Jim’s Prostate Cancer 101

“Jim came to me as a prostate cancer survivor, but he wanted more. He is pioneering with us in cutting-edge regenerative treatments using his own stem cells. He’s hoping one of these could be the game-changer.”

Dr. Elliot LanderUrologist and author of The Stem Cell Revolution

“Men with a prostate cancer diagnosis need to know that what Jim did 20 years ago with hormones, testosterone and other novel treatments—and what I wrote about 10 years ago—is today supported by mainstream medical knowledge. The shame is that most of these men aren’t told about it.”

Dr. Ed FriedmanTheoretical Biologist, University of Chicago

“I’ve been with him over the years as he beat a biopsy-verified Gleason 9 cancer. To me, that is more amazing than any mountain he climbed or any desert he crossed.”

Dr. Kim ScottPersonal Physician

Jim's Prostate Cancer 101

Become informed. Find an informed oncologist, urologist or interventional radiologist who does not dispute any statements below. Treatment and prevention advances occur constantly, a process emerging artificial Intelligence (AI) application will only accelerate.

Be ready to ask your doctor questions you learned here. Most primary care doctors are almost forced to refer prostate cancer patients to doctors within their referral network unless you specifically ask for more.

Commonly accepted ‘standards of care’ change. Beware of doctors who have not kept up. When I was diagnosed with a Gleason 7 in 1999 America’s most revered prostate cancer surgeon refused to treat patients with Gleason ratings above 6. My oncologist told me most doctors who radiate or do surgery on patients with Gleason 6s and stable PSAs below 10 today could be sued for malpractice.

Tens of thousands of men are still getting DUPED by old school thinking doctors. The EUPROMS (Europe Oomo Patient Reported Outcome Study) indicates:

  • Mainstream treatments can even affect men’s bowels. (Defecate)
  • 67% of men report leakage after surgery. 48% report leakage after radiation. (Urinate)
  • 85+% of men report sexual problems after surgery or radiation. (Penetrate)
  • 100% of men are not able to Ejaculate after surgery or radiation. (DUPE)

Do not be DUPEd. Traditional surgery and radiation approaches of all varieties make little or no difference. Again, don’t take my word. Look at the New England Journal of Medicine’s July 2012 article (linked below).

Focal treatments, HiFU or MRI guided laser, are the way to go for patients who insist on having their cancer tumors removed.

It is my opinion (I am not giving medical advice!) PCa patients who have a stable PSAs less than 10 may not need any treatment. And there are many things a patient can do to reduce the risk their PCa will cause problems.

If your PSA goes above 10, radiology imaging still leaves you worried, and you were biopsied, request a risk assessment called CAPRA. CAPRA combines measures for PSA, Gleason biopsy rating, and tumor stage. Why?  PSA readings alone often led to undeniable over- treatment. CAPRA has saved thousands of us from DUPEing. Furthermore, it is possible to know if cancer has even spread outside the prostate by using PSMA or C11 imaging to better stage men’s PCa since such imaging ‘lights up’ fatty acid producing tumors.

The American Academy of Family Physicians advises member doctors to not even run patients’ PSA tests unless they commit to serve as PCa patients’ gatekeepers so they can safeguard patients against unwarranted treatments that prostate specialists commonly use.

Thankfully, doctors are gradually ‘getting it’. The percentage of PCa men delaying or avoiding mainstream treatments (Watchful waiting or Active Surveillance) has risen from 25% to 60+%, effectively reducing DUPEing.

My personal history is available on this book’s website (ridingthescalpel.com). It covers 18+ years of COMG (Compassionate Oncology Medical Group) care. I’ve had PSAs from 0.01 to 25.3. (Today I’m at 0.4). An informed doctor can see how my COMG doctors adjusted my treatments through the years.

Read Jim's Prostate Cancer Treatment Notes

Study of Testosterone and PCa

Low testosterone levels are related to poor prognosis factors in men with prostate cancer prior to treatment

Eduardo García-Cruz 1Marta PiquerasJorge HuguetLluis PeriLaura IzquierdoMireia MusqueraAgustin FrancoRicardo Alvarez-VijandeMaria Jose RibalAntonio Alcaraz

Abstract: What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Prostate growth is ruled by testosterone. Nevertheless, the paradigm that high testosterone levels induce prostate cancer development or lead to a poor prognosis in prostate cancer is not supported by evidence.

A growing number of studies suggest that, on the contrary, low testosterone levels are related to poor prognosis features in prostate cancer such as higher prostate-specific antigen or higher Gleason score. Our experience shows that testosterone levels are related to risk of progression of prostate cancer – those men with lower testosterone levels are at higher risk of progression of their prostate cancer after treatment delivery.


  • Low testosterone levels have been related to a higher diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Hormonal levels have been related to poor prognosis factors in men with PCa, mainly after radical prostatectomy.
  • Our aim was to determine the relationship between hormonal levels and PCa prognosis factors in men with PCa prior to the onset of treatment.

Patients and methods:

  • We prospectively analysed 137 males diagnosed in our centre with PCa with 5+5 core prostate biopsies from February 2007 to December 2009.
  • As part of our clinical protocol, we performed hormonal determination (testosterone and sex hormone binding globulin) following International Society of Andrology, International Society for the Study of the Aging Male and European Association of Urology recommendations.
  • Free testosterone and bioavailable testosterone were calculated using Vermeulen’s formula.
  • Age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free to total PSA, PSA density, number of previous biopsies, digital rectal examination staging, Gleason score, percentage of tumour in the biopsy sample, bilaterality of the tumour and risk of progression group were prospectively recorded.


  • Higher testosterone levels were related to lower digital rectal examination staging (P= 0.02) and lower PSA level (P= 0.05). Higher testosterone was not related to lower Gleason score (P= 0.08).
  • Testosterone was inversely related to PCa bilaterality (P < 0.01) and percentage of tumour in the biopsy (P < 0.01).
  • High testosterone levels were found in patients allocated to the low risk of progression group and inversely (P= 0.03).
  • In multivariate analysis, higher age and lower testosterone were related to higher D’Amico risk of progression.


  • Patients with PCa and lower testosterone levels have poor prognosis factors and higher tumour burden before treatment onset. These findings reinforce the idea that low testosterone levels pretreatment are related to a poor prognosis in PCa.
Read the Full Study

The Relationship Between Testosterone, Estradiol, and Prostate Cancer

The Relationship Between Testosterone, Estradiol, and Prostate Cancer

Authored by: Edward Friedman

Abstract: Recent experiments have shown that estradiol is the primary cause of prostate cancer. Since estradiol in men is produced by the action of aromatase on testosterone, testosterone is only the secondary cause of prostate cancer. In normal prostate epithelial cells estradiol causes mitosis, whereas testosterone prevents mitosis.

Estradiol is mutagenic through the formation of depurinating estrogen–DNA adducts 4-OHE1(E2)-1-N3Ade and 4-OHE1(E2)-1-N7Gua. For decades, doctors have been taught that testosterone is the primary cause of prostate cancer. This misunderstanding has not only been believed by the medical profession, but by the general public as well.

As a result of this, too few researchers are exploring the therapeutic uses of testosterone in treating prostate cancer, funding requests are being denied due to the ignorance of funding reviewers, and volunteers for being treated with testosterone are hard to find.

The solution to all of these problems is to educate the medical profession and the general public about the true relationship between testosterone, estradiol, and prostate cancer.

Read the Full Study

Radical Prostatectomy Study NEJM

Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer

A New England Journal of Medicine Study

Below is the conclusion paragraph of the 7/19/12 New England Journal off Medicine epidemiology prostate cancer article. Its conclusion is consistent with a 1995 Swedish study. Neither supports the efficacy of localized Prostate Cancer prostatectomy treatments. To our knowledge there has not been any evidence brachytherapy has better mortality results than radical prostatectomy.

In conclusion, our study showed that, as compared with observation, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality through at least 12 years among men with clinically localized prostate cancer that had been diagnosed in the era of PSA testing.

Absolute differences in mortality between the study groups were less than 3 percentage points. Subgroup analyses suggested that surgery might reduce mortality among men with higher PSA values and possibly among men with higher-risk tumors, but not among men with PSA levels of 10 ng per milliliter or less or among men with low-risk tumors.

Read the Full Study