What if this prevents cancer from becoming resistant?

I saw a thread about half-dose medications.

Guys, what do you think about whether resistance can be avoided? Read below.

Another option is to use different combinations of ADT and lutamide. For example, one month is ADT without lutamide, the second month is ADT with lutamide, the third month is lutamide without ADT, the fourth month is neither ADT nor lutamide, and then the cycle starts over again, so as not to repeat the previous cycle (the combinations would be reversed).

I had this thought, perhaps it's naive, but for some reason my intuition told me exactly this. What do you think?

In other words, varying the medications is necessary to avoid resistance. I've heard of guys who are still alive for 30 years; maybe they did exactly this?

I voiced this thought to my oncologist, and he said it wouldn't work with high Glyson levels.

At that moment, I thought about resistance as cancer adapting to low testosterone levels. The cells change and no longer respond to low testosterone.

And if you really want to "let the cancer swing," you can try to keep testosterone levels fluctuating rather than staying steady, and change the ADT + Lutamide combination depending on PSA growth. For example, if PSA growth is significant, ADT + Lutamide is taken for a month; if PSA growth is moderate, Lutamide alone is taken; if PSA growth is low, ADT alone is taken; and if PSA growth is not observed, the duration of Lutamide-only treatment is extended (2 months instead of 1 month). In any case, the method is based on the fact that we don't "create" a wall for the cancer, but rather a swing when it doesn't have time to adapt (testosterone levels fluctuate, but we don't allow it to fully utilize them with the help of lutamide).

I want to try this on myself, but fear holds me back. But who knows, maybe this method works.

Why do I think this method might work for those with a PSA level of almost 0 and whose cells have not yet become resistant to cancer?

Argument 1: If cells are still dependent on testosterone, they will respond to ADT and lutamide when drug therapy is resumed.

Argument 2: By changing combinations and increasing testosterone levels, we prevent cancer from becoming resistant because we are changing the "rules of the game" and not dealing with cells that are no longer responsive to ADT and lutamide.

Argument 3: By repeating combinations in a cycle (ADT and lutamide, ADT only, lutamide only), we maintain a basic level of protection by closely monitoring PSA levels, which is an indicator that resistance is not developing.

Argument 4: Cancer has little time to "start firing." A new combination will either lower testosterone (ADT) or dampen the ignition.

Argument 5: It's no secret that they're making money off us, and the higher the stage, the more money they make. But they can make much more money if resistance develops (medicine is a business), and perhaps that's why ADT and lutamide inevitably lead to the development of resistance! What if we take our luck by the balls and say no to a society in which someone profits by keeping silent about the easy way out (when registration doesn't occur)

And finally, if the cancer becomes resistant, then we're done for, and we need to avoid it at all costs to keep the cells sensitive to hormones.

What do you think, guys? Is it risky?