Alternative Treatments- My great experience

NattyOnFrostyLake

Abigail,

There are pictures of "breast abcesses" if you go to Google Images. There is also a diagram of the anatomy of the breast somewhere there. As you can see the infections can look very angry but they may resolve if the immune system takes care of them. Does your condition look anything like those?  Do you have any pain? My sister-in-law had an abcess many years after she breastfed and the doctor gave her antibiotics and it went away. I don't think they ever figured out where the infection came from.

Anyway, I'm glad you are painting and enjoying your life  So many cannot say that.

pupmom

Abigail, as usual, your "English" is incomprehensible to me.

abigail48

update:  much the same, the red is still growing but so is the dry part, & it seems to have stopped giving off the tiny bits of stuff that dries.  sometimes no discomfort at all, I seldom ice it now even when hurting or other, the ice still works though, & discomfort is always when a wind, snow, rain event is heading in.  still on the same protocol, stopped using the cinnemon oil but i use a lot in cereal in the morning & in curry powder, the good cinnemon.  still no salt, my hearing returned last month, & I think it may be effecting the cyst in a positive way too

abigail48

went back here after hearing about wornoutmom.......thinking of the locked forum I think most of the info has been reiterated since except perhaps for herb robert, a herb used for cancer by native americans (1st people). 1 and a forth years was a half life as I recall, 2.7 years for untreated breast cancer half dead. I guess this would mean diagnosed. not sure.

Momine

Abigail, what do you mean by this:

"1 and a forth years was a half life as I recall, 2.7 years for untreated breast cancer half dead. I guess this would mean diagnosed. not sure."?

abigail48

mr. googe somewhere said that untreated brest cancer half are dead in 1;7 years. I did the math for .7 years & figured the half would be about now & everybody in the end of may, as I recall, 2015. I'm guessing mr google meant those who were diagnosed, but perhaps not, I think there was a group of women hospitalized for the trouble or what was thought to be their trouble in the first part of the 20th century or the latter part of the 19th

exbrnxgrl

no offense Abigail, but I'm not sure what random and dated/inaccurate stats from Dr.Google have to do with the passing of wornoutmom.

abigail48

I read one of her last comments & the thread after it & responded to her mention of locked comments & other stuff, Ithere. dated some, I forget when the 1.7 years info was posted, the other certainly was dated but why do you say inaccurate? especially when there's been so few untreated

Momine

Abigail, I am sorry, but I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

abigail48

giving information I've gleaned as always

Momine

Abigail, yes, but nobody can understand what the information is.

BTW, I came across a health news shows that you might really enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeZWSyHkY3A

abigail48

I was correcting the info I gave on this thread of 2and a forth years to death with untreated breast cancer I think this was probably the dated info of the group of women studied 100 years ago or so. the 2.7 years to half af all dead is a more recent information.

exbrnxgrl

She wasn't untreated. She was treated by alternative medicine initially and conventional during the last several months of her life. As for those who are completely untreated, you are correct in that few stats exist and I would imagine virtually no stats exist for those who are undiagnosed.

Momine

So are you saying, Abigail, that you saw a study which said that half of women with untreated BC were dead within 2.7 years of DX?

If true, that would kinda be a powerful argument for treatment.

suzieq60

I think that Wornoutmom's passing shows how important conventional treatment is - she might still be with her precious children if she hadn't been fooled by alternative quackery.

pupmom

Suzie, absolutely!

Abigail, sorry, but to me your "arguments" for whatever are unintelligible.

jojo68

Well it has finally happened and come to this.  I was waiting for someone to comment on wornoutmom's passing and blame it on "quackery"....So, I ask you...what is your reason for when many on here pass away when all they have done is conventional????  Please answer this...I anxiously await!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Momine

Jojo, odds. There are no guarantees, but treatment greatly improves the odds in many cases.

SelenaWolf

My reason?  It's regretable and unfair that people are taken in by questionable alternative treatments when they may have had months, maybe years, longer with conventional treatment.  That doesn't mean that I believe that all alternative treatments are quackery; I believe that alternatives have a time and a place.  Take catnip-and-honey tea: it's soothing and can help mild occasional indigestion.  But for a perforated gastrointestinal ulcer?  I'm sorry, but herbal tea or supplements simply will not help save your life when you're bleeding to death. 

It's the same for cancer, which is a serious and potentionally life-threatening disease (unlike mild, occasional indigestion) the minute it's diagnosed.  No.  Personally, I don't feel that going wholly alternative is enough, especially when the cancer is advanced.  The statistics - the odds - simply don't bear up under scrutiny.  And, until they do, I will always look to alternatives as a complementary treatment not as the whole treatment.

RosesToeses

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm actually going to back-up abigail48. I remembered seeing the 2.7 stat recently in a blog post that linked back to here.

Like others said above, it's pretty old data (1933) because that's about how long it's been since significant numbers of people left their cancer virtually untreated. To me that's actually maybe more interesting because that was presumably also a time when most foods were organic, artificial growth hormones didn't exist, there were fewer environmental toxins, more whole food, etc., etc.

Fair warning, if you've already set your mind against conventional treatments, the link disagrees with you so you may not like it, but I think it does a good job of explaining the 2.7 years stat. Goodness knows it could use some explaining.

jojo68

LAUGHABLE answers to say the least when there are TONS of both early and late stage conventional treated women on here who have died...show me the 'odds' studies of traditional vs. conventional.

suzieq60

There have been studies Joellelee - read these:

http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/73/topic/792173?page=1#post_3165958

 

SelenaWolf

Jojo... I'm not going there again.  You asked what my reason was.  I told you.  For me, natural isn't enough, especially where cancer treatment is concerned.  There simply aren't the studies - and by this I mean studies whose results can be repeated again and again - to prove otherwise.  One study is not enough.  I wouldn't use a conventional medicine that only had one study - or just a few - to back it up.  I want to see years of consistent results before I'm going to trust it.

As I stated above: alternatives have their place, but not as a replacement for conventional treatment if conventional treatment provides better odds/statistics.  And, so far, it does.  For me, at least, conventional makes the most sense.  Although I still drink the catnip and honey tea when I have indigestion.

Momine

Jojo, no reason to use words like that. It is not laughable and is backed by plenty of data. Yes, people WILL die, either way, the questions are "how many?" and "how fast?"

I have a very high chance of dying of BC whatever I do. But I would still much prefer for that to happen in 7 years than in 2. If I am really lucky, maybe it won't be for another 20 years.

abigail48

yes interesting, something like what I fantic.ise about: something I can put on, but non toxic, at best I probably don't have 5 more years to live, & that 1933 figure if I live 5 years after the lesion began turning that will make 100% dead according to the 1933 information. & if I can do it without conventional I'll be very glad. I have other troubles of age: joint pain, what I call the shakes & the dizzies, other stuff conventional cancer therapy isn't going to help

exbrnxgrl

I guess we could go around endlessly on this one. Yes, women who are early stage do progress and die (but they do not die from early stage bc confined to the breast), as do stage IV women, on conventional tx. No one would ever claim it's a cure all or even close once you're stage IV. Many women feel it is imperative to see a track record, backed up repeatable scientific data, when choosing tx. Others are satisfied with less or no evidence and ultimately we each choose.

Wornoutmom made a choice. She spent months at time away from her family to receive tx that she believed would help her. She and her friends/family held many fund raisers to finance the tx. In the end, she did try conventional tx. Would she have had a better outcome had she gone conventional first? I think that may never be known, but looking at patients with similar dx, the answer is probably. I chatted with her occasionally on FB and one thing is clear to me, she never regretted the course she took. Was this true at the end, when only conventional medicine offered her a glimmer of hope? I can't say as by then our contact was limited. Either way, she was only 39 and had two young children. It is truly heartbreaking.

abigail48

39. what a shame. I wonder what made her cancer so aggresive

exbrnxgrl

She was young and HER2+. Without Herceptin, HER2+ is agressive. She was also ER/PR+. Triple + is not too common.

Momine

Abigail, she had no treatment beyond surgery. According to those 1933 stats you yourself posted, her death was, sadly, right on schedule. It is particularly sad since there now is targeted therapy for HER2+ as well as tamoxifen.

abigail48

did she ever say what she thought brought on the cancer?