(Note this study didn't include patients with prostate cancer. I post it to provide an alternative to postings here that discourage use of Metformin by prostate cancer patients. Metformin strengthens your immune system, reduces inflammation, moderates glucose levels, and provides resistance against cardiovascular events. Dr. Snuffy Myers whose practice was limited to prostate cancer, and who commonly prescribed Metformin to his patients noted more of his patients died of cardiovascular events than of PC. The plain matter is that its a low risk high reward option.)
The subjects were separated into three groups — 101 were volunteers without diabetes, 48 were people with type 2 diabetes who were not taking metformin, and 93 were people with diabetes who had been taking daily doses of 1700 milligrams of metformin for at least a year.
The researchers determined that mitochondrial function improved in the participants using metformin compared to those not using it. Specifically, they found that people with diabetes not treated with metformin displayed more reactive oxygen species than the treated subjects.
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are unstable molecules, or free radicals, that react with other molecules in a cell. An excess of ROS can cause cell damage and even cell death.
The study also reported that the metformin-treated patients showed “significantly lower” levels of two cytokines known as TNF-α and IL-6, which are both substances that promote the inflammation that appears to promote diabetes.
Finally, the researchers theorized that “metformin diminishes leukocyte activation,” which is beneficial because the release of TNF-α from leukocytes “may inhibit inulin signaling and impair glucose uptake.”
The findings of the new study might have implications beyond diabetes because mitochondrial dysfunction might also contribute to other conditions — most notably arteriosclerosis, which is commonly known as “hardening of the arteries.”
According to study co-author Aranzazu Martínez de Marañón, PhD, “the message we want to spread with this article is that metformin, while far from being an exclusive treatment to regulate blood glucose levels, has several benefits on a cellular level.
Specifically, it improves the state of mitochondria and the function of immune cells. This decreases the initial stages of the atherosclerotic process, a common complication in patients with Type-2 diabetes.”
As Víctor M. Víctor, another of the researchers, put it, “Our findings have significant clinical implications, as they back the idea that metformin plays a key role in modulating the inflammation that takes place in patients with Type 2 diabetes.
Meanwhile, the study highlights the beneficial effects of this drug, which prevents mitochondrial dysfunction and deregulation … In this study we have shown that Type 2 diabetes is linked to mitochondrial dysfunction, and that metformin can modulate said effect.”
Metformin is a valuable and important drug. It just has no place as a cure for prostate cancer. If you are diabetic, it's a good drug to know about. The problem is when people tout it as a treatment for prostate cancer without good evidence. Most PCa patients are taking enough drugs without adding unnecessary ones that have certain toxicity.
It is also misleading to start this thread with the words "Prostate Cancer patients..." when the cited study has nothing whatever to do with prostate cancer. Why would you do that?
Including yourself. Which you sort of admit: "The problem is when people tout it as a treatment for prostate cancer without good evidence. "
Dr. Myers first prescribed it to me when he was my medical oncologist treating me for cancer
He also noted that cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer were highly correlated. Really highly correlated.
"Why would you do that?"
Did I adequately answer your question?
You're a really smart, well informed guy. But there is room here for multiple perspectives.
I thought there needed to be a counterbalance your recurring diatribes against Metformin.
Hence the title to this post. It was meant to specifically address your flawlessly accurate yet somehow (in my opinion) misleading advocacy against Metformin.
"certain toxicity" is an example of why I felt the need to post this. Metformin doesn't agree with some people. Others have no problems with it in the least.
So why would you say that?
It's not like this is Nalakrats gator swamp juice or whatever. It's prescribed. It's taken by probably hundreds of millions of people daily. It must be well over 50 years old.
If you think I should change the title, what would you have me change to be more accurate, while enabling people to find it on search after reading your contrary views on the subject?
I'm open to something more descriptive. Honest. Why not.
You admitted in your last thread (on genetics) that you don't understand how to read research, yet you continue to post sensational headlines about research you don't understand.
"You're a really smart, well informed guy. But there is room here for multiple perspectives." There is only room for one scientific perspective. I don't fault Snuffy Myers for putting hypotheses out there. But I do fault his blind followers who stick with his hypotheses even when Snuffy was proven wrong. I bothered responding to you because I thought you understood the difference between science and hero-worship. I hope it works for you, although I doubt it will. I won't respond any more.
Snuffy followed an approach exploring low risk high reward protocols.
His protocol of combining early multiple treatments was picked up and followed by major medical centers of excellence. Who always kept track of what he was doing.
He has nothing to apologize to anyone about. LoL
"certain toxicity"???? There is no benefit to anyone in going into histronics.
We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
You are really a smart guy. You appear to have all the research loaded into your head like a spreadsheet.
But there is a reason this forum probably has 100x plus the traffic of your prostate news site. Despite the obviously superior content of your site.
If I were you I would work on your step down transformers. And maybe remove some of the stridency. And better definitions of the insider jargon, and more restrained use of acronyms ,(define them early in the article, and every few paragraphs if heavily used).
I remain a fan of yours though.
But what would be a more accurate title than "Prostate Cancer Patients Shouldn't be so Quick to Dismiss Metformin"
I challenge to propose a better one.
Oh, if you go back and read what I said, you will notice I don't propose it as a PC cure. I actually trust and accept that your review of the literature indicates that it likely is not.
Yes. What is lost in the post-Snuffy world is loss of the importance of pathways. Pathways is the great driver. Which is why so many of the retrospective studies are not relevant to his course of treatment.
Ed, in case you missed it, I responded to Cesces with the following:
Yes. What is lost in the post-Snuffy world is loss of the importance of pathways. Pathways is the great driver. Which is why so many of the retrospective studies are not relevant to his course of treatment.
Here is what works for me, Allen… your words “ I won’t respond any more “! There are probably thousands of success stories and studies regarding Metformin, unfortunately, they are not made public, in other words the data basis are closed. I always wonder why this is, and why you make the most condescending remarks to many good people on this site. There are many ways to fight this beast, it would be great if the traditional and non could just come together for a second, and learn from each other.
I actually don't mind "condescending remarks" but if you don't have a basis for dishing it, please be prepared to receive it in return. LoL
And if you can't take it... maybe you shouldn't be dishing out?
I still respect TA as the most valuable contributor here.
But I think he goes overboard from time to time. A little too OCD on belief that if an effect has not been thoroughly studied, that it can't exist.
My world is a bit more complex than that. Not so black and white. And like Myers' world it has room for low risk high reward speculative decision making.
cesces, this has been the best thread, so interesting and informative. I find myself checking back for new posts. Good Job Ces!! afraid to say “you’ve got balls” for posting a study regarding Metformin on this site!
If you pursue treatments by anecdotes, you are taking an enormous risk. I can only comment on medical science. If you want to react to something outside of that, that is your prerogative. But why tell others about it?
In between anecdote and large controlled studies remain
Logic & informed intuition
And to the left of anecdote you can find delusion. Lol
But you are attempting to convert a many hued world into black and white. Attempting to do so is good. But you shouldn't mistake it for reality in my opinion.
I read that study and yes it appears that metformin has certain anti inflammatory benefits, but as TA says it is a hypotheses only to say it will benefit APC patients, and sometimes these hypotheses being put forward have patients with APC feeling that somehow their well trained and knowledgeable MO is missing something or even worse, hiding some pertinent information from his/her patients.
Certain toxicity? Alarmist talk. Metformin has a very well understood toxicity profile short and long term that informs dosage. Better understood than any SOC. Which have side effects that need to be addressed - by another drug if necessary.
I can only observe: It has been taken by very large numbers for about 80 years. If bad side effects occur, stop taking it. One thing is that the difference between therapeutic and toxic dose (the safety margin) is smaller than many drugs and few docs will prescribe more than 2g/day. 2.5 g is about the max that most humans should contemplate. Like every other drug, there are guidelines for use. Stick to them and it is fairly benign - much more so than SOC.
Does seem like you need to need to be more careful of overdose than many drugs. But its at well in excess of 10x the typical dose
The minimum reported lethal dose was found in a 42-year-old patient who had a blood metformin level of 188 µg/ml (e.g. therapeutic range level is usually between 0.5–2.5 µg/ml). Although the intake of 35 g of metformin has shown to be lethal, the maximum reported tolerated exposure was in a 70-year-old diabetic patient who ingested 63 grams of metformin.
Metformin overdose associated with lactic acidosis presents with nonspecific symptoms and includes severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, epigastric pain, thirstiness, lost appetite, lethargy and hyperpnoea. Hypotension, hypothermia, acute renal failure, coma and cardiac arrest also represent significant clinical features.
The estimated mortality rate of metformin-associated lactic acidosis is between 30 and 50% but can be high as 80%. The condition occurs most commonly in patients with substantial underlying medical problems (predominantly renal insufficiency). Mortality is not in complete correlation with either metformin or lactate levels.
Hyperglycemia linked to metformin overdose has occasionally been reported, although less common than hypoglycemia. Such hyperglycemia has been linked to acute pancreatitis in several cases of metformin toxicity from both therapeutic dosing and intentional overdose. Another potential complication is the elevated osmolal gap (without exposure to toxic alcohols).
Every drug has toxicity. One accepts the side effects when the benefits outweigh the risks. With metformin for prostate cancer, there is no known benefit, so it is all risk. It is appropriate in a clinical trial, but not otherwise.
Your logic is basically right but is just a little too rigid in it's application here, in my opinion.
In this analog world, with incomplete research reports, and witholding of the supporting data... there is room for low risk high reward decision making.
By the way TA, you do realize I am one of your biggest fans here.
I read the article you linked to and nowhere does it mention prostate cancer or even just plain old cancer. So it seems to me that your title is really misleading.
Well off the top of my head you could have titled it "Here is an interesting article on Melatonin" or "Take a look at this article on Melatonin". And I don't care whether TA was a participant. I only care that I find the title misleading.
As I said, I read the article and nowhere does it mention prostate cancer nor does it mention cancer at all so it was a waste of my time to read it. No need to respond as I understand your position.
I haven't read any of your previous posts on this topic nor have I read TA's previous posts on this topic. All I am saying is that after reading the article I don't see the relevance to me and so it was a waste of my time. I can't imagine how you can fix that but I look forward to your effort.
It is no longer possible to honestly claim you were tricked into reading an article you didn't want to read.
If you want to continue to complain, you will have to alter your criticism, hopefully to something other than I disagree with what you such that what you say isn't sufficiently worthy of any other prostate cancer patient hearing it.
I have taken 2g/d for the last 20 years. No noticeable side effects. sample of one. Point is, its risks are manageable. There is a fine line between exaggerating and fabricating and TA has crossed it big time.
When I referred to no known toxic dose I was referring to melatonin, not metformin.
agree. My doc warned me not to double up on metformin because when toxicity does occur it doesn't muck around. I once overdosed ibuprofen. I was in Europe where unbeknownst to me, they sell 600mg tabs over the counter. I took 2, thinking they were the 200mg. I felt very sick for 3 hours and slept another3, but after that, OK. Not recommended though. Stupid me.
Someone liked it. Though I think you helped me improve it.
"cesces, this has been the best thread, so interesting and informative. I find myself checking back for new posts. Good Job Ces!! afraid to say “you’ve got balls” for posting a study regarding Metformin on this site!" Miomarito
10 years on metformin didn’t prevent me from getting stage 4 ductal type PCa in the prostate, bladder neck, seminal vesicles, neuro/blood bundle, lymph node, pelvis, sacrum, and lumbar spine.
My sample of one says metformin isn’t a prevention or cure for PCa, but it’s a darn good way to control blood sugar. 🤔
Like others, I don’t see cancer mentioned even once in the article you linked.
I don't see how your post matched your headline either. I think you're asking readers to make assumptions based on a headline that wasn't supported by the text. The first rule of journalism I learned was that "assume" makes an ass of u and me.
Anyway, I was diagnosed with both PC and atherosclerosis in 2008, and with pre-diabetes in 2016. I got FOUR treatments with HIFU between 2008 and 2015 (is that a record? and I don't mean for stupidity...).
I began taking 2000 mg time-release metformin daily in May 2016.
Since then, the PC hasn't metastacized AFAIK, though my PSA has gradually risen from 0.6 in 2018 to 2.0 now, which kind of alarms me since I have only half a prostate left. The atherosclerosis has progressed to 50% blockage in an internal carotid artery with an ulceration. I haven't developed diabetes, but my fasting blood sugar is always in the high 90s or low 100s, as it was before I started the metformin.
I'm not sure metformin has done anything at all for me, but I don't want to stop taking it because what if it has kept things from getting even worse? And since I have no side effects that I know of and it's super cheap, I just keep swallowing the pills. That's kind of my "strategy" (to use the word with wild abandon) with all my meds and supplements.
Each person is unique, people are not statistics, and we all know what works for one may or may not work for others. I would never recommend that someone take metformin for PC, nor would I advise them not to. For myself, I tend to throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks. Not necessarily a smart thing to do, but studies contradict each other, you read something different every day about every aspect of health, I don't always know what's a good study and what isn't, or how to read them intelligently, and so like many people I'm just winging it.
At the moment I'm more concerned about high-dose vitamin D, which I began taking as a PC and heart disease fighter, then only recently read it can raise testosterone levels, so once again I find myself trying to muddle through with incomplete and contradictory information.
It's very frustrating, and in this I know I speak for millions of people who yo-yo up and down and around depending on what the mass media are touting one day or another.
Statin may help slow down the progression of PC. Statin may not work without Metformin, however. Within a couple of months of taking statins, cancer cells may produce SREBP to interfere with the efficacy of statins. Metformin is said to fight SREBP. That is my understaning so far. Am I right?
I got the following information from our member a few weeks ago.
Prostate cancer cells are as sensitive to cholesterol depletion as androgen depletion, and to overcome statins, the cancer cells activate sterol regulatory element-binding protein 2 (SREBP-2), but dipyridamole or metformin may inhibit statin-induced SREBP-2 activation.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/310...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/305...
Statin-resistant prostate cancer cells and activation of SREBP-2 may be one of the reasons why statins cannot slow tumor growth.
Myers prescribed it for me as well, not only as one of the array of treatments I’m using for prostate cancer but as a way to combat metabolic syndrome which is common in men on long term ADT. I’ve been using it for about 8 years now, my BMI is normal, I’ve had no I’ll effects from taking it. My current MO, Dr. Oliver Sartor, reviews my medications and supplements every 6 months when I see him, he doesn’t hesitate to tell me that I should stop taking something if he feels it could be harmful, he’s never questioned or said a word about my Metformin use. I’ll continue to take it, everything Snuffy prescribed is still working so far so why change? I recall my local MO, someone very qualified who worked with Snuffy at the NIH commenting on my status despite my dx of stage 4 widely metastatic PCa, “Looks like Snuffy really knows his stuff”, I’d have to agree.
BTW - thanks for posting despite knowing you were going to hear from the naysayers. Always good to hear from other former patients of Snuffy who aren’t afraid to think outside the box.
No question your headline should have been different from the start, but referring to ‘diatribes’ against metformin by TA… whose first sentence in response to your post is ‘metformin is a valuable and important drug’ doesn’t sell either.
Metformin works well to control blood sugar, this is inarguable. The rest of it you are free to research and prattle about endlessly.
However, compared to all supplements combined-including metformin-exercise yields far better results. Now there’s an opinion (so far) unsubstantiated by science I’m betting my life on.
thank you for posting this. Good evidence supporting use as an adjunct to improve mitochondrial function, reduce ROS leakage and the inflammatory pathways affected. I just finished audiobook by Nick Lane on mitochondria (Power, Sex and Suicide). Great deep dive into the science.
Mitochondrial accumulated leakage of ROS is primary driver of cellular degeneration and major factor underlying all diseases of aging, which includes the development of cancers and CV disease and more. Not talking about curing established PC, but preventing or slowing development and possibly progression. Metformin appears to be at least one small piece of the puzzle. Though it does not work in isolation, many factors involved. (Which is why anti-oxidant supplements do not work.) Kind Regards, Paul
I appreciate your efforts to spread the good word about metformin, but I’m also glad that you are rightfully called out for the way you presented it here. Your defense of it causes general suspicion, but that’s how it is.
"Perhaps you didn't read the title that the OP gave to his thread: "Prostate Cancer Patients Shouldn't be so Quick to Dismiss Metformin (despite some contrary opinions on Advanced Prostate Cancer forum)"
Some on this forum have promoted it as a PCa treatment in spite of the best evidence we have so far. Metformin has toxicity, as I just proved to you. Promoting a toxic drug on a PCa forum that has no known benefit for prostate cancer may harm patients who believe you.
"I feel it, and its heavy lately here, and has limited my interactions here as a result & consequence of not wanting to be bashed, talked down or told, like I'm a child, that I shouldn't post something!"
Agreed. BUT only if your posts are no longer reckless as they are with some others here!
Glad that we can share our opinions here. I accept full responsibility for not directly representing how reckless your opinion is and has been in my opinion!
Lol, me neither (block), it doesn't bother me because I've been reckless my entire life, ain't stopping now! Trolls are trolls and the internet has made many timid souls emboldened by empowering some who believe it to be their charter to save others from themselves. And even more, those who feel it is their upmost purpose to tell others what to do, read, what they should believe, what is right/wrong, etc., all laughable of course. And they'll then argue with anyone with a contrasting opinion or idea, believing they're right or righteous because of their ambition or vocation or even their personal experience that they believe places them and their ideas above others. Some day, they crash hard when they come to their own realization on how childish they are and how infantile their behavior was/is. But that's their issue. Their pig, their farm, not mine.
I will argue when I agree, if even just to test someone's mettle and their conviction. But I accept all information as useful, even that information which I discard for my purposes or doesnt apply. Problem is, if information is filtered, and only that which is approved is accessible, then where is the contrast? How do we know or recognize that which is outlandish or doesn't apply to my needs? Again, though that is and should be for me to decide, not be decided for me. Let alone when it comes to my health. I'll decide thank you! But I do suggest those who think my posts arw reckless, now, in the past or future, feel free to block me so I dont abrade their sensitivities!!! Lmao...
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
