AAT Discussion Board

Today, lots of people, Explore further (https://groups.google.com/) which includes surprisingly almost all practising doctors, continue to cling on to the existing dogma that Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) for older men is not safe and results in a heightened likelihood of prostate cancer. They do this inspite of the fact that there is not a single shred of proof to allow for this folktale and there never was.

Where did this figment of the health-related imagination come from then you might well ask? Browse the medical literature as you might, I guarantee you that you won't think of one single peer review paper that supports the belief that boosting a male's testosterone levels increases his chances for developing prostate cancer or perhaps any other cancers for that matter. They just are not there. They're not there because the scientific proof for them is not there.

But, here's where a lot of doctors may still be confused. If a man develops metastatic prostate cancer one of the first lines of treatment for him is going to be to knock out all the testosterone of his. Today this is typically achieved without difficulty with medicines like Finasteride. When this patient's testosterone levels are lowered to near zero levels he will go into a minimum of a short-term remission from the prostate cancer of his. Thus, if really low levels of testosterone are temporarily curative of prostate cancer then certainly it makes sense that extremely high levels are causative. Is the fact that not simply good sense?

No, sorry, that's not just good sense which most certainly is not scientific. This type of woolly thinking - that if the shortage of food is curative next a great deal of the very same thing must be causative, is referred to a corollary. Corollaries are typically used in religious debate and mathematical theory. Corollaries haven't any place in science and definitely no place in medication. They can lead you astray and confuse you as clearly they do in this particular instance.

Besides, this's also worth noting. Prostate cancer is predominately an illness of older men with declining testosterone levels. It's not at all an ailment of younger males with high levels of this sex hormone circulating in their bloodstream. Just how next can you argue that testosterone replacement therapy might be beneficial to prostate cancer? Certainly if anything the exact opposite would be the case although I am not trying to make that case here.

Let us afterward place the last nail in the coffin of this pishogue about testosterone causing cancer. A recently conducted research into the security of testosterone replacement therapy, carried out by M.R. M as well as Feneley. Carruthers in The Institute of Urology and Nephrology Faculty College, London and you don't get much grander than that; concluded thus:

The incidence of prostate cancer in this particular group of men (1,500) taken care of with testosterone over quite a few years was equivalent to that expected in the overall population.

While I'm at it then, allow me to just dispel an additional healthcare myth, popular among doctors regarding TRT. Doctors still cling to the fallacy that, in order to figure out what males must be considered for TRT, it is always to first of all get blood for hormonal level assay. This is no longer the case. A recent study conducted by Trinick, Carruthers, Wheeler et al realized as follows: