This is important news for Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients. A custom antibiotic could be developed to kill these 5 bacteria, and possibly stop further spread of PCa. healthunlocked.com/redirect...
Hi Guys & Gals, I posted this 2 days ... - Advanced Prostate...
Advanced Prostate Cancer
There are lots of hopes and maybes. Of course I want one of them to pan out.
The government is overseeing 20+ RCTs focusing on gut biome and prostate cancer. I follow the government RCTs with an RSS feed and if one of these trials looks like something, I plan on posting it if I am still alive.
These are somewhat related:
Akkermansia is speculated to be a PCa beneficial gut bacteria: Strategies to promote abundance of Akkermansia muciniphila, an emerging probiotic in the gut, evidence from dietary intervention studies - PMC
Akkermansia is speculated to be a PCa beneficial gut bacteria: Abiraterone acetate preferentially enriches for the gut commensal Akkermansia muciniphila in castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients | Nature Communications
If this pans out, would be wonderful!!!
I don't know what kind of replies you expected to a lab test like that. Just some media nonsense.
I agree with TA.
99 out of 100 times you are smart to agree with Allen. My thinking is no stone unturned. We all learned something today. Is a cure coming from more pharmaceuticals like Lupron and Zytiga? Maybe. I know they are extending my life. But cure? Where will it come from? This is the first I had ever read about Bacteria as a possibility. So I shared. Thats all. I shared. I did not tell anyone to go try anything. Period. Mike
I know Allen, I was thinking of you when I posted. You want clinical Trials with peer review. I get it, and I do not disagree. These new ideas are worth sharing. If these bacteria can be dealt with by customizing a new antibiotic, we will then see if Trials to prove or halt PCa progression. It is good to have hope, and good to know that new ideas are being pursued. For me, the SOC is clearly not improving OS by anything meaningful. We need to see new ideas. The old school seems to be spinning wheels. Mike
Your reaction is exactly why it is potentially harmful to share lab studies. You jumped, without any evidence, to the conclusion that the bacteria somehow cause prostate cancer or make it worse. Nothing can be further from the truth. Here are several alternative hypotheses:
• The bacteria are part of our body's natural protective mechanism against prostate cancer
• The bacteria are fed and propagate as a result of biochemical changes that PCa makes.
• Some people who are prone to getting prostate cancer are also prone to having that bacteria. It's just part of their biochemistry.
• Drugs taken for prostate cancer (like Lupron) create a microenvironment conducive to the growth of those bacteria.
The danger is that, like you, others may think that antibiotics will treat their PCa.
Far from providing hope, you are only providing a pseudoscientific basis for avoiding treatments that have proven efficacy.
Mainstream media look for sensational headlines, and internet "doctors," who do not have a clue as to how to evaluate any of that information, jump to erroneous conclusions. Many post on this site. My mailbox is filled with such nonsensical postings. Fortunately, most people on this site are educated enough to ignore such posts. I only responded now because you were whining about being rightfully (IMO) ignored.
It is also not true that the "old school is spinning wheels." Just in the last year, several new medications were approved for PCa (Pluvicto, Lynparza, Rubraca, Keytruda for MSI-hi/dMMR) as well as triplet therapy, and several PSMA PET scans.
There are 1,271 active clinical trials for prostate cancer - no lack of new ideas.
I do not think he was “providing a pseudoscientific basis for avoiding treatments that have proven efficacy.”, I think he was happy for some new knowledge being generated that may one day affect his life. It takes a while and significant $ to go from the lab to the clinic, but its nice to read easily digestable (pardon the pun!!) stories about PCa that drip some hope into our day.
What he wrote was:" If these bacteria can be dealt with by customizing a new antibiotic, we will then see if Trials to prove or halt PCa progression. " He wrongly assumed there was a causative link.
Can you point me to the RCT(s) that conclude that there is no possibility of a causative link? I try to keep up with the RCTs but so many come out that I have a hard time. I'd like to include them in my literature.
It's not even close to being explored in an RCT, let alone someone going off half-cocked and taking an antibiotic. That is exactly my point. One can notice, for example, that mutation in gene xyz (or bacteria ABC) is higher in men with advanced PCa than in men with BPH. That does NOT in any way imply that mutated gene xyz is responsible for causing prostate cancer. In fact, over 200 genes, both mutated and wild types, have been found to be associated. We also know that aberrations sometimes have to appear in 2 genes at a time, or 3 genes at a time, or perhaps all 200 genes at a time. So there are on the order of ~200! combinations just associated w PCa. This is the value of lab studies- to rule things OUT, not to rule things in.
For every 10,000 compounds screened->250 (2.5%) are entered into a preclinical study -> 5 (2%) are tested in clinical trials -> 1 gets FDA approval.
One can't go from an interesting observation to a therapy in one jump, and it does patients a disservice to imply that one can. Science is a process of hypothesis testing, not of jumping to crazy-ass claims.
I thought because you said that "nothing could be further from the truth" that it had been proven to be false.
The rest of your statements are reasonable. Do you know any good book or a solid article that explains some of these ground rules? I'd like to find one to point people to. An article might be the most helpful since I could cut and paste.
Those who consistently provide important scientific information on this site offer an enormous service to us all. Those who provide hope linked to scientific discoveries offer an equally important service. I am quite certain that an eventual cure for cancer will come from a source no one has yes considered, so lets not snuff out hope.
It is a great service you are doing by pedagogically showing why the chance is remote of such lab data ultimately resulting in something of clinical use. I am thinking both of the alternative hypothesis you gave in your previous response, and the dismal rate of transition from screening to preclinical to clinical trials you mention above, notwithstanding that the latter in part could be because of e.g. lack of funding.
The last step, from clinical trial to FDA approval, is the least dismal, with 20 % making it. Thanks to your critical posts I have learned to heavily prioritize clinical data, giving importance to preclinical data mainly when there is at least some clinical data backing it up.
This may be a sideline, but one thing I haven't figured out is whether preclinical data generally, when clinical data is absent, can safely be ignored also when it shows detrimental results from lab and animal studies. I suppose logically it should, but I find it hard to do.
Yeah but where you went off the rails was when you made the leap implying he was advocating “avoiding treatments”. He wasn’t. He was happy for a discovery.
Tall Allen, your name should be Tall-Ego!!
When people don't have anything useful to say about a subject, they resort to such childish ad hominem attacks.
He didn't go off the rails at all. Merely pointing out facts and to be careful. It is very easy for people desperate for a cure put too much faith and hope into things they read. If one looks long enough, you can find some obscure "cure" for everything. We all need hope of course. Just take new and possible cure articles with a grain of salt.
I like reading new studies and opinions. At the very least, it might help me prepare to answer a question about something - good or bad.
But I do agree that SOC isn't spinning its wheels. Lots of really neat breakthroughs. Yes, some are very incremental. But some have great potential. I have a lot of hope that big things are coming along. The government tried to get more cancer research funding this year, but even though they were shot down they are still doing some excellent work.
Very interesting among others is to have a look at different pathways which APC takes to feed itself. The approach of COC protocol, right or wrong, fake or not, follows this vision. In coc protocol, we have Statins, metformin, antibios Doxyclin,fenbendazol.....why antibios...because these block certain pathways which APC takes....not only to kill bacteria.Then comes epigenetics...very interesting global look ...we switch on and off genes thru lifestyle and diet.....book by Kara Fitzgerald called Younger YOU....all is linked to what we eat...Role of DNA Mythylation...key to epigenetics
Then work of Dayan Goodenow on Plasmalogens and cancer....His book Breaking Alzheimer's.....
We are still in stone age of emloying different BIOMARKERS in understanding the root cause of disease......
The building block of any complicated disease is very simple . We need sharp mindset of detective..to identify those basic causes....That is lacking in today medicin. But we as inviduals can do this detective work....
Let our thinking drive the tools.....not the tools driving us.....
As a scientist, key is to be open new thinkings and new way of looking....
Cancer is genetic disease but it uses unlimited pathways...so attack the source.....comes epigenetics and work of Dayan....go to source....of disease
RCT is just one tool of validating....best tool is Myself...and my understanding of science....nothing is objective...each individual has his/her journey....so let us go for individual adaptive therapies where observer is MYself.....
Let us keep sharing and avoid one old trodden path....
RCTs are a tool that I use to help me find a path. The next step is to discuss with my MO and, if she concurs, I test things out on myself.
Statins and Metformin have some evidence of efficacy. My MO thinks that they might be useful as long as the side effects don't outweigh the benefits.
COC incorporates statins and metformin. Their published survival data shows an improvement in results but is far short of a cure.
Exercise and diet are two important components (exercise has considerably more evidence backing it than any diet - most of the diet evidence is speculation or, at best, mouse studies, frequently comparing a test diet against a generic mouse chow diet). And of course, hormone manipulation and conventional therapies are important. What comes next?
As my journey....taking care of APC and my overall state....the following aspects seem to be curative....--- Intermittent fasting...start with 12 hrs and
go far 14 -16 hours with 3 hours befor going to bed: 14-3 or 16-3 as it suits each of us
-- Exercise...if possible in nature, everyday at least One hour, climbing hills and stairs
-- Diet...no meat, veg, no carbs,no sugar, lot of water, grass fed diary
-- choiceless awareness mindset
Sure every disease is curative....that is how nature made this machine...
This is just an observation but the case for some sort of causal relationship between gut biome (and specific bacteria) and chronic disease (such as PCa now) cannot be dismissed. Think of helicobacteria and stomach ulcers. Just sayin.
There has never been a case where any kind of cancer has been attributed to a bacteria in any species of animal. In fact, only oncoviruses (like HPV) have been found to cause cancers.
Introducing Dr Barry Marshall, nobel prize winning scientist that discovered gut bacteria that caused stomach ulcers and stomach cancer could be cured (!) with antibiotics.
Never say never
Never has any cancer in any species been found to be caused to bacteria. Oncoviruses (e.g., HPV), certainly, but never bacteria. The danger of this kind of thing is that patients, not understanding what the study actually does or doesn't say, will go off half-cocked and treat themselves with antibiotics. Desperate patients often latch onto such cures (e.g., Laetrile, Vitamin E). Those who post such things act irresponsibly when they don't explain the limitations of the studies they post.
Yes I understand how people jump at things. My son was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes about 10 years ago and every newspaper article about T1D drips with “potential cure for T1D”., or “Type 1 diabetes breakthrough!”. I quickly learned that these articles were often attempts, probably desperate attempts, to get additional funding or to raise the public profile of the institution or researcher, with headlines that way over promised on purpose.
You must get so weary of debunking PCa overpromises and I can sense a motivation of warning people away from false prophets as it were.
Every once in a while though we do get oddball breakthroughs, like antibiotics for ulcers and stomach cancer because someone dared to challenge the status quo. When those things do happen I trust the medical community to shout it from the mountain tops after their various trials.
I very much agree. Often, university PR offices put out press releases. If they are sensational-sounding enough, mainstream media run the story. Then posters here read them and re-post them. I usually don't respond to such posts. I only responded this time because the poster whined that his post was being ignored, in my opinion, appropriately. There are several members who think they are helping others or providing "hope" by posting this sort of thing.
Once in a while, posters encourage others to take crazy-ass therapies based on weak evidence. Very few patients have the background to evaluate evidence. If I see it, I'll say something, but I would spend all day on them if I went looking for them. I usually only respond if it lands in my email or if a patient PMs me.
The idea that ulcers were caused by bacteria was likewise considered cloud cuckoo land stuff too. Science sometimes advances when people ask "mad" questions. Everyone on this site knows that its a long way from 1st intimation to practical treatment and nobody will take deleterious action on such early news. Although note that the helicobacteria case went straight from first discovery to practice. The discoverer confirmed it by experimenting on himself. Keep an open mind and evaluate all the evidence, not just the RCTs. Scientific knowledge does not advance on the basis of RCTs. They are much much later in the process.
Not "everyone knows that. You may, but you are obviously not privy to what others believe. You can only speak for yourself. You also don't seem to understand the scientific process - observation, hypothesis, and testing are all integral parts of it. If you want to test on yourself - no one can stop you.
You claim that ALL ulcers are caused by bacteria? People and their diseases are different and react differently to treatments. That's why it takes years of study and testing. Sometimes news media misinterpret or release studies too soon. Generalizing about these things can be dangerous. Discussing them and getting input from others of course is good. Just remember though, desperate people want to and WILL believe and try anything. Tall Allen is saying be cautious and I agree.
Being cautious and dumping on people for bringing up topics for discussion are 2 different things.
Helicobacteria has a proven relationship with bowel cancer and the ulcer precursors. It is an example of a gut bacterium causing a common cancer, despite TA's loud protestations.
Thanks for posting Mike. We don't know if these bacteria are causal or reactive but it's always good to stay abreast of research. I think we're all smart enough to think but not react prematurely.
I post many things that might be actionable but might not. Many times my purpose in posting is that I don't know what I don't know but there is a good chance that one of you knows... if that makes sense.
And as always I discuss with my MO to get a more informed perspective than my own.
Please keep it up.
Thanks Russ. Turn over every stone. Death rates from PCa continue to rise. Mainstream may be banging their heads against the wrong wall. Is it possible? Yes, when you look at the Overall survival going up by 2 or 3 months in many studies. What if this doesnt start off as agenetic mutational disease, but rather from damage to the Mitochondria, which later leads to a mutational disease as Dr Seyfried has presented. Then mainstream has spent 25 years and $Billions solving for the wrong equation. Is it possible? The stats strenthen the argument when you look at death rates and Overall survivorship these past 10 years despite these many advancements. Vent,vent,venting,
Have you gone to the clinicaltrials.gov site? They are testing diet, exercise, drugs, gut bacteria, BAT, conventional SOC therapies, new therapies, supplements, on and on.
When I was first diagnosed I listened to people who told me that the government is doing the wrong thing. It wasn't until many months later that I decided to see for myself. How wrong they were! And shame on me for listening to them without immediately getting the facts. Particularly shameful because I used to do research work (non-medical) for this same government.
Point me to a self-appointed metabolic pathway guru and I'll point you to a wannabe politician
I hear you though. Progress seems to slow at times. And we need something yesterday.
I just ran across this article. Author discusses immunotherapy and CAR-T and the government conducted RCTs.
Refining Immuno-Oncology Approaches in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Transcending Current Limitations – Beyond the Abstract
Thanks for taking the time Russ. Yes, I too am guilty of not spending more time researching ongoing RCT’s while listening to the noise around me. My learning curve has been near vertical these past 18 months. I know I am not as smart as you, or Allen or Patrick, or Paul, etc..
I always try to keep my logic to overide the gobbledy goop of some research. In the end, death rates are climbing from PCa. Why? The life expectancy of a man with stage 4 PCa has gone up in the last 10 years, but not by great margins despite all these Phase 3 Trials of “MAB Drugs”, Car-T, BiTe, etc. it just seems after Billions of dollars spent, and visiting MD Anderson with 5 sq miles of Cancer Hospitals and Research, and Mayo, and Univ of Florida, and Moffitt Cancer Center, and MSKCC, that we should be making more progress. Why? Is it possible, like Dr Thomas Seyfried has written about, we have been researching the wrong direction. What if this whole thing is about damage to the Mitochondria first, and not all this genetic mutational complexities which come 2nd?
It will be interesting to see how Paul does in Australia w the diff ligand of LU and only 2 doses EARLY. Everything keeps pointing to EARLY being superior. He seems to be going for extended Remission. Which I would take at this juncture.
Thanks for the reminder on RCT’s Russ !
My best to you and yours,
Back when I was in high school I worked at a local pharmacy. This was in the early 1980’s. (Seems like yesterday). One of the often prescribed drugs at the time was something called Tagamet. It seemed I was constantly fetching that bottle so the pharmacist could bottle some up for a customer. I asked what is was for and the pharmacist said it reduced stomach acid and was used by people with stomach ulcers. I didn’t know what an ulcer was and he explained that some people because of diet an stress had holes in the linings of their stomachs. It scared the daylights out of a 13 year old me.
But then something happened. Around the same time I was toiling behind the counter a lone researcher was convinced that ulcers were caused by gut bacteria and could be cured with antibiotics. He was going completely against the settled medical opinion of that time. “It is stress and food dammit! Take a tagamet.”
But he was right. Ulcers were caused by some out of control gut bacteria and antibiotics could cure you.
here is that incredible story.
You dont hear too much about ulcers anymore!
PCa seems (way) more complicated but hopefully this discovery of these biomarker bacteria, this piece of incremental knowledge, moves the ball in the right direction.
I did not comment as I did not have anything constructive to add, so held my tongue. But now you have shaken the bushes, and it led to very interesting display of different personal viewpoints. Some factual and some fanciful And I won’t weigh in on which and whom. Though the contribution I like best is from lewicki, EAT KIMCHI. The COC protocol used several components in order to reduce inflammation, which may not cause PC, but does contribute to its progression through the Hallmarks of Cancer. I believe this is why they included doxycycline which has intrinsic anti-inflammatory activity as well as being an antibiotic. Trouble is that it has been shown to disrupt the gut microbiome in unfavorable ways, even at low doses. That is why I don’t use it in my anti-inflammatory regimen.
Paul, respect everything you, Allen, Nal, Patrick, Russ, (and so many others) add to this site. Thank you all. I view this as an ongoing, evolving, human experiment. No one has the answers we all desire……Cure. Not yet anyway. I learn from what has worked and is working for the guys on this site. No stone unturned. The answer is out there among us. Every virus can have a cure. Every bacteria can have an antibiotic. Every disease has a possible cure. Some combination, properly timed, in the proper doseage. I agree with what Allen said above. Thanks for biting your tongue,Mike
As we know, there has not been 100% cures for viruses or cancer, because they both have the ability to mutate and adapt to their environment. Even when all testosterone is eliminated...prostate cancer cells learn to exist without it. Scientists have my respect; they have a tough job trying to help us and it is difficult waiting for a cure when loved ones are suffering.
I appreciate Tall Allen's efforts to keep us focused on reality.
I had read that news elsewhere with a mixture of hope and skepticism. Unlike some people here I'll keep an open mind and not lecture people on what they should think or feel about this.
In all fairness, the person who brought it up did ask about it. Nobody lectured, only cautioned.
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Saturday 04/23/2022 1:46 PM DST
We can move “that rubber tree plant”. High hopes🍀.
Doxycycline Hyclate. 100mg
Well, I did find it interesting. I understand Tall Allen's comment above, coming from someone who stays current with the latest research and medical journals that publish them. Personally, I did find it very interesting, as the medical community continues to discovery new and more detailed information on diseases on a regular basis, as do other sciences. Otherwise, how would we have discovered the quark?
For me, it stands to reason there may be other underlying conditions that may be heretofore unknown. Whether these bacteria strains lead to something meaningful, we will have to wait and see. Because we can't see black matter does not mean it isn't there.
Thank you for sharing it with us. Keep us posted if any new research is published.
Caution: as the authors note, a functional linkage has not been established.
Microbiomes of Urine and the Prostate Are Linked to Human Prostate Cancer Risk Groups - PubMed