• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Dave Bloke

George Monbiot dying of prostrate cancer

Recommended Posts

i will give him his due he has admited he has never smoked or drank and has lived an increadably healthy life style,i just need to live another 3 years and ask myself would i give all that up to live to the same age ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

Terrible killer of men. Not enough is talked about it. Not enough funding put into it so I am told.

you sexist bastard we need more female cancer funding inspite of them liveing longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stokiescum said:

you sexist bastard we need more female cancer funding inspite of them liveing longer

A medic friend of mine - forget who - only said to me a few weeks ago how shocking it is that so little money and media focus there is on this compared to other ones.

It shouldn't be a competition of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

A medic friend of mine - forget who - only said to me a few weeks ago how shocking it is that so little money and media focus there is on this compared to other ones.

It shouldn't be a competition of course.

Men dont get ill.

Saying so is sexist and anti women.

Women hover up more thn their fare share of medical resources.. Insane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stokiescum said:

i will give him his due he has admited he has never smoked or drank and has lived an increadably healthy life style,i just need to live another 3 years and ask myself would i give all that up to live to the same age ...

 

Isnt that not the case with prostate?

If hed lived a less pure life, with looks of ejaculating then the chancesof prostate problems, up to and inc. cancer, are meant to be a lot lower?

I used to work with a woman who's hubby had prostate issues - not cancer, but high PSA and problems peeing and the like, side effects from the medicine. Pretty bad, and grinding down. Bloke at the time was only in his early 50s.

I did google and foudn the ejactulation thing - sort of makes sense - use it or loose it, dont keep sperm hanging around rotting.

I think that busty 18yo prozzies should be available on the NHS for blokes over 40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

A medic friend of mine - forget who - only said to me a few weeks ago how shocking it is that so little money and media focus there is on this compared to other ones.

It shouldn't be a competition of course.

There was an interview on, I think,  the Today programme the other day where a top person from the NHS on cancer was debating with a medic from the US where PSA screening is common place.

The US medic argued that PSA screening should start when a man was 45 yrs old because it was not the person's level of PSA necessarily, as everyone has an individual level, but it is the change in an individual's level, and you only appreciate that by obtaining a baseline at age 45 and subsequent annual monitoring. Common sense you would have thought.

The precautionary US viewpoint was dismissed out of hand by the NHS spokesperson because, as they rightly, said, individual PSA levels are an unreliable indicator of prostrate cancer and so there is little to be gained from measuring them at a single point in time, in fact they can unduly raise alarm and lead to unecessary interventions. The person went on to say that you could go to your Dr and request a one-off test but expect to be challenged as to why you need one and what benefit it will serve.

Well, yes, quite, that is the fucking point the US medic was making, the purpose of monitoring is to get an individual perspective and understanding.

The NHS person was a woman and I found her whole attitude on the subject disingenuous and dismissive, it was transparently cost saving. A man dismissing female cancer screening in that way, such as cervical smear tests, would face outrage.

Every bloke in the UK at 45 should go to their GP and demand a PSA test and annually thereafter. Give the system a headache.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Wahoo said:

If any DOSBODers need this operation...make sure you find a hospital with one of these.   They are becoming more widespread. Plymouth has one now.

Amazing technology.

 

Private surely? I’m not sure it would run on Derrifords Windows XP setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reck B said:

Private surely? I’m not sure it would run on Derrifords Windows XP setup.

No...NHS.  My understanding is that Derriford bought one a couple of years ago.

 

https://www.theplymouthdaily.co.uk/news/local-news/robot-open-day-huge-success

Just now, Hopeful said:

No, Derriford, NHS for once

hospital-robot-helps-treat-radical-prostatecotmies

 

 

Beat me to it...haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Every bloke in the UK at 45 should go to their GP and demand a PSA test and annually thereafter. Give the system a headache.

I'm not particularly bothered about screening despite being a bloke, but - I wonder what kid of testing regime say, Prince Philip, has?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PSA test isn't actually a good indicator with respect to the presence of cancer.

The antigen levels are used to monitor the effectiveness of treatment.

There are many reasons for an increased PSA level other than cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Wahoo said:

The PSA test isn't actually a good indicator with respect to the presence of cancer.

The antigen levels are used to monitor the effectiveness of treatment.

There are many reasons for an increased PSA level other than cancer.

Isn't that the case for monitoring, though?

Individuals can have very different baseline PSA levels and so it is a sudden change in an individuals level that may indicate a change in the prostate that warrants further investigation.

If you are an individual with a naturally high level of PSA and get measured once, you might trigger unecessary subsequent tests because the level of PSA is diagnostically, unreliable, and simply because it is not realised that you have a naturally high baseline level due to the lack of previous measurements to place the single measure into a personal context.

And therefore monitoring is helpful ?

 

 

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Isn't that the case for monitoring, though?

Individuals can have very different baseline PSA levels and so it is a sudden change in an individuals level that may indicate a change in the prostate that warrants further investigation.

If you are an individual with a naturally high level of PSA and get measured once, you might trigger unecessary subsequent tests because the level of PSA is diagnostically, unreliable, and simply because it is not realised that you have a naturally high baseline level due to the lack of previous measurements to place the single measure into a personal context.

And therefore monitoring is helpful ?

 

 

Yes - good points.

Trying to convince your GP to be tested regularly will be difficult - it's an expensive immunoassay test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wahoo said:

Yes - good points.

Trying to convince your GP to be tested regularly will be difficult - it's an expensive immunoassay test.

It should get cheaper with numbers screened, immunoassay need not be expensive. Volume discounts shoud be available. The companies that sell the kits can be negotiated with.

It is simply an unwillingness to raise the cancer up the priority list.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

Terrible killer of men. Not enough is talked about it. Not enough funding put into it so I am told.

Men are disposable. I had no idea until recently that prostate cancer was so common or such a big killer compared to breast cancer, due to the difference in media coverage.

Two of my friends had testicular cancer at around the age of 30 - that seems terribly young and would indicate that such cancers are on the rise.

3 hours ago, spygirl said:

If hed lived a less pure life, with looks of ejaculating then the chancesof prostate problems, up to and inc. cancer, are meant to be a lot lower?

....

I think that busty 18yo prozzies should be available on the NHS for blokes over 40.

Years ago I read a post by an American doctor in his 50's/60's who anecdotally reported that his patients that had snagged hot younger wives and were banging them on a regular basis had less health issues, specifically prostate issues, as they aged. He said that the close-to-celibate life that many men, even those who are married, lead, is very bad for their long term health.

It's also true that sex with an actual woman produces a different hormonal response in a man than sex with one's hand.

 

Edited by JoeDavola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

Men are disposable. I had no idea until recently that prostate cancer was so common or such a big killer compared to breast cancer, due to the difference in media coverage.

Two of my friends had testicular cancer at around the age of 30 - that seems terribly young and would indicate that such cancers are on the rise.

Years ago I read a post by an American doctor in his 50's/60's who anecdotally reported that his patients that had snagged hot younger wives and were banging them on a regular basis had less health issues, specifically prostate issues, as they aged. He said that the close-to-celibate life that many men, even those who are married, lead, is very bad for their long term health.

It's also true that sex with an actual woman produces a different hormonal response in a man than sex with one's hand.

 

Another reason why rich men live longer......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.