Natural cures for breast cancer treatment
Comments
-
The book on sleep I read is called Why We Sleep. This book spoke to me. Everybody here should read it. If you neglected your sleep even for a short period of time, there will be consequences. So it is entirely possible for a person to be happy, live a full life, but if getting only 4 or so hrs of sleep each night, they are ruining their health. They may not know it.
I never slept well, even as a kid. I never realized that until I got sick here again 2 yrs ago. I always managed and certainly lived a full life. I never realized what damage I was doing by not getting a full nights rest. It is essential to have REM and NREM sleep every single night.Our society loved to make fun of those that slept. Lazy they said. Success was those getting 4 hrs. There is an actual condition that is genetic that sadly does not allow a person to sleep. They die. Does not take long.
Yes, we all have stress. It does matter a lot how we are able to handle it. Dr David Servan-Schreiber was young when he accidentally found out he had brain cancer. He had been living a very hectic, stressful life. The cancer forced him to slow up quite a bit and look at how he got there and what to do. He lasted 17 yrs. You can read about him Anti Cancer A new Way of Life. Also watch his documentary on Netflix. Excellent. What I want to point out is that watching him in that documentary his need to make his life hectic resurfaced. He looked exhausted to me. IMO, all his running around shortened his life. We all do this. We get feeling better and step on the gas again.I need to bring in my horse Olivia. She was an amazing creature, but stress nearly killed her by 4. While she was incredibly well bred, her metabolism was severely altered by stress. It is called colic. It kills. She was never going to be the show horse I thought I bought. She had major surgery at 3. Coliced by 4. Being hospitalized was a trauma. If I was going to save her, she needed a quiet life. She needed no stress. She got it. I gave her a wonderful life for 21 yrs. I gave her what I did not give myself. I pushed myself beyond the capacity of my immune system.
I am once again facing a stressful time. This time I admit it. I will work through it. My health must be the priority. I will let go of things and not try to control so much. Others must step up. Solutions might not be perfect. I accept that now. I will do my best and not be super woman.
Yes, let it go. I will say a prayer for guidance and strength, but no fretting.
0 -
So back to my ardent belief. We should strive to lead healthy lifestyles. After that, most anything is OK in MODERATION.
0 -
The Anti Cancer book was first published in 2007, just a few years prior to the time I was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. It was one of the very first books I read about cancer, and It spoke to me on so many levels. Reading it calmed my ramped up anxiety.I feel one is doing Dr. David Servan-Shreiber a huge disservice insinuating he “only" lived 17 years after being diagnosed with a brain tumor. That is a hell of a long time, and I feel it is terribly unfair to diminish such longevity with brain cancer by judging him on how he looked on film. This is exactly what I meant in my previous post on this thread by how some people are a bit snobbish with holding on so tightly to their beliefs in “natural" cures they overlook the true advances one can make with both conventional medicine combined with complimentary medicine. Absolutely no one can make a definitive statement saying he'd have lived longer if only he'd removed more stress......
I thought he looked very handsome DESPITE the fact that he had brain cancer. Who among those with brain cancer are looking hot to trot with that kind of diagnosis?
Dr. Servan-Shreiber certainly found a new passion in life after learning of his brain tumor.. He still had to live with the cancer. Let's give him all the credit he deserves.
0 -
MinusTwo and DivineMrsM,
A big
to both of your posts. 0 -
Divine if you are referring to my post about Dr David, you have completely misunderstood my post. Maybe you should ask for better clarity.. It is amazing he lived 17 yrs. Nobody would think differently. He did so partly because he embraced alternative help vs just staying with conventional protocols. He would insist that is so. That is why he was out on the campaign trail 24/7 exhausting himself trying to change minds. He felt the pushback from those in the medical community shunning nutrition as extremely beneficial to help fight cancer. He spoke of it constantly. It is why he did in fact risk his life to get the message out most likely fearing he had limited time. I am saying he exhausted himself making that sacrifice and being away from his family that he adored including his 1st son and babies. He did look exhausted. He was extremely tired. It was evident in his eyes and his body fairly early on when he first got news of being a dad again. Those around him seemed to push him when he was hanging on by a thread. Maybe that was his call. His strong desire to change minds forced a very hectic life for him that greatly contributed to running down his body. Again, he may have felt the sacrifice was worth it.
0 -
Minus - I am not sure moderation of everything is a good policy. I once thought that made sense, but it depends on what input we are talking about. Ever watch the documentary called Sustainable? Excellent documentary. Moderation was mentioned in that program with examples of how moderation is often embraced but if something is helping decline your health, elimination is thus best policy.
I am a farmer. We do add nitrogen to sandy soil, plus manure. Of course that leeches out more quickly than clay soil. So instead we grow grasses to try to enhance soil. Most farmers rotate corn and soybeans which is a moderate approach as corn takes out nitrogen while soybeans adds nitrogen. So everybody feels good and yet our soils tell us this moderate approach is not working. The organic group in this documentary is not about all things in moderation. It is about removal. They believe if the right crops are grown that adding nitrogen would be cut by 90 percent. Almost removal as the right plants would over time allow nitrogen to stay in soil and not need chemicals to be added.
I believe added sugars need to be eliminated from diet. Not moderated, but gone. As it is we all get enough sugar without dumping more into products just to make sweet and addictive.
Moderation? Smoking is bad. No moderation is going to make it ok. Alcohol is bad. No moderation is going to make it a healthy choice. One person’s moderation is not another’s. Alcohol killed my baby brother when a man plowed into my dad’s car. Alcohol helped kill my sister, my brother-in-law, and my dad and nearly destroyed countless others I love. Again, I once too embraced the term moderation, but now I realize I was just sitting on the fence not wanting to offend.
BTW, my cancer hospital is still passing out candy knowing it is a food for cancer cells. I spoke to my oncologist about this. I was very blunt with him. He agreed it was wrong, but said hospital administrators just shrugged. Fence sitters
0 -
Sorry - likely this will offend some. I am NOT going to give up sugar. I am NOT going to give up chocolate. And I am NOT going to give up a glass of wine with my dinner, or a gin & tonic on a hot day. I eat red meat once or twice a month because that's the only time I'm hungry for it - but have not given it up. I don't have the funds to pay twice as much for 'organic' food so what worked for my parents will have to work for me. (BTW - they lived to 94 & 96 by the code of moderation)
I've had MOHS surgery for 6 basal cell cancers so can no longer be in the sun. I filled in my swimming pool and can't spend any prolonged time on the beach or in the ocean snorkeling or diving or surfing.
I've had breast cancer and then a BC recurrence. BC treatment has left me with lymphadema so many prior hobbies are out & flying is a PITA. Regular Yoga is out. And I have CIPN (chemo induced peripheral neuropathy) - mostly evidenced in my 'dead' feet but also lack of feeling in my fingers. (and yes, I did ice & take all the recommended supplements) So I have no balance because I can't feel my feet and (for example) I can no longer go sailing w/o falling off the boat. I can not swipe a smart phone because my fingers don't feel how hard or soft I'm touching.
BTW - I continue to believe in traditional science based medicine and have always added complementary supplements when there might be some benefit.
I'm not meaning to complain - just state my PERSONAL position. My quality of life has already taken some major hits. Quality of life is MUCH more important to me than quantity. Maybe I'll dial back on some things, but I will not be cutting out or giving up anything left that I enjoy. When I was younger, perhaps I could have been an ascetic, but now I will continue to practice moderation and enjoy what I can.
0 -
So this is a healthy discussion including disagreement. I need clarification as I am now scared to post. I posted my opinion and belief on another thread and was told by another poster not to post unless you agree. I think it was more like, why list here if you don’t agree. And then the OP closed the thread because some responders did not support the study that was posted. I post and in the morning I wake up in fear of all the reactions that are far less than respectful. In person, I can handle anything. I hate how anonymity can allow such disrespect. Not certain I am meant to communicate like this. But I love the knowledge I have gained. Just asking as posting has started to cause way more stress than is really worth it. Perhaps this is not where I should discuss this. I think I may surf for awhile.
0 -
MinusTwo,
YES! None of us know how much time we have and I'd like to enjoy my time, not spend it worrying about what I should or shouldn't be consuming.
My 95 year old mother, who had breast cancer, now has Alzheimers. She still worries constantly about what she eats - it's a life-long habit that remains with her even as she forgets so many other things. That's not what I want for myself.
I'll stick with trying to live a healthy lifestyle, while allowing myself whatever I want, in moderation. Yes to chocolate pretty much every day (but just a small piece). Yes to red meat occasionally. Yes to a glass or two of wine when I'm in the mood for it (it's good for the heart, after all). No to gin & tonic - not a fan of gin - but I did treat myself to a couple of yummy "specialty" coffees (with booze and whipped cream) last week when we were away, a reward after a chilly walk. I doubt that a few of those a year will cause any permanent harm, and they sure are delicious!
1 -
Devine and other Stage IV sisters - I apologize to all of you that my rant probably sounds like an overboard complaint. What I'm dealing with is nothing like what you all continue to go through. You have my upmost admiration and I hold you all in my thoughts.
1redgirl - you don't have your diagnosis & treatment posted. I apologize to you also if you are stage IV.
I just feel very strongly about moderation. In all things!!!
TB90 - most of us like discussion - in moderation (LOL). Usually you can post anything you like - except of course - be circumspect about religion or politics. There are threads that are unique to those who want to rant about the same political issues or believe the same religious things. Since none of us need any more stress on top of BC, and we get plenty on all our other means of communication, most of us try to keep BCO as a safe spot.
0 -
hmm. Here we are allowed to not only disagree, but disagree in pairs and groups. Has me baffled.
0 -
People on this site seem to get MOST offended by comments about what constitutes optimally healthy eating habits. Because nobody wants to feel they might have brought on their own illness due to bad diet. But it is pretty clear to doctors what kind of eating correlates with the most robust health, and my pre diagnosis diet likely contributed to me having more inflammation in my system and making it more prone to growing a cancer.
I decided to give up alcohol, & simple/high glycemic carbs. TNBC can be assisted by a low-meat Keto diet, so that's what I did initially. And I fasted intermittently (this also has many health benefits). Now, post treatment, I have brought back nutritive carbs and more fruit, and reduced my meat intake. I eat low dairy, low meat, low animal fat -- that leaves veggies, fruits, legumes, fish, nuts and seeds-- and I try to stick to organic/wild caught. I will have an alcoholic drink maybe once per month (I used to have more like one per day!). I make some homemade muffins that are low carb too. If it's a special occasion I will loosen up and enjoy a dessert, but I feel very good mostly sticking to a clean whole foods diet. It's something I *can* do to give my health a boost, and it is not hard for me, so I do it. I happen to live in a great area for produce-- several farmer's markets every week-- so it's easy to do. It would be very hard in a 'food desert' environment however.
The trouble with "moderation" is that different people assess "moderate" differently. And of course everyone knows a very careful eater who got terribly sick or a horrible eater who lived to 90 (my dad eats horribly, and he is 92!). People who are unwilling to change their diets hide behind outliers like this.
0 -
MinusTwo, your posts have never offended me. When not posting in the stage iv section, my perspective may be different from earlier stage posters, but I expect no special treatment.
I've always been a believer in moderation even before bc/mbc. I eat meat every day. If not, I would be very hungry. I eat sweets. I never drank much alcohol, but a margarita with chips and salsa is one of the most heavenly culinary combination delights on the face of the earth,and I allow myself the occasional indulgence. My Achilles heel was diet Coke and Fresca. That shit is bad for you. I try never to have it in my house because I will automatically reach for it before anything else. It’s my crack.
Beesie, that's so interesting that even with Alzheimer's, your mom is aware of her eating habits.
One of my pet peeves is women who deprive themselves of tasty food as some sort of punishment because they “got cancer". It’s almost like a form of self-loathing: “I’ve been a very bad girl so no soup for me!” I don't admire that type of punishing themselves in women who don't have bc, either.
0 -
TB90, sorry you’re having issues with voicing your opinion. I think a person should be allowed to disagree with an OP. With online forums, tho, and the anonymity, you have to hang tough. You never know what kind of response you will get. It’s a little bit “know when to hold ‘em (your opinions), know when to fold ‘em (who to avoid). Really, I try to be open minded but if I post something, its how I really feel. I hope you can find your footing around here. I know it can feel like a bunch of landmines some time.
0 -
TB90, I think we learn through disagreement. At least I do. I may state a different opinion than you, but reading your opinion will cause me to think, and some of what you said might just creep in and moderate how I think.
So I believe disagreement can be good, provided it's done respectfully. But then of course there are people who think they are always right and don't want to hear anything different than what they believe. And sometimes people are venting and just need support. I enjoy a good debate but the challenge on this site is figuring who is open to a freewheeling discussion, who wants comments only from those who agree and who just needs support. I haven't always guessed right.
Looking back at the opening post in this thread to see which it might be, my only conclusion is that the recent conversation has veered way of course from the original question. I do think the article linked is an interesting read, in part because it appears to be a translation - some of the language had me chuckling. For example:
"The "well-known" danger elements for breast tumor are feminine sex, oldness, past breast tumor, a type of breast infection, inherited components (history of family with breast tumor), premature age at menarche, menopause at oldness, old age at first full-term pregnancy, stoutness after menopause, low bodily movement, race/origin and high-measurements presentation to radiotherapy in life."
0 -
Oldness is a danger I suspect most of us are trying to court!!!!
0 -
santa, your comment:
"People who are unwilling to change their diets hide behind outliers like this"
is shockingly judgemental.
Who decided that everyone who's had breast cancer is required to change their diet?
That's not to say that I haven't changed my diet - I have - although I have done so more for my overall health and because I'm getting older. But if someone with breast cancer decides that she's happy with her current diet and lifestyle, what's wrong with that? I know what's best for me for my overall well-being. That might be very different than what you've decided is best for you. That's okay, and it doesn't make one of us wrong and the other right. We both are right for ourselves, and fortunately we are allowed to make our own decisions. No one has to change their diet unless they want to.
0 -
I would like to take a moment and praise immoderation, because it's what I believe is necessary to live fully and fabulously. In the past ten years since diagnosis, I have:
- Done the Seattle-to-Portland ride ten times. 200 miles of cycling is not a "moderate amount".
- Overindulged in wine on occasion. I paid for the time that I did this along with an immoderate quantity of oysters. But ah, it was glorious!
- Made love for an immoderate amount of time. As Mae West said on this topic: "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful!"
- Come close to hypothermia, Nordic skiing on an immoderately cold day. The gloriousness of the scenery was equally immoderate.
- Done the wettest winter ride on record....the Chilly Hilly.....where the rain was so bad that I couldn't see where I was going and ended up laughing hysterically at the abject misery of the experience. A hot, immoderately-scented bath put me right.
- Swum in immoderately cold water fed by mountain glaciers.
- Gotten immoderately wet on a cycling and camping trip with friends.
- Gorged myself on immoderate quantities of blackberries which grow like weeds in the Pacific Northwest.
- Worked for immoderate periods of time at immoderate intensity, refilling the coffers, and making sure that my clients had what they needed to move forward in meeting their business goals.
- Had an immoderate number of adventures, too numerous to mention.
- And just 2 days ago, I dragged an immoderately-sized Christmas tree up to my apartment where it stands in absolute splendor. (My glutes were immoderately sore afterwards.)
Enjoy the tree, and my goal for this Holiday Season is to have several more immoderate....and memorable....adventures as I steam, and give away, an immoderate number of Christmas Puddings for my friends to savor. - Claire
0 -
Clair - wow. You are amazing. You go girl !!!!
0 -
Claire, you win this debate hands down!!
Cheers! 🚴🏻🏊🏻⛷🥂
0 -
Beesie, I am not insisting anyone do anything. I am commenting that when diet comes up on this site, people seem to get sort of irrational. People seem to be far more defensive re diet than anything else that is discussed here. For example, people don't seem to get offended reading about about someone else's plan about drinking green tea, or taking curcumin, or doing aerobic exercise, or other such things. Or what sort of reconstruction is best. Etc. They mostly note the recommendation/information and move on. (Nobody says, "well for some people, being a couch potato works better than being fit.") But where diet is concerned it can get hot. If someone links poor diet and cancer risk, people get upset. Like you just did! And then that's when they will start citing marathoner vegans who died or sugar addicts who lived till 90.
0 -
santa, I'm not an idiot. I understand that there is a correlation between diet and health, and yes, even diet and cancer. I didn't get upset that you linked poor diet and cancer risk. With some cancers, there is a clear direct link. With other cancers, there is an indirect link. Oh, and I happen to be pretty good with stats, so I fully understand that outliers don't count for much.
I am not upset - I can disagree without getting upset. What I am is surprised that you don't understand that after a breast cancer diagnosis, choosing 'all things in moderation' and quality of life is just as logical and reasonable as choosing a strict, restrictive anti-cancer diet. Your choice of diet might be not be hard for you, but it might be hell for someone else, so that person not choosing to do the same as you does not make them ignorant or unwilling to do what's best for their well-being. They simply define well-being differently than you. While you say you are not insisting that anyone do anything, you are very judgemental towards those who don't see things as you do and make the changes that you have.
"when diet comes up on this site, people seem to get sort of irrational." Irrational? Because they have a different opinion than you?
"The trouble with "moderation" is that different people assess "moderate" differently." So what? As long as the individual is happy with her choices, why does it matter to you?
"And of course everyone knows a very careful eater who got terribly sick or a horrible eater who lived to 90 (my dad eats horribly, and he is 92!). People who are unwilling to change their diets hide behind outliers like this." Maybe people who choose to not change their diets have different priorities than you do, and a different perspective on life. That doesn't make them "unwilling" to change their diets - they just choose not to.
Why do you get upset when someone cites "marathoner vegans who died or sugar addicts who lived till 90."? Those people exist and if someone cites these examples to make the point that diet isn't the be-all and end-all and doesn't provide the same benefits to everyone well, that's true, isn't it?
The fact that we've made different choices with regard to diet doesn't mean that I don't understand your decisions or rationale. I'm glad you are happy with your choices, and I respect you for the changes you've made.
0 -
People are obviously able to decide what is most important to them and follow a diet that respects their own priorities. You can eat for pleasure, you can eat for convenience, you can eat for dopamine, you can eat to partake of socializing with loved ones, etc. And I respect that for a given person the lowering of stress through a 'moderation' approach might be better than sweating details of a restricted diet.
OTOH, I think that the medical establishment downplays the role of diet, to the detriment of public health. Typical western/processed diets are not generally very good for us. This is pretty well agreed upon. Clear knowledge of the impact of a given diet on metabolic health and cancer risk does not prevent anyone from eating whatever way they choose/want. Offering the info of what dietary practices have been found to correlate with good outcomes can inform people who want to improve their diet.
0 -
We were discussing this at my husband's family holiday dinner on Saturday. All of us noticed that even if our parents had switched to healthier eating as they got older, most started eating what they wanted again eventually. My Mom developed a strong love for bridge mix and a few other goodies that she indulged in frequently. I'm happy to think her last years were spent eating things she liked, instead of treating life like a grim dietary chore, before she passed away at 97.
0 -
Divine - I admire your courage, wisdom and kindness. Although I am Stage 2/3, I read some of the threads and your posts have always resonated with me - thank you! I know you had a tough year, I hope Verzenio gets kinder and you enjoy the Holiday season. 🙂
Claire - I know you enjoy wine, and I recall a wild mushroom omlette with a red drop described on another thread months back - ha... I would wipe such a plate clean should I ever happen to be in the neighbourhood. Might involve some sailing since I am on the GC Australia. Beautiful tree - thank you for posting - our has just gone up, will be decorated in the next few days, currently being water sprayed with abandon in full summer here
My thoughts on diet.
ahhh...this is perhaps more about time then numbers. In the immediate (months to several years ) following diagnosis motivation for change runs high provided we have opportunities, time and money. Diet, exercise and use of supplements are usually the most abordable,... few of us pack up, sell up and move to Tuscany - tempting as that may be. Diet is big because of the correlations Beesie acknowledged, but also because it's constant, and to many a way of exercising some control over cancer - it is a loaded emotional word "cancer". To what extent one can sustain any or all of the implemented changes is highly individual. As one gets further from diagnosis the fear does not go away but gets more manageable - if we have made changes to begin with, we will keep the ones that are a good fit, maybe most, but many of us will shed others.
I am past three years diagnosis - so not quite where Claire is, but finding my way there. I am more acceptant of having BC and I have relaxed a little. I am still in my "small 50s" wine glasses, I watch what I eat, I grow vegetables, I have chooks, I mostly dont eat sugar outside dark chocolate, I exercise and take supps. But I dont watch my steps anymore etc and...most importantly for me I think less about BC. I really have whole days where BC does not enter my mind - my Gosh what a relief that is.
I hope this makes sense to some of you.
🐳🙂🐣🌷
0 -
Excluding cancer of absolutely any kind, I’d like a list of diseases that have “natural”cures. I can imaginethat heart disease may often be cured by diet and exercise. What other diseases?
0 -
"I think that the medical establishment downplays the role of diet, to the detriment of public health. Typical western/processed diets are not generally very good for us. This is pretty well agreed upon. Clear knowledge of the impact of a given diet on metabolic health and cancer risk does not prevent anyone from eating whatever way they choose/want. Offering the info of what dietary practices have been found to correlate with good outcomes can inform people who want to improve their diet."
santa, on this we agree.
DivineMrsM, that's an interesting question. Several conditions come to mind where diet and exercise can reverse or control the condition, but I'm not sure if any of these conditions can actually be cured this way. To me, a "cure" means that the condition is gone for good and will not recur. For example, with the flu, a cure means that not only are the symptoms gone but the bacteria / infection is no longer lurking in the body so there won't be a re-activation of the same disease. Of course someone could develop the flu again at another time, but it's a completely new version of the flu - similar to how someone who's had successful breast cancer treatment could at any time develop a new unrelated primary breast cancer.
I don't know if heart disease, or at least the precursors to heart disease, such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol, can actually be cured by diet and exercise, but that's the only one I can think of where a cure might actually be possible.
For every other disease that comes to mind, diet and exercise and other natural 'cures' might be able to control the disease - to the point of eliminating symptoms without the requirement of medication - but I don't think these diseases can be cured to the point that they are no longer a threat to recur if the diet is changed or activity lessened/stopped. On this list:
- Type 2 diabetes, which to my understanding (which admittedly is limited), at the early stages can't be cured but can be reversed and normal levels maintained through diet and exercise.
- Arthritis, which can't be cured but the effects can be minimized and controlled through diet and exercise.
- Osteoporosis, which many of us here (myself included) are trying to reduce and manage through diet (including vitamins) and exercise.
- Celiac disease, which I believe is genetic (and therefore cannot be cured) but which can be controlled by diet.
The other consideration is diseases that can be prevented through diet and exercise. Not every case of all of these diseases, since some are genetic, but a certain percent of cases can be avoided. Lung cancer is at the top of this list, as are liver cancer and colon cancer. Overall about 40% of cancers can be prevented, but those three, along with other smoking related cancers (throat, oesophagus, mouth) make up the majority of the 40%. Heart disease is another; I think once the damage is done, the best you can do with diet and exercise is control things but I believe diet and exercise can prevent the damage in the first place for a certain percent of people.
I'm interested to see what other diseases people here come up with where a natural cure or prevention is possible. Should make for some good debate!
0 -
Early diabetes is one that diet can "cure" .... also obesity and the attendant joint/pain/mobility issues; high blood pressure.
0 -
I would also imagine some allergic/skin issues can really be improved via diet. Exzema (?sp)
0 -
I've been following this discussion with a lot of interest. Great points made from all sectors.
One thing: not all high blood pressure is curable by diet and exercise. Mine is not.
0
