I may decide not to do chemo and radiation

"

Alternative" gets the same treatment at BCO as climate change does on Fox news. "

Wren, that made me laugh, which is very good for whatever ails you. I was thinking along the same lines myself with respect to a query about why there weren't more posts by those choosing alt tx. The "personality" of this site makes it a pretty weak place for alt tx support. That is not a judgement on my part, just the reality IMO. I actually hope that those who are serious about alt tx do have a website where they feel totally supported and don't have to be subjected to the fire fights that periodically flare up on bco. I know that if I were strongly considering alt tx (which I might someday since I never say never) bco would not be my #1 pick for a support forum anymore than the NRA website would be a place I'd go to seek support for gun control laws.

For your stage of cancer there are NO alternative therapies that will keep you alive. Chemo can and does cause some other types of cancer but it is very rare. It is much rarer than someone NOT taking chemo at stage 3 and staying alive. There are risks for everything and you have to balance them against the benefits. You could, of course, try alternatives with science-based therapies. The doctor is also suggesting rads after a mastectomy which means your tumor was likely close to the chest wall. Four lymph nodes means this cancer has had a large opportunity to travel elsewhere and there are NO alternative therapies that will stop circulating cancer cells from latching on elsewhere. Your best and only chance of a good prognosis is to do what your doctor suggests. There are no guarantees in life, just odds and your odds of getting a secondary cancer from chemo is a LOT less than getting distant recurrence (ie) stage 4 from an under-treated stage 3.

exbrnxgrl, you are a sweetheart.  I really like reading your posts.

I don't really have a 'side' for this argument but do like to chatter and stick my nose in.

light...you didn't answer my question.  I understand that in a subset of patients, chemo causes cancer.  However, what I want to understand is how you dismiss chemotherapy's benefits in eradicating many childhood leukemias.  Decades ago, it was a death sentence and now it is a treatable disease.

Returning to generalizations and flammatory words and phrases, I think they create controversy in the minds of many.

Regarding antibiotics, the last chapter of The Remedy speaks of unsettling times ahead for all of us. Again, returning back a century and a half ago, we understood little about contagious illnesses.  And even less about antiseptics. Vaccines?  Going back further in time, Native Americans taught the North American settlers inoculation.

What I find concerning today is the overuse of antibiotics and antiseptics, and the underuse of vaccines especially in developed countries.

Chemotherapy?  Researchers and physicians have known since they began using it that it could be toxic.  That is why today, research has developed methods to screen patients and help them decide if the risks of chemo outweigh the benefit. Physicians and researchers also understand when it is time to encourage patients and their families to limit using it.

Lastly, I find it hard to believe that rational people choose to look beyond statistics.  The greatest medical developments, vaccines, antiseptics,antibiotics, and chemotherapy have been marvel achievements.  Each has their own risks, but their benefits have been well documented and should not be catagorically dismissed.

aa,

Yup, not perfect but the best we have for right now. Many things could be far better, but for me, I can only make my decisions based on the current reality. What should be, what could be, what might be won't help in my decision making processes.

wrenn,

Thank you! I actually don't have a "side" either but my mind requires more than anecdotes. Believe me, when the data exists that shows me a viable, non-toxic, no se way to keep my stage IV cancer at bay, I'll be first in line to receive it. I'll also need insurance to cover it Never the less, I'm pretty happy being 3 years out and still NED. 

When i developed diverticulitis days after my initial dose of chemo my oncologist sent a report to my GP telling her that taxotere was know to cause bowel perforation and the risk of morbidity from that was too great a risk now that I had the diverticulitis response. I was relieved and frightened by this news. As my peripheral neuropathy is getting worse (recently received a registration number from govt. declaring me disabled I am more relieved I guess to not continue with the chemo.

Every case is different

I've had two experiences.  15 years ago, I was diagnosed with a low grade breast cancer, ER+.  I didn't do chemo as it didn't seem to have spread anywhere, but I did do radiation.  

Then, 13 years later, I was diagnosed with a high grade inflammatory BC, triple negative (it is a second primary, not a recurrence).  In my case, I had to have chemo to shrink the thing or it was inoperable.  There is little choice in these kinds of situations, as there is a good chance that the tumor will break out through the skin (I know one such lady who procrastinated too long), and it was already throughout my spine.  The surgeon thought that, without treatment, I had about a year to live.  

Now I am 3 years from the last diagnosis, and NED.  

Every situation is different and presents itself with certain choices. 

Light....I am not making an argument that there aren't other potential treatments for all kinds of disorders.  Instead, I am arguing that generalizations polarize and prejudice the discussion.  I agree with you that for some people, especially those like the DH who have orphan illnesses, the standard of care is MEANINGLESS. 

And with respect to the links that you provide...the ONLY data that I'm interested in when making an informed decision is those clinical trials that are found on pubmed.org.  That is a government clearinghouse supported through the NIH that publishes ALL clinical trials throughout the world.  It's like reading a medical journal on steroids.  Every possible journal that you can think of, publishes their abstracts on pubmed.org.  I DO NOT get my medical information from CNN or Huffington Post.  Popular websites are the last place for me to get medical information.

Here's a recent trial regarding leukemia and cannabis from pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24474921

Read a GREAT Book about Cancer......THE EMPEROR OF ALL MALADIES...A BIOGRAPHY OF CANCER....AUTHOR MUKLERJEE SIDDHARTHA.....Physician, Researcher and award winning Science Writer......A Bit Complex Read...but Wonderful....Liz

VR- you only trust pubmed sources? not studies from peer reviewed medical journals?

You had first posted a pub med study on leukemia and cannabis from 2013, which detailed the positive effect of cannabis on leukemia calling it an "anticancer" and "antitumor" agent which also discusses the toxicity of chemotherapy.

Then you posted another pubmed study from 2000 that somehow denounces all of the positive studies on cannabis that have been done since then. 

I would think that we need to be open to the more current studies posted in all scientific peer reviewed medical journals. 

Oh....and by the way, Sadly,...."peer" reviewed journals...are quite controversial too.  Shall I explain why?

Thanks!! VR......I just Googled PB and watched a preview of the Program........to be aired in 2015 Spring......Someone on the Boards talked about the Book Last year......It is Truly Wonderful.....but I do think it may depend on a person's mindset in the Journey....Liz

Apologies Caryn. I hope to see your support for alternative members who have already decided to choose cannabis. I can be misread when things get heated too. The truth is that I support people, no matter their choices. But when one whole side of the story is not told, I can only stay quiet for so long, especially when it's the alternative side of the story that's being squelched... on the alternative forum. I do get polarized, but I can't apologize for my intention that got me there.

Oh my.  So many generalizations.  To some extent, everybody is right.  Yes, chemo can significantly reduce the risk of death from a more advanced breast cancer.  Yes, some women will survive even without chemo.  Yes, some women will not survive despite having had chemo.  Yes, some women who have chemo will develop cause serious illness and even death from the chemo.

I like numbers, so let's put some numbers to all the discussion of the past couple of days.  And let's start with the numbers that I got out of CancerMath for naturalhealing's age and diagnosis.

• For those with this diagnosis who choose to pass on chemo, according to CancerMath the numbers will work out as follows:

100 women aged 48 with Stage IIB/IIIA breast cancer, of whom 0 have chemo or hormone therapy.

- Within 15 years, 43 women will have died of breast cancer.

- Within 15 years, 5 women will have died of other causes.

- Within 15 years, 52 women will be living.

This group includes only those who decided to pass on conventional treatment.  While not known, in all likelihood a significant percent of those who pass on treatment choose go "alternative" instead, or make diet/lifestyle changes, so it is fair to assume that this will already be factored into the mortality and survival rates.

• For those with this diagnosis who choose to have chemo, according to CancerMath and other research studies on the long-term effects of chemo, the numbers will work out as follows:

100 women aged 48 with Stage IIB/IIIA breast cancer, of whom all 100 have chemo.

- Within 15 years,19 women will have died of breast cancer.

- Within 15 years, 6 women will have died of other causes.

- Within 15 years, 75 women will be living. 

So an extra 24 women will survive breast cancer because of chemo, although over the 15 years, 1 of these women will die of a different cause (this could be as a result of the chemo but it could be any other disease or an accident).  Of course, while 23 more women out of 100 will be alive at 15 years, it should be noted that 19 of the 100 women will have died of breast cancer despite having had chemo - these same women will die under both scenarios, because unfortunately chemo will prove to not be effective for them. We do not know if any of these women had extended years of life before dying (there probably are studies on this but I don't have the time to dig around for them).  It should also be noted that of the 75 long-term (beyond 15 year) survivors, it can be expected that another 1 or 2 may die in the future as a result of a chemo-induced illness.  So this takes the net survival benefit of chemo down to 21 women.  Lastly, it's also important to note that of the 75 long-term survivors, another 2 - 4 can be expected to experience long-term side effects from the chemo.

Those are the numbers for someone with a diagnosis like naturalhealing's.  The numbers will be different for any other diagnosis, but the same type of assessment can be done.  Then the decision is, "which group do you want to be in?"  Within each group you are taking your chances, and within each group you may live, or you may die. Neither option is comfortable or easy.  Nothing about breast cancer is.  So which set of numbers and risks is the least scary to you? Where do you think you have a better chance?

I did exactly this type of assessment when I had to make a decision about Tamoxifen.  I decided against Tamoxifen.  But in the situation we are discussing here, with this diagnosis, if it were me, I'd be having chemo. An extra 23 women out of 100 surviving at 15 years is just too compelling for me to pass on.  But that's me. naturalhealing has to decide what's right for her.