Complementary and integrative approaches

Anonymous

mollyann wrote:

Why what?

LOL, mollyann.  My WHY question is WHY are people coming over here to start trouble.  I just didn't have anythiing to add...I'm a bit nutty...ask Sherri....LOL  I would like to know the answer to the question above.

luan, don't you DARE be "bullied" off of her.  Your input is too valuable.

Anonymous

I suppose I just got my answer.  I'll have to go back and re-read those posts.  However, is it worth it.  I say we just start from here and see what happens. 

bluedahlia

This thread is becoming very interesting!

rosemary-b

Luan

I read your post as only referring to a baseline level to see where we were when treament began. I reread it and that is still all I see.

digger

Ah, Mollyann, in a post she now deleted, posed the crux of the whole thread.  Who are the bullies and who are the bullied? Depends on who you ask (no one is innocent here).

I am so glad that the Moderators defined CAM and holistic more thoroughly at the top of this section.  Hopefully that will clarify that everyone on BCO is allowed to post on this forum, whether they're all alternative, some alternative and complementary, or all standard treatment.  

mollyann

ShirleyHughes,

Sorry for the confusion. I was asking you to share any resources or websites you might have with us.

If you don't feel comfortable, then don't. I always always like to hear and leads or tips to information or groups that share our curiosity. PM me if you don't want to post.

Thanks!

AnnNYC

Holistic health is a concept in medical practice stating that all aspects of people's needs, psychological, physical and social should be taken into account and seen as a whole. As defined above, the holistic view on treatment is widely accepted in medicine: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/8/8

A different definition, claiming that disease is a result of physical, emotional, spiritual, social and environmental imbalance, is used in alternative medicine:
http://www.holisticmedicine.org/index.asp

mollyann

2tzus.

I agree with you.  I don't think the categories, CAM, Integrative, Holistic are comprehensive or definitive of what the posters here do. There is so much overlap. There could be numerous sub categories as people pick and choose their therapies. I've never met anyone who went according to the definitions that are provided. There is really no name for someone who does standard of care but eats holistic or someone who refuses some standard of care and eats at McDonalds.

I guess we have to see these definitions as very loose in order to reflect the real world of breast cancer patients.

Edited to add: good point, Ann. I had forgotten the non biological meaning of holistic.

1Athena1

Moderators:

Is it possible to make the links you post on the pinned threads clickable? Since you are quoting from BCO, you could probably post some of the text with no copyright problems, obviously. That might make the rules and the definition of complementary easier for people to read. It would also be nice to have a definition of alternative.

Although I agree that there need not be silos between these concepts. Thanks! 

ETA - Even though I did no alternative approaches to cancer treatment (although lots of complementary), by forgoing some of the conventional options that were offered, you could argue that I took a somewhat "unconventional" approach. 

Merilee

There has been a lot of good information posted here today ladies. Thank you.

thats-life-

thanks moderators for the disclaimers and sub heading on this forum when this was suggested it was in the hope that it will ease the perceived need of members to police the forum. I agree with athena that a clickable link to the disclaimers etc would be of benefit to 'newbies' and people like me who have just recently learnt how to cut and paste a link...etc. i am finding this thread interesting merilee, thanks, and thanks luan and all for your valuable input. i too am interested in the flax/tamox issue.

1Athena1

Toby, you will be happy to know that the health care law does allow coverage for chiroprator care. The following links are of interest in this:

 http://www.sfbackpaindoctor.com/2010/03/san-francisco-chiropractor-comments-on-health-care-reform.html

The Health Care Bill heads to president Obama's desk today for his signature. And everyone wants to know...How will the Health Care Bill effect me, my children, my business?

Well...I think the answer at this point in time is...not much, if at all.

From what I can see, most of changes go into effect several years from now.

On the surface...it doesn't look all that great for small business owners or high income earners...but who knows how it will all shake-out.

One thing for sure...today is a new day, and life goes on...health reform or not.

As a patient at Executive Express Chiropractic...the Health Care Reform Bill passage will not impact your treatment whatsoever...it's business as usual. We will continue to deliver world class service with no-waiting and no hassles, just like we always have.

And this:

http://www.healthinsightstoday.com/articles/v3i3/healthrandc_all.html 

The bottom line is that the profession and its patients, with critical help from Washington heavyweights such as Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) (pictured, left) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), achieved resounding success-it is now illegal under federal law for insurance plans to discriminate against chiropractic. Section 2706 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 states: "... health insurance coverage shall not discriminate with respect to participation under the plan or coverage against any health care provider who is acting within the scope of that provider's license or certification under applicable State law."

And chiropractors are under that law.

thats-life-

not sure if this is off topic, but 3 years ago i was given the dubious title of senior vitamin advisor at a pharmacy i was working in. to get this title i only had to spend a day or two here and there at training sessions run by various vitamin companies. i had a nice shiny badge and people would come to me for advice...i found this disturbing, and soon left the position. all that glitters is not gold, on both sides of fence. therefore i think these discussions are important. one point: there was a pharmacy mag that was sent out to the pharmacist every month. it was left on the tea room table for us all to peruse. there was an article on a particular joint pain supp..stating that the placebo was just as effective if not more so than the supp, but that we were advised to still promote it as beneficial, because the placebo effect had been found to be benficial....

Melizzard

Sherri G sez:

 "One of the big questions I have is about flax and soy.  I have read conflicting things about them in regards to er/pr+ bc.  I personally have some in my diet in very limited amounts, but I don't supplement with them.  When I ask my docs about it, they say to err on the side of caution and avoid it, since "we just don't know".  Are any of you who are er/pr+ supplementing with it?"

I use flax seed and flax oil in the Budwig FOCC.  But I avoid soy unless it's miso or tamari.  The fermented soys are the things the Eastern cultures use ... not the US's version of soy ... GMO soy that makes soy milk, tofu, all nasty GMO things.  But the fermented soys not so much.  So I proceed with caution.  Don't much care for soy anyway, so I don't mind not using it. 

xxoo

Melissa

Anonymous

Hi gurlz, Melissa, you,re absolutely right about the soya consumed in the East being the fermented version which is beneficial, not the gmo soy we have here. There is something about fermentation for sure. In the Budwig protocol, there,s the sauerkraut, then the cottage cheese, curdled milk, again some kind of fermentation, a bit like yogurt. I had read about cottage cheese for cancer and have been eating it mixed with fruit, good



Sherri, thanks for that. I,m thinking that maybe the flax would compete with Tamox and thereby render it less effective ? For the gals not on Tamox, don,t know why their onco would not validate that study

Anonymous

That,s a good question Toby that i,ve been asking myself, will have to look it up. What,s the difference between a recurrence and a second primary. Could one have a recurrence in the other breast or would that be considered a second primary ?

Anonymous

Actually, another member on this board (not sure she posts anymore) had two primary cancers.  She had TN in one breast.  A few years later the other breast was ER/PR+.  I would assume this was a second primary since the hormone statues changed.

Anonymous

Calamtykel, i,m so sorry about your son and you having to deal with bc on top, life seems unfair sometimes, keep strong I did not have the flu shot either running through my veins while on chemo, i never ever got the shots anyways...the last ones i had were the hepatitis A & B and they made me sick



Rosemary, i think the conclusion of that study implies that there is monitoring to assess effectiveness, at least that,s how i read it

Anonymous

Shirley, if the hormone status had not changed, would it have been considered a recurrence even if it was in the other breast ?

Member_of_the_Club

I think its considered a new primary in the other breast.  

Anonymous

Member knows a LOT more than I do.  I do think she's correct.

Anonymous

Thanks, goodnight

Merilee

http://cuteoverload.com/2010/03/31/attempted-crowage/

One thing we have not discussed is the healing power of humor

Check out this baby rooster  attempting to crow

AnnNYC

Hi Toby -- about the Affordable Healthcare Act and chiropractic coverage -- the links Athena provided (which were links to a chiropractic practice and a professional chiropractic association) are correct in saying that the bill will cover chiropractic care.

However, there are some "loopholes" in the bill, probably fought for by the insurance industry, which would "grandfather" insurance companies that do not currently cover chiropractic, so that those insurance companies could still discriminate against chiropractic and wouldn't have to fully comply with the new law.

The American Chiropractic Association is petitioning against this "grandfathering" loophole -- and I wonder if the petition your chiropractor asked you to sign is related to the "grandfathering" loophole?

http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/grandfatherconsumerletter.doc

http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/acagrandfatherrule_comments_final.pdf

http://spectrumwellness.net/your-voice-is-needed-again/

Merilee

http://www.rxmed.com/b.main/b2.pharmaceutical/b2.1.monographs/CPS-%20Monographs/CPS-%20(General%20Monographs-%20A)/ARIMIDEX.html

How long does Arimidex stay in the body? This article says a minimum of 50 hours and 80% hormone suppression could still be detected 6 days after a dose of 1mg.

 Thus supporting my naturapath's comments about not needing to dose every day, interesting,

AnneW

But isn't the point of daily dosing to keep blood levels up? I would think the fluctuation of levels would be potentially counterproductive. Doubt there have been any specific studies on it, though...

Merilee

Actually Ann someone posted a study yesterday

Merilee

Arimidex

(Anastrozole)

Arimidex (Anastrozole) is what we call an aromatase inhibitor (AI). In clinical use, its used to halt the progression of Breast Cancer in women. It works by blocking the aromatase enzyme, which is responsible for the production of estrogen. In athletics and bodybuilding, it is used as an ancillary compound to be added to a cycle of Anabolic Steroids. In this respect it is also used for its estrogen reducing properties, but it has the additional benefit of increasing testosterone levels, as well see...

Arimidex Side Effects

Many anabolic steroids aromatize (convert to estrogen via the aromatase enzyme), and this is responsible for many of the unwanted side effects found with anabolic steroid use (acne, gynocomastia, water-retention, etc...). In one study, both .5mg and 1mg doses of Arimidex were shown to decrease estrogen by roughly 50%. The 1mg/day dose also increased testosterone levels by 58% (1). In that same study, in both groups, LH and FSH also went up slightly.

Take a look:

Changes in testosterone and E2 concentrations in normal young men (15 22 yr old) before () and after 10 days of oral anastrozole at 0.5 and 1 mg.(1)

This would seem to suggest that for use during a cycle, a dose of .5mgs/day would be sufficient to combat estrogen-related side effects. It is, however, important to remember that some estrogen is necessary to obtain optimal muscle growth. The lower estrogen levels provided by dex seems, anecdotally at least, to produce a more "hard" and "quality" look for bodybuilders who have experimented with its use in either a cutting or bulking cycle.

Id like to point out that the elevation in Testosterone provided by Arimidex is so large that it can be used as a "form" of testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadal men (2). Clearly, this suggests its use in a post-cycle-therapy (as well as its previously discussed use within a cycle) to regain natural testosterone levels and full functioning of the HPTA (Hypothalamic-Testicular-Pituitary-Axis).

Literature provided by the original maker of Anastrozole (Arimidex, produced by Zeneca Pharmaceuticals) states that stable blood plasma concentrations of the compound are achieved after a mere 7 consecutive 1mg daily doses. Also, Arimidex is just over 80% effective at inhibiting aromatase (3). Thus, if you want to take it for the entire duration of a cycle of anabolic steroids, you can simply start taking it on the same day you begin your cycle. Those are some pretty good numbers, huh?

But can you use it for the entire duration of a cycle? Is it dangerous? Well, certainly reducing estrogen levels in your body is good from a body building point of view, as it reduces water-retention and the potential for gynocomastia (if theres no estrogen in your body, you cant get gyno, regardless of how much progesterone is floating around)(5). Luckily this stuff is very mild on blood lipids (cholesterol) and doesnt affect them adversely (2), in the studies Ive seen.

Arimidex and Cholestrol

As previously mentioned, those lowered estrogen levels could possibly (eventually) adversely affect your cholesterol and possibly even your immune function. I am, however, very comfortable recommending Arimidex for relatively long-term use. This should be the ancillary compound of choice for those on long and heavy cycles, especially since it also doesnt inhibit igf like some other ancillary compounds (insulin-like-growth-factor is an important component of anabolism)(4).

Price of Arimidex

Though price of Arimidex will vary, this is one of the compounds I will caution the reader from buying in its legitimate pharmaceutical form. The price (up to $5/tab) is absurd, when you consider its availability from Underground Labs, as well as in research form, for less than 1/3rd of that. Ive used both the tabs from an Underground Lab, as well as the liquid version from research-sites, and found the results from both to be exactly the same.

References:

1. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000 Jul;85(7):2370-7, "Estrogen Suppression in Males"
2. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2005 Feb;62(2):228-35.
3. Arimidex Package insert
4. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2002 Apr;80(4-5):411-8.
5. Progesterone is not essential to the differentiative potential of mammary epithelium in the male mouse. Freeman, Topper. Endocrinology. 1978 Jul;103(1):186-92

SORRY ABOUT THE PIC AND ADDS I DID NOT KNOW HOW TO GET THEM OFF






   

Steroid.com Presents The Anabolic Network View all past videos - CLICK HERE latest item [Nov 23 2010]Steroid Control Act - Part 1 Injected Channel Post a Comment [Nov 19 2010]Steroids in Sports Injected Channel Post a Comment

Read more: http://www.steroid.com/Arimidex.php#ixzz1SYXcKDPQ

otter

Merilee, that article you cut-and-pasted into your post is written about men who are taking anabolic steroids for body-building, isn't it?  And, if they don't somehow suppress the extra extradiol their bodies synthesize from all those anabolic steroid supplements, they develop gynecomastia, along with other unwanted female sex characteristics.  So, they take anastrozole (Arimidex) or letrozole (Femara), off-label of course, to block that estradiol synthesis.

Are you sure the results you've posted about men taking Arimidex to suppress the production of unwanted breast tissue can be extrapolated to those of us taking AI's to decrease our risk of a BC recurrence?  Is there evidence that the changes in FSH, LH, testosterone, and E2 in men (re: the graphs in the article you posted) would occur to the same extent in women?  And, would the "cycling" in Arimidex administration proposed in the article (off-and-on dosing to coordinate with the cycled administration of anabolic steroids) be sufficient to provide the reduction in BC recurrence risk that's been documented in clinical trials of 1 mg of Arimidex taken daily (e.g., the ATAC trial)?

otter

kira1234

SherriG,

It will be interesting to see what the results of this study will be. I'm glad they will be coming out before my 5 year mark. I must say what to do after the 5 years has been on my mind.