natural girls
Comments
-
On the subject of Tamox & A/I's, I just came across an interesting bit of research I thought worth pointing out. Another member (lexislove) posted this link as a new thread yesterday:
http://www.abstract.asco.org/CatAbstView_65_1_AA.html
Well, I started looking through some of the studies tonight, and was very interested in the results of this one: Abstract No. e11522.
(Midnight here, and I'm reading medical abstracts! No wonder my DH gets exasperated...) Deanna
0 -
What do you know about these protocols? They say we cannot eat or drink whatever we what...
http://www.cancertutor.com/Other02/AdvTreatments.html
There are some combinations of foods.. I have started reading these things and found some clinics that have alternative treatments. I have posted these in another thread. Is there any natural girl that has participated in such programs?
Thanks a lot!
0 -
Susers,
If you gain weight on progesterone then you are taking TOO much. A lot of people think if 10 mgs is good, 100 mgs is better. Everyone absorbs a different amount. Dr. Zava has tested thousands of people over 30 years. He says the absorption rate can vary by 30 FOLD in different women.
If you take progesterone with Iodoral you will get MORE benefit. According to Funahashi's study, both are good by themselves but combined they work even better.
0 -
Deanna,
I've been reading the abstracts too. Good find by Lexis. I've been reading this one:
http://www.abstract.asco.org/AbstView_65_32902.html
About Onc's getting us to take a lipid panel for cholesterol changes while on a AI. Right. I tried to do that once with my Onc by just checking off the boxes on the form myself so I can get one done at the same time as the other blood work. Anyway, I got a lecture. We can't do that, blah, blah. And those Dr.s warn about side effects? What? When? I must have missed that talk.
0 -
Vivo,
I've read the pages. I just don't know how cottage cheese and flaxseed oil taken together can kill tumors? Ground flax seed was researched and it does shrink a tumor or stop its growth but what part does cottage cheese play?
I did like the part about juicing veggies, and eating the right type of fruit. Strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, cranberries and raspberries were also researched along with concord grape juice and are found to have anti-tumor benefits. Those are the makings of a darn good fruit smoothie on the days we don't juice vegetables. But cottage cheese?
0 -
Vivo-I am suspicious about the cottage cheese too, because of the diary factor. But you may get better dairy in Italy. Are they strict about shooting up their cows? And since ricotta is Italian cottage cheese, could you use that? I don't know. But if I had a tumor, and could find hormone/antibiotic free ricotta, I might try it. I like that cancertutor site. Lots of good info, but I wish they had some testimonials to go along with it.
Lorraine-thanks for the research on the Tamox. Since I was told to take arimidex, that is where I started to research and like what you have found, it scared the daylights out of me. And the doctors NEVER told me about side effects. They really downplayed them. I think this is the equivilent of tobacco companies telling people that smoking was fun. Eventually, the truth came out and the lawsuits flew. Lawyers are going to have a new source of income soon.
The FDA use to be a good overlord of the drug industry. Now half of it's funding is from drug companies. So we have a conflict of interest from the gitgo.
Anon-that was good information about the progesterone cream. Do you know a link to that doctor?
0 -
Fairy 49 - I thought it was you! :-). Yes, I did not want it to be that either! Too funny!I will try using it alternate days.
Anomdenet - I am not sure what is making me gain weight ( I eat very clean) but picked up on progesterone cream as a possibliltiy and started to wonder. Currently I am rubbing it on the days I do not have my period. The PC I am using dispenses 20mg's, but it seemed like I was rubbing forever to get it in so I started to scale back. I am a smaller person at 4'11", so less body to cover. My mom told me to cut back too. Thank you for your response to my issue. I will try that. The last thing I need is to put on more weight. I have gained 12% of my beginning weight.
My girlfriend and her sister were recently dignosed with BC. Yes, both sisters within months of each other. No family history. They are going to attend this 8 day program out in Colorado. Has anyone ever heard of this place or this man? His name is Dr.David Frahm who wrote a book called A Cancer Battle Plan. He talks about MRT - Muscle Response Testing and also talks about Iodine deficiencies as well. Here is his website: http://www.healthquarters.org/index.html
Thanks Ladies! Off to get me some vitamin D from the sun!!!
0 -
Good morning, and happy holiday weekend to everyone ~
Rosemary ~ That's funny about checking the box for the cholesterol bloodwork yourself. The last time my onc did some bloodwork for me (pre PCP's extensive testing), the nurse who drew my blood actually made the comment that it looked thick with cholesterol! So, I asked if they could check my cholesterol, and I was told, no, that my insurance company wouldn't pay for it! So I offered to pay for it myself, and they shook their heads like, no, we don't do that. I think vivre's comment is right on. Our oncs are not unaware of what these drugs do to us.
Susers ~ I haven't looked at his website yet, but David Frahm's wife, Ann, is the one who wrote A Cancer Battle Plan, back when using nutrition to fight cancer wasn't talked about very much. Her approach was cutting edge back when she wrote it (maybe 70's or early 80's?), and was one of the first books out there about the importance of diet in fighting cancer. Eventually, she succumbed to her disease, but she fought it quite awhile (10 or 12 years, I think), when that was a long time. Evidently, he's turned it into a business or a cause.
MRT is something some prominent natural docs in CA are into. In fact, a friend of mine is quite passionate about it since her young adult daughter was healed from life-threatening allergies. One part of what they teach, for example, is that your supplements aren't doing you any good if you happen to be allergic to any of the ingredients in them -- which you might even be aware of. I'm not sure what I think of it, but I can refer you to another website and book about it if you're interested.
Also -- about your mailbox being flooded with updates. It might be easier just to bookmark this and other threads you're on as "Favorites." Don't bother to get email updates, as this thread is always busy. Just go on when you can, and if it's a Favorite, when you click on it, you will automatically be taken to where you left off reading. Deanna
0 -
Thought you all might like to read this: (then go eat some apricots!)
The Cancer Industry - by Ralph Moss The "war on cancer" is being lost and this book gives the primary reasons why. The current treatments - mainly chemotherapy and radiation - are largely ineffective and so toxic people often die from their treatment rather than their disease. There's been nothing new from the research community in decades, and the number of cancer victims keeps rising. Ralph W. Moss worked at one of the most prestigious cancer research and treatment facilities in the US - Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York. He quit when that institution deliberately misled the press and public about test results for a promising treatment. That treatment was the much-maligned laetrile (vitamin B-17) that was finally banned by the FDA and its proponents forced underground. Interestingly, Moss reports that Sloan-Kettering's most respected researcher, Kanematsu Sugiura, stood by the efficacy of laetrile until his death.
In The Cancer Industry, Moss shows how institutions like Sloan-Kettering pick and choose what to test and how to test it, and operate with a bias toward those methods that are the favorites of their financial backers, even to the point of disregarding their own researchers, as they did with Dr. Sugiura. The medical staff at Sloan-Kettering had a bias toward chemotherapy, since their Board of Directors included corporate bigwigs whose business interests benefited from chemo profits, which are enormous.
Another promising treatment, hydrazine sulfate, suffered the same fate as laetrile, even though its backers had considerable success with it. Unlike chemo, which generally makes the patient sicker, hydrazine sulfate works by building the patient's strength. It was the result of a logical deduction, arising from the fact that cancer patients often die of "cachexia," a term that literally means "wasting away." Hydrazine sulfate is an anti-cachexia agent. It works with the patient's own resistance to restore health.
What really doomed these two approaches to cancer treatment is that both are natural substances and their use in cancer treatment is part of a nutritional approach. Drug companies cannot patent anything natural or profit from nutritional therapy as they can from chemical substances which they alone control through patents. Laetrile is a naturally-occurring substance found in many foods, including apricots. Hydrazine sulfate is a very cheap substance that is readily available.
Moss also examines in detail the treatment of William Coley (Coley's Toxin) Dr. Lawrence Burton, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and Virginia Livingston with her germ theory. All of these people achieved some success, but their methods were rejected by the orthodox cancer establishment.
Moss does not suggest that there is a formal conspiracy to suppress alternate treatments, but he does suggest that the organizations that control the direction of cancer treatment, whether government agencies, private companies, or research and treatment centers, have interlocking personnel and the agendas that matter are those that keep the funds flowing. He also shows that big egos and personal rivalries play a large part.
The cancer establishment has consistently downplayed prevention and ignored evidence that environmental factors or poor nutrition can be a cause or contributing factor in cancer. The big money interests that support the large charities like the American Cancer Society are not likely to approve of programs that suggest their products contribute to cancer. Moss examines the controversy over asbestos as a case study and shows how little interest there was among government or charities to warn the public about known dangers. While the entrenched players in the cancer war do little to inform the public about how to avoid the disease, they go out of their way to scare people about the likelihood that they will develop some form of cancer in their lifetime. Scare tactics bring in donations.
The book is well-researched and full of details (names, dates, test results), but I would have liked more information about the efficacy of screening tests, which is another big money-maker for the medical establishment. Is it really worthwhile to have mammograms and colonoscopies? Moss suggests that the "find it early" philosophy often makes no difference in the ultimate outcome. Given the high price and potential dangers of some of these screening tests, do they really serve the public or only the pocketbooks of those who provide the tests? It seems to me that screening tests are pushed on the public as a substitute for a cure, which these organizations have failed to provide, despite the billions of dollars they have spent since America declared a war on cancer more than 30 years ago.
It also seems to me that money is the primary motivator in all things medical in the US. Moss does not say there is a conspiracy and repeats the old mantra that a cure for cancer "would be worth a fortune." But wouldn't a cure ruin a perfectly good business, the cancer business? Moss shows just how many vested interests are involved in cancer, and I doubt any of them want to lose their market.
I'm betting that if we ever have a cure, or even better treatments, that the innovation needed will not come from the bloated and greedy US health care system, but rather from some country that has government-funded health care... somewhere where the incentives are for bringing down the costs by finding a cure for a deadly and expensive scourge. If you continue to believe the claptrap about America having the best medical research, then consider that it was two Australians who discovered that ulcers are caused, not by stress, but by bacteria and can be quickly and cheaply cured. What American drug company would have had the incentive to make such a discovery? Dr. Barry Marshall, one of the Australians whose persistence resulted in the breakthrough, was quoted as follows:
"The idea of stress and things like that was just so entrenched nobody could really believe that it was bacteria. It had to come from some weird place like Perth, Western Australia because I think nobody else would have even considered it."0 -
Hi
I am new to these boards and I love that you have a Natural Girls forum. I have declined tamox after a 6 mo stint on it. I do the flaxoil / cc and flaxseeds each morning, take lots of supplements and I try to follow the budwig protocol as much as possible, but I haven't done it to the letter. I do try to walk at least 5 days a week, and get sunshine daily as well as taking d3.
I am not BRCA positive but I just wanted to chime in to intro.
Southerngirl, age 46 , was age 43 at dx, NED for 3 plus yrs now!
0 -
ivorymom, I take tamoxifen, and I also try to improve my diet and use supplements. Natural treatments don't necessarily need to be instead of conventional treatments, they can be complimentary. Some natural supplements can help you get through conventional treatments with less damage to your body.
One example is that losing fat (which is where hormones are stored in your body) lowers the hormone load that your body has to feed a hormone driven cancer. The best way to achieve that is through diet and exercise. That compliments the action of the tamoxifen, they are in no way detrimental to each other.
You don't have to chose either or, although you can if that is what you feel will give you your best shot.
0 -
Hello Everyone,
In brief here is my update....I had the Breast Therm and the Doc said that my right breast showed no signs of cancer only changes from pregnancies and breast feeding which was a great relief. My left breast showed something suspicious and also the highly suspicious tumor. Here is the odd part. He said there was something going on in my kidney which to him indicated that I had something going on in my liver, i.e. METS. He said I should fight for PET. He said that if I had come in without the dx he would not think much of it but it was best to get it checked. I had a Liver Panel which showed nothing but he was not impressed and urged me again to fight for a PET.
So now I get the MRI results and it indicated that there was nothing significant going on in my right breast (again relief) but something was present that seemed to indicate pre-menstrual activity. The left breast confirmed the dx but also indicated that something was present that looked as if it was pre-menstrual activity neither one had vascular activity. They recommended that I have another MRI and if anything was still present an MRI guided biopsy. I will do this Tuesday.
I spoke with my surgeon and she said she could do the surgery and hopefully get clear margins but of course if she did not get clear margins there would be a re-excision. I am more comfortable waiting until everything is confirmed in both breasts and having surgery 1st of the June.
I asked about the PET but she was not interested in doing it until the staging was done.
Any suggestions? What would you recommend if you were in my position?
As always,
Grace
"The genius of some people is that they never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility we might be missing something."
0 -
Thought this was interesting - this small article talks about a new drug under development that attacks a newly discovered second receptor (GPR30)which is different than the receptor that Tamoxifen goes after. It appears there is more to the article but I am not a Biz Journal subscriber so I cannot get the reset of it, but thought it was very interesting.
http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2009/05/25/story6.html
0 -
Grace,
I think I'd want to do it the Dr's way first, then make a decision about what to do next. You always will be thinking about those other hot spots they found, but you can always redo that test to see if they still show up hot. One thing at a time, wait for his report about what was found, then go on to the next decision. Good luck on Tuesday. I'll be thinking about you and hoping you hear good news.
0 -
Grace,
Am I correct to think your doc is going on thermogram results only? Sometimes they can be good and sometimes they can be totally misleading. When I had mine, the therm said one breast was suspicious and the other was normal. It turned out that the breast they thought was fine had a tumor and the one they said was bad was just fibrocystic.
I was also told there was something wrong with my uterus on another study (not therm) and that turned out to be wrong also. When we are premenopausal there may be more room for error in these diagnostics.
If I were in your shoes, I'd have the tumor removed before making any decisions. BUT BUT BUT, I would emphatically discourage you from having your lymph nodes sampled. They can get enough information from the tumor itself. You will have to insist on keeping the surgeon away from your nodes. She will insist it is necessary for "staging." Their staging.
Taking nodes is an obsolete, barbaric, DIAGNOSTIC practice that can cause lymphedema in about 50% of patients. They will say sentinel node procedure is okay. This is BS. In consenting to the sentinel node biopsy, you are giving them permission to take as many nodes as they want if they don't like the looks of the sentinel node.
Even if there is cancer in your nodes, removing them does not improve survival and it may impair the nodes ability to filter out cancer cells. This lymph node information is the most important thing I have learned:
http://breastcancerchoices.org/faqlymph.html
Best to you,
Anom
0 -
Grace-Maybe you should get a second opinion from another surgeon? I believe that a good surgeon is the key to everything. Does your surgeon specialize in breast surgery? Ask around in your area for names of experienced surgeons. I know you want to get it all over with, but getting clear margins is essential. Once you are opened up, cancer cells can be fed by oxygen so it is essential that everything is taken. If your surgeon is not confident she can get clear margins, maybe you need one who is. We are here for you.
Welcome southerngirl. Hope we can help each other. Chime in any time..
Ivorymom, I don't know what to tell you. You have to weigh all the evidence and make the decision about taking these drugs. We have discussed lots of alternatives here, like i3C that has shown to have the same results as tamox. Look back for the links or google indole 3 carbonal and DIM.
0 -
Wow, Anom, I never knew that about the sentinal node. You are a wonder of info. I wish I had known that. I had a much longer recovery, months and months, from taking 2 nodes than from my breast surgery. And since my surgeon got wide margins, I can see how it might have been a waste. I just wish they would take the time to tell us this stuff. You know, no one even mentioned lympodema to me. Yeah, they gave me a lot of stuff to read, but I was in such a state, I could not even look at the stuff they gave me. And when we do not know what questions to ask, we do not ask any. The whole cancer business is so infuriating!
0 -
hello, i am new to this site could someone tell me what they are taking instead of arimidex i do not want to take that stuff i would rather do things natural i need to know if anything works ??? and what it is what is DIM and 13C sharon
0 -
On another note, I think I found out why cottage cheese is used in the Budwig diet. It's the CLA that might be in it. I do know that the cottage cheese has to be from outdoor cows only fed grass, and promoted as organic, no growth hormones, etc.
So to my thinking its the CLA:
http://www.lef.org/prod_hp/abstracts/php-ab153.html
I wonder if this means we should be eating ice cream? Haagan Dazs, high in milk fats?
0 -
Soaplady-I refused to take arimidex. I found a holistic doctor who encouraged me to use I3C which inhibits the hormone receptors, which link to cancer cells. I lowered my estrogen levels by diet and exercise, and take lots of vitamins and antioxidants. We have discussed a lot of it here. It is a lot to digest, so just read through it slowly and then check out some of the links we have. Educate yourself and you will be able to make a decision you are at peace with. And keep coming here. We seem to be off on a new tangent everyday.
0 -
Hi Ladies! I read this and thought it interesting!!
#1. Calcium D-Glucarate
as a breast cancer preventative The medical community has known for years that the prescribed estrogens, used in oral contraceptives and post-menopausal estrogen replacement therapies*, increase the risk of breast cancer. In 1997, several leading medical journals published clinical studies proving that synthetic estrogen causes cancer. This information has led many women to choose to avoid synthetic estrogen. Now however, evidence is surfacing that indicates that there are "estrogen mimics" in the environment that are also increasing the risk of breast cancer. These substances, known as xenoestrogens, mimic the action of estrogen once they get into the body. They include pesticides, such as DDT, herbicides, and plastics, which leach into our food and water from plastic wrap and plastic bottles that water, soda and baby's formula are stored in.Once these compounds are in the body, they wreak havoc in several ways. First they bond with estrogen receptors in the same way that estrogen does. After attaching to the receptors, they transmit a message that tells breast cancer cells to grow. Second, estrogen signals the release of a chemical known as "tumor growth factor". They also cause the number of receptor cells to proliferate. Once activated, they stimulate breast cancer cell growth, thus contributing to several of cancer's mechanism.
Scientists have estimated that 50 to 95 percent of cancers are caused by diet and environment; xenosetrogens are present in both for most women. They are very common in paints, textiles, paper products, pesticides, herbicides, plastics and plastic wraps. Some of the highest levels come from detergents that are used heavily and end up in municipal water supplies. And they migrate into foods from packaging.
What can you do about "estrogen overload"?
Your body tries to detoxify by removing these foreign estrogens from your body. To do this, the liver attaches a heavy molecule, called a glucuronide to the estrogen compound and it is carried out of the liver and into the bile and down to the gut. But intestinal bacteria make an enzyme that rips the glucurinide conjugate off the estrogen. Then the estrogen is free to be absorbed back into the body, beginning the damaging process all over again. Calcium D-Glucarate prevents this enzyme form ripping the glucuranide off the estrogen, so that it is able to move on through the bowel and out of the body.There are several ways you can control the amount of estrogen that is reabsorbed into your bloodstream.
The first is obvious; reduce your exposure to xenoestrogens by eliminating as many toxic chemicals, pesticides,
herbicides, and plastic products from your environment as you can.Second, cut down or eliminate meat from your diet because it increases the level of the enzyme that rips the estrogen loose in the gut.
Also eat at least 2 vegetables from the cruciferous family every day, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli & brussels sprouts, and take antioxidants. A supplement that has been very effective for this purpose, especially if you can't eat lots of cruciferous vegetables, is DIM,
which is an extract from these vegatables.Other important things that you can do are:
1. Use Natural Progesterone cream to balance the hormones and keep foriegn estrogens from attaching to the receptor sites.
2. Take Calcium D-Glucarate. This prevents the enzyme from ripping the glucuranide off the estorgen, and helps to keep it moving through the bowel.Calcium D-Glucarate is so potent that when it was given to rats expecially bred to have 100 percent risk of breast cancer only 56 percent got it. And the animals that did get it had 87.5 percent fewer tumors than normal. This substance is so promising as an adjunct to cancer therapy that the National Institute of Health is studying its use by women.
0 -
Rosemary- You Wish! LOL
Anomdenet -That is exactly what I've been thinking about!!! It does not make any sense to me to do such a thing. The way I see it is the nodes are there as a barrier to keep the cells from spreading to the rest of the body. By taking the nodes out, the safety barrier is gone. If there are cancer cells remaning in the tissue, what's to stop them from spreading???
And if the cancer is in the nodes, they can likely be somewhere else in the body. Removing the nodes does not prevent this; in my opinion.
God, I just know I'm going to have problems with my surgeon now... She might not operate if I don't let her do what she feels is best for my outcome. This is so FU'd!
0 -
http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html
THE BASICS.
CLA is a newly discovered good fat called "conjugated linoleic acid" that may be a potent cancer fighter. In animal studies, very small amounts of CLA have blocked all three stages of cancer: 1) initiation, 2) promotion, and 3) metastasis. Most anti-cancer agents block only one of these stages. What's more, CLA has slowed the growth of an unusually wide variety of tumors, including cancers of the skin, breast, prostate, and colon. (1)Human CLA research is in its infancy, but a few studies have suggested that CLA may have similar benefits in people. A recent survey determined that women with the most CLA in their diets had a 60 percent reduction in the risk of breast cancer. (2)
Where do you get CLA? Many people take a synthetic version that is widely promoted as a diet aid and muscle builder. New research shows that the type of CLA in the pills may have some potentially serious side effects, including promoting insulin resistance, raising glucose levels, and reducing HDL (good) cholesterol. (3)
Few people realize that CLA is also found in nature, and this natural form does not have any known negative side effects. The most abundant source of natural CLA is the meat and dairy products of grassfed animals. Research conducted since 1999 shows that grazing animals have from 3-5 times more CLA than animals fattened on grain in a feedlot. Simply switching from grainfed to grassfed products can greatly increase your intake of CLA. (4)
BEYOND THE BASICS.
On the molecular level, CLA resembles another type of fat called "linoleic acid" or LA. (Both CLA and LA have 18 carbon atoms and two double bonds holding the chain together. The main difference is in the placement of those bonds.) However, CLA and LA appear to have opposite effects on the human body. For example, LA promotes tumor growth but CLA blocks it.There are 28 possible types (isomers) of CLA, each one with a slightly different arrangement of chemical bonds. The type most commonly found in meat and dairy products has double bonds between the 9th and 11th carbon atoms and is referred to as "cis 9, trans-11 CLA" or "rumenic acid."
Milk from Grass-Fed Cows Higher in Vitamin E
Cows that get all their nutrients from grazed grass-their natural diet-produce milk with 86 percent more vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) than cows fed a standard dairy diet, according to a recent study.
The standard dairy diet consists of large amounts of "concentrate," which is typically a dry mixture of corn and soy. Some organic dairies raise their cows on pasture and supplement them with organic concentrate; others keep their cows indoors and feed them organic concentrate and stored grasses. The more freshly grazed grass in a cow's diet, the more vitamin E, omega-3 fatty acids, and CLA. Organic Valley is a nation-wide organic dairy that emphasizes grazing.
Natural CLA from grazing animals superior to pills
Tens of thousands of people who want to lose weight or reduce body fat have been taking a synthetic version of conjugated linoleic acid or CLA. A new study shows that the pills may cause more harm than good. After reviewing 13 randomized studies, a group of researchers concluded that the pills do not reduce body weight or body fat to a significant degree. Unfortunately, the promising results seen in animal studies do not seem to apply to humans.
Worse yet, the researchers found that a kind of CLA found in the pills (CLA (t10, c12) may cause serious health complications, including an enlarged liver, lower levels of HDL (good) cholesterol, and insulin resistance.
Meanwhile, the main type of CLA found in meat and dairy products (c9, t11 or "rumenic acid") has been given a clean bill of health. Once again, a natural product has been found to be superior to its synthetic counterpart.
Larsen, T. M., S. Toubro, et al. (2003). "Efficacy and safety of dietary supplements containing conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) for the treatment of obesity-evidence from animal and human studies." J Lipid Res.
Natural CLA from milk products is a better cancer-fighter than CLA pills
Many people are not aware that there are many types of the cancer-fighting fat CLA, depending on minute differences in molecular structure. It now appears that, in test tube studies, the kind of CLA found in butter and animal fat is the most potent cancer-fighter. Human breast cancer cells were incubated in milk fat high in CLA or in an isolated form of CLA without any milk fat. The high CLA milk fat decreased cancer growth by 90 percent but the isolated CLA decreased it by only 60 percent. When the cells were incubated in linoleic acid, the kind of fat that is most abundant in grain and grain-fed animals, cell growth increased by 25 percent.
Milk products from 100 percent grassfed cows are as much as seven times higher in cancer-fighting CLA than ordinary milk and far lower in cancer-promoting linoleic acid.
Two new studies suggest that grassfed meat and dairy products may reduce the risk of breast cancer
CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) is a cancer-fighting fat that is most abundant in grassfed products. Two new European studies link a diet high in CLA with a lower risk of breast cancer. In Finland, researchers measured CLA levels in the serum of women with and without breast cancer. Those women with the most CLA had a significantly lower risk of the disease. Meanwhile, French researchers measured CLA levels in the breast tissues of 360 women. Once again, the women with the most CLA had the lowest risk of cancer. In fact, the women with the most CLA had a staggering 74% lower risk of breast cancer than the women with the least CLA.
The most natural and effective way to increase your intake of CLA is to eat the meat and dairy products of grassfed animals.
A. Aro et al, Kuopio University, Finland; Bougnoux, P, Lavillonniere F, Riboli E. "Inverse relation between CLA in adipose breast tissue and risk of breast cancer. A case-control study in France." Inform 10;5:S43, 1999
0 -
Hi Everyone,
Vivre~ Her specialty is breast cancer. Based on the MRI, they saw something secondary to the tumor...some sort of residue...like the smoke that is left over after a jet takes off. Nothing concrete but it filtered through my breast from the nipple back to the chest wall. This is why she had a concern about the margins. I should have mentioned that.
anomdenet~ Actually, she flat out refused to base my surgery on the results of the Breast Therm, did not discourage me from having it done and said she was curious to know what it said. I told her the results after she gave me the results of the MRI. This infor about the nodes is throwing me for a loop, but thank you so much for the info. I have a great concern about lymphodema which they addressed in the pre-surgery breast class. They even had a physical therapist who had a double mast give the presentation and introduce the exercises we should do after surgery. She never mentioned not having the nodes biopsied or even suggested that it was an option.
makingway~ My sentiments exactly! I can just imagine the reaction I will get but I will discuss it nonetheless.
Also, can someone tell me how to add a link properly so it doesn't have to be copied and pasted?
Thank you all again and agian.........
As always,
Grace
"Never discourage anyone.....who continually makes progress, no matter how slow."
Plato
0 -
Grace writes:
"She never mentioned not having the nodes biopsied or even suggested that it was an option."
Grace,
You have to create your own options. Don't accept that breast plus nodes is "a package deal." Or standard procedure. I know it's hard to discover new information, but you don't want to discover the information later.
Take at least TWO MONTHS between diagnosis and surgery or you won't be able to master enough information and think about it so it makes sense. Postpone your surgery if you have to in order to be absolutely confident. It will probably take you three weeks just to wrap your brain around the lymph node information alone. A postponement is nothing compared to a life long disability.
My friend told her surgeon she didn't want any nodal procedures. He agreed. Then the morning of the surgery when she was in pre-op, vulnerable and wearing her hospital gown, he took her hand and said, "if you were my daughter, I would beg you to get your nodes "examined." She was so off-guard that she agreed and signed the consent form.
Not only did my friend get lymphedema, but the doctor severed a nerve. She doesn't know which is worse, the pain and numbness for the rest of her life---or being furious at herself for letting the doctor taking advantage of her at a vulnerable moment.
A.
0 -
I would like to have a little input about the lymph mapping decision. I seen both side of this...Yes you can get lymphedema....I am now suffering with advance LE and it's worst than any thing I've had with cancer so far. My lymphedema is from so much disease in chestwall/neck and back that the lymph fluid can not drain from my right side. With that being said...the only cure for cancer right now is totally removal at the time of surgery. If you leave positives nodes in there is only a very slim chance chemo will kill disease left behind. You MUST have good surgery and that means taking out all disease! I've had 56 nodes positive and I have no doubt I would be dead right now if they were not taken out three years ago.
The lymph nodes mapping should be done gently and not so aggressive as many surgeons feel the need to do and yes you will have to fight your doctor on this! If you are early stage and with a low Grade cancer I would not be as aggressive. If you have Grade 3 or you are triple negative or her2.... I would go for lymph mapping in a heart beat. Yes it is risky but everything about cancer treatment is. Please read everything on LE before surgery not after.
Flalady
0 -
Flalady,
Removing cancerous nodes does not improve survival. I know it doesn't seem logical. But it's only not logical if you think the nodes spread cancer.
But they have known removing nodes doesn't improve survival since the 1970s. It's in the Manual of Clinical Oncology. Read the webpage I posted. http://breastcancerchoices.org/faqlymph.html
0 -
Anom, I've read a lot of pages at breastcancerchoices and missed that one. I'm almost 4 years out of my surgery, and at the time I felt so fortunate that the SNB was available. I had some bozo of a local surgeon fail to dx me when he had the chance, and thanks to him my tumor had an extra 9 months to grow. I felt like it was nothing short of a miracle that the one node they took had no cancer in it.
It seems very counterintuitive that anything cancerous should be left behind. And I'm just so glad that I travelled to get the surgery I did. During my radiation treatment, I saw a woman from my support group who had surgery locally around the same time I did. She was so happy that all 30 of the lymph nodes they took were cancer-free. I'm quite sure my eyes bugged out of my head while I managed to bite my tongue and then say how happy I was for her.
I didn't get all the way through that page. Is the rationale for leaving the lymph nodes intact due to the fact that their role is to combat infections and disease?
0 -
This information does not address stage, grade or receptor. Why would any one with aggressive disease remove a breast and leave positive nodes? Local recurrence is the hardest place on the body to treat. Even stem cell treatments will not work on local recurrences. You are move to stage IV with recurrence to chestwall or axillary's. Yes, bc can traveling through you blood also. You must know your disease when making these decisions and this one document will not change my mind. Does not address all the factors that make my disease different from so many. Read about node positive rates for triple negative ladies and our death rate connected to them. Node positive our recurrences rate is 65%! Her2 I'm sure is in the same range. Many only research hormone positive disease and do not understand the factor with other's disease and risk. This info also is eight years old...this was the start of SNM and many things have changed since than. Talk to a breast surgeon and ask what she see in your body. My bs could tell me what she saw with both surgeries and that she could not reach all the nodes...she knew than I would be in treatment the rest of my life. And she was right...my disease for the first two years was just node disease that than spread to skin.
Triple Negative
- Diagnosis to distant metastasis was a median of 15 months in the triple negative group versus 24 months in the rest of the patients.
- Distant metastasis to brain metastasis was a median of three months for triple negative cancer versus 11 months for other subtypes.
- Brain metastasis to death, on average, was the same in both groups - seven months - presumably because the tumors, once in the brain, were treated alike, with whole brain radiation, stereotactic radiosurgery, and /or surgery, despite their tumor subtype.
- Diagnosis to death was a median of 26 months in the triple negative patients versus 49 months in other patients
0 -
BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node status, hormonal receptors (HR) and HER2 expression are significant prognostic factors for early breast cancer. Triple negative immunophenotype (HER2 and HR negative) is associated with a high frequency of recurrence and lower overall survival. The objective was assess clinical behavior, recurrence and survival of patients with triple negative early breast cancer and patients with other immunophenotypes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study among women with stages I-IIB over 18 years with determination of HR and HER2 expression by immunohistochemical assay. We identified 5 groups: triple negative, triple positive, HER2 negative & HR positive, HER2 positive & HR negative, HER2 negative & 1 HR positive. We recorded age, date of diagnosis, clinical stage, tumor size, axillary lymph node status, ER, PR, HER2, p53, angiogenesis, Ki67, type of surgery, adjuvant treatment, time to recurrence, number and recurrence site and overall survival. RESULTS: 17 patients (15.4%) had triple negative phenotype, 14 (12.7%) triple positive, 52 (47.3%) were localized in group 3, 11 (10%) in 4 and 16 (14.5%) in group 5. Triple negative phenotype was associated with increased cellular proliferation (p < 0.000); being young (median 43 years), large tumor size (median size 2.5 cm) lower proportion of patients in stage I and high frequency of p53 positive (78.5%). We observed a high frequency of recurrence and death among the triple negative group and among the HER2 positive and HR negative cases. CONCLUSIONS: Triple negative breast cancer is more common among young women and is associated with a high frequency of recurrence and mortality. Clinical behavior among triple negative breast cancer cases is aggressive and displays a similar clinical profile that observed among HER2 positive and HR negative patients.
0
