are looking at a cause or merely an indicator.
 

lyner

  • Guest
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #9 on: 28/10/2007 16:39:56 »
I have heard it said that many  more men die with prostate cancer than die from it.
There are many risks both to your sexual function and your bladder function from existing prostate treatments.
What is needed is a more accurate test than the PSA test which could give a better indication of how serious your problem is and whether treatment is necessary. Early screening would, then, be a better deal and allow a better informed choice as to whether to have treatment or not.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
prostate cancer risk
« Reply #10 on: 28/10/2007 20:59:28 »
So a propensity for prostate cancer suppresses libido for all your life?. Could be, but the article can reassure quite a few of us.
And it gives the excuse for quite an enjoyable experiment.
Just what would we do if the reverse was shown to apply?

At present, there is much controversy as to the efficacy of early prostate cancer detection (because most prostate cancers are very slow growing, and the treatment for is is quite radical) - otherwise one could suggest that low libido may be used to indicate one should check more rigorously for cancers.

On the other hand, from the point of view of future research, it is very critical to understand whether we are looking at a cause or merely an indicator.

The early cancer detection was critical for me. My PSA wasn't over the "normal" line but right at it (4 with the US standardized test.) My doctor said "It is probably nothing but lets have it checked out anyway."  The biopsy came back with only 2 of the 6 biopsies taken showing cancer and with those both under 20% of cancer.

I opted for the "safe than sorry option" and when the biopsy came back I was very glad I had done so. The cancer had penetrated the prostate capsule and begun to spread. One of the problems with the radical prostectamy is that the seminal vesicles are almost impossible to remove totally from the abdomen. As these are part of the genital system and plumbed directly to the prostate cancer is common in them even if there is no capsule penetration. The implantation of radioactive beads does not address this.

The cancer had spread to mine and radioactive beads would not have served me any good.

It is true that more men die with prostate cancer than from it. But it is also the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the U.S., just after colorectal cancer. Together, heart-vascular disease and cancer account for over 50% of total deaths in men under 65 with the percentages 26-24% in favor of cardio-vascular, prostate cancer is NOT to be ignored - it is something to be acted upon, no matter what the other considerations are. It might be OK for men over 65 to wait and see, but those LESS THAN 65 should ACT and take proactive steps at 45 to start assessing their prostate health. Have a PSA done yearly. The early developing PC is much more virulent than the later developing and has a genetic component to it.

I do have both of the side effects of surgery but they are well worth the fact that my radiologist told me in August that if my cancer had not been totally eliminated by radiation it would have shown up by now, 3.5 years from last radiation.

I was diagnosed at 56.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2007 21:02:05 by JimBob »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

prostate cancer risk
« Reply #10 on: 28/10/2007 20:59:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums