Trip to Tijuana Mexico change my outlook forever

FEB

I knew the creep could not resist replying to me. Here is what he had to say in his PM:

to be a mean-spirited, uncivilized person just because you have cancer.  Thank god my middlle-aged wife has never portrayed the bitter personality that people like you display on the boards.  I now understand why so many of my friends are divorcing their middle aged wives who they, quite frankly, can not stand being around.  If women become bitter like you and others on the alternative medicine thread, who the heck would want to be around you??

Does anyone honestly think this man deserves to be heard!!!!

swimangel72

I feel very embarassed that there has been such an attack against "worriedhusband". I have read these threads with an impartial view and feel he has presented valuable information to everyone.

On the other hand, I feel very concerned about the hidden agenda of "deansanders" - and the same questions that were asked of Worriedhusband should be asked of this poster. Who are you and what is your relationship to breast cancer? Obviously from your original thread you do not have cancer yourself nor does anyone in your family:

"...I will never visit a US hospital for cancer treatment if I or a love one ever had cancer."

ALthough you claim to have no connection with the company selling a product, you post the information anyway - saying you bought the product - when you have already said you don't have cancer. So we have to just take your word that you are not a salesman...........somehow you SOUND like a salesman to me - with a LOT to gain by starting this thread. Therefore I have reported you to the moderators because I believe you have violated the  "Rules of Conduct" as quoted below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please report any violations of our Rules of Conduct, including:

• spam
• solicitations to buy products
• threatening, abusive, or hateful comments

swimangel72

For an un-biased and journalistic view of alternative therapies and clinical studies, please read the New York Times Science Times from yesterday which was dedicated entirely to the topic of: "Decoding Your Health" - you may need to register first to gain access:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/

Here's their brief description:

"A special issue of Science Times looking at the explosion of information about health and medicine - on the Web, in medical journals, in the doctor's office, over the air - and offering some guidelines on how to sort it all out."

And here's a quote from the first article called "Searching for Clarity:  A Primer on Medical Studies: which I feel is very important to this thread:

"The major message," Dr. Klausner said, "is that no matter how compelling and exciting a hypothesis is, we don't know whether it works without clinical trials."

FloridaLady

This is not spam...See my post that studies are on going in all these areas.  Anyone who reads about alternative treatment will know that these areas will be discussed as part of a protocol. You wish not to do the research is your problem.  As you see other's want to discuss these areas of interest.  Studies show 60% of all cancer patients use some kind of alternative supplement or treatment to go with their conventional tx.

I HAVE CANCER would you like me to re-post this same thread? We can start over as this from an Stage IV cancer patient...Will this make it easier to follow the discussion?

Bren-2007

SoCal,

 About your question on the other page ... The research at Wake Forest Baptist in NC was on mice using their own cancer cells as a vaccine.  It is promising.  However, each persons cancer cells are so unique, I believe we are quite a ways off from developing a universal vaccine.  Perhaps there may be a way in the future we can use our own cells as a vaccine.

I receieved a PM from worriedhubby as well, and will not post it.  Cancer creates fear and a loss of control over our bodies and our lives, and in my experience anger, a loss of trust, and a world of other emotions because of this. 

I already posted this ... if a poster is violating the posting rules, either ignore it or report it.

FloridaLady

Breast Cancer and CAM
5/16/2007

What a difference seven years can make. Just-published data confirm what many have suspected for years: the number of breast cancer patients pursuing complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies has risen dramatically.

The numbers, then and now

A University of Toronto team examined trends in CAM use in 1998 and 2005 among women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Selected from the Ontario Cancer Registry, participants (425 women in 1998, and 553 women in 2005) completed questionnaires asking them to identify the types of CAM practitioners they had ever visited, as well as the CAM therapies and/or products they had ever used.

CAM was defined as "medical interventions that are not taught widely in medical schools or generally available in hospitals."

In addition to sharing demographic information, participants also provided information about their cancer stages and the conventional treatments they had tried. (Most had surgery, and many were on medication, says primary investigator Heather Boon, PhD.)

In 2005, the questionnaire asked participants if they visited CAM practitioners or used CAM therapies specifically to manage their breast cancer or for some other reason.

The resulting data do support the hearsay. The team's findings include the following:

	1998 (425 breast cancer patients)	2005 (553 breast cancer patients)
Reported ever using a CAM product or therapy or seen a CAM Practitioner	66.7%	81.9%
Reported ever using CAM products or therapies	62.0%	70.6%
Reported ever seeing a CAM practitioner	39.4%	57.4% (massage therapists, dietitians most frequently reported)
Reported ever using CAM specifically to manage breast cancer	Not asked	41.0% (220 women) (Green tea, vitamin E, flaxseed, and vitamin C most frequently reported)

The data also indicated:

• A significant increase in visits to body work practitioners (such as massage and therapeutic touch therapists, and Reiki and shiatsu practitioners), acupuncturists, and homeopathic and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners;
• A significant increase in the overall use of herbal remedies, particularly green tea and special foods;
• A significant decrease in the use of Essiac, an herbal mixture formerly very popular in Canada. Use dropped to about half of what it had been, with no solid evidence to indicate why, Boon says.

"We've suspected for a long time that CAM use has been increasing among breast cancer patients, but it's been difficult to back that up with numbers," says Boon. "People who pursue CAM therapies aren't in the minority anymore, and because CAM use is increasingly becoming the norm, we need to make sure that it is recognized by those working in the health care system."

Caution urged, dialogue encouraged

Whether they're dabblers or devotees, the growing number of CAM users underscores the great need for research into the safety and efficacy of many complementary and alternative medicine therapies. It also highlights the need for physicians to stay informed about which CAM treatments are out there - and which ones their patients are using.

Research suggests that only about 50 percent of patients tell their doctors about their use of CAM therapies, Boon says - and many doctors simply don't think to ask.

"It just doesn't occur to many patients that their doctors and pharmacists need to know about everything they're doing, including their use of CAM therapies," she says. "Drug interactions and unexplained changes in a patient's condition - for better or worse - can take a lot longer to figure out when providers don't know everything patients are doing."

Cancer patients undergoing treatment must be especially cautious, Boon warns.

"There are a lot of unknowns about ingesting natural products during active cancer treatment, and there are always concerns about potentially harmful interactions," she says. "Patients in active treatment should definitely speak with their physicians before pursuing any CAM therapies or practitioners."

Boon's advice is simple. "Practitioners, ask your patients about their use of complementary therapies - and patients, be open with your healthcare providers about what you're doing," she says. "We really need to open this dialogue."

swimangel72

FloridaLady my posts show that I DO research, why did you say otherwise? If you've been following my own threads, you'll see I have no difficulty with alternative therapies nor with any of the studies or information you have posted. I have been respectful and open-minded - and hope you will be also. I merely asked a simple question for "deansanders" to answer -  the same question that was asked of "worriedhusband" "who are you and what is your purpose here?"

FloridaLady

European Cancer Patients Using Alternative Therapy February 3, 2005 2:26 PM | Permalink Wed Feb 2, 2005 07:18 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Whether it is herbs, homeopathy or vitamin and mineral supplements, more than a third of cancer patients in Europe use alternative medicine.Usage varies from less than 15 percent of patients in Greece to nearly three-quarters in Italy, according to the first Europe-wide study of complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) published in the Annals of Oncology on Thursday."Irrespective of what health professionals believe about CAM and how dismissive they might be, our findings show that patients are using, and will continue to use CAM," said Dr Alex Molassiotis, of the University of Manchester School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, in England. The survey of nearly 1,000 patients in 14 countries showed that alternative therapy users tended to be young, educated women. It was most popular in patients suffering from pancreatic, liver, bone and brain cancers.Herbs, homeopathy, medicinal teas and vitamin and mineral supplements were the most common of the 58 CAM treatments mentioned in the survey. Patients in Israel, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Greece and Iceland also used spiritual therapies.Cancer sufferers used the therapies for an average of 27 months to improve their physical and emotional well being and to increase their ability to fight the illness.Patients were generally satisfied with the treatments. Only 3 percent thought it was useless."Although CAM use in Europe in lower than in the U.S. according to North American surveys, our study indicates that the average ... use in Europe has increased since a review of 29 studies was published in 1998," said Molassiotis.

anondenet

Lindamemm,

You are right, worried A-hole could not resist revealing himself as a total pig in his parting shot, putting down women. He has been doing this all along but we have been laughing at him in our PMs as another middle-aged clown with no life so he posts on a woman's cancer board. His poor wife. She probably chases him off to the computer to bother somebody else.

Anom

anondenet

< 

Floridalady, we love you!

You really know your stuff. A lot of people come hear who are beginners and have no idea about the enormous volume of alt cancer information there is out there. Published studies, etc. It takes years of working through them and the doctors are too busy doing boilerplate recipes to read them.

Thank you for taking the time to send them to the board.

I have been away but I will try to get gather my studies on melatonin, enzymes, D3, iodine, curcumin, etc. 

Blessings,

Anom

althea

It's hard to keep up with all the posts on this thread.  My hat's off to Flalady for providing the majority of useful information on this thread.  And bless you for sharing what you've learned in your arduous journey.  To have cancer so advanced that you can visibly see it, it just takes my breath away to even imagine it. 

<> I find those articles interesting that alternative therapies are increasing in popularity.  So, how do we know that the increased survival rate is based on mainstream treatments?  Wouldn't it be ironic if the increased survival rates were linked to the alternative therapies?  And how would we ever know?  In today's culture, it would be impossible. 

<>In one breath the article states "CAM was defined as "medical interventions that are not taught widely in medical schools or generally available in hospitals.""  Yet the article concludes by advising patients to discuss their CAM with their physicians.  What would be the point?  If anyone reads more than, say, 10 articles and 5 books about alternative therapies, chances are good the patient would know more than her doctor.  Chances of getting a green light or even a silent nod of encouragement from a mainstream physician is slim at best. 

By and large, we are on our own to explore alternative therapies because the FDA makes it illegal to treat cancer with anything but chemo, surgery or radiation.  Alternative practitioners have no other option but to set up shop in other countries.  Of course there are alternative providers who charge inflated prices for something that may not even work. The same is true of mainstream medicine on every main street of America.  When we continue to have tens of thousands of deaths every year just from breast cancer, it is clear that mainstream medicine doesn't know all the answers either.  And dialogue is exactly what seems to be absent on a regulatory level when it comes to alternatives.  If something like Gerson therapy, for example, works in even 10% of cases, why on earth can't people choose that for an option and be covered by insurance?  The way it is now, we have to go to Mexico or give it a go at home on our own.  

 

FEB

Althea, You said what I have been thinking for a long time. How do we know that the success of these newer treatments are not more tied to alternatives than to the drugs? One of the things I kept asking my onc when they were insisting I take Arimidex is do the stats show any difference between the drug and lifestyle changes. I wanted to know if they did any research on people who took the drug and changed their diet and exercised and those who did not. Of course they did not know that. No one even made this an issue in the trial study. In fact, when I looked at the trial studies, it was actually a comparison with people who took arimidex vs those who took tamox. There was no comparison anywhere with those who chose lifestyle changes. So how can they say one method is better than the other, when they refuse to do a complete study? We may be guinea pigs trying alternatives, but the same is the case with the current standard of care. Remember that total mastectomy's were the norm until French women began to demand that their breasts be conserved if possible. After many years of French women having good results with lumpectomys, the US finally adopted this standard for low grade tumors. Also look at the whole ulcer controversery. I can't remember the doctor's name, but he was treating ulcers as a bacteria and curing people for over 20 years while the standard of care was to treat is as a result of "nerves". It took all this time for other doctors to finally accept his findings, but now ulcers are accepted as a bacterial infection. Doctors are slowly changing their minds and more and more of them are integrating their practices, using modern and ancient treatments, and giving full credence to diet and exercise. And they are finally beginning to study the benefits of alternatives, as FlaLady's postings are showing. We need to be able to make our own choices. If we want to go to an alternative doctor and choose nutrition over drugs, we should be able to. I do have a lot of respect for the whole medical profession. I had nothing but kind and knowlegable doctors treating me. But I also think they need to take the time to treat us as individuals and not as "the norm". The refuse to give us more than 10 minute appointments. How much can they learn about us in that time. This is what drove me away. They had no answers for my questions about nutrition, or supplements. They did not believe my resolve to lose weight and develop a healthier regime. Even though they constantly remarked about how well I was doing during treatments, they did not give me enough credit for why.

This is why I have hope that perhaps McCain's health care policy will work. He said that we should be able to choose treatments and they should all be covered by insurance. I don't know if it will ever happen, but we sure need to be able to choose. If we make the wrong choice, it is on our shoulders, but who knows our own bodies better than we do? All I know is that like Fla Lady, if I was in her position, I would be looking under every rock for the answer. I realize we have to be careful because there are a lot of sharlatans out there, but there are also American doctors going to other countries to try new treatments that they are not allowed to do here. What is wrong with that if it is saving lives? Our insurance companies should cover us, wherever we want to go.

I use to really believe that the FDA was out to protect us. But after I starting learning how much they allow our food to become tainted and do nothing, I have lost faith in them. If they really want to cure cancer, they need to get rid of all the antibiotics and pesticides in our food supply. Canada and Europe are way ahead of us in this. We need to clean up our food supply and prevent this evil disease before it shows it's snaky head.

Anonymous

Anger effects the immune system and may contribute to cancer.  Something some of you obviously incredibly angry women here absolutely need to keep in mind.   

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000421/anger-health-effects?page=2

Angry people are therefore more likely to get sick. "Studies show that the more terrible the marriage, the more often people get colds. ? It's almost as if the immune system says we don't have to fight disease, we've got a more serious mission here."

Whether these afflictive emotions affect cancer's development has been hotly debated. The immune system is thought to remove cancerous cells in healthy people, and one school of thought holds that the healing process can be overwhelmed. Mueller says some studies in animals have linked stress to cancer, but studies of humans have shown mixed results. Because cancer generally develops later in life and has a complex development that includes genetic factors, a stress-cancer link has been difficult to pinpoint, he tells WebMD.

Anonymous

You are right, worried A-hole could not resist revealing himself as a total pig in his parting shot, putting down women

That's not true.  I've gotten lots of great information from many of the women on these boards.  I think by and large most of the women at this site are warm, supportive, wonderful people.  And the women who have supported me via PM are simply to kind to confront any of you and don't understand why I just don't let it go.  However, it is fact that some of the women here are mean, nasty people and are not given a free pass simply because they have an illness.  My wife was diagnosed with cancer (stage one thank god), and has never bitched, never complained, never been mean to anybody about it, would never call a guy an a**hole because she didn't like his opinion.  There are just some people who have no decency or civility.  That's just a fact of life.

Anonymous

Case in point, Linda Memm wrote this :

LindaMemm wrote:

Worried Hubby, I do not give a damn what you think. YOU did and do not have cancer. Would you crawl back into that hole where you came from and leave us alone, you perverted jerk!!!!!!!

____________________

Now what was this warm women's post in response to?  It was in response to this:

 Sep 29, 2008 11:42 am worriedhubby6 wrote:

Linda - I'm really glad to hear you saw a response in your tumor shrinkage

As I understand it, all of those scans only do the best they can to estimate the size of a tumor.  Oftentimes the reality of the size, after surgical removal, is signficantly different from those estimates.  So its real questioable whether that was a shrinkage of the tumor or whether Linda was lucky enough to have a smaller tumor than originally thought.

__________

Can anybody honestly think that this response from Linda Memm is a reasoned, decent response to the probably valid opinion I offered?  Is this a war, supportive, wonderful lady?

Anonymous

59 minutes ago, edited 58 minutes ago by worriedhubby8

worriedhubby8 wrote:

Anger effects the immune system and may contribute to cancer. Something some of you obviously incredibly angry women here absolutely need to keep in mind.

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000421/anger-health-effects?page=2

Angry people are therefore more likely to get sick. "Studies show that the more terrible the marriage, the more often people get colds. ? It's almost as if the immune system says we don't have to fight disease, we've got a more serious mission here."

Whether these afflictive emotions affect cancer's development has been hotly debated. The immune system is thought to remove cancerous cells in healthy people, and one school of thought holds that the healing process can be overwhelmed. Mueller says some studies in animals have linked stress to cancer, but studies of humans have shown mixed results. Because cancer generally develops later in life and has a complex development that includes genetic factors, a stress-cancer link has been difficult to pinpoint, he tells WebMD.

[Edit] [Delete]

worriedhubb...

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2 Post a reply A few seconds ago

worriedhubby8 wrote:

You are right, worried A-hole could not resist revealing himself as a total pig in his parting shot, putting down women

That's not true. I've gotten lots of great information from many of the women on these boards. I think by and large most of the women at this site are warm, supportive, wonderful people. And the women who have supported me via PM are simply to kind to confront any of you and don't understand why I just don't let it go. However, it is fact that some of the women here are mean, nasty people and are not given a free pass simply because they have an illness. My wife was diagnosed with cancer (stage one thank god), and has never bitched, never complained, never been mean to anybody about it, would never call a guy an a**hole because she didn't like his opinion. There are just some people who have no decency or civility. That's just a fact of life.

Case in point, Linda Memm wrote this :

LindaMemm wrote:

Worried Hubby, I do not give a damn what you think. YOU did and do not have cancer. Would you crawl back into that hole where you came from and leave us alone, you perverted jerk!!!!!!!

____________________

Now what was this warm women's post in response to? It was in response to this:

Sep 29, 2008 11:42 am worriedhubby6 wrote:

Linda - I'm really glad to hear you saw a response in your tumor shrinkage

As I understand it, all of those scans only do the best they can to estimate the size of a tumor. Oftentimes the reality of the size, after surgical removal, is signficantly different from those estimates. So its real questioable whether that was a shrinkage of the tumor or whether Linda was lucky enough to have a smaller tumor than originally thought.

__________

Can anybody honestly think that this response from Linda Memm is a reasoned, decent response to the probably valid opinion I offered? Is this a war, supportive, wonderful lady?

Anonymous

Moderators, you want to ruin this board, have at it.  If you delete my posts  but leave up those vicious posts from the mean, nasty women who posted them, I have no qualms about reposting them as necessary.  When you show a more evenhanded approach to moderating these boards, I will have more respect for your role here.  

59 minutes ago, edited 58 minutes ago by worriedhubby8

worriedhubby8 wrote:

Anger effects the immune system and may contribute to cancer. Something some of you obviously incredibly angry women here absolutely need to keep in mind.

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000421/anger-health-effects?page=2

Angry people are therefore more likely to get sick. "Studies show that the more terrible the marriage, the more often people get colds. ? It's almost as if the immune system says we don't have to fight disease, we've got a more serious mission here."

Whether these afflictive emotions affect cancer's development has been hotly debated. The immune system is thought to remove cancerous cells in healthy people, and one school of thought holds that the healing process can be overwhelmed. Mueller says some studies in animals have linked stress to cancer, but studies of humans have shown mixed results. Because cancer generally develops later in life and has a complex development that includes genetic factors, a stress-cancer link has been difficult to pinpoint, he tells WebMD.

[Edit] [Delete]

worriedhubb...

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2 Post a reply A few seconds ago

worriedhubby8 wrote:

You are right, worried A-hole could not resist revealing himself as a total pig in his parting shot, putting down women

That's not true. I've gotten lots of great information from many of the women on these boards. I think by and large most of the women at this site are warm, supportive, wonderful people. And the women who have supported me via PM are simply to kind to confront any of you and don't understand why I just don't let it go. However, it is fact that some of the women here are mean, nasty people and are not given a free pass simply because they have an illness. My wife was diagnosed with cancer (stage one thank god), and has never bitched, never complained, never been mean to anybody about it, would never call a guy an a**hole because she didn't like his opinion. There are just some people who have no decency or civility. That's just a fact of life.

Case in point, Linda Memm wrote this :

LindaMemm wrote:

Worried Hubby, I do not give a damn what you think. YOU did and do not have cancer. Would you crawl back into that hole where you came from and leave us alone, you perverted jerk!!!!!!!

____________________

Now what was this warm women's post in response to? It was in response to this:

Sep 29, 2008 11:42 am worriedhubby6 wrote:

Linda - I'm really glad to hear you saw a response in your tumor shrinkage

As I understand it, all of those scans only do the best they can to estimate the size of a tumor. Oftentimes the reality of the size, after surgical removal, is signficantly different from those estimates. So its real questioable whether that was a shrinkage of the tumor or whether Linda was lucky enough to have a smaller tumor than originally thought.

__________

Can anybody honestly think that this response from Linda Memm is a reasoned, decent response to the probably valid opinion I offered? Is this a war, supportive, wonderful lady?

FloridaLady

Antioxidants Could Provide All-purpose Radiation Protection

ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2007) - Two common dietary molecules found in legumes and bran could protect DNA from the harmful effects of radiation, researchers from the University of Maryland report. Inositol and inositol hexaphosphate (IP6) protected both human skin cells and a skin cancer-prone mouse from exposure to ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation, the damaging radiation found in sunlight, the team reported November 5 at the American Association for Cancer Research Centennial Conference on Translational Cancer Medicine. (research on IP6)

According to the researchers, inositol and IP6 could decrease the severity of side effects from radiation therapy, saving healthy cells while simultaneously increasing the potency of the treatment against cancer cells. Both molecules are potent antioxidants, the Maryland researchers say, capable of preventing reactive molecules from injuring DNA and turning cells cancerous.

"Both of these potent antioxidants have been shown to have broad-spectrum anti-tumor capabilities, and now our studies confirm the degree to which these molecules protect against the DNA-damaging effects of ionizing radiation," said Abulkalam M. Shamsuddin, M.D., professor of pathology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "Radiation damage is radiation damage, regardless of the source, so there could also be a protective role for IP6 in any form of radiation exposure, whether it is from a therapeutic dose or from solar, cosmic or nuclear sources."

While both inositol and IP6 are related to B vitamins, they are not considered essential dietary nutrients. In the 1980s, however, researchers discovered that these molecules, abundant within the hulls of seeds and grains, had definitive protective effects against colorectal cancer.

Inspired by reports of a clinical trial begun in 2001 at Clinical Hospital in Split, Croatia, which suggested IP6 enhanced the effectiveness of radiotherapy while lessening the side effects, Shamsuddin and his colleagues sought to investigate the extent of the protective properties of these molecules. With funding from IP-6 Research, Inc., a company formed by Shamsuddin, the researchers began a study to determine how human skin cells responded to UVB radiation when dosed with IP6.

Normally, cells permanently damaged by radiation undergo a genetically programmed process of cell suicide, called apoptosis. Shamsuddin reports that UVB-irradiated human keratinocytes, when treated with IP6, were more likely to survive. Untreated skin cells were more likely to undergo apoptosis, indicating that the DNA in those cells was damaged irreparably and fatally. According to Shamsuddin, the treated cells take an extended pause at the point in the cellular life cycle where innate mechanisms repair DNA before the cell divides.

"IP6 certainly has some interactivity with DNA, but how exactly it works to repair DNA is still something of a mystery. There are reports that IP6 binds with DNA repair molecule Ku to bring about the repair process," Shamsuddin said. "More importantly, we still don't know how IP6 can appear to help healthy cells live while also enhancing the ability of radiation to kill cancer cells."

Shamsuddin and his team found that when mice engineered to be prone to skin cancer were given drinking water containing a two-percent solution of IP6, they were much less likely to develop tumors. Twenty-three percent of treated mice developed tumors, compared to 51 percent of untreated, or control mice, which developed tumors. Moreover, the mice in the treated group that did develop cancer had only half as many tumors as the control mice.

Similarly, Shamsuddin saw that mice treated with a topical cream containing four percent IP6 plus one percent inositol were also less likely to develop tumors. When they administered the cream an hour before UVB irradiation akin to sun exposure, 62 percent of the treated mice developed tumors compared to 76 percent of the control mice. According to Shamsuddin, their findings indicate that either topical or ingested IP6 might confer protection against ionizing radiation.

Ionizing radiation occurs in the environment in many forms, originating from both natural and human-contrived sources. In humans, exposure to ionizing radiation occurs primarily through therapeutic techniques (such as anticancer radiotherapy), and sunbathing. Astronauts, pilots and passengers of high-altitude aircraft also are inordinately exposed to solar radiation. Such radiation exposures have a cumulative effect, increasing the chances of developing cancer over time, researchers say. "It is possible that people regularly exposed to ionizing radiation, such as airline pilots, frequent fliers or people who handle radioactive materials, might take IP6 prophylactically to prevent possible long term effects of exposure," Shamsuddin said.

According to Shamsuddin, IP6 could also offer protection against accidents or purposeful incidents involving nuclear material. "It could also be advisable to use IP6 plus inositol as a cautionary treatment following a nuclear disaster or dirty bomb," Shamsuddin said

FloridaLady

Other place using vaccines...

Hoag Cancer Center offers an innovative clinical trial that involves immunization with a patient's own self-renewing, proliferating tumor cells. This approach probes deeply into the complexities of the human immune response, and tumor cell biology, utilizing information that was unknown to scientists until recently and is continually being expanded by the progressive research at Hoag Cancer Center.

Hoag is one of only a handful of cancer-research centers in the world performing clinical trials utilizing a patient's own tumor cells growing in cell culture as part of a vaccine approach. In this study, some patients received injections with their irradiated tumor cells in an effort to induce the body's own dendritic cells to orchestrate a tumor specific response. Other patients received a trial using their own dendritic cells that have been exposed to their irradiated tumor cells ex vivo. There are a number of patients treated by both of these approaches who are now long-term survivors despite the presence of metastatic melanoma or metastatic kidney cancer. The encouraging outcomes observed with these two approaches were most recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Fall 2006) and in Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals (Summer 2007). "We are extremely gratified at the surprising number of patients who are alive and doing well after receiving these vaccines," says Robert O. Dillman, M.D., medical and scientific director of Hoag Cancer Center. "These patients all had metastatic disease, and often experienced cancer disease progression, despite other therapies. We're intrigued at the possibility that we may have been able to induce an immune response against tumor stem cells, the ones responsible for growing new tumors, in patients." Hoag continues to enroll patients with kidney cancer in the clinical trial investigating irradiated tumor cells plus dendritic cells (click here for details). For patients with metastatic melanoma, enrollment in a new study has started that compares both approaches. The new trial, called "MAC-VAC" (Melanoma Autologous Cell Vaccine), is a randomized trial in which patients are treated with either an autologous tumor cell vaccine containing no dendritic cells or an autologous dendritic cell/tumor cell vaccine.

FloridaLady

Hyperthermia Regains Attention as Cancer Treatment Strategy Radiation oncologists have been exploring heat therapy as an adjunct to radiation for at least 40 years. Hyperthermia, however, seems to have retained its novelty-a perpetual newcomer in a world where surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy are the much more established players. Hyperthermia, as a radiosensitizer, is used in treating a few cancers in some radiation oncology departments. It is not often considered a standard adjunct, like chemotherapy, and, up until now, national guidelines for treating specific tumors have not included hyperthermia. A randomized trial published last May in the Journal of Clinical Oncology demonstrated that hyperthermia combined with radiation significantly improved response rates in breast cancer patients who had recurring tumors on the chest wall. In August, researchers reported in the journal Cancer that hyperthermia produced impressive response rates when combined with radiation and chemotherapy in advanced cervical cancer. These gains, plus improvements in equipment, are spurring new interest in radiation oncology departments and optimism among hyperthermia researchers that heat may, at last, be living up to its early promise. In the first trial, conducted at Duke University Medical Center, hyperthermia given before radiation therapy eradicated tumors in 66 percent of the patients, most of whom had post-mastectomy chest wall recurrences of breast cancer. By comparison, radiation therapy alone destroyed tumors in just 42 percent of patients. These results could change the standard of care nationally for patients with chest wall tumors. Duke is already using hyperthermia as standard therapy, said principal investigator Ellen L. Jones, M.D., and it has been approved for Medicare and Medicaid patients. In addition, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network is considering a recommendation that hyperthermia be used for chest wall recurrences in the next edition of its breast cancer guidelines. The cervical cancer trial combined data from three separate but very similar trials in the United States, Norway and The Netherlands. The trial, led by Anneke M. Westermann, M.D., Ph.D., from the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, involved radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hyperthermia in the treatment of 68 patients with cancer, spread beyond the cervix. Patients received external radiotherapy and brachytherapy, plus four courses of chemotherapy, which included the drug Cisplatin, plus four sessions of hyperthermia using focused microwave energy. The researchers found that 61 patients (90 percent) achieved complete remission. After two years of follow up, 71.6 percent were still in remission. The two-year overall survival rate was 78.5 percent. These rates compare favorably with those achieved using chemoradiation-chemotherapy and radiation combined-which is now the standard therapy for advanced cervical cancer, said Dr. Jones, who was also involved in this trial at Duke. In fact, the combined results of the three countries' trials were encouraging enough to justify a larger, randomized study that will compare chemoradiation to chemoradiation plus hyperthermia in advanced cervical cancer. This phase III trial, launched in May by Duke and the other participants, has already attracted four additional hospitals including Northwestern University Medical Center in Chicago, hospitals in Holland, Amsterdam, Bergen and three large hospitals in Germany. At least two other U.S. institutions are discussing participation, Dr. Jones said. Hyperthermia Treatment of Yesterday Why has it taken so long for hyperthermia to get to this point? In a comprehensive review in the Annals of Oncology in October 2002, one of hyperthermia's major researchers, Jacoba van der Zee, M.D., Ph.D., of the Erasmus Medical Center in The Netherlands, noted that there was a good deal of enthusiasm for hyperthermia in the 1970s and 1980s. It withered in the aftermath of several large randomized trials in which hyperthermia plus radiation did no better than radiation alone. Dr. van der Zee, who was also involved in the Westermann study, traced the failure of these trials to hyperthermia techniques that were inadequate for the patients being treated. Then in the 1990s, smaller trials with improved equipment began to produce more favorable results, and some radiation oncologists saw good reasons to continue using the technique. William Small Jr., M.D., said that hyperthermia for chest wall recurrences and other tumors close to the surface has always made a lot of sense to him. "There is a very good risk/benefit ratio with superficial tumors-they are easy to heat and the treatment is tolerated well," said Dr. Small, who is an associate professor of radiation oncology at Northwestern University and a principal investigator for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. He uses hyperthermia in almost everyone with chest wall recurrences and in some pelvic and other superficial tumors. Hyperthermia makes cancer cells more vulnerable to radiation therapy and to many chemotherapy drugs. Drawbacks to Hyperthermia Treatments Despite the positive results, hyperthermia is performed mainly by a small group of dedicated institutes. Dr. van der Zee suggested that this may be because many of the trials with positive results have been small and they took place in Russia and Asia. In addition, hyperthermia faces some logistical and economic hurdles. The specialized equipment, though not expensive compared to radiation therapy equipment, requires additional training for staff and specialized technical support. Heat can be applied in various ways, using microwaves, radiofrequency or ultrasound, and it can be applied locally, regionally or over the entire body. It may involve external or interstitial applicators. Perfusion techniques, in which a patient's blood is removed, heated and then returned to a limb or organ, are also under study. All of these approaches require variations in equipment and special expertise. Hyperthermia treatments also tend to be time-consuming. Treatments may take more than an hour compared to only about 15 minutes for a typical radiation therapy session, Dr. Jones said. Hyperthermia treatments are also labor intensive; staff must continually monitor the temperature of the tumor during the session, since reaching and maintaining the optimal temperature-between 40 and 44 degrees centigrade-is crucial to the effectiveness of hyperthermia and to prevent burns. Hyperthermia equipment continues to evolve. Duke, for example, has an Investigative Device Exemption from the Food and Drug Administration to use MR imaging for non-invasive hyperthermia monitoring. Dr. Jones said her department is now testing the technique in the hyperthermia treatment of extremity sarcomas. Such improvements, added to good results from phase III trial results, could make hyperthermia a much more practical and widespread adjunct to radiotherapy, she said. These results could change the standard of care nationally for patients with chest wall tumors.. .

FloridaLady

Ladies as soon as our stalker goes away...I will break this up into area's of interest.. so there is not so much info to read, and hopefully it will not it jumps all over the place, so we can discuss one area at a time. Sorry this has turned into such a negative thread. 

Flalady

Fitztwins

I have a friend who lives in San Diego. When her SIL was diagnosed she was afraid of conventional treatment. She too chose to go to a clinic in Mexico. Not sure which one. For 2 weeks (not to mention months she didn't get her lump checked) she tried alternative treatment. During that time her oncologist told her that her tumor was growing.

She did a lumpectmy. She was afraid of chemo and rads. I even spoke with her during her treatment at this 'clinic' in mexico. She did 2 treatments and quit. Maybe they did not get clear margins? Eventually the tumor broke through the skin...not to mention spread. They mortgaged their house and business to pay for treatment...It failed her. She went back to conventional medicine, but it was raging out of control by then. The tumor in the breast ulcerated through the skin. It had spread.

Whose to say if she didn't do both (chemo, rads) and alternative t she would be here today. At diagnosis she had a better prognosis than me.  This is a true story. I have been posting here for 4 years and this happen about 2 years ago.

So I will say I am very suspicious of alternative treatments that don't complement chemo/rads. Yes, it is poison. Yes it is toxic. It has given me 3 more years so far than what she got. Was it worth it?  To me, yes.

If I ask my friend today, she wonders what could have been and for her nieces too.

Just some thoughts.

FloridaLady

Sorry you lost you friend.  We will never know for sure. The shame is that insurance would not pay for the treatment of her choice. If you would have said this story without the money factor no one would question the outcome who knows anything about inflammatory bc. (as a recurrence)

We lost three people this month in my support group.  Only one died from cancer the other two died from chemo toxicity....

There is always more than one way to look at this...

I have bc that has ulcerated through my skin. Has continue to spread through out 34+ chemos, seven different kind, three surgeries, rads and three top clinics. My difference is...did chose to use conventional and alternative.  I use alternative to rebuild build my body every chance I get. I truly know I'm alive because I took charge of my health and treatment. This is a choice we all have to make. No mather what your treatment approach is.

Flalady

althea

I am sobered by stories of women who are battling mets or whose battle has ended, especially when the dx is around the same time as mine.  Janice, I also wonder how very much different things could've turned out for your friend's sil. 

What I find particularly disturbing is the kind of choices people face when seeking treatment south of the border.  I have plenty of 'physician encounters of the third kind' right here in my community.  If I had a 10" tumor sticking out the top of my head, I wonder, with nurses especially, if anyone in my doctor's office would notice.  (gee, do you think I'm getting jaded?)  Such encounters no doubt occur in alternative settings also.  But why should we the patients be forced into a role of rogue agent to seek out alternatives?  Clearly we need more options.  We shouldn't have to be out there on our own, severed from a support system that could help us in seek alternative methods as well as mainstream.  

Flalady, so sorry to hear of so many losses in your support group.  Situations like these last two posts demonstrate how we would really have nothing if we tossed out every treatment which resulted with the patient dying anyway.   

Shirlann

Okay, let's just one thing perfectly straight.  In Tijuana, I live 8 miles from the border, this is big business.  They like Laetrile and coffee enemas.  If you are terminal, go for it, why not?

If you are treatable, you are wasting your money.

In the 1970's a huge study, double blind, was done with Laetrile (apricot seeds) and found to be useless.  

But I would never take away anyone's hope.  Correta Scott King was the last famous person to die there, but again, if I was TERMINAL. I would try anything, otherwise stick to the "proven" successful treatments.  

I am 10 year post treatment and know what I am talking about. NONE of these places have anything but anecdotal information, NO STUDIES that are recognized, they mainly get people who have tried all else, I say great, but DO NOT substitute it for treatments that have saved millions just because you don't want to do what you need to do. They say, "She was cured, only 6 weeks!", yeah, but maybe she didn't have cancer in the first place or she would have gotten well with NO treatment.  Don't be misled.

Shirlann

swimangel72

Good advice Shirlann - oh and here's an interesting article from NY Times Science Times about Science and Alternative Medicine:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

---

September 30, 2008

Applying Science to Alternative Medicine

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

More than 80 million adults in the United States are estimated to use some form of alternative medicine, from herbs and megavitamins to yoga and acupuncture. But while sweeping claims are made for these treatments, the scientific evidence for them often lags far behind: studies and clinical trials, when they exist at all, can be shoddy in design and too small to yield reliable insights.

Now the federal government is working hard to raise the standards of evidence, seeking to distinguish between what is effective, useless and harmful or even dangerous.

"The research has been making steady progress," said Dr. Josephine P. Briggs, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a division of the National Institutes of Health. "It's reasonably new that rigorous methods are being used to study these health practices."

The need for rigor can be striking. For instance, a 2004 Harvard study identified 181 research papers on yoga therapy reporting that it could be used to treat an impressive array of ailments - including asthma, heart disease, hypertension, depression, back pain, bronchitis, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, insomnia, lung disease and high blood pressure.

It turned out that only 40 percent of the studies used randomized controlled trials - the usual way of establishing reliable knowledge about whether a drug, diet or other intervention is really safe and effective. In such trials, scientists randomly assign patients to treatment or control groups with the aim of eliminating bias from clinician and patient decisions.

Sat Bir S. Khalsa, the study's author and a sleep researcher at the Harvard Medical School, said an added complication was that "the vast majority of these studies have been small," averaging 30 or fewer subjects per arm of the randomized trial. The smaller the sample size, he warned, the greater the risk of error, including false positives and false negatives.

Critics of alternative medicine have seized on that weakness. R. Barker Bausell, a senior research methodologist at the University of Maryland and the author of "Snake Oil Science" (Oxford, 2007), says small studies often have a built-in conflict of interest: they need to show positive results to win grants for larger investigations.

"All these things conspire to produce false positives," Dr. Bausell said in an interview. "They make the results extremely questionable."

That kind of fog is what Dr. Briggs and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, with a budget of $122 million this year, are trying to eliminate. Their trials tend to be longer and larger. And if a treatment shows promise, the center extends the trials to many centers, further lowering the odds of false positives and investigator bias.

For instance, the center is conducting a large study to see if extracts from the ginkgo biloba tree can slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease. The clinical trials involve centers in California, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania and recruited more than 3,000 patients, all of them over 75. The study is to end next year.

Another large study enrolled 570 participants to see if acupuncture provided pain relief and improved function for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. In 2004, it reported positive results. Dr. Brian M. Berman, the study's director and a professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, said the inquiry "establishes that acupuncture is an effective complement to conventional arthritis treatment."

In an interview, Dr. Briggs said another good way to improve clinical trials was to ensure product uniformity, especially on herbal treatments. "We feel we have really influenced the standards," she said.

Over the years, laboratories have found that up to 75 percent of the samples of ginkgo biloba failed to show the claimed levels of the active ingredient. Scientists doing a clinical trial have a large incentive to fix that kind of inconsistency.

Dr. Briggs said such investments would be likely to pay off in the future by documenting real benefits from at least some of the unorthodox treatments. "I believe that as the sensitivities of our measures improve, we'll do a better job at detecting these modest but important effects" for disease prevention and healing, she said.

An open question is how far the new wave will go. The high costs of good clinical trials, which can run to millions of dollars, means relatively few are done in the field of alternative therapies and relatively few of the extravagant claims are closely examined.

"In tight funding times, that's going to get worse," said Dr. Khalsa of Harvard, who is doing a clinical trial on whether yoga can fight insomnia. "It's a big problem. These grants are still very hard to get and the emphasis is still on conventional medicine, on the magic pill or procedure that's going to take away all these diseases."

SoCalLisa

I hear you Shirlann and agree with you

Anonymous

The last few posts have been very good posts and absolutely true.  We can only hope that the truth will ring out lout and clear without these posters being viciously attacked.

AnneW

I think there is a tremendous role for COMPLIMENTARY treatments where cancer is concerned. Healing touch is researched extensively (plus, it just plain makes you feel good!) Accupuncture, raiki, cruciferous vegetables, and healthy diets all have their roles--not just in cancer treatments, but as adjuncts for many illnesses and dis-ease.

ALTERNATIVE treatments seem to me--TO ME--to imply things that take the place of another form of treatment. Often to be the sole treatment. Or, as others have said, when all else has failed.

I guess that's why I personally would not try alternative as a first line. And, knowing me and how I am pretty grounded in evidence based medicine, these treatments being proclaimed in various resorts as able to cure me just don't pass my "sniff test" to allow them in if I'm terminal.

But that's just me. People need to have their eyes wide open to the risks and benefits of all treatments, to the best of their ability, and make their own choices accordingly. But I'm not in those shoes yet, and hope not to be ever.

Anne

Shirlann

Anne, you are spot on.  As an ADDITION to regular treatments, I would eat an evergreen tree if I thought it would help, sure can't hurt!  But where we run into trouble is the INSTEAD people.

So my idea is that try anything, just about anything, but don't give up on the well PROVEN treatments, just because you don't like them.  No one will deny we are killing a fly with a hammer, but right now, all we have is the hammer.

So if you are considering alternative INSTEAD of regular treatments, find good studies that back up the new ideas, if you find them, with 20,000 participants, that are double-blind, then let us know, otherwise, one or two "It's a miracle" just doesn't work.

Gentle hugs, Shirlann