I have been on this blog for about a month and have been very active reading just about every post and followed many. It is overwhelming how much experience and knowledge everyone is willing to share. (Please check my profile and initial post for my background, if interested).
The problem for me is there are so many differing opinions and drugs/scan types/protocols mentioned, the confusion just gets greater over a path that makes sense.
I am an analytical person and have made lists and spreadsheets of every option I have read about and tried to relate to their relative success rate. It seems to me that there are two overall issues (probably many more). Does an affected person who is willing to take the straight and narrow palliative approach (ADT plus some chemo or other therapy) with relatively no major side effect stay with it for as long as it lasts OR does one want to battle for as long as he can stand the side effects and costs over and above insurance, perhaps with major effects on quality of life, financial well-being, and family for possibly an extended period of time.
For many of you, that may represent a stupid dilemma but, even with a pc-specialized MO, so much still depends on one's body responses to whatever path is chosen - and there are so many. I could go on with this post, but this is enough to prompt some reply. It appears to me that almost everyone on this blog prefers the latter approach.