A friend sent me links to two videos, one of which has been posted here before. It's by Dr John Campbell, whom Tall_Allen has described as a "quack" and a "nurse teacher" for reasons I don't understand. OK, I understand he trains nurses.
The second video, link below, is rather long (apologies) but is presented by someone whose credentials look impressive ( to me as a non-scientist anyway).
Any thoughts/observations appreciated.
He's not a medical doctor. He just posts videos. He also spreads fake info about ivermectin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_...
Sources matter. Those who believe youtube videos put themselves at risk, and others too when they post such garbage. Good sources will have information in peer-reviewed journals, not youtube videos.
I know he isn't, but neither are you as I understand it.
So what are your views on the Bruce Hollis presentation/lecture?
The difference is that I present links to the highest level of evidence in all my articles, and I don't have a history of presenting misinformation as he does. See this, for example:
prostatecancer.news/2018/07...
I don't get any info from youtube videos. If you have higher level of evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, I will look at it. Otherwise, it is just internet garbage. One exception: I will look at presentations to peers at professional conventions (not patient meetings).
Yes, I get all that, and I'm not remotely defending Campbell, especially after reading the stuff about Covid on his Wikipedia page.
Unless I've missed or misunderstood something, Hollis's presentation appears to be addressing peers (certainly from the questions being asked), and therefore fits the criterion in your final paragraph.
If there is a peer-reviewed journal article you want me to look at, I will. But look at my article with the references in peer-reviewed publications first. Also, notice that your video is from 2014 - well before we had the results of the major randomized clinical trials on the subject. In 2014, that might have been the best info we had. Now, we know better.
I did look at your article and would like to look at it in much more depth when I've got some quality time.
Point taken about the age of the video - that hadn't escaped me.
I've been supplementing since 2014, when I was at 23 nmol/L and terribly tired. I've since maintained levels around 120 nmol/L, so I guess this will give me something positive towards bone health at the very least. Certainly didn't stop me from developing PCa though!
I got this from Wiki itself.
“Because Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.[79][82][83] “
Dr. Eugene Kwon from Mayo Clinic in Rochester posts on YouTube. So there is information that you can believe from that source.
That is a perfect example of garbage a patient cannot believe. Kwon has done some excellent research which he has published in peer-reviewed journals, but his youutube videos are pure garbage.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I am not educated in the medical field and don’t particularly like to slog through lots of research. Dr Kwon is my doctor and he is able to digest the facts and deliver them to me in a fashion that I can understand. There are different teaching methods because there are different learning methods. There are lots of things available on the internet that can be classified as misinformation but just because something isn’t from a medical journal doesn’t make it wrong.
As you say... "I am not educated in the medical field and don’t particularly like to slog through lots of research. " There is one sure way of avoiding misinformation of the type that Kwon pumps into his youtube videos- rely only on peer-reviewed journal articles. Kwon puts out a LOT of misinformation on youtube but NONE in his peer-reviewed journal articles.
Consider, for example, this peer-reviewed journal article on which Kwon is a co-author:
nature.com/articles/s41391-...
•115 patients were treated with metastasis-directed SBRT. They had a median of 1 bone metastasis.
•47 patients were treated with ADT-only. They had a median of 2 bone metastases.
This was not a randomized study (Mayo has never done a randomized trial on this subject!), so it is entirely likely that there was "selection bias" -- those who received ADT-only may be because it was felt they would not be able to benefit from SBRT or that it might be unsafe. Patients who received ADT-only had a higher number of bone metastases and a higher PSA. All of those receiving Metastasis-Directed Therapy (MDT) for bone metastases were also receiving ADT.
•The 5-year prostate cancer mortality was no different between the two groups
•The 5-year radiographic recurrence-free survival was no different between the two groups
•Among those with 5 years of follow-up, the time remaining free of the next significant systemic therapy (e.g., chemo, Zytiga, etc.) was longer for those getting zapped. However, it should be noted that the decision to give an additional significant therapy is a physician decision based on many factors, including patient status, number of metastases, and PSA. Because number of metastases and PSA are changed by MDT, and those receiving MDT started with one less metastasis, the physician may feel pressured to start a new therapy sooner in patients receiving ADT-only.
Pending confirmation from long-term randomized clinical trials of MDT to oligometastases in bones, there is no evidence of oncological benefit.
Yet Kwon claims a benefit on his youtube videos! In fact, he compiled a "gee whiz" video showing before/after PETs that look great to uneducated observers, but really only show local control after MDT. Why should he want to deceive patients when he clearly knows better? I don't know - I'm not a psychologist. I hope that by bringing in an actual eminent medical oncologist at Mayo, Oliver Sartor, such spreading of misinformation will stop.
When diagnosed in 2015 I began treatment in early 2016 and was admitted to a two year vitamin D study at Strong Memorial Hospital part of the University of Rochester in NY. It was a double blind study monitored as a study of this import always is
Upon completion the results were incinclusive. Bone density across the board showed some areas increased, some decreased, and others no change.
For the duration of the study I was on monthly, my choice, Lupron.
The point made by TA is important. There is a lot of information on the internet and much of it needs to have backup, peer review, and acceptance in the overall picture of health and in treatments. Vitamin D is important, but it is easily tested. Some studies actually show that too much may be harmful to the bones. As with most nutrition, it is about balance in the diet to achieve a good intake of needed vitamins and minerals.
It is not a condemnation of all youtube videos, but source is important.
Remember those good old days guys when a good rear review meant a good peer review...........
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Thursday 07/20/2023 10:30 PM DST
Vit D works. Ivermectin has other uses... a fact! Repurposed drugs must be looked into.
Just saying...Do we trust peer-reviewed studies from the tyrannical medical community??
Prostate Cancer fluctuating PSA
Prostate Cancer
Sugar and Prostate Cancer 
Role of Vitamin D in Prostrate Cancer
Dr. John Campbell on Vitamin D and Prostate Cancer.
