Credibility of source, "What Your Doctor..."

I ask this in all seriousness and sincerity - what makes Dr. Lee and Dr. Zava "credible" (for those who believe they are credible)? 

I think the one thing that I like about Dr. Lee (haven't heard of the other doctor) is that he does question mainstream medicine. Not to give misinformation, but there should always be questions posed about our medical care. Whether he is correct or not is another issue, but I find myself on the cynical side of medicine these days, despite the fact that I have doctor friends who have dedicated their lives to creating better health for people.  As a culture, we try too hard to medicate instead of treat, and we don't spend nearly enough time finding the cure for cancer. After all the funds that have been created for cancer research, all we can show for it is better chemo???? Come on!

As far as preventative medicine for cancer, there has got to be better research going on for these purposes.

So, in the end, Dr Lee represents something that we should all be doing-- questioning the system. ALWAYS. Even though the system works in our favor at times, you always must ask yourself who has the most to gain from a sick populace--- Big Pharma. 

 OK, you can relegate me to Montana now, but I do believe all must be questioned, even when we willfully have to accept our treatments because we're scared to death we're gonna die.

I have read all the books and done lots of research and the more I read the more confused I got.  So, I finally added an NP to my team.  I see my primary doc, my oncologist, my radiologist, my surgeon and now I also see my naturepath.  My team is now complete.  I take what each of them says and add that to my own research and make my own decisions about my health.  This is a terrifying disease and I would love to have someone give me the answers, but the best I can hope for are educated opinions.  I have taken control of my lifestyle and that's one thing I can control.  How much and what I eat, what nutrients I take, how much alcohol I drink, and how often I exercise.  The rest is one big ?. 

Roseann

Hi MariannaHB,  I absolutely agree that we need to question everything, and that we need more research to find prevention and cure, and I'm sure we all agree with that!

For me personally, questioning things is only part of the equation. For the reasons I posted before, I don't think Dr. Lee is/was a credible health expert at all. I very much appreciate that he questioned mainstream medicine, which is a great start, but I don't agree with the conclusions he reached from that questioning.  

You said in regards to Dr. Lee, "...whether he is correct or not is another issue."  IMHO correctness, based on reproducible and fact-based evidence, is a huge and critical part of credibility.  I'm curious about what others think about it. Could semantics be a part of our "disagreement" about credibility?

Saying something is "credible" is just another way of saying "I believe." It's a totally subjective adjective.

So when people go around saying this is "credible" or this isn't "credible," they're just expressing their ideas, feelings or prejudices, not any real facts. They are trying to get the conversation going to see if others agree with them about something.

But it would be more honest and accurate for people to say, "I don't like (fill in the blank)" rather than try to brand it as "credible or not credible."

MHP,

Could you be more specific about what you want to ascertain as correct? The book covers a very broad field of information, some of it in great detail. You sound very intelligent and you are trying to zero in on something or perhaps a few things. If you could figure out your most specific concerns, they would be easier address. I'm saying this as a person who has often taken a year to pin down what my concern is with a book/article/study because I need to boil down several thoughts to find the key issue.

MHP, the data and findings in the studies remain the same whether it was 20 years ago or yesterday. The studies' information doesn't diminish with age. Others have raised your concern about recentness of studies regarding other approaches so I understand your raising the "recent" issue.

Yes, for absolute certainty, we need better controlled studies to pin down and compare those who didn't take progesterone with those who did. And we need to know exactly what kind of USP progesterone they were taking. Best wishes in your journey  In the end, I promise you will feel empowerd.

Hi MHP70,

Wikipedia, while certainly not a definitive primary rsource (and should always be fact-checked!), has an article on BHRT here:  BIOIDENTICAL HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY

I've found Wikipedia to be helpful in a lot of my research, since it is publically editable and  therefore often includes discussion from both "sides."   It includes a lot of reference citations, so it's relatively easy to do fact checking and further research.  If you do use Wikipedia and find inaccuracies or omissions, definitely add your input to help make it a more useful resource! 

Like you, I'm very interested in the hormonal aspects of BC. For me it's because I'm triple negative (not hormonally-driven BC) and so I would love to find fact-based evidence that I could take progesterone and be done with it too!  Unfortunately, I keep coming up empty handed in my research, and most of what I find is regurgitation of the same unproven ideas and therapies coming from the same few sources (Lee, Zava, Hopkins, Life Extension/LEF, Natural News, Suzanne Somers, Whaleto, CureZone, Flechas, Hulda Clark, Breastcancerchoices, Burzynski, etc).  In my humble opinion, I personally don't find any of these sources to be credible health experts.  Feel free to disagree and/or discuss, as I always welcome discussion! 

As an ER/PR+ who was tossed into instant menopause earlier this year (courtesy of Zoladex and perhaps chemo) I can certainly understand wanting to mitigate a sudden menopause. There are many positive studies on the breast-protective attributes of natural bioidentical progesterone. However, do these benefits still apply after a cell has undergone a malignant transformation? When dealing with mutated DNA anything is possible and therefore I'm leary. I'd love to know more though because like you I believe health is best found and restored through balance, and that there may be other terrible consequences down the road for me because of the sudden loss of estrogen!

I want to believe in John Lee too, but just not sure.

...finding a doctor who doesn't think a 39 year old should have chemo with a grade 3 tumor is more than challenging.

Your Oncotype DX score was 12 and you can't find a doctor who will treat you unless you do chemo????  You may need to look outside your immediate area because doctors in a specific area tend to have similar treatment approaches. 

You may also want a second opinion on the original pathology report to make sure that the tumor really is grade 3 BEFORE you even think about starting chemo with such a low Oncotype score.  Pathologists are human, and labs can make mistakes.  It is worth double checking before making a potentially lifechanging decision based on a single report.

No matter how old or young you are, as an adult, you are the one who has the final say in what your treatment will be every step of the way.  Doctors can advise and recommend, but they cannot treat you against your will.  If you insist, they will prescribe Tamoxifen without the chemo.  They may also want to add Lupron to shut down your ovaries at least temporarily, but that again is your call in the end.

It will likely be very difficult to find one who will do progesterone balancing with you, but they must exist somewhere, otherwise no woman would be able to do it. 

Hi

Im new, and my sister has just been diagnosed with mets to the spine.

 She hasnt been on these boards, but I'm hoping she will Just want to tell her story:

 She was initially diagnosed 9yrs ago with I guess would have been IDC because it was in several nodes. She had a mastectomy and radiation I believe.

She did lots of research and decided that the risk of chemo was high....did heaps of alternative things, everything you have ever heard of. The main things though were vitamin b17 (apricot kernals) and vitamin c IVs plus photo (micro wave) therapy.

She really knows her stuff. We really thought she should do chemo, but anyhow supported her decision.

 She had recurrences local and nodule. My point is though....her quality of life has been very good. Who knows what the outcome would have been if she had done chemo....based on the evidence here I think that she has done at least as well with alternatives as she would have with chemo. 

 I think though, anyone deciding to do alternative stuff and forego chemo should research everything and educated themselves, dont just stick with one book or idea (eg. iodine etc). It all plays a part. 

PS  laetrile is the correct name for the b17...

PSS she declined chemo against docs orders, but found an oncologist who supports alternative treatments. It has cost her a fortune, and a lot of her day to day activities are around her treatments (which she has maintained for nine years). She has also been on Tamoxifen (I think)....

I am afraid I have to disagree with the "iodine" theory. I have been midly HYPERthyroid since teenagehood. Got full-blown Graves Disease in 2003 and severe thyrotoxicosis. Had high iodine levels all my life. For the last year before my BC diagnosis I had to avoid seafood and even use non-iodized salt in my food. I still got BC, and by what my BS said it has been there for 20 years, and didn't show up in mammo until it was already extensive.

So, yes, the "iodine" thing doesnt' stand up in my book. The vit D though does - due to the hyperthyroid, my VitD levels were always low, and in the last two years before my dx even had severe defficiency - was put on Vit D2 100,000 UI bi-weekly, then monthly, now I'm on 50,000 UI monthly.

I am still researching the progesterone thing, as well as BHRT. My invasive part of the BC was very highly +, like ER 98% and PR 96%.