Latest / Intellectual Medicine / Can Dogs Get Prostate Cancer? What It Teaches Us About Men’s Health

Transcript

Can Dogs Get Prostate Cancer? What It Teaches Us About Men’s Health · Intellectual Medicine

0:00
Think about that. Dogs don't get prostate cancer.
0:03
They don't die from it. Maybe they get it.
0:04
Who knows? We have a biopsied down.
0:07
It is plausible that our cult of biopsying prostates has done two
0:13
things. Expand the perception of the
0:15
disease being common. Because after all, we're
0:18
finding, we're digging it out of the gland, these atypical
0:21
dormant cells that should be left alone, in my opinion.
0:24
And we're spreading them around. So that is, we dig and we dig
0:28
and we spread and they get metastatic cancer.
0:31
We create a pathological tsunami that invites us to treat it.
0:40
The question arises, do any mammals besides humans get
0:45
prostate cancer? More specifically, how about
0:48
dogs? Do they get prostate cancer?
0:51
I mean, they have a prostate. They are mammals.
0:54
They have the same type of reproductive anatomy that we
0:57
have, and they live with us. They breathe our air, they drink
1:01
our water, they eat our food, more or less all coming from the
1:05
same place. In fact, it's exceedingly rare
1:09
for dogs to ever get prostate cancer.
1:11
Which led me to research other mammal species.
1:15
How about great apes, my nearest cousins?
1:17
Nope, they don't get it. Pretty rare.
1:20
Even apes in captivity. So the idea that it is utterly
1:25
unique to human beings and no other mammalian species gets
1:29
this disease raises some significant questions.
1:34
Why? What's the difference?
1:36
I understand, I understand there are differences between Homo
1:39
sapiens and the other species, but nevertheless, A profound
1:43
disparity between species and prostate cancer, enormous
1:49
disparity. An interesting fact is that
1:52
dolphins have never been known to get prostate cancer, ever.
1:57
And they've actually done autopsies on dolphins looking
2:00
for it. Couldn't find a thing.
2:03
I don't know what they're doing, but boy, we better figure it out
2:06
and apply some to us. You know, maybe there is an X
2:11
Factor. One of my theories about how to
2:13
go about looking for cancer is to look for where it's not and
2:17
figure out why not. This is a problem.
2:20
It highlights the historical issues regarding prostate
2:24
cancer. Let's go back in time.
2:27
Let's go back to 1853. Doctor John Adams, a surgeon,
2:33
did one of the first prostatectomies on a man with
2:36
prostate cancer, and at the time he described this as an
2:41
exceedingly rare disease. I one met long ago, folks. 1853
2:48
pretty recent history. How about in the turn of the
2:51
century? 19119 ten.
2:53
Prostate cancer hardly listed on the leading causes of death.
2:58
In fact, it didn't crack the top 10.
3:00
Now I get it. You know, back then, people died
3:03
younger. The germ theory hadn't been
3:05
fully developed. They died of infections.
3:09
Nevertheless, prostate cancer was a rare phenomenon.
3:13
Is it possible, when you put all these pieces together, that
3:18
prostate cancer, Now let's be specific here.
3:22
I'm talking about metastatic prostate cancer that takes men's
3:27
lives, that causes misery, almost as much misery as the
3:32
treatment they impose on you while they're contemplating how
3:36
to help you. The idea that we actually are
3:41
creating metastatic cancer, expanding its footprint, making
3:45
men more likely to die from prostate cancer needs to be
3:50
considered. Think for a moment.
3:53
When a surgeon says, well, there is no evidence that prostate
3:58
biopsies spread cancer, it's technically true.
4:02
A little cute. It's a little cute because
4:05
they've never looked. There's never been research to
4:08
determine what would happen if we didn't stick needles into
4:12
that gland. So, you know, folks, I advocate
4:14
for never boxing a prostate, ever.
4:18
It makes no sense. You're stirring up the cancer,
4:22
spreading it, and even if it comes back negative, you're not
4:26
out of the woods because they could have missed it.
4:30
And the surgeons will tell you that.
4:32
Well, you know, we should probably repeat the biopsy again
4:34
and it wouldn't. Hell no.
4:36
How about never? All right, so how about this
4:39
study? How about if we took all the
4:41
dogs out there above the age of whatever a dog year is, That
4:45
equals to 60. Forgot that math?
4:47
It was 7-8 years. You get the point.
4:50
You took old dogs and you took, let's say 100 of them, and you
4:56
subjected 100 old dogs to prostate biopsies and you
5:00
compare them to 100 old dogs matched for age and species
5:05
without a biopsy. And then you wait and watch and
5:08
you see what happens. Are the bopsied dogs going to be
5:12
more likely to die from prostate cancer?
5:15
Will they be the same? How much cancer will they find
5:18
by digging into a gland of an otherwise totally healthy,
5:21
happy, tail wagging, food eating, leg humping dog?
5:27
How much are they helping that animal?
5:29
Now, as I mentioned this thought, I hope you recoil in
5:34
horror. How could they do that to those
5:37
cute little dogs? They are so happy.
5:40
There's nothing wrong with them. They're just enjoying being a
5:43
dog. And you're going to wedge this
5:45
thing into the But that's just cruel and unusual.
5:49
I agree. And it's cruel and unusual folks
5:52
to do it to humans when there's no strong evidence of any
5:56
benefit regarding your survival. And there's a rational reason, a
6:02
plausible basis to hypothesize that you're more likely to die
6:06
from metastatic cancer if that biopsy is performed.
6:10
And if it is not performed, and the more you do it, then
6:14
mathematically speaking, the more likely those odds you think
6:19
this is made-up. It is not.
6:21
There's evidence in the medical literature regarding other forms
6:24
of cancer that were preceded by biopsies.
6:27
There was a study looking at breast cancer and in this study
6:31
women had early stage, very suspicious looking,
6:35
diagnostically supported mammograms, very likely to be
6:40
cancer. So much so that half the women
6:43
in the study went directly to a lumpectomy.
6:46
No biopsy was done. The other half did the
6:49
traditional biopsy first. The outcome, The women who had
6:54
no biopsy had a significantly lower rate of metastatic breast
6:58
cancer, evidence of the hypothesis.
7:01
Now think about that. Think about if you they have an
7:03
ominous looking MRI of the prostate, a pyrides of five
7:08
nodules pressing up against the capsule.
7:11
They have APSA level that is elevated, but they feel good.
7:16
No symptom. We do a biopsy.
7:19
Suppose a biopsy comes back negative.
7:21
Nobody's going to believe it. The findings are too ominous to
7:26
just be passive. You could make an argument.
7:28
Nope. In fact, I will make the
7:29
argument that it's more logical to go directly to a prostate
7:35
gland removal. Then you get the biopsy first if
7:40
and only if you have an ominous looking prostate and you're
7:43
willing to accept the potential consequences, which we've spoken
7:47
of here before. Those consequences could be
7:50
devastating, life altering. But if there's any value to be
7:55
had from a prostatectomy, then it makes more sense to avoid the
8:00
biopsy first. Now, to the extent that would be
8:04
a consideration, you have to apply the protocol that I've
8:08
developed or something very much like it.
8:10
Now I just do my protocol. So we're researching this.
8:13
It's an ongoing cohort. We're going to get this answer
8:16
for you people. And the answer is going to be,
8:19
can we treat this cancer in a manner that doesn't sacrifice
8:23
masculine virility, in a manner that doesn't expose you to
8:27
leaking urine, impotence, infection, and a manner that
8:30
doesn't lead you down the path to castration?
8:34
I believe that answer is going to show us that this safe
8:38
approach is equal to, if not better than, what's out there.
8:41
Now, that's a bold statement and it brings to mind Doctor
8:45
Semmelweis. Dr. Semmelweis is one of my
8:48
medical heroes. It was in the 1800s, mid 1800s.
8:55
A Hungarian physician took note that when doctors of that era
9:01
delivered babies, the mothers had a death rate between 10 and
9:05
18% from fever. When the midwife delivered the
9:09
baby, the mortality rate was 2%. So this is before the germ
9:15
theory had been developed. Doctor Semmelweis was a really
9:18
astute observer. When he's my hero, I count
9:21
myself as one of those people. And when he saw that, he
9:25
hypothesized, hey, guys, something's happening here.
9:28
Because the doctors back then would go dissect the cadaver,
9:33
then with their grudgy hands go deliver a baby.
9:36
No glove, no hand washing. They didn't know about germs.
9:41
Some of Weiss didn't know about germs either.
9:44
He just was an intellectual man with logical extension.
9:48
And he said, hey, let's wash our hands.
9:52
So we implemented that, and the mortality rate dropped from 10
9:57
to 18% down to 2%. Semmelweis became a Nobel
10:02
laureate. He was championed.
10:04
He became head of the No. None of that occurred.
10:08
He was damned. He was ostracized.
10:12
The medical establishment was horrified that he would have the
10:17
terminity to suggest that they may actually be harming their
10:21
patients. He was banished from the
10:25
hospital, banished from the country.
10:27
He died alone, broke, a broken man.
10:32
Maybe I shouldn't make it by your own, but this is what
10:36
happens when you're up against an established dogma, and that's
10:41
what intellectual medicine is facing.
10:44
We don't welcome conflicts, nor do we shy away from it.
10:50
The conflict is really on an intellectual plane.
10:53
And with that thought in mind, then everybody's on the same
10:56
side. We all want the same thing.
10:59
I want what you want, an abundant life full of great
11:02
health and vitality, punctuated by joy and ending quickly at a
11:08
very advanced stage. Now we're talking.
11:11
What is an advanced stage? See, that ties into the whole
11:13
equation, doesn't it? Because if they're calculating
11:16
what to do for you, they're also calculating, without telling you
11:19
this, how long you're going to live.
11:21
And if they think, well, this dude's going to die at 85, then
11:25
all of the calculations built around that number.
11:27
I say, forget that guy's Raymond at 100 plus.
11:31
And that's not fantasy. That is science and medicine in
11:36
action at the cutting edge. I'll be sharing more details of
11:39
that with you. In fact, we'll go back to the
11:40
dogs for that. But for now, think about that.
11:44
Dogs don't get prostate cancer. They don't die from it.
11:46
Maybe they get it. Who knows?
11:48
We haven't biopsied them. It is plausible that our cult of
11:53
biopsying prostates has done two things.
11:56
Expand the perception of the disease being common, because
12:00
after all, we're fighting. We're digging it out of the
12:02
gland, these atypical dormant cells that should be left alone,
12:05
in my opinion, and we're spreading them around.
12:09
So that is, we dig and we dig and we spread and they get
12:12
metastatic cancer. We create a pathological tsunami
12:18
that invites us to treat it with ever more expensive,
12:23
sophisticated patented drugs. You know where I'm going?
12:26
Well, listen, guys, thanks for hanging with me and welcome you
12:30
into the Prostate Protocol community.
12:33
It's open to everybody. You don't need to be my patient.
12:36
That's where we'll be sharing recipes on what to eat, tips
12:40
about what supplements to use, and just general support.
12:44
So thanks. Thanks for being part of the
12:46
podcast. Look forward to the next time we
12:48
get to be together. Bye now.