Topic: Treating estrogen responsive cancer naturally

Aug 26, 2012 01:55PM Bluebird-DE wrote:

Oh Mini - I never thought you were rude, just that you needed to know you are not alone.  And when talking about how far we have had to jump to do alts for cancer, talking just this morn, Hubby and I remembered that just a month ago he sold off most of his gun collection to a friend who gave him top dollar, bcz they love me, and we sold off the pool equipment from the place we just walked away from, and we sold the ...... hahaha, oh well cannot recall, but wish we had sold more - it will come - everything has a way of happening when it is supposed to and not when I think I should happen.  My ideals of what happens when are usually based on fear or having the gimmes (as in give to me give-mes).  I spent to much time too much time angry over finances and hopelessness, didn't know how we were going to do all this, and we have great insurance if you want to choose conventional.

Our friends, she has uterine cancer and went conv, she had reoccurrence, more chemo and rads, another reoccurence, more chemo and rads, then mets to spine, more chemo and rads I guess - all this in a few years.  Our hubbys were talking, about me mostly not doing conventional, knew from beginning it would not be achoice, we knew for years it was not our choice, and her hubby told mine, they only pay $1000 copay ea year and the rest is covered so no sensse in worrying over the cost, and my hubby said, but the alternatives we choose are not covered so out-of-pocket and a  huge expense but life and death without them..... and her hubby said, but the conventional is working for (her name).  No, no it's not, we think really loud but what can we say.  She has been through HRT prior to cancer, been through surgeries over and over, rads, chemo, drugs for hormones I am supposing, and she is not getting better.  But they don't ask what is working for me to go from dragging out of bed and so sick with NO memory to gaining stregth and now working festivals and auctions and gardening and ready to bicycling tomorrow morn at sunrise.  I feel so good.  This is a turn around from within the last week too, so I am attributing it to the red and black raspberry ellagic acid I have added to my protocol.  Who knows at the moment.  Who knows, but I only have this moment.  Even if I have cancer in me for the rest of my life, long or short of it, I feel that my QOL is great, better than it was five years ago or more.  

Bringing that full circle to the topic of this thread, is that I am dealing with hormones which were very broken!!!!!! for years, the thyroid, the estrogen and progesterone and now the endo dr is testing to see how to balance me better than I am now.  I am also using so many alt choices and the combination I have going for me is individualized and is working for me, thank goodness and nature too, so I am going to cram in some really good living while I can, taking nothing for granted but hoping I am tenacious enough to pull this off and live to 90 w or w/o cancer.

My understanding is the intense fear of cancer can be a downfall.  Also the fear of estrogen and misunderstanding of these hormones.  

Take a deep breath, I know, I have been where you are now, not knowing... learning, wading through all the info and nothing consistent which is the worst part I think....... soon you will know what is your best way and how.  Conv or alt, you will be supported here on bco.

Hugs for you from me, you did not come across rude or judgemental to me at all.  We're okay.

LOVEEssa

Aug 26, 2012 03:49PM Mini1 wrote:

Thank you so much for the kind words and encouragement. I said for a long time that there was something wrong with me; for at least 5-6 years. I went to the doctor and had tests, found some minor things that were taken care of, but kept having the feeling that something was wrong. I kept telling them but I was always told it was stress-related or peri-menopause, then menapause related. I knew it wasn't. I felt it instictively, but the answer was always no, you're fine. I resigned from job because I knew I could longer work under that kind of stress and scheduled my mammo for 1 week later (but 6 months later than I should have had it) so I wouldn't get busy and forget it even longer and that's when they found my tumor. My doctor told me that it was likely that the tumor had probably begun forming 5-7 years ago. What a coincidence. I have that same feeling inside me now. That I souldn't take this medicine. That ultimately I will regret it.

I know that there are times that we must live beyond our feelings. And I don't think I am listening to mine in a bad way. The kind that says oh buy it, it's on sale, when you know you don't have the money, or just take it, no one will see you do it, when you know it's the wrong thing to do. It's not an impulse. It's looking at the studies. Reading about the SE's, looking at the studies, seeing how the numbers are often skewed; and not to the conservative approach. Yes women that don't drink the Kool-aid die, but the majority of them live. Why? According to my doctor it's a genetic luck of the draw. Well if that's the case, then aren't I doomed either way? But what if I'm not in the minority? What if I'm in the majority? What if with dietarty changes and supplements and other lifestyle changes I can change things in a positive way? What if I'm on a genetic tightrope and the Rx will tamper with nature and throw off that delicate balance and send me on a course like your friend is on? I don't want to be a perpetual cancer patient. I'm 56 years old. I have a husband, kids, a 2 year grandson, and 5 week-old twin grandkids. I want to be able to enjoy them. I keep thinking of the line from Steel magnolias; it was when they told Shelby that having a baby with her diabetes could kill her. She said something to the effect that she would rather have 3 years of wonderful than a lifetime of just so-so.

I'm not against all medical treatment. My husband had chemo 30 years ago for his cancer and he's fine. A friend's son had cancer when he was 7 and endured all kinds of chemo and suregeries for brain cancer. He's in his late 20's now and fine. I know sometimes it works. But I also know that women that get other cancers from Tamox, even though the % is low, get them in far more advanced stages and have a considerably lower survival rate. And what then? More radiation and surgery, + chemo. I had surgery and rads. And maybe if my cancer was more advanced, I'd be more willing to take the meds, but I just can't get away from the fact that I think that I should at least try to combat this naturally. Can I really mess up my body any worse than the meds? Doesn't eating right and taking care of your body, etc. mean anything? If not, than why do doctors keep telling us to do those things?

Aug 26, 2012 06:49PM - edited Aug 26, 2012 09:50PM by Mini1

I think they will look back and see our treatment as we see the doctors that used to give a man a bottle of whiskey before they lopped off a limb. And I still say we're not going to see any significant change in the way things are until the start focusing on the commonalitities of those that survive without the drugs instead of the fatalities.

Aug 26, 2012 07:01PM dogsandjogs wrote:

And, as some of you know, I had breast cancer in 1982; had a mastectomy and reconstruction, but no chemo, no drugs of any kind as follow-up.  I was cancer free for 28 years and when I did get it again, it was NOT a recurrence, but a new primary. 

Aug 26, 2012 09:52PM - edited Aug 26, 2012 09:55PM by Mini1

We'll see that when 99% of men get this disease. You see how quickly they came up with Viagra when they needed it.

Aug 26, 2012 09:59PM Mini1 wrote:

Oh just wait. I've yet to find one thing that has been straight up simple. For every pro there is a con. For every you should there's a you never should, and for every always there's a never. I have literally screamed "can't anything thing about this stupid disease be simple?" I've spun around so much it's a wonder I haven't screwed myself into the ground.

Aug 27, 2012 08:59PM graced wrote:

Mini, I have never seen the number 22% as the percent lower risk for taking tamoxifen.  There are all sorts of manipulated statistics but the actual stats I've seen have been single digit numbers.  The doctors are good at what they do but we have spent more hours researching the alternatives tx than they have.  Don't let his scare tactics get to you.  He just needs to CYA.

Essa, I am so glad that you found a great endo!  Thank you for sharing what you've learned with us.  It is good to know that there are a few docs out there that understand.  They are in the minority and so are we.  We just have to get matched up with each other!

Aug 28, 2012 10:54PM purple32 wrote:

"...> It won't be a matter of if, just when."

Your doctor is an ass, Mini!

My husband had stage 4 colon cancer just a  few yrs ago.  He worked all through intense treatments and two  serious surgeries.  He  had an ileostomy bag and a port  and he looked like someone walkiung to his grave as he left for work every day.

He went to Boston because they said they would give him intraoperative radiation, but oops  ,,....somehow they screwed up and couldn't do it.  He had dirty margins and his future was pretty bleak.

A lot of ppl. would have given up- quit the job, basically   ' waited'.

He didnt .  He just kept putting one foot in front of the other.  I was never quite sure how he did it. When he got home from work , he would just about collapse on the couch and konk.

Eventually , he went from emaciated and gray looking to 5 lbs overweight and healthy looking.  He eats whatever he wants ( they said he would be a on  a 'soft diet' forver)  and no longer has a bag.   he runs circles around most ppl. I know and his last  scan showed NED.  His drs. are stunned.

Sure, he could have a recurrence next year, but he figures the guy next door could get cancer and die before him, or as you said, maybe have a stroke and live disabled or just drop...

Keep your chin up, kid.

They dont know everything ..they are not God .

Aug 29, 2012 12:22AM Kristina19 wrote:

Hi Purple32,

Thanks for the information.  I have just finished reading the AnitCancer book and really liked his take on things.  I don't have any idea what DIm or IC3 is so will google it.  I want to find a different and safer approach to managing my cancer.  Thank you for your help.

Kristina 

Aug 29, 2012 10:43AM dogsandjogs wrote:

Kristina: Let us know what you find out !  I keep putting off doing research because I hate to dwell on cancer so much---but I probably should take something since I no longer take the Aromasin.

Aug 30, 2012 02:27PM - edited Aug 30, 2012 02:28PM by Mini1

At the risk of sounding stupid...what is the difference between a natural bioidentical and a synthetic. I was taking both bioidentical e/p when I was diagnosed (in a cream form).

Aug 30, 2012 08:39PM Mini1 wrote:

So they are pills and not the creams?

Aug 30, 2012 11:39PM curveball wrote:

@madbluebird, sorry, but I think you are misunderstanding the results of the study I linked. It doesn't say that synthetic estrogen opposed by synthetic progesterone present an increased. According to the study, the data on are conflicting. Maybe risk is increased, maybe it isn't. As I understand it, it's when estrogen's effect is continuous, without ever being counteracted by progesterone, that the risk of endometrial cancer increases. It's true that the hormones used in the study were synthetic, but estrogen promotes endometrial growth, whether it's synthetic or bioidentical. Also, I'm only talking about risk of endometrial cancer. The study did show that with HRT including both hormones, some other risks, such as clotting, were increased.

@natkat, it's true that estrogen is required for healthy bones, etc. But with receptor-positive disease, estrogen also promotes cancer. It may not be "the enemy", but it does pose a danger to our continued health. Yes, the biochemistry is complex, and I don't completely understand it, but I don't think it's too simplistic to say "with receptor-positive cancers, the less estrogen there is, the less likely that the cancer will spread". Maybe at some point the detrimental effects on bones & so on exceed the benefit from reduced cancer risk. I don't know if that point has ever been exactly located. I hope it has, and that there's a way to regulate doses of tamoxifen or AI's so they don't reduce estrogen levels any more is than needed to keep breast cancer in check.

If your doctor uses scare tactics on you, I totally agree it's time to get a new doctor, but the fact that he has lousy interpersonal skills doesn't mean his medical advice is bad, nor do the ayurvedic doctor's reassuring words make his treatment more effective than standard medicine. I'm not trying to convince you to use standard treatments rather than alternatives, but if you choose alternatives, do it because you've looked at the facts, know the risks and benefits of each, and you've chosen the alternative path because you prefer its benefits and risks over those of standard treatment, not because you dislike the medical doctor's personality.

I'm bowing out of this thread now. The original post requested info about alternatives only. I've drifed off-topic, and I don't want to be a thread-jacker.

Aug 31, 2012 12:26AM Natkat wrote:

Possibly off topic afterthought ... WHY are we sold the notion we must sacrifice our femaleness to cure bc? We must amputate our breasts and/or shut down our estrogen? Can we be well AND fully female?

Aug 31, 2012 09:32AM - edited Aug 31, 2012 12:39PM by Bluebird-DE

I re-reading this thread,

EDITED TO ADD - COUSINITT welcome, I forgot to say that three times now, so back with a sorry I forgot face for you.

and anyway.......

I found this info from Athena that brought me back to questioning my ocnc yet again.  He mentioned the ER PR changes and that was why he wanted my to have a biopsy, so he knew what we were treating (not that I allowed him to treat anything) but that was part of my reason for allowing the FINE CORE NEEDLE biopsy that ended up being the punch ripping of the cancer lymph node within my body biopsy - yes, I have issues, look at my face.

Anyway, when I found this info on the cancer having different sections and that seperate tumors can have native results, I am thinking why didn't the once explain this to me?  Why do we have to find out in other ways?  Thank you Athena for sharing the info.

Athena wrote::: """""You bring up the issue of degree of er positivity. That is another problematic area. Usually, so the story goes, the most reliable measure of one's degree of hormone responsiveness is via the pathologists report following surgery. But new findings say it appears that different areas of a tumor may have different degrees of receptivity. At first glance, this might not seem problematic, but I think it is. In my needle biopsy, the report said 95 percent er-pos. That would argue for a treatment plan with heavy emphasis on estrogen receptor suppression. But my post-surgical pathology report later put my positivity at only 10 percent, and only 1 percent er-pos. All of a sudden, I become very close to triple neg. Pathologists simply take a sample of the tumor and analyze it, but it appears that tumors have many stripes and that different sections may yield different results.

To me, this may partly (not completely) explain why so many stage IV sisters report that their receptor status has changed in mid-course. It seems that it can indeed change, but it's also believed that in multiple tumors there can be native differences."""""

LOVEEssa