Survivors who have used only alternative treatments
Comments
-
Ok, but she said that chemo works in less than 2 percent of cancers, and of that 2 percent, more than half get secondary cancers. We all know that's bull, right? I'll remove my comment if she removes that one.
0 -
Don't remove it Lynn.... you only said what 99% of us are thinking.....
0 -
Ltothek - AMEN sister ! Have read same and did not know how or where to start the debate. Want to do more research on subject. It is a fact that oxidants kill bacteria, viruses AND cancer cells, i.e. chemo.
Why then promote anti-oxydants which appears to be the biggest discovery since God created man ???
Just came across a book yesterday (cannot affort to buy) saying cancer develops in alkaline environment.
0 -
Luan--that is interesting re: oxidants. Never thought of it that way...
Tell me the name of the book. I read everything I can get my hands on.
0 -
Actually Lynn, an apology is in order, as you made a derogative personal comment.
0 -
Ltotek, I hope you understand French....it's called "Les huiles essentielles" by Guy Roulier, ed. Pocket.
There was this graphic which caught my attention, the whole book looks most interesting
(((0 -
MOC,
Read up on how needle biopsies spread cancer.
- Arch Surg. 2004;139:634-640.
- Manipulation of the Primary Breast Tumor and the Incidence ofSentinel Node Metastases From Invasive Breast CancerNora M. Hansen, MD; Xing Ye, MS; Baiba J. Grube, MD; ArmandoE. Giuliano, MDHypothesis The incidence ofsentinel node (SN) metastases from invasive breast cancermight be affected by the technique used to obtain biopsyspecimens from the primary tumor before sentinel lymph nodedissection. Design Prospective database study. Setting TheJohn Wayne Cancer Institute.Patients and Methods We identified 663 patients withbiopsy-proven invasive breast cancer who underwent sentinellymph node dissection between January 1, 1995, and April 30,1999. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on type ofbiopsy: fine-needle aspiration (FNA), large-gauge needle core,and excisional. A logistic regression model was used tocorrelate tumor size, tumor grade, and type of biopsy with theincidence of SN metastases.Results Of the 676 cancers, 126 were biopsied by FNA, 227 by large-gaugeneedle core biopsy, and 323 by excisional biopsy before sentinel lymph nodedissection. Mean patient age was 58 years (range, 28-96 years),and mean tumor size was 1.85 cm (range, 0.1-9.0 cm). Inmultivariate analysis based on known prognostic factors, theincidence of SN metastases was higher in patients whose cancerwas diagnosed by FNA (odds ratio, 1.531; 95% confidenceinterval, 0.973-2.406; P = .07, Wald test) or large-gauge needlecore biopsy (odds ratio, 1.484; 95% confidence interval,1.018-2.164; P = .04, Wald test) than by excision. Tumor size(P<.001) and grade (P = .06) also were significant prognosticfactors.Conclusions Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA orlarge-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase inthe incidence of SN metastases, perhaps due in part to themechanical disruption of the tumor by the needle. The clinicalsignificance of this phenomenon is unclear.
0 -
We have a lady on this site that has stage 3a I believe because of a badly done biopsy.
0 -
Language is everything.
Needle biopsies CAN or MAY cause cancer. They don't necessarily spread cancer, the article also states that size of tumor and grade were factors. I had heard this, and after having a core biopsy myself, definitely worried.
Regarding "alternative only" posting, this topic was started by a young patient with fairly advanced disease who only wanted alternative treatment. Those of us who believed this was straight up crazy spoke up and out.
I always stand up to erroneous and/or unsubstantiated information. I appreciate that Mollyann often links to her statements, I believe we should all be doing more of that.
0 -
LtotheK, In the case I am talking about this lady had a biopsy done that came back positive for cancer. In her case a year later she now has stage 3a that her Dr. feels was spread by the biopsy because of the location. I believe her name is LoveRVing.
0 -
There has been some intense reaction to the statement
"Chemo works in less than 2% of cancers -- and of those 2%, more than half of them get secondary cancers caused by the chemo. It's important to remember that secondary cancers are not recurrences of a previous cancer but entirely new cancers caused by the treatment. Most often, the secondary cancer is much more resistant to treatment than was the original cancer."
The statement is not absolutely wrong, but the way it is phrased is inflammatory.
The idea that chemo works in less than 2% of cancers depends on your definition of "works".
If you are considering adjuvant chemo for the treatment of breast cancer as it was recommended before the Oncotype DX test became available, the numbers would be accurate. As more women who are unlikely to receive any benefit from chemo no longer are given chemo, the percentages change. In that situation, the gold standard is no recurrence ever.
Remember that about 85% of women without node involvement who have a mastectomy and no further treatment went on to live with no recurrence even before anyone considered giving chemo to women without node involvement, so if the chemo were 100% effective in that population (which it is not), only 15% of them would receive any benefit since the others would be fine without the chemo. It is all about determining which patient fits into which category.
If you are thinking about a stage IV woman who receives symptom relief when chemo shrinks her tumor(s) then the standard of benefit is different, and the percentages of women helped by chemo is far higher.
The percentage of chemo patients who develop a new cancer as a direct result of chemo treatment is about 1% of all who receive treatment with chemo whether they receive any benefit from the treatment or not, which is about half of the percentage of women helped by adjuvant chemo, although the women who develop a new cancer may not be the ones who receive benefits.
0 -
patzee9, May I ask what you are doing now to prevent it from coming back? I know the 1 chemo I had really destroyed my immune system, and could sure all the help I can get. I still have very low white cells, and my reds are not normal, plus my CEA levels are rising, so to say I'm worried is an understatment. The only good results are my CA 27-29 levels are going down.
0 -
Kira, I was referring to Mollyann's post, her statement in bold.
0 -
I can certainly understand that women with stages 1 and 2 will find themselves sitting on the fence. Patzee, i absolutely hear what you are saying and knowing those facts I had no choice but to throw everything at the beast. It tore me apart when they were injecting the poison into my body which I had tried for soo many years to treat as best I could.
Patmom, what u are saying is scary, because in Cnda we don,t have the Oncotype test, at least not that i know of.
I would also like to hear what u are doing Patzee to keep the monster at bay.0 -
Luan, I respect you for all the research you have done over the last few months, would also like to know what you are doing. I totally understand why you had to go with all the standard treatments.
0 -
I know this is an alternative forum but I was wondering what your thoughts were for someone who is Her2+? The only way they would give me the Herceptin was with chemo. The Herceptin has been shown to work with Her2+.
0 -
MEMBER, I feel the need to address the following comment you made on a previous page. You said - "Biopsies do not spread cancer. Period. This idea of "more than half of cases" is just not true. Also, the idea that mets are caused by treatment is untrue as well."
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong in stating that biopsies do not spread cancer. It's a well accepted fact that it can occur... not just with breast biopsies but with biopsies done on other kinds of cancer as well. True, it's not considered a frequent event, but it does occur none-the-less. And although it's not likely that it's responsible for "more than half of cases", it is quite possible that the frequency is somewhat higher than the rare occurance it's always been thought to be. You should probably do some research on the subject before making such demonstrative statements.
And regarding treatment causing metastasis...well, I suppose that depends on what kind of treatment is being discussed. Since sloppy surgical technique can definately spread cancer cells around and biopsy tract seeding does occur, then "treatment" can can cause metastatic disease that might not otherwise have happened.
None of this is to say that anyone should decline surgical intervention or biopsy because they are both absolute necessities in curing and controlling cancer. However, it is what it is and denying the facts won't change it - both surgery and biopsies CAN contribute to recurrence and metastatic disease. But until we can wave a magic wand and cure the disease, they're all we've got.
Just do a PUBMED search using quoted terms like "biopsy seeding" or "biopsy tumor cell dissemination" and you'll see all the different kinds of cancer that can be spread by biopsies.
And here's an interesting article about a new technology hoping to further minimize the possibility of biopsy tract seeding - Gee, I wonder why anyone would be wasting their research, development and marketing funds on a product that wouldn't ever be purchased and utilized since, as you say, biopsy tumor seeding doesn't ever happen?
Prevention of tumour cell dissemination in diagnostic needle procedures
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994228/?tool=pubmed
0 -
Britchick, while the naysayers will jump all over this, more people are surviving BC for longer periods than ever before. That is modern medicine, not Vitamin D. Maybe someday it will be as simple as that. We all hope for that day, and until then, fish oil, and Vitamin D have plenty of evidence to show they are part of our naturopathic arsenal against cancer.
0 -
I totally agree biopsies could (not will) spread the cancer especially FNB. The idea of radiation after a lumpectomy is to take care of that possible situation.
0 -
I know my PS is always telling me to eat antioxidants (blueberries, raspberries, blackberries and Cruciferous vegetables) I have always eaten lots of cabbage, bok choy, broccoli and brussel sprouts. Still got cancer. Not saying I'm stoping as I do believe it will help.
I also had a core needle biopsy. I believe my radiologist took 5 samples. There was a huge chance of me having micromets in my nodes given the size and aggressiveness of the tumor. As you can see the biopsy didn't spread the cancer to my nodes. I'm sure there are many other women who had the same thing. I think you forgot to highlight this part "The clinical significance of this phenomenon is unclear"
0 -
Patzee9, you make such wide-sweeping statements without adequate substantiation. For example, I sincerely doubt you understand the mechanism by which chemo impacts the immune system? Yes, some portions of the immune system are impacted but not the entire system. Can you name the different types of cells that comprise our immune system, and do you realize how each functions?
Are you even aware that many of the cancers that were once death sentences are now treatable thanks to some of those 13 chemo drugs you mention? I am tired of the half truths.
I firmly believe that what we expose our bodies to, and what we eat, has a direct impact on our ability to fight disease. So does exercise and our emotional outlook. But these are all tools that work together.
The key word, as others have said, is evidence-based. Not crack science that is based on innuendo and sweeping statements that sound plausible until you start examining the facts.
0 -
"Clinical significance unclear" is not a finding. Did you read how much more spread to the nodes needle and core biopsy creates? As you learn to read studies you will be able to distinguish the actual bottom-line findings from the conclusion.
Good luck and stick with learning how to read studies. It takes a lot of time and experience.
You will learn that your own experience is not evidence of anything and that only systematic, rigorous studies are what count.
0 -
and you need to learn that when 1 study comes up with unique findings, future studies must be done to see if it can be repeated. That is why "clinical significance is unclear" has been included in the results.0
-
MY only real fact is that I don,t have a CHOICE but to submit to the standard of care which i strongly argue is NOT "modern" but archaic at best. No new drugs to treat stage 3 (can only speak for myself) or machines to replace mammos have made their way to us in how many years, i would like to ask ??? Was looking at mammo studies and hardly no new studies since 1999 for God,s sake !!!
0 -
It's clear you are not familiar with the language of studies. But of course you have only been at this since July so that is to be expected. I would love to hear your comment after you have read more and know what the words actually mean.
Good luck!
0 -
Patzee - what would you have done if your cancer was HER2+ve - do you understand the agressiveness of HER2?0
-
Mollyann, how about instead of keeping us in the dark, you give us some pointers on what we are missing. I'm interested in learning more. In fact, I bet there's a website out there that could help all of us interpret studies more clearly.
This was not Mollyann, rather, some other folks, but one thing really t-ed me off on the alternative forums: there was a ton of "read more, Grasshopper" attitude rather than just helping me out by giving me pointers on the bottom line.
0 -
Lago, i wasn,t talking veggies, i was alluding to heavy duty anti-ox supplements which i,ve been taking for years. They, in no way, prevented my bc. Did they make me more vulnerable? I don,t know.
0 -
Luan, I don't think for a minute taking anti-ox suppliments caused your cancer. If that were so most of the country would have cancer. There is so much more that we don't understand, but my gut says it's the things we come in contact with daily that cause it. In my case I am alergic to black rubber, well it just so happens I spent 2 years sitting on the stuff in the place I worked.
0 -
If only it were black and white. Or even just the colours of the rainbow. However, it is a disease of many faces, some known, most not known.
We can't just say chemo is bad or chemo is good. It is a tough decision for most to make and we have to focus on the info available to us. It is a very different decision for early stage girls as opposed to later stages. So lets try to avoid painting all of us and our tx choices with a broad brush.
0
