Nowadays, lots of people, which includes amazingly almost all practising doctors, still cling on to the old dogma that Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) for older males is not safe and results in a heightened likelihood of prostate cancer.<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Testosteron.PNG" style="max-width:420px;float:left;padding:10px 10px 10px 0px;border:0px;"> They do this regardless of the point that there is not a single shred of evidence to support this folktale not to mention there never was.<img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Iw4lAV3mlDc/VNhpT1eZ0uI/AAAAAAAAAs4/_ulSn3vSVd4/s1600/testosterone-transformation.jpg" style="max-width:400px;float:left;padding:10px 10px 10px 0px;border:0px;"><br>Where did the figment of the health-related imagination come from then you may well ask? Search the medical literature as you might, I guarantee you you will not think of one single peer review paper that supports the idea that boosting testosterone, <a href="https://www.bonjouridee.com/en/prime-male-reviews-does-it-work-what-they-wont-say/">Highly recommended Website</a>, a male's testosterone levels enhances the chances of his for developing prostate cancer or maybe any other cancers for that matter. They just are not there. They are not there because the scientific proof for them is not there.<br>Nonetheless, here's where lots of doctors may still be confused. If a man develops metastatic prostate cancer one of the primary lines of therapy for him will be to knock out all the testosterone of his. Today this's usually achieved quite easily with medicines like Finasteride. When this particular patient's testosterone levels are reduced to near zero levels he will go into a minimum of a short lived remission from his prostate cancer. Hence, if really low levels of testosterone are temporarily curative of prostate cancer then certainly it makes sense that very high levels are causative. Is that not simply common sense?<br>No, sorry, that is not simply good sense which most certainly isn't scientific. This particular type of woolly thinking - that if the absence of food is curative next a great deal of the very same thing must be causative, is known as a corollary. Corollaries are usually used in religious debate and mathematical theory. Corollaries have no place in science and definitely no place in medication. They often leads you astray and confuse you as clearly they do in this particular example.<br>Besides, this's likewise worth noting. Prostate cancer is predominately a disease of older men with declining testosterone levels. It's not at all an <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/howto/search?q=ailment">ailment</a> of younger men with high levels of the sex hormone circulating in the bloodstream of theirs. Exactly how next can you argue that testosterone replacement therapy may be favorable to prostate cancer? Certainly if anything the contrary would be the case though I'm not attempting to make that case with these.<br>Let us then place the final nail in the coffin of this pishogue regarding testosterone causing cancer. A recently conducted research into the security of testosterone replacement therapy, carried out by M.R. Feneley and M. Carruthers at The Institute of Urology and Nephrology University College, London and you do not get much grander than that; realized thus:<br>The likelihood of prostate cancer in this group of men (1,500) treated with testosterone over quite a few years was equivalent to which expected in the general population.<br>While I am at it then, let me simply dispel an additional healthcare myth, popular amongst doctors about TRT. Doctors still hang on to the fallacy which, to decide what males must be considered for TRT, it is necessarily to first of all take blood for hormonal level assay. This's not the truth. A recently available study conducted by Trinick, Carruthers, Wheeler et al realized as follows:
เข้าชม : 28
|
.jpg)
