I was diagnosed with BPH one year ago. I started Silosidine Silodosine+Dutasteride 9 months ago which clearly improved my symptoms.
Then 6 months ago I started a low dose feminization HRT (estradiol patches, no AA besides Dutasteride).
Everything went well until I had to undergo a minor surgery (phlebectomy) which was performed under general anaesthesia though. That was 7 weeks ago.
In the mean time, 5 weeks ago, my endo has doubled the estradiol dose I take twice a week. Since that time BPH symptoms have recurred. I wonder if it might be due to the increase of estradiol intake. Informations I have found are contradictory. Some tell that exposition to estrogen makes the prostate shrink, others (a lot) tell that it makes the prostate grow.
I have an appointment with my urologist next week. I am scared that he asks me to stop HRT.
If anyone has more information (with scientific references) on this subject, it might help me a lot for the discussion with the doctor (I know he has no or very few experience with trans patients).
Thanks for any advice !
I am not an expert on this but lowering your T levels should cause your prostate to shrink. There is a possibility if you are not on blockers that the estrogen isn't sufficient to reduce you T levels but without blood test results, it's a bit of a guessing game. Your Endo and urologist may need to talk and decide what the best way to shift your chemical balance to bring things under control.
Quote from: Dena on March 16, 2016, 04:33:05 PM
I am not an expert on this but lowering your T levels should cause your prostate to shrink. There is a possibility if you are not on blockers that the estrogen isn't sufficient to reduce you T levels but without blood test results, it's a bit of a guessing game.
Sorry I forgot to give my last results (dated this week):
- 17beta-estradiol: 67 pg/ml
- testosterone: 2.10 ng/ml
QuoteYour Endo and urologist may need to talk and decide what the best way to shift your chemical balance to bring things under control.
I hope they both will accept to cooperate with each other. But even if they do, I would prefer to have enough information and arguments beforehand so that I am able to understand and discuss their decision.
High doses of estrogen have been prescribed for decades to men with prostate cancer. If there was any chance E increased the size of the prostate, I very much doubt this practice would have persisted for so long. Results seem quite positive.
Prostate 1991;18(2):131-7
"Four hundred and seventy-seven prospectively randomized patients with
prostatic carcinoma were treated with a combination of intramuscular
polyestradiol phosphate (PEP) and oral ethinyl estradiol, with
intramuscular PEP alone, or with orchiectomy."
"Age-standardized mortality from cardiovascular diseases was very low in the
PEP group, as compared to other treatment modalities, and the mortality rates
for prostatic cancer were about equal in all three treatment groups.
It is concluded that intramuscular PEP monotherapy is associated with
low cardiovascular mortality and with an all-cause and prostatic
cancer mortality equal to orchiectomy."
Prostate 1989;14(4):389-95
"Oral estrogen therapy for prostatic cancer is clinically effective"
Prostate 1988;13(3):257-61
"Thirty-eight patients with cancer of the prostate were treated with
strict parenteral estrogen"
"Twenty-nine of the 38 patients (76%)
have responded to therapy."
J Urol. 2003 May;169(5):1735-7.
"We report preliminary results of a pilot study
using transdermal estradiol therapy to treat men with advanced
prostate cancer."
"Transdermal estradiol therapy produced an effective
tumor response."
I am post-op, I take high doses of E and have very little T. My PSA is VERY low.
There is the problem and time to have a talk with your Endo. Your T levels are still at the lower end of the male range so a blocker might be appropriate.
http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/hrt_ref.htm
Quote from: Lucie on March 16, 2016, 04:53:00 PM
- 17beta-estradiol: 67 pg/ml
- testosterone: 2.10 ng/ml
Your estradiol is LOW and testosterone levels above female range (210 ng/dl).
Where did you read that estrogen makes the prostate grow? Are these studies? In humans?
I heard that dutasteride may actually increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer although this risk seems VERY low.
Quote from: Dena on March 16, 2016, 05:00:31 PM
There is the problem and time to have a talk with your Endo. Your T levels are still at the lower end of the male range so a blocker might be appropriate.
http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/hrt_ref.htm
Thanks Dena for the link. I will talk to my endo and to my urologist as well. I expect that they will decide I have to take CPA :-( which is the main AA prescribed for trans women in France where I live.
Quote from: KayXo on March 16, 2016, 05:04:05 PM
Your estradiol is LOW and testosterone levels above female range (210 ng/dl).
Where did you read that estrogen makes the prostate grow? Are these studies? In humans?
"Androgens and estrogens in benign prostatic hyperplasia: past, present and future"
Tristan M. Nicholson and William A. Ricke
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179830 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179830)
Quote
I heard that dutasteride may actually increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer although this risk seems VERY low.
The same is for finasteride.
This is the reason why my urologist prescribed dutasteride at 1/3 dose.
But as you say the risk seems very low. The "Long-Term Survival of Participants in the Prostate Cancer
Prevention Trial" study (https://swog.org/Visitors/PCPT/NEJM2013.pdf) has shown that ten-year survival rates were higher in the Finasteride group than in the placebo group...
Quote from: Lucie on March 16, 2016, 05:20:32 PM
I expect that they will decide I have to take CPA :-( which is the main AA prescribed for trans women in France where I live.
Just beware of depression, irritability, extreme fatigue on it. Happens to some. Vitamin B12 levels may drop. CPA is also known to increase prolactin levels and has been implicated in some cases of prolactinoma in transsexual women (only 8 cases reported in the literature) so watch out for that as well AND galactorrhea, especially. It may increase water retention, dull libido and affect adrenal activity, being a glucocorticoid agonist. Finally, it may adversely affect coagulation, slightly increasing it. High doses have the potential to cause hepatotoxicity, more so long-term. Many have done quite well with low doses, including me.
Another anti-androgen available is bicalutamide.
Quote from: KayXo on March 16, 2016, 05:34:08 PM
Just beware of depression, irritability, extreme fatigue on it. Happens to some. Vitamin B12 levels may drop. CPA is also known to increase prolactin levels and has been implicated in some cases of prolactinoma in transsexual women (only 8 cases reported in the literature) so watch out for that as well AND galactorrhea, especially. It may increase water retention, dull libido and affect adrenal activity, being a glucocorticoid agonist. Finally, it may adversely affect coagulation, slightly increasing it. High doses have the potential to cause hepatotoxicity, more so long-term.
This is what I fear.
Until recently I was hoping that estrogens would be sufficient for the level of feminization I aim, without the need of any AA...
QuoteMany have done quite well with low doses, including me.
If the doctors conclude towards CPA I'll ask a low dosage, as for estradiol.
QuoteAnother anti-androgen available is bicalutamide.
Thanks Kay for the details. I will discuss the bicalutamide option with both doctors.
There is one other way to control the T levels that isn't normally considered but might be a solution for you and thats having a Orchiectomy. I am not sure how it's handled in your country so it might be out of the question.
Quote from: Lucie on March 16, 2016, 05:28:33 PM
Androgens and estrogens in benign prostatic hyperplasia: past, present and future
Tristan M. Nicholson and William A. Ricke
And yet, we only have 4 reported cases of prostate cancer as of 2013 in transsexual women, despite sometimes, very aggressives doses of estrogen prescribed to transsexual women for several decades.
Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 Jul-Aug; 7(7-8): E544–E546."The development of prostate adenocarcinoma in feminized transgender women is extremely rare. It has been assumed that castration in early life protects against prostate cancer. There are a few case series on castrated Ottoman court eunuchs, who, after 44 years, have small or non-palpable prostates on digital rectal examination, with evidence of atrophy on histological examination.1 It might suggest that the development and the viability of the gland throughout life require the continued presence of androgens. After 8 months of anti-androgen or estrogen therapy, the histological appearance of the prostate reveals low content of malignant epithelial cells, which are only detectible by immunohisto-chemical staining."
I have not fully read the study you provided, but from what I gather so far, the idea that estrogen can cause prostate to grow comes from animal studies (findings not necessarily applicable to us) and the fact that it occurs in men when estrogen to androgen ratio increases BUT as far as I know, estrogen levels stay more or less the same with age (non significant increase) whereas androgens decrease significantly with age, so perhaps high levels of androgens were protective? I always wondered about this...Perhaps, one or the other sex hormone needs to be there, enough of either to prevent cancer to occur?
Quote from: Lucie on March 16, 2016, 05:48:29 PM
Until recently I was hoping that estrogens would be sufficient for the level of feminization I aim, without the need of any AA...
At one patch, T levels are already quite low, but not low enough so perhaps 2 (or 3 patches) will do the trick without having to resort to any AA? One can also, with the consent of doctors, add gel and combine this with patch.
Lucie,
Did you have your PSA levels tested? Perhaps you should. And a digital rectal exam, just to be sure as PSA is not always reliable. See what your doctor thinks... (I speak French, btw).
Quote from: Dena on March 16, 2016, 06:11:09 PM
There is one other way to control the T levels that isn't normally considered but might be a solution for you and thats having a Orchiectomy. I am not sure how it's handled in your country so it might be out of the question.
A friend of mine who did not want vaginoplasty has chosen orchiectomy for getting rid of AA (this surgery is practised by some surgeons in my country). She is quite satisfied of her choice. So yes, orchiectomy might be the right answer for me. I just have to accept the idea that I'll have to keep my male genitals until the end of my life...
Quote from: KayXo on March 16, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
And yet, we only have 4 reported cases of prostate cancer as of 2013 in transsexual women, despite sometimes, very aggressives doses of estrogen prescribed to transsexual women for several decades.
Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 Jul-Aug; 7(7-8): E544–E546.
"The development of prostate adenocarcinoma in feminized transgender women is extremely rare. It has been assumed that castration in early life protects against prostate cancer. There are a few case series on castrated Ottoman court eunuchs, who, after 44 years, have small or non-palpable prostates on digital rectal examination, with evidence of atrophy on histological examination.1 It might suggest that the development and the viability of the gland throughout life require the continued presence of androgens. After 8 months of anti-androgen or estrogen therapy, the histological appearance of the prostate reveals low content of malignant epithelial cells, which are only detectible by immunohisto-chemical staining."
I am no longer in my early life. I started HRT at 64...
Besides that I wonder if BPH and prostate cancer respond in the same way to sex hormones (?).
QuoteI have not fully read the study you provided, but from what I gather so far, the idea that estrogen can cause prostate to grow comes from animal studies (findings not necessarily applicable to us) and the fact that it occurs in men when estrogen to androgen ratio increases BUT as far as I know, estrogen levels stay more or less the same with age (non significant increase) whereas androgens decrease significantly with age, so perhaps high levels of androgens were protective? I always wondered about this...Perhaps, one or the other sex hormone needs to be there, enough of either to prevent cancer to occur?
I agree with you that animal models are not necessarily applicable to humans.
In the study I mentionned the authors state that estrogen levels raise with age due to aromatase. But they also say that "the precise role of endogenous and exogenous estrogens in directly affecting prostate growth and differentiation in the context of BPH is an understudied area".
You are probably right when you tell that BPH (and/or prostate cancer) result from insufficient overall sex hormones level (in the same way that it causes menopause deseases for cis women). At least, I hope so...
Quote from: KayXo on March 16, 2016, 06:15:12 PM
At one patch, T levels are already quite low, but not low enough so perhaps 2 (or 3 patches) will do the trick without having to resort to any AA? One can also, with the consent of doctors, add gel and combine this with patch.
I will wait until I have seen my urologist next week and then I'll ask my endo if I should increase the estradiol dose at once (it was already doubled one month ago).
Quote from: KayXo on March 16, 2016, 07:00:22 PM
Lucie,
Did you have your PSA levels tested? Perhaps you should. And a digital rectal exam, just to be sure as PSA is not always reliable. See what your doctor thinks... (I speak French, btw).
I assume that the urologist will prescribe a PSA dosage. As for the digital rectal exam, I don't like that at all but if it's necessary I will submit to his finger. :(
Thanks a lot Kay and Dena for all your advices and suggestions.
Hugs to all of you.
Quote from: Lucie on March 17, 2016, 04:23:33 AM
I am no longer in my early life. I started HRT at 64...
In theory, you starting HRT now should still reduce your risk of getting prostate cancer. Consider the low incidence of this cancer amongst eunuchs and transsexual women relative to men.
QuoteI wonder if BPH and prostate cancer respond in the same way to sex hormones (?).
BPH usually resolves upon starting anti-androgens and/or estrogens. Prostate cancer appears to also respond positively to the treatment of estrogen or anti-androgens (and/or orchiectomy).
QuoteIn the study I mentionned the authors state that estrogen levels raise with age due to aromatase.
I doubt the increase is significant.
QuoteBut they also say that "the precise role of endogenous and exogenous estrogens in directly affecting prostate growth and differentiation in the context of BPH is an understudied area".
If indeed estrogens could induce growth, we would observe many more incidences of BPH and prostate cancer in transsexual women (6 reported cases, after more thorough investigation), some of whom were treated with quite high doses of estrogen over the years. The opposite seems to actually be true.
QuoteYou are probably right when you tell that BPH (and/or prostate cancer) result from insufficient overall sex hormones level (in the same way that it causes menopause deseases for cis women).
Or perhaps, it is just a result of weakened body defenses (immune system), dysregulation of proliferation, body not working as well, which naturally occurs due to ageing. This seems the most likely to me, after thinking it through.
Quote from: KayXo on March 17, 2016, 08:41:58 AM
Or perhaps, it is just a result of weakened body defenses (immune system), dysregulation of proliferation, body not working as well, which naturally occurs due to ageing. This seems the most likely to me, after thinking it through.
Kay, are you saying that I am too old for engaging in HRT ? :)
Not at all. I am saying that cancers, and other physical problems occur more as we age, because, possibly, of these reasons BUT HRT may actually help body be more resilient, healthier, age slower and live longer.
Quote from: KayXo on March 17, 2016, 09:06:23 AM
Not at all. I am saying that cancers, and other physical problems occur more as we age, because, possibly, of these reasons BUT HRT may actually help body be more resilient, healthier, age slower and live longer.
Ah okay, I am reassured ! ;)
Actually, though this is not my primary goal I do hope that HRT will help me to stay healthy.
Keep us posted. :)
Quote from: KayXo on March 17, 2016, 02:37:52 PM
Keep us posted. :)
Ok. Thanks a lot for your encouragements !
Quote from: Lucie on March 17, 2016, 03:54:06 AM
A friend of mine who did not want vaginoplasty has chosen orchiectomy for getting rid of AA (this surgery is practised by some surgeons in my country). She is quite satisfied of her choice. So yes, orchiectomy might be the right answer for me. I just have to accept the idea that I'll have to keep my male genitals until the end of my life...
An orchiectomy cost very little and if done correctly, will not interfere with SRS at a latter date. Now the medical treatment in your country may be different and you may be able to only chose one, but it might be possible to state the orchiectomy was done for the treatment of cancer leaving the door open for SRS.
Quote from: Dena on March 17, 2016, 03:54:37 PM
An orchiectomy cost very little and if done correctly, will not interfere with SRS at a latter date. Now the medical treatment in your country may be different and you may be able to only chose one, but it might be possible to state the orchiectomy was done for the treatment of cancer leaving the door open for SRS.
That would signify that I have been treated for a prostate cancer, which I hope will never be !
Besides that I am not sure that social insurance will accept to fund an orchiectomy for treating a BPH... :-\
So if I plan to undergo an orchiectomy and later a SRS, I will have to pay myself the full cost of the orchiectomy. But as you tell it the latter should not be very expensive.
Quote from: Lucie on March 17, 2016, 04:44:18 AM
I assume that the urologist will prescribe a PSA dosage. As for the digital rectal exam, I don't like that at all but if it's necessary I will submit to his finger. :(
In regards to prostate cancer screening neither the PSA or DRE are recommended by the Canadian Task Force for Preventive Health Care. The US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend the PSA and are currently undergoing a review of their recommendations. Here are some links of interest.
http://canadiantaskforce.ca/ctfphc-guidelines/2014-prostate-cancer/clinician-faq/
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/prostate-cancer-screening?ds=1&s=prostate%20cancer
http://www.cochrane.org/CD004720/PROSTATE_screening-for-prostate-cancer
http://www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive_Lifestyle_Changes_and_Prostate_Cancer.pdf
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/prostate-cancer/
Thanks a lot Wendy for the links.
These documents are of high interest to me, they will help me in discussing with the urologist.
The three first ones are clearly against prostate cancer screening.
The fourth one is also quite interesting since it discusses the relationship between lifestyle and prostate cancer (I have not yet read it entirely).
From what I have read the last document advocates a vegetarian diet for preventing prostate cancer ; however it does not provide scientific references for what is asserted (unless I missed them).
Quote from: WendyA on March 17, 2016, 10:03:21 PM
In regards to prostate cancer screening neither the PSA or DRE are recommended by the Canadian Task Force for Preventive Health Care. The US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend the PSA and are currently undergoing a review of their recommendations. Here are some links of interest.
http://canadiantaskforce.ca/ctfphc-guidelines/2014-prostate-cancer/clinician-faq/
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/prostate-cancer-screening?ds=1&s=prostate%20cancer
http://www.cochrane.org/CD004720/PROSTATE_screening-for-prostate-cancer
Because transsexual women's hormonal milieu differs significantly from that of men, these findings, I think, should be interpreted with caution as there is a chance those same findings would not have been found in our population. Perhaps, a high PSA level in transsexual women (which should be the opposite of what we find) results in less false-positives and/or prostate cancers in transsexual women are more aggressive, advance at a quicker pace, etc. I agree that those recommendations make sense in the context of men, the evidence seems solid.
Quotehttp://www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive_Lifestyle_Changes_and_Prostate_Cancer.pdf
The problem I see is this:
1) In the intro, it is stated that associations have been found between the intake of certain vitamins, minerals, foods and low prostate cancer risk and also between parts of the world where low fat, plant diet are predominantly eaten and risk of prostate cancer. Any good scientist will tell you that no causation can be inferred from associations as there is a multitude of variables involved, not controlled for and thus we cannot clearly point at which variable or variables are indeed responsible for reducing risk. We just don't know! Nothing for certain can be inferred from this.
2) The intervention was multi-faceted in that many new changes were implemented. Whether the results can be attributed to eating more fruits, taking more vitamin C, taking more fish oil, participating in a support group, doing more exercise, meditating, etc, we just don't know. Too many variables were manipulated. So, again, absolutely nothing certain or useful can be inferred from this study. If instead, they had focused on one variable, while controlling for others, results would have been more revealing and suggestive.
Quotehttp://nutritionfacts.org/topics/prostate-cancer/
And indeed, as Lucy correctly states, there are no scientific references that support statements made on that site. And most likely, if there are in fact studies that supposedly support these statements, they are the type that show associations and not causation, so not convincing at all.
Quote from: KayXo on March 18, 2016, 09:35:26 AM
Because transsexual women's hormonal milieu differs significantly from that of men, these findings, I think, should be interpreted with caution as there is a chance those same findings would not have been found in our population. Perhaps, a high PSA level in transsexual women (which should be the opposite of what we find) results in less false-positives and/or prostate cancers in transsexual women are more aggressive, advance at a quicker pace, etc. I agree that those recommendations make sense in the context of men, the evidence seems solid.
That makes sense. It must be taken in account in the discussion I'll have with my urologist.
QuoteThe problem I see is this:
1) In the intro, it is stated that associations have been found between the intake of certain vitamins, minerals, foods and low prostate cancer risk and also between parts of the world where low fat, plant diet are predominantly eaten and risk of prostate cancer. Any good scientist will tell you that no causation can be inferred from associations as there is a multitude of variables involved, not controlled for and thus we cannot clearly point at which variable or variables are indeed responsible for reducing risk. We just don't know! Nothing for certain can be inferred from this.
2) The intervention was multi-faceted in that many new changes were implemented. Whether the results can be attributed to eating more fruits, taking more vitamin C, taking more fish oil, participating in a support group, doing more exercise, meditating, etc, we just don't know. Too many variables were manipulated. So, again, absolutely nothing certain or useful can be inferred from this study. If instead, they had focused on one variable, while controlling for others, results would have been more revealing and suggestive.
Again I can only agree with Kay on that point. Correlation does not imply causality when numerous variables are involved, especially when some of them are hidden or unknown.
In fact I still have to read the relevant article. The title sounded appealing, but...
To elaborate on prostate cancer screening
"Two large randomised studies tested whether
screening reduces prostate cancer mortality and, while
the US trial reported no benefit,1
the European (ERSPC)
trial noted a significant reduction in mortality.2"
"In The Lancet, Fritz Schroder and colleagues3
now report 13-year mortality data from the ERSPC study.
At 9 years, screening appeared to reduce prostate cancer
mortality by 15% (rate ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·70–1·03);
this reduction was 22% at 11 years (0·78, 0·66–0·91)
and 21% at 13 years (0·79, 0·69–0·91). Importantly,
the number needed to invite to be screened to prevent
one death fell from 1410 at 9 years to 781 at 13 years;
the number needed to detect cancer fell from 48 to 27,
showing continued improvement in the absolute effect
of screening."
"Despite this finding, present prostate-specific
antigen (PSA)-based screening is imperfect."
"It is this trio of drawbacks (overdetection,
treatment complications, and disease progression) that
leads to the uncertainty about the role of screening."
"An improved understanding of prostate cancer might
tip the balance towards increased use of screening."
"If most of the patients with low-risk prostate cancer in the
ERSPC intervention group (60% of all the cancers diagnosed)
were managed with active surveillance, the side-effects of treatment
would be substantially reduced."
"To further mitigate the disadvantages of screening, it is
now possible to use screening results to counsel patients
who would generally receive a biopsy recommendation
regarding their individual trade-off s of prostate
biopsy: a potential benefit of detection of high-grade
cancer, allowing for treatment and reduction in risk
of cancer death versus a potential risk of detection of
low-grade cancers that are most commonly indolent,
for which treatment has few benefits but considerable
potential side-effects"
"We have noted that, when such information is provided
to patients, fewer men who are apt to be overdetected
will choose biopsy. This information, coupled with new
biomarkers that are focused on detection of potentially
lethal disease, improves the benefit–risk ratio of prostate
cancer screening."
"Because the median follow-up from diagnosis of
prostate cancer was 6·4 years for the intervention group
and 4·3 years in the control group, and because high-risk
disease often requires 12–15 years to cause death,
we would not be surprised if the benefit of screening
becomes more apparent with longer follow-up."
To quickly resume, the benefit of PSA screening may become more apparent with time and disadvantages of screening may be reduced by undertaking certain measures (active surveillance, no biopsies with low risk factors) so that benefits of screening may outweigh drawbacks. So, conclusions by these task forces may be indeed too quickly drawn up.
For these and other reasons mentioned above, I still think it would be in our best interest to do screening, after the age of 60 (when prostate cancers have been found in transsexual women), perhaps even before, after age 50, to be on the safe side, as the majority of prostate cancers in men occurs after this age.
And I, just now, came across this! :D
Andrologia. 2014 Dec;46(10):1156-60.
Prostate cancer incidence in orchidectomised male-to-female transsexual persons treated with oestrogens.
Gooren L1, Morgentaler A.
« When diagnosed in this population, there appears to be a tendency for PCa to behave aggressively. Prostate monitoring should be considered in these individuals beginning at age 50 years."
They agree with my conclusions.
Quote from: KayXo on March 18, 2016, 04:35:32 PM
And I, just now, came across this! :D
Andrologia. 2014 Dec;46(10):1156-60.
Prostate cancer incidence in orchidectomised male-to-female transsexual persons treated with oestrogens.
Gooren L1, Morgentaler A.
« When diagnosed in this population, there appears to be a tendency for PCa to behave aggressively. Prostate monitoring should be considered in these individuals beginning at age 50 years."
They agree with my conclusions.
Wow, this is not reassuring at all. Unfortunately the full text is not freely available.
Quote from: KayXo on March 17, 2016, 02:37:52 PM
Keep us posted. :)
Today I had my appointment with my urologist. Total disappointment. I think he is not the right interlocutor for taking care/charge of my BPH, taking in account my HRT at same time. I have to find another one.
The search continues...Good luck! :)
Quote from: Lucie on March 18, 2016, 06:58:04 AMFrom what I have read the last document advocates a vegetarian diet for preventing prostate cancer ; however it does not provide scientific references for what is asserted (unless I missed them).
Yes Lucie you missed them because the page I linked to was simply an index page for the topic. Each video linked from that article is meticulously cited by simply clicking the Sources Cited button next to the video. You won't find many sites out there that do as good as job at citing sources.
Quote from: KayXo on March 18, 2016, 09:35:26 AMQuote
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/prostate-cancer/
And indeed, as Lucy correctly states, there are no scientific references that support statements made on that site. And most likely, if there are in fact studies that supposedly support these statements, they are the type that show associations and not causation, so not convincing at all.
As I explained to Lucie above this is one of the best cited sites on the web.
He often cites multiple studies. Many of them you may not like and many of them will meet your approval, but the bottom line is that he usually evaluates and presents what would be considered the best current science based on a preponderance of the evidence.
That said nothing on his page may have any direct bearing on what Lucie is facing, I just wanted to give her as much info as possible.
Thank you again Wendy for the links you have provided.
As for the site nutritionfacts.org my problem is the way information is presented. In my opinion videos are not the best media for providing and commenting factual scientific data. It sounds to me too much as a show. As regards the sources cited, sorry I had missed the button next each video. But, as Kay has said, these sources mostly show correlation between observed phenomenons but lack convincing demonstration of a true causal relationship between them.