Come join others currently navigating treatment in our weekly Zoom Meetup! Register here: Tuesdays, 1pm ET.
New Feature: Fill out your Profile to share more about you. Learn more...

Chemotherapy is NOT healing cancer

123457»

Comments

  • Fallleaves
    Fallleaves Member Posts: 134
    edited August 2016

    I just ran across a meta-analysis of various Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) used in combination with chemotherapy that found the herbal medicines increased effectiveness of the chemotherapy: "Results from 19 studies showed that 69% (466/671) of patients using chemotherapy with CHM were reported as complete or partial response, while 51% (324/633) of patients only using chemotherapy were reported as complete or partial response, indicating that the treatment for breast cancer was significantly in favour of CHM combined with chemotherapy (RR = 1.36)"

    Additionally, "7% (47/671) of patients in the chemotherapy combined with CHM group were reported with progressive disease, while 16% (100/633) of patients without CHM were reported with progressive disease. Results from 19 studies showed that the combined treatment for breast cancer has a positive effect in the number of patients who reported progressive disease (RR = 0.45)"

    Also, the CHM seemed to reduce side effects from chemotherapy: "Nausea and vomiting are common adverse events of chemotherapy. There was significant reduction of nausea and vomiting at toxicity grade of III-IV in patients treated by CHM combined with chemotherapy (RR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.27–0.52; P < 0.00001; twelve studies; 694 patients). However, the reduction of nausea and vomiting at toxicity grade of I–IV has significant heterogeneity (RR = 0.75 (data not shown). A significant reduction of WBC inhibition at toxicity grade of III-IV was found (RR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.34–0.69; P < 0.00001; twelve studies; 690 patients). But there was significant heterogeneity in the studies with reduction of WBC inhibition at toxicity grade of I–IV (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.69–0.82; P < 0.00001; I2 = 91%) (data not shown). The decrease of platelet at the toxicity grade of III-IV or I–IV in patients with combined therapy was significantly reduced (RR = 0.29)."

    So, it seems the Chinese have done quite a few (small) studies combining CHM with chemotherapy and found a lot of benefits. The five most used herbs were: "Radix Astragalus (73%), Rhizoma Atractylodis Macrocephalae (61%), Angelica sinensis (dong quai) (48%),Codonopsis pilosula (45%), and Poria cocos (39%)"

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4876224/


  • gracie22
    gracie22 Member Posts: 19
    edited August 2016

    Falleaves, thank you, that is so helpful.

  • rianne2580
    rianne2580 Member Posts: 10
    edited August 2016

    Twinkly you are my hero! I turned down chemo and radiation (much to the chagrin of my surgeon and oncologist) and am 5 years out healthy and happy, (I did take tamoxifen for 5 yrs.). I am now waiting for my Cologuard results, I'm 58 and have never had a colonoscopy. I think about your lengthy discussion regarding chemotherapy and all the invasive tests and treatments out there. My uncle turned down chemo when he was diagnosed with stomach cancer several years ago. He chose to live his life feeling good as long as his body would allow, then accept death as part of life. He fished, took walks, ate what he wanted and enjoyed activities until approx. a year passed. He suffered about 2 weeks. My mother in law had multiple chemo treatments from ovarian cancer...her life was hell for about 6 years. She was in constant pain, muscle aches, terrible mood, no appetite, simply miserable. I often recall both of those scenarios from family experiences and side with my uncle. If my Cologuard results come back positive, I honestly do not think I will do anything about it. It's a preventive test, I get it! My insurance pays for it 100%. And for my own benefit, I will know there is an issue in my colon but will I treat it? Don't think so. I feel good, eat well and exercise daily. If and when the symptoms start to take me down, I'll accept them. The big pharmaceutical companies bank on fear. They have an answer for every little pain or discomfort. There are severe illnesses that require treatment like asthma and others, of course. But the gray and murky areas of health care are fear driven.

    Your message regarding spirituality is also a good one. I've heard so many in the medical community say attitude is a huge part of the cure. I'm not a religious zealot saying no to all medical treatments. My appendix burst in 2011 before my MX. Of course, I had the emergency surgery to remove it, but I did turn down all pain meds. Took no pain meds for my MX either. The pharmaceutical community tries to paint life as pain free, totally blissful and carefree. Really? The commercials present legal drugs as an answer to all ailments when in reality they are mocking our natural resistance and natural immune responses to distress. I will accept life's limitations. Doctors and medicines have a place in our lives, but they will not rule my life or my decision about what to do with my body. I rely on my spirituality and instinct regarding what is good or healthy. I've learned to block the noise and go inward. Thank you for your refreshing post!

  • meow13
    meow13 Member Posts: 1,363
    edited August 2016

    I don't like taking drugs. I always seem to have some adverse effect. You just reminded me I need to do colonoscopy done. Maybe after vacation.

  • twinkly
    twinkly Member Posts: 104
    edited August 2016

    Hi Rianne, what a wonderful post! You are an inspiration to me also....everything you say is so uplifting!. Thank you so much for your refreshing perspective on living a life as fully as possible, and making the (very personal) decision where you will draw the line, and not compromise quality of life. I too believe all of our answers are within, and making decisions from this place leads to fewer regrets.

    Thank you again for your post. I so loved hearing your story.


    Big hugs,

    Twinkly


  • goldie0827
    goldie0827 Member Posts: 6,749
    edited September 2016

    Well, I quit chemo (Xeloda) after being on it over a year and a half. I had been doing RSO, getting rather sick, so I quit the chemo and for the last 6 weeks, I have only been doing the RSO. Got my labs done last week, and my TM's, both CA's went from 70's and 80's, both down to 52. Biggest drop I've ever had. Asked my onc if my numbers could go down, but there still be progression. He said it's not likely, but not impossible either.

  • twinkly
    twinkly Member Posts: 104
    edited September 2016

    Hi Goldie! It's great that your TM numbers came down, I'm so happy for you! Did quitting the Xeloda help you to feel any better?


    Remember, if you want your RSO to deliver twice as many cannabinoids (compared to when you take it orally) you can take part of your daily dosage (the one before bed is best) as a suppository.


    You can also make salve with your RSO, in case you are having lymphedema. Just inject some into a good base, like really warm coconut oil (stir until its all blended) cool down, and then rub directly wherever you have lymphedema..... or where the muscle is stiff from radiation....it really helps to generate healthy blood flow and helps keep the muscle supple for much longer than anything else I've ever used. The salve is also almost miraculous for burns of any kind. With salve, the pain quickly disappears....almost overnight, and then you heal very quickly.


    If you know who is making your medicine, you could also ask them to grow some male plants for you to have the fan leaves for juicing. Fresh plant juice is very healing and has has a mega ton of cannabinoids in their acid form (THCa, or CBDa) and turpenoids etc. that aren't sacrificed to the heating process, and can help in so many ways. Once you have a batch of juice, freeze the juice in an ice cube tray and take a cube a day melted in water. To me, it tastes like watermelon, without all the sugar....really refreshing!


    Take care Goldie! Biggest hugs,


    Twinkly

  • bluepearl
    bluepearl Member Posts: 133
    edited September 2016

    The Journal of Oncology article was published in 2004. The website "sciencebasedmedicine" is not owned and operated by big pharm. One has to examine the dates these articles are published and to re-check sources that say things about other websites.

  • Nulyte
    Nulyte Member Posts: 2
    edited September 2016

    Hi everyone, I unfortunately joined the "club" 2 weeks ago with a Stage 2B diagnosis and ER/PR + HER2 -

    I am a pharmacist by trade and believe in some medications. Unfortunately lately I wonder if chemo just isn't a money maker for the institutions to help fatten their bottom line. I have had 3 opinions and have requested Oncotype and Mammaprint and have been roadblocked. I finally lost my temper and said "why not ? What are you afraid of?" If my score comes back and indicates chemo I will open that discussion but if not why would you insist? Not one can give me a straight answer they dance around an answer. I had one doctor walk out of the room , he said I hate dealing with medical people. Oops, Sorry I did my research and can have access to clinical reports. I have started taking melatonin because unfortunately I was a graveyard shift pharmacist and believe this could have been my cause. My BRCA was negative for gene mutation.

    Does anyone else here ever feel like we are their cash cows? Even when I called Mayo for an appt , even though they say in their mission statement , non profit to promote health their first question was what insurance do you have?

    Thanks!

  • Momine
    Momine Member Posts: 2,845
    edited September 2016

    Nulyte, how many nodes do you have involved

  • meow13
    meow13 Member Posts: 1,363
    edited September 2016

    Also oncodx testing if you have fewer than 3 nodes positive could let you know how effective chemo could be.

    Whoops posted to wrong thread

  • Longtermsurvivor
    Longtermsurvivor Member Posts: 738
    edited September 2016

    Was looking at snopes for something else and found this interesting internet rumor:

    Carcinodisengenuous

    A compendium of misrepresentations led to a Facebook rumor claiming a long-dead doctor had recently revealed that chemotherapy doesn't work.

    It's false, so don't be fooled into quoting it as a source document:

    http://www.snopes.com/chemotherapy-doctor-blows-th...

    And no, I don't trust Science Based Medicine or David Gorski any further than I can throw them and my pitching arm can't even pitch to home base.

    Still, it's good to know what the "opposition" is saying about CAM and integrative approaches to cancer and other health concerns.

    healing regards all, Stephanie

  • Momine
    Momine Member Posts: 2,845
    edited September 2016

    Longterm, in what sense do you not trust Gorski

  • Longtermsurvivor
    Longtermsurvivor Member Posts: 738
    edited September 2016

    He is very anti-CAM and integrative medicine. To the extent that he foams at the mouth and says things that are blatantly untrue, distorted and meant to inflame his readers.

    Reads too much like a witchhunt for me. But I don't think the practitioners I know are witches.

    I am sitting in the waiting room of an integrative center waiting for my acupuncturist.

    His evaluation of the medicine does not match my life experience at all.

    But it is good to know what he says when I can stomach his rants. Not so easy these days.

    Please make up your own mind about him, his work and his evaluations.

    Mine is not the last word.

    Nor should he his to be either.

    Warmest regards, Stephanie

  • Fallleaves
    Fallleaves Member Posts: 134
    edited September 2016

    Stephanie, I feel the same way about David Gorski and Sciencebasedmedicine. He is very biased, which to me contradicts what science is all about. Alternative and Integrative researchers are doing scientific studies, too. It's ridiculous to reject the large body of evidence that has been collected because he doesnt' "believe" it. Very close-minded. I don't mind rigorous questioning, because that's part of science, too. But hostility has no place.

  • Momine
    Momine Member Posts: 2,845
    edited September 2016

    Thanks for explaining. Although, the name of the blog is sort of self-explanatory "science-based". I don't think of it as bias, but rather as focus. I can see that if you do not accept science as valid in the context of cancer treatment, then it would come across as unfounded bias.

  • abigail48
    abigail48 Member Posts: 337
    edited September 2016

    science protocols are interesting. double blind studies, peer reviewed s tudies, but control for fraud is always a problem; conflict of interests specifically; where the studies are done by the people heading the making of the substance being studied

  • Longtermsurvivor
    Longtermsurvivor Member Posts: 738
    edited September 2016

    Hi Momine,

    My first response to your question about David Gorski was short and quick, written on a cell phone in a clinic waiting room.

    Actually, I have no problem at all with science, research and reviewing medical guidelines from a variety of reputable sources.

    I'm a long time library user who branched out to medical libraries 40 years ago and am so grateful for reliable online resources including PubMed, Eurekalert, HealthNewsReview, Medscape, STAT and many others. I so appreciate good sources and, especially, open access articles that I scour in depth.

    I've read the blog science-based medicine for many years now and have the same teeth-on-edge feeling that I have while reading Mercola. I keep my critical thinking skills engaged and look for bias, rants and straw dog arguments.

    IMHO, what science-based medicine does best is examine cancer screening controversies and explain two important concepts that confuse many clinicians and patients:

    The cancer screening kerfuffle erupts again: "Rethinking" screening for breast and prostate cancer

    David Gorski

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cancer-screening-kerfuffle-erupts-again-controversy-over-the-effectiveness-of-screening-programs-for-breast-and-prostate-cancer/

    and

    The early detection of cancer and improved survival: More complicated than most people think

    David Gorski

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-early-detection-of-cancer-and-improved-survival-more-complicated-than-most-people-think/


    These are the most thorough and understandable explanations of lead-time and length-time that I've read and I think I've read all of H. Gilbert Welch and Gerd Gigenzer on risk, screening controversies, over-diagnosis and medical decision-making.

    In spite of appreciating Gorski's explanations of these concepts, his enthusiastic and distorted take-downs of integrative and holistic medicine leave me cold.

    I must winnow out the good stuff from the bad and am grateful for the education I've had!

    Momine, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the value of David Gorski's work and science-based medicine's value for evaluating alternative medicine.

    Because this is the alternative medicine forum, I try to best support members in making their own well-reasoned, well-researched and well-resourced decisions.

    Thanks for listening again. It's so much easier to type into a laptop screen than into a tiny cell phone screen. :)

    Healing regards, Momine and everyone, Stephanie

  • Fallleaves
    Fallleaves Member Posts: 134
    edited September 2016

    Momine, I love the concept of science based medicine (as opposed to capitalist driven medicine, which we have in the U.S.) But there is a definite difference between bias and focus. Unfortunately, it's hard to weed through the bias to get to the valid points on this website. He may be right about some things, but just like Rush Limbaugh, his tone alone is enough to keep me away. Of course, I tend to like to read science studies directly, rather than have someone else filter them through his or her opinion or world view (I don't go to the Mercola website or NaturalNews, for those same reasons). Much of what is written on that site is just opinion, anyway (about 10 to 1 ratio of verbiage to science). There's a thing called "confirmation bias," which is filtering new information through preconceived notions, ignoring anything that doesn't fit. I feel that is rampant on that site. Unfortunately, with a closed mind, one will not see the amazing new connections science is making every day!

    And Abigail, I agree entirely, conflict of interest and bias are a big problem in scientific studies, so funding should definitely be looked at, too!

  • abigail48
    abigail48 Member Posts: 337
    edited September 2016

    and even peer reviewed, who are the peers? are they peers who have helped developing the product studied for instance