Suzanne Somers has changed her diagnosis

Suzanne said her tumor was 2.4cm ... my onc would classify that, even tho no nodes, as Stage II due to size.  

 I find that since she had the lump removed and rads that she is misleading women across the nation, across the seas!!  She did traditional tx!!!  She just refused chemo .. not a rare choice. 

Stage I

Stage I describes invasive breast cancer (cancer cells are breaking through to or invading neighboring normal tissue) in which:

• the tumor measures up to 2 centimeters, AND
• no lymph nodes are involved

Stage II

Stage II is divided into subcategories known as IIA and IIB.

Stage IIA describes invasive breast cancer in which:

• no tumor can be found in the breast, but cancer cells are found in the axillary lymph nodes (the lymph nodes under the arm), OR
• the tumor measures 2 centimeters or less and has spread to the axillary lymph nodes, OR
• the tumor is larger than 2 centimeters but not larger than 5 centimeters and has not spread to the axillary lymph nodes

Dawnbelle...You rock. I think all of us pots should have a forum. I have been blasted, I have stoped threads in their tracks for suggestimg that maybe we have more control  than we are told. Hell, If I had listened to my docs, i would be DEAD today. I took a little of what they said...and alot of what my instincts told me to do.  Stage I stage IV stage right stage left...it's all frightening.

Denise,

I'm sorry you have closed your mind to new information and SS.

For the record, SS is the compiler of doctors' interviews/information/scientific strategies.

And what makes you think you already know about all the "big guns?" So long as you refuse to read outside your comfort zone you close your mind to big guns you don't know about.

It is more important for stage IV to know about alternatives than anybody.

>

Denny~ The FDA is a joke. Anyone who thinks it isn't big business is a fool.

It is big pharma who pays for the drug studies. It is big pharma who pays chemo bonus' to docs who Rx enough. Chemo may shrink a tumor, it may kill cancer cells...but it kills all the good cells too.

Are you suggesting that there is NO possibility that there is a cure for cancer out there that is NOT FDA approved, are you seriously suggesting that? I do know that in the last 35 years, the FDA has NOT approved one herb, nontoxic drug, or vitamin for use in cancer. WHY? Because it doesn't make money, Denny.

DO you want statistics? Statistics on your FDA approved chemo drugs?

UCLA found, now confirmed in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.....Adriamycin is INEFFECTIVE in 92% of women in which it is administered.

Hell, in the last report the FDA did on itself, they claimed they were incompetent!

Keep this in mind people;

I was told by 3 OB/GYN 2 breast surgeons & 2 radiologists that my lump was a fibroid and did not need removed.

The radiologist even went on to say & I quote "I am SO sure that is not anything, if you insist on removing it, I wouldn't even bother sending it to pathology."

I had to PAY for cosmetic surgery to remove my lump because it was NOT medically necessary.

Good thing I questioned those 7 men. Good thing I listened to my heart. It took 7, almost 8 years, but it is out....and it was cancer. I was right & all of those doctors were wrong.

You can all believe in standard of care if you want to, it doesn't work.

On a private note~My motives here have been questioned, I have been told I am argumentative & should leave. Really? I am that bad? Ignore me if I am full of such nonsense. IF you doubt, for one second, what your doctors are telling you, question it. Question it OVER & OVER & OVER.

Denise,

You say when alternative option becomes an actual "cure" you will support it.

Well, if a mainstream option was considered a "cure" I'd support it. But they aren't curative at all. Read the fine print disclaimers in the consent forms. Even the FDA makes them state that the therapy is "Palliative" and not "curative."

You have a double standard, holding alternative medicine up to a cure standard that not one single mainstream therapy has ever demonstrated nor claimed.

<

Denny123,

Please document your statement that "any alternatives will negate chemo and rads." That is very irresponsible to make such an unsubstantiated claim. If it is true, I'm sure you can provide a documented study.

If you get this info from the oncology grapevine we must consider it worthless gossip.

<

Seventeen yrs ago when my cousin died of vaginal cancer at age 46 I knew nothing about cancer.

In 2004 when my aunt died of colon cancer with mets to her lung and liver (after 2 bouts of early stage BC) I was convinced that it was the chemo that killed her.

In Jan when I was dx with stage IV (mets through the skeleton, lung, & liver) I told my onc, no chemo, no way.

But I sure did change my tune when nothing kept my liver mets from progressing. I told my onc it is a woman's perogative to change her mind and I was changing mine. Currently doing Abraxane and patiently waiting til scan time so I can see how the liver is holding up.

I think that alternative supplements are fine if that is the way you want to go, but I spend a lot of time researching and have yet to see that they are anything but "supplements".

Bottom line is we are all different. Best thing is to stay in tune with your body and do what works best for you. I have my own beliefs which I won't bother sharing here as they are spiritual based.

Playwight Eugene Ionesco (1912-94), said it well:

 "Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together."

Dawnbelle,

I had a similar experience with a radiologist from a major NYC hospital. A couple of years ago I inisisted on a mammo (very/very/very strong family history of early onset - every aunt and first cousin so far), I thought I felt something, he said I was too young for BC and that I should come back when when I am 40.  Turns out, he's a moron and I only started "early" screening b/c my new and outstanding gynegologist flipped out when we reviewed my family history and she insisted on immediate and thorough screening.  It's not a conspiracy, it's MALPRACTICE. And it's rampant and every other woman on this board had the same experience.

Second, regarding an FDA conspiracy to withhold a cancer cure, that my friend is bunk. Of course there is a "possiblity" that there is a cure out there that isn't FDA approved. It took roughly 30 years for Judah Folkman to prove that tumors need blood to grow (angiogeneis) and cutting off the blood supply to a tumor would effectively kill it. From his spectacular discovery came all of the ground breaking anti angiogeneis drugs (e.g. avastin, herceptin) which has made big pharma billions of dollars. But before the FDA would approve any drug based on Folkman's theory two things had to be proven (1) clinical efficacy - that the drug reached the primary endpoints exactly as descibed in the FDA applciation - even a minor deviation and the clinical is deemed unreliable, and (2) that the drug is safe (Vioxx, anyone?).

Conspiracy theories are alluring, but they are irrational. From a regulatory position and legal perspective, the reasons for requiring proof of efficacy and safety are indisputable. From a financial perspective (and anyone even remotely famliliar with the operation of the securites markets will get it)  - the first company to patent and bring to market a cure for cancer will make more money than every other publicly traded company combined. 

To address one of your earlier comments on another thread - it's not broccoli, it's broccoli sprouts (I also read the Newsweek article) and Roche is presently sponsoring a Hopkins Study which examines the extent to which human breast tissue metabolizes sulforaphane, which is the ingredient in broccoli sprouts which has a tumor suppressor effect. All of these studies are well publicized, they don't need to "tell us" and a broccoli sprout cannot be patented, but a sulforaphane concentrate can.

Sherry, you can post.

As to the "i know of someone' , I actually talked to this someone. Tried to talk her into continuing treatments.