Hell of a money maker for the pharmaceuticals and doctors involved though.
I’ve heard that Ivermectin works to stop prostate cancer and can kill it. Something about the drug inhibiting two enzymes needed for the cancer to grow/thrive.
It’s a shame that “follow the science” doesn’t really mean anything. That’s been completely blown to hell at this point. I now start from the assumption that a study’s design was meant to achieve some OTHER goal - in this case, to rationalize a reduction in care . . . for men. Got to save money somewhere to pay for “gender affirming surgery” for others! I somehow doubt the “wait and see” approach - even if well founded - would be offered as a suggestion for a condition involving a more protected class of patients. Maybe I’m too cynical.
I saw this article the other day. 3 years too late.
I was Gleason 3 + 4 = 7 with a PSA over 10, but my urology team was itching to do surgery. More lucrative I guess.
*
I have, or maybe had, prostate cancer. I and was on “Active Surveillance” for more than a half dozen years. I joked that if I were lucky, I would die of something else first. However, the AS caught in increase in the cancer and I had it destroyed with MRI guided cryogenic surgery. This was pain free and had no residual side effects at all. The AS gave me time for this new procedure to be implemented.