Pathology Report - Deciding on Chemo or No Chemo
Comments
-
Winter Marie -herdizziness said:"Starting with any alternative leaves you in a better position"
Um, NO!! There are down right DANGEROUS stuff being touted as Alternative, so we need to be mindful of which words we use. Those words above that you used John are just plain scary. We have one guy in here constantly doing coffee enema's, when the American Cancer Society specifically mentions that they can be dangerous to use, and not recommended, and that Scientific research does NOT support the use of coffee enema's or any other enemas for that matter.
So alternatives can hurt you, I only used one specific example, but there are many more. One should be very, very careful entering into the alternative world WITHOUT their onc's knowledge and without questioning their onc as to whether an alternative can be dangerous or helpful. There are helpful ones out there, but not ALL of them.
You especially have to be very careful about alternative people, using the word "Doctor" in front of their name, as we have seen, it doesn't mean their a "real" doctor that went through medical school, scary stuff what some will do and sell in the name of profit for themselves and not the welfare of a cancer patient.
Please note, that I did say some alternative stuff is good, and I believe can compliment the chemo, but not without the chemo or radiation in tandem with it.
Winter Marie
Re:
"Um, NO!! There are down right DANGEROUS stuff being touted as
Alternative, so we need to be mindful of which words we use. "
You are correct, and I shouldn't be too hasty to use the word "alternative"
in the same sentence as what might be good.
But.... along that same thought... What chemotherapy drug is not a well
known and accepted carcinogenic? What one chemical used, is not known
to cause neurological problems, some of what can be permanent?
The better question would be: why doesn't the cancer industry, or the
American Cancer Society / NCI inform us of the dangers inherent with
every chemical presently used for "chemotherapy" and warn us against
using it? Why (and how) does it manage to find time and resources to
inform us about the dangers of "alternatives"?
Odd, isn't it? We can pump carcinogenic chemicals into our body,
but anything else is "bad"? We can be bombarded with radioactivity,
that great technology that causes cancer in any living creature, but
a coffee enema will kill us?
They know the side effects of every chemical, and that some can be
debilitating and permanent. They can guarantee we will suffer some
of the side effects, but can not guarantee any success of that same chemical.
Yet..... they can tell us of the hazards of an"alternative" and add the
claim that there is no proof it will help us......
There is, and always has been, a tremendous amount of semantics
and hypocrisy regarding the use of anything except western medicine's
answer to "good health".
But yes, you are absolutely correct..... there are many useless alternatives
out there, and all one does with their use, is waste time. I can certainly
think of better things to do with a cup of Starbucks, than funnel it up my.....
You made a good point anyway. (I always loved that about you)
Stay well, willya'?
John0 -
A little shocked too....John23 said:So Worried -
You have a right to be worried. Stage one or two isn't any
better than stage four.
The biggest problem with all "remedies", is the simple fact that
none address single cancer cells. While our immune system is
best for taking care of individual cells, there simply hasn't been
much research to help our immune system do it's job better.
Chemical therapy (chemo) was designed to take down tumors,
not individual cells, and it does a very poor job (if any at all), at
targeting individual cancer cells. That is why the success rate
for chemical therapy and radiation is as poor as it is. Many top
oncologists are speaking out against the industry's lack of
progress with cancer, and rightfully so! The statistics haven't
changed appreciably in many, many years.
Surgery has come a long way, and there are other options
such as radio ablation, freezing tumors, etc, but all still have
their limitations.
Your husband should have the last say, and both he and you
should not allow fear of cancer or dying lead you into any
direction. He should allow his instincts for self-survival to
lead his way, and you can help him by doing as much research
as you can, to help provide the answers he might be looking for.
There are also "alternatives" to look into, and many here have
used them with great success, so don't allow yourself (or him)
to be persuaded that there is only one way to fight cancer!
You can click on other user's names and read their "profile page"
to see what they've gone through. It can be of benefit, since you
can get a better idea of how things really are, rather than someone
giving you a second-hand opinion.
The question of: "to chemo, or not to chemo" isn't asked as much
as it should be. Ask the oncologist and read about the "side effects"
of the toxic chemicals used, then weigh it against the benefits that
may or may not be had. Pumping toxic chemicals into one's body,
or being bombarded with radiation, should not be taken as lightly as it is.
There are choices to be made, so take the time to study each one,
and do not rush into anything.
He'll do fine, but he has to be happy with his decisions.
Best hopes for great health,
John
Speaking from a Stage IV perspective, I'd GLADLY take a stage 1,2 or 3 ANY DAY, ANY WAY!!!
A seven letter word separates Stage IV's from the rest...CURABLE. I'd give my left leg, arm eye whatever for a chance at that. I really doubt any Stage 1,2 or 3's would do the same to be a 4.0 -
Starting with Alternatives...herdizziness said:"Starting with any alternative leaves you in a better position"
Um, NO!! There are down right DANGEROUS stuff being touted as Alternative, so we need to be mindful of which words we use. Those words above that you used John are just plain scary. We have one guy in here constantly doing coffee enema's, when the American Cancer Society specifically mentions that they can be dangerous to use, and not recommended, and that Scientific research does NOT support the use of coffee enema's or any other enemas for that matter.
So alternatives can hurt you, I only used one specific example, but there are many more. One should be very, very careful entering into the alternative world WITHOUT their onc's knowledge and without questioning their onc as to whether an alternative can be dangerous or helpful. There are helpful ones out there, but not ALL of them.
You especially have to be very careful about alternative people, using the word "Doctor" in front of their name, as we have seen, it doesn't mean their a "real" doctor that went through medical school, scary stuff what some will do and sell in the name of profit for themselves and not the welfare of a cancer patient.
Please note, that I did say some alternative stuff is good, and I believe can compliment the chemo, but not without the chemo or radiation in tandem with it.
Winter Marie
I wish, I wish that I had known about my Integrated Clinic when I started chemo. I know I would have been in a much better position than I am now, considering what is has does for me in the last 2 years. Perhaps starting with alternatives alone, may not always be a good idea but you also can't expect the body to heal with natural alternatives when it's wasted away from chemo and cancer. The body has to have something to work with. Alternatives don't work when you wait till the end....how can they? I think integrating good alternatives with western medicine gives you a much better start.
I do know a lot of people who chose surgery to cut the cancer out, and did not choose chemo or radiation follow up despite the recommendation. They chose non-invasive therapies to keep their NED status. It worked for a lot of them. Yes, there's been some where it didn't but in my experience so far, they have been the minority.
I don't know what the laws governing the DR. title are in the US, but in Canada all Naturopathic Dr.'s can't be licensed to practice unless they they've done their time in school like everyone else. In fact, one cannot enter the Nat Dr. program without a bachelor degree and appropriate marks, courses etc. It is another 4 years of university that entails 1,200hs. of clinical experience and a mim of 3,000 hrs classroom training before graduating the program with the Dr. title.
It's another 3-4 years of oncology training if a Nat Dr. also wants the Nat Onc title. Our TCM Dr.'s are all required to be licensed and have the appropriate accreditation as well. There's a lot of chemistry involved with alternative supplements, TCM herbs etc.
There's definitely a lot of garbage on the internet touting Cancer Cures. That's your first clue it's not legit. Any good Dr., western, or alternative will not tell you they can cure you of advanced stage cancer.
0 -
Thanks Smokey!!smokeyjoe said:I need a tutorial on how to
I need a tutorial on how to post a link....sorry this is long....At ASCO: Smart Bombs & Immune Boosters
1 Comment
By Ed Silverman // June 4th, 2012 // 8:38 am
Cutting through the noise at a gathering where more than 30,000 physicians, pharmaceutical industry employees, investors and media is not so easy. But Bristol-Myers Squibb managed to do so this past weekend at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting with study results showing that a drug that uses the immune system shrank tumors in people with advanced lung, kidney and skin cancers.
The findings, consequently, prompted enthusiastic talk that harnessing the immune system to fight cancer is finally showing promise and is likely to set off a new race to find similar treatments. “The whole idea of immunotherapy is really blossoming,” Amgen vp David Chang tells Bloomberg News. “It is going to be the next wave in cancer treatments.”
Known as BMS-936558, the drug blocks a protein called PD-1, which stands for programmed death 1, a protein on the surface of activated T cells. The study shrank tumors in 18 percent of lung cancer patients, 27 percent of kidney cancer patients and 28 percent of melanoma patients who failed to show improvement on other therapies, according to data from a trial of 296 patients. Data was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (see here and here).
“We are seeing responses in heavily treated patients — three different cancers, one drug,” Suzanne Topalian, a Johns Hopkins University melanoma specialist and lead investigator in the study, tells The New York Times. “This is a group of patients whose life expectancy was measured in a few months.” The results are from an early clinical trial, so it remains unclear whether the drug will improve survival, but Topalian remains optimistic because tumors that shrunk did not resume growth for more than a year.
“The next frontier in the treatment of cancer requires meeting the goal of inducing a high frequency of long-lasting tumor response on the basis of selectable markers in order to personalize therapies,” Antoni Ribas of the Department of Medicine and the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California Los Angeles wrote in an accompanying editoral in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Inhibition of PD-1 may meet these expectations in selected cancers.”
Meanwhile, Roche generated considerable buzz yesterday after unveiling Phase III data that showed its T-DM1 biologic hit the main endpoint in a study of 991 patients with breast cancer. The treatment, which delayed progression in metatstatic patients by an average of 3.2 months and also reduced the risk of adverse events, and prompted chatter that so-called ‘smart bombs’ that use antibodies are the next hot new technology for developing cancer meds.
Known as Emilia, the trial randomly assigned women to get either T-DM1 or a combination of GlaxoSmithKline’s Tykerb and the Xeloda chemo drug. Median progression-free survival was 9.6 months for the T-DM1 arm while standard therapy delivered a median profession-free survival rate of 6.4 months. About 65 percent of the patients who were given T-DM1, which attachs a toxin to an antibody, were alive after two years. That compared with nearly 48 percent in the other arm (see statement).
The drug works by carrying chemotherapy directly into malignant cells while bypassing healthy ones. Although full results were not released, the data impressed physicians, particuarly given the side effect profile, a long-standing issue among cancer patients.
“This is a classic example of the magic bullet concept” first proposed more than 100 years ago but only now possible with advances in technology, Louis Weiner, director of Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, tells the Associated Press. “The antibody basically targets this very toxic drug right to the cancer cell and places it inside the cancer cell where the drug can do its damage” without harming healthy cells nearby.
The results are a sort of vindication for Roche, by the way, after the FDA issued a Refuse To File letter two years ago to speed the approval process for the drug (back story). The drugmaker expects to seek approval from the FDA and the European Medicines Agency later this year.
Going to show this to my Nat onc. 0 -
Great post Krista!!kristasplace said:My favorite subject!
I rarely post here anymore, but the posts about whether or not to do chemo always interest me! Being on both ends of the debate; diagnosed in 2007 a IIIc with four lymphs involved, i did the 5fu pump with 30 radiation treatments, and the typical 6 months of folfox. My onc told me the following year when a recurrence had been found in my lung that after all the work i just did, there was no proof either way whether folfox actually worked. I did the research and learned that there isn't any proof that ANY chemo works, and can in fact cause more cancer, and can devastate the immune system so that your body doesn't have a chance to beat it on it's own.
Anyway, i am usually on the side for alternatives, but would never tell the person doing chemo that their choice is wrong. For me, alternatives have worked great. After one other recurrence in 2010, and the lung met finally taken care of this year, i'm now NED. My onc finally isn't even recommending chemo at this point for me. Stage IV's are never considered cured, but there are several people on this board who were stage IV's and are now cancer free for 5+ years. Some of them did chemo, and some of them didn't. There are stage I's that just before the five year clean mark came, they discovered metastasis. Not as common, but it does happen, as John23 pointed out.
I agree that treatment is an extremely personal choice that should have a lot of serious thought and research put into it. It's my personal belief that if your belief system for one choice or another is strong enough, and you live a happy, satisfying existance, anything will work to defeat the beast.
Please let us know what he chooses!
Hugs,
Krista 0 -
Great Postkristasplace said:My favorite subject!
I rarely post here anymore, but the posts about whether or not to do chemo always interest me! Being on both ends of the debate; diagnosed in 2007 a IIIc with four lymphs involved, i did the 5fu pump with 30 radiation treatments, and the typical 6 months of folfox. My onc told me the following year when a recurrence had been found in my lung that after all the work i just did, there was no proof either way whether folfox actually worked. I did the research and learned that there isn't any proof that ANY chemo works, and can in fact cause more cancer, and can devastate the immune system so that your body doesn't have a chance to beat it on it's own.
Anyway, i am usually on the side for alternatives, but would never tell the person doing chemo that their choice is wrong. For me, alternatives have worked great. After one other recurrence in 2010, and the lung met finally taken care of this year, i'm now NED. My onc finally isn't even recommending chemo at this point for me. Stage IV's are never considered cured, but there are several people on this board who were stage IV's and are now cancer free for 5+ years. Some of them did chemo, and some of them didn't. There are stage I's that just before the five year clean mark came, they discovered metastasis. Not as common, but it does happen, as John23 pointed out.
I agree that treatment is an extremely personal choice that should have a lot of serious thought and research put into it. It's my personal belief that if your belief system for one choice or another is strong enough, and you live a happy, satisfying existance, anything will work to defeat the beast.
Please let us know what he chooses!
Hugs,
Krista
Very well put Krista.
-phil0 -
So Many Great Comments About My Chemo/No Chemo Questionluvinlife2 said:Great post Krista!!
Gosh, I am so thankful for all of the great comments regarding my original post of: Chemo? or No Chemo? I can understand all of the differences, opinions and I consider them all to be very helpful in this huge decision that my husband must make very soon. We will be seeing our 2nd opinion oncologist this week and then my hubby will make a decision - yes or no next weekend. (gulp)
When I went to Adjuvantonline.com and put in all of his info, it basically shows a 2% increase of survivabily with folfox chemo (5 yrs) My hubby mentioned this: How do they know that the cancer would NOT have come back anyways in this 2% if they did NOT do the chemo? Basically, he was saying there is no way they can tell cancer didn't return in 5 yrs because those patients did chemo, because if they didn't do the chemo, maybe it would not have come back anyway. His thoughts are also this: There are sooo many patients that take the chemo and their cancer comes back anyway. We have come across that in different forums. It seems to us that chemo is working to shrink their tumors more than anything. (which is awesome) So,the oncologist and surgeon wants him to take the folfox6 to kill any tiny cells that "could" be there. His colon surgery/resection went good and of right now he has no cancer anywhere, per the PET scan a couple weeks ago. The surgeon said "he got it all"...but still talking about stray cells...By the way, you would seriously think that by now, they would have a test to see if a person has "stray cells"!! Good grief!!
Even though he is stage 2a,are really wondering about the fact that the path report said something about the tumor going into the "fat". We will discuss this at length with the new 2nd opinion oncologist.
My hubby is not an alternative treatment type guy. I can see that it's simply going to be chemo or no chemo and try to eat healthy and walk. Maybe take some vitamins or something like that. I heard that vitamin D is good...taken with C, is what I read somewhere..also vitamin B's are good too. So maybe just a multivitamin...I don't know.
Well, thank you for listening to me again. All I think about day and night is:
Are there stray cells? Or are there no stray cells? It seems like most things in this world have an answer except when you have cancer. Well, I'm sure there are other issues too, but this is how I feel
PS...hubby also said, "I feel like if it's coming back, it's coming back with or without chemo" And if it's not coming back, it's not coming back with or without chemo.
Oh well, just say extra prayers for us so he can make a good decision.
You guys are all so great and so many great opinions...big hug to Phil and John, sorry I started something up, I didn't mean to. Let's all have a great day!! (well, it's night right now lol)0 -
So WorriedSo Worried said:So Many Great Comments About My Chemo/No Chemo Question
Gosh, I am so thankful for all of the great comments regarding my original post of: Chemo? or No Chemo? I can understand all of the differences, opinions and I consider them all to be very helpful in this huge decision that my husband must make very soon. We will be seeing our 2nd opinion oncologist this week and then my hubby will make a decision - yes or no next weekend. (gulp)
When I went to Adjuvantonline.com and put in all of his info, it basically shows a 2% increase of survivabily with folfox chemo (5 yrs) My hubby mentioned this: How do they know that the cancer would NOT have come back anyways in this 2% if they did NOT do the chemo? Basically, he was saying there is no way they can tell cancer didn't return in 5 yrs because those patients did chemo, because if they didn't do the chemo, maybe it would not have come back anyway. His thoughts are also this: There are sooo many patients that take the chemo and their cancer comes back anyway. We have come across that in different forums. It seems to us that chemo is working to shrink their tumors more than anything. (which is awesome) So,the oncologist and surgeon wants him to take the folfox6 to kill any tiny cells that "could" be there. His colon surgery/resection went good and of right now he has no cancer anywhere, per the PET scan a couple weeks ago. The surgeon said "he got it all"...but still talking about stray cells...By the way, you would seriously think that by now, they would have a test to see if a person has "stray cells"!! Good grief!!
Even though he is stage 2a,are really wondering about the fact that the path report said something about the tumor going into the "fat". We will discuss this at length with the new 2nd opinion oncologist.
My hubby is not an alternative treatment type guy. I can see that it's simply going to be chemo or no chemo and try to eat healthy and walk. Maybe take some vitamins or something like that. I heard that vitamin D is good...taken with C, is what I read somewhere..also vitamin B's are good too. So maybe just a multivitamin...I don't know.
Well, thank you for listening to me again. All I think about day and night is:
Are there stray cells? Or are there no stray cells? It seems like most things in this world have an answer except when you have cancer. Well, I'm sure there are other issues too, but this is how I feel
PS...hubby also said, "I feel like if it's coming back, it's coming back with or without chemo" And if it's not coming back, it's not coming back with or without chemo.
Oh well, just say extra prayers for us so he can make a good decision.
You guys are all so great and so many great opinions...big hug to Phil and John, sorry I started something up, I didn't mean to. Let's all have a great day!! (well, it's night right now lol)
And I bet you wondered if anyone would comment!
The bottom line (I believe) is that no one can know what cancer will do.
There's also no treatment that works for everyone either. Some do, some don't...
It behaves differently in each of us. If it acted the same, it would be easier to figure out.
There are absolutely no guarantees at all other than all of us will die someday from something.
Don't worry about John and I, this has been going on forever.
Cancer will be cured before this gets resolved!
:-)
-p
Best of luck to your husband and you.
May whatever he decides work for him.
(keep an open mind too. If what he chooses isn't working, look to other options)0 -
Phil...PhillieG said:So Worried
And I bet you wondered if anyone would comment!
The bottom line (I believe) is that no one can know what cancer will do.
There's also no treatment that works for everyone either. Some do, some don't...
It behaves differently in each of us. If it acted the same, it would be easier to figure out.
There are absolutely no guarantees at all other than all of us will die someday from something.
Don't worry about John and I, this has been going on forever.
Cancer will be cured before this gets resolved!
:-)
-p
Best of luck to your husband and you.
May whatever he decides work for him.
(keep an open mind too. If what he chooses isn't working, look to other options)
Oh, ok!! (regarding you and John) The picture of your son is so cute. Looks like a little Hollywood star! lol
This is what I wish -
I wish when we went to our 2nd opinion oncologist, he oould show us a written report with statistics of people around my hubby's age, with pretty much the same cancer, right colon, resection...with the same characteristics, moderately differentiated, slow growing, stage 2a, and show us how many did chemo and how many didn't do chemo...maybe a 3-7 yr time frame..and how they are doing today! Now those would be real statistics I would be interested in. I realize though that all people and cancers are different..and they respond differently..but this would be something I would still want to see. I wonder if people request things like that when they go to oncologists? Maybe I am expecting too much...but that would be nice to see.0 -
So Worried -So Worried said:Phil...
Oh, ok!! (regarding you and John) The picture of your son is so cute. Looks like a little Hollywood star! lol
This is what I wish -
I wish when we went to our 2nd opinion oncologist, he oould show us a written report with statistics of people around my hubby's age, with pretty much the same cancer, right colon, resection...with the same characteristics, moderately differentiated, slow growing, stage 2a, and show us how many did chemo and how many didn't do chemo...maybe a 3-7 yr time frame..and how they are doing today! Now those would be real statistics I would be interested in. I realize though that all people and cancers are different..and they respond differently..but this would be something I would still want to see. I wonder if people request things like that when they go to oncologists? Maybe I am expecting too much...but that would be nice to see.
I'm glad you both are seeking another opinion! But you really should
get an opinion from another colorectal surgeon as well! And don't stop
with only a "2nd opinion", you're entitled to as many as it takes!
Any "2nd opinions" should always be from surgeons and physicians
that are not of the same group or organization as your original one.
There's always been a sort of "fraternity", making 2nd opinions
less than objective among physicians within a specific area, so
don't be afraid to look around!
Phil's oncologists are among the best. They're treating his situation
as one would treat any "chronic disease", and it's been working out
well for him. It's not all that easy to find good oncologists, or surgeons,
or auto repair people... as well as the same difficulty finding a practitioner
of any "alternative medicine".
The quality can vary greatly, as well as their knowledge and ability,
making your choice so much more difficult, especially so when you're
already feeling high anxiety about the illness.
So take a real deep breath, and take the time to get other opinions.
You shouldn't base your choice on an opinion that doesn't scare you,
but on the physician's attitude, and probably from the dialog you might
hear in the waiting room. Just because a physician has a great way
of talking to his patients doesn't mean he's a good physician; My wife's
found that out the hard way. Very often a nurse or office staff, or even
a radiologist can point you into the direction of a great physician!
My wife located our TCM doc from her Rheumatologist's accountant!
The gal said that our TCM doc had quite a few local physicians going
to him for various health problems that western medicine couldn't cure.
She was right, and the choice was great for my wife and myself.
(Her Neurologist went to our TCM doc to get his Asthma resolved!)
So take the time to look around. Physicians like Phil's, or TCM
practitioners like ours, aren't always easy to find, but well worth
all the time it takes to do so.
Be well!
John0 -
Why don't you study the question in a more definitive way?
I mean, do some searches on things like the stage and the rates of time to progression and/or recurrence, and overall survival rates in patients that go the non-chemo route?
My suggestion, if your husband chooses NOT to do chemo, IF chemo in the studies in this stage of cancer, DOES actually improve survival rates, time to progression rates, etc., is to hedge your bets a bit with diet. Its a pretty good bet that sugar feeds cancer, in my opinion; why not do something to control intake of carbs, if you're not going to do chemo?
My suggestion: Do SOMETHING, even if it isn't chemo.0 -
Oooops (?)melaniechilders1 said:Why don't you study the question in a more definitive way?
I mean, do some searches on things like the stage and the rates of time to progression and/or recurrence, and overall survival rates in patients that go the non-chemo route?
My suggestion, if your husband chooses NOT to do chemo, IF chemo in the studies in this stage of cancer, DOES actually improve survival rates, time to progression rates, etc., is to hedge your bets a bit with diet. Its a pretty good bet that sugar feeds cancer, in my opinion; why not do something to control intake of carbs, if you're not going to do chemo?
My suggestion: Do SOMETHING, even if it isn't chemo.
Re:
"Its a pretty good bet that sugar feeds cancer, in my opinion; why
not do something to control intake of carbs"
While it's very true that a cancer cell needs glucose at a high rate,
it should be accepted that all cells need glucose to survive!
It's said that cancer cells "steal" glucose from good cells, and what
they mean, is that cancer cells will use the glucose before good cells
even know the glucose is available. So limiting your intake of glucose
will starve good cells long before the cancer cells know you're limiting
the glucose.
It's far more beneficial to have a good, well-rounded diet, and not
eliminate the elements that an animal requires to survive, than to try
to "adjust" a diet to stifle cancer.
The cancer is there, because your immune system does not see that
cancer cell as something that shouldn't be there; it's just a good cell
that's gone defective.
Teach the immune system to know that the defective cell should be
removed, and the cure for cancer is found!
Don't try to control "carbs", if you have cancer, your body needs
all the energy it can get. Eat and be well!
My best to you,
John0 -
come onJohn23 said:Oooops (?)
Re:
"Its a pretty good bet that sugar feeds cancer, in my opinion; why
not do something to control intake of carbs"
While it's very true that a cancer cell needs glucose at a high rate,
it should be accepted that all cells need glucose to survive!
It's said that cancer cells "steal" glucose from good cells, and what
they mean, is that cancer cells will use the glucose before good cells
even know the glucose is available. So limiting your intake of glucose
will starve good cells long before the cancer cells know you're limiting
the glucose.
It's far more beneficial to have a good, well-rounded diet, and not
eliminate the elements that an animal requires to survive, than to try
to "adjust" a diet to stifle cancer.
The cancer is there, because your immune system does not see that
cancer cell as something that shouldn't be there; it's just a good cell
that's gone defective.
Teach the immune system to know that the defective cell should be
removed, and the cure for cancer is found!
Don't try to control "carbs", if you have cancer, your body needs
all the energy it can get. Eat and be well!
My best to you,
John
cancer is bad enough!!! lets not fight about it!! chemo sucks, flat out but it has kept me above ground!! as far as the alt stuff im curious, phil is one of the toughest people ive seen on here!! i just hope and pray one day we can not have to come here, that said this is by far the best place for great people and great advice, lord knows peeps on here have got me through some bad times!!! chemo or no chemo...just a choice i guess, but ive got to think that there must be something to natural treatments!!! have a great week all...now onto dodgeing the storm here in not so sunny fla.... love you guys!!!0 -
Types of CancerSo Worried said:question...Mike?
I'm just wondering, what do you mean by what type of cancer it is?
Thank you.
Do not read much before 2007 about cancer. After 2007 the drugs got refined and Chemo and results got better. (If One reads about Signet Ring Cell previous to 2007, it is a 5 year at best prognosis.)
Read the statistical analysis of Chemo to your type of cancer. Some types of cancer Chemo has a definite benefit. Mine was 60% survival at 60 months vs no chemo 35% survival. As much as I did not want to do chemo, I am a survivor. Many Cancers are not that clear.
My blood chemistry was nearly clinically perfect. My weight was a little high, blood pressure low, heart rate low. I changed my diet and got my blood chem alkaline. (High anti oxidants) I lost 45 lbs and am cut physically. I fast walk regularly in the mountains 6 -10 miles. (under 9 min mile in the mountains) I am physically fit, do not eat any chemical food. No box or canned food.
I just got diagnosed with another tumor. My point is that once you are predisposed to cancer, one has a high rate of occurrence. I am going in for my CT/PET tomorrow.
Did changing my life style help my health? Darn straight it did. I sold one company and folded another. (I could not find a buyer in time.) We retired to the mountains in the AZ at 48. Life is slower paced and less stress. The traffic is 25 mph in town. lol Air is healthy and I have not much to do but walk with my wife and dogs, Kayak, Mtn Bike, and garden. Is life perfect, no, but certainly less stressful. We did all these things to extend my life. Again, not perfect, but certainly less stressful and happy we can enjoy each other.
Will I do Chemo again? I am not sure, but unless compelling data is given to me, I will try even more diet and exercise. I was an Audio Engineer for my career, hearing and sight was such a part of my being, that losing that was stressful. I play music regularly in town and do not want to lose any more.
Best Always, mike
PS Off of the Soap Box, You are in our thoughts and prayers. Do what is best for you! Type of cancer would be a high priority for my thought process.0 -
I find these conversationsglinka65 said:come on
cancer is bad enough!!! lets not fight about it!! chemo sucks, flat out but it has kept me above ground!! as far as the alt stuff im curious, phil is one of the toughest people ive seen on here!! i just hope and pray one day we can not have to come here, that said this is by far the best place for great people and great advice, lord knows peeps on here have got me through some bad times!!! chemo or no chemo...just a choice i guess, but ive got to think that there must be something to natural treatments!!! have a great week all...now onto dodgeing the storm here in not so sunny fla.... love you guys!!!
I find these conversations very useful and think that it's great that we can give our opinions, and still remain friends. Thank you all for keeping me on my toes..
I am on a low dose of chemo now, and I have been thinking about stopping at 3 months since my CEA is down again, and I didn't have evidence of disease when I started. I feel good, and not like I did with 5FU. We shall see what I do....0 -
John23, what ARE you goingJohn23 said:So Worried -
Please..... Be aware that a stage does not change. A "stage one"
cancer victim can die from metastasis and remain a "stage one".
A "stage four" means only that they clearly see that the cancer
had already spread.
Please do not become complacent thinking that "stage one"
offers a better outcome than one diagnosed as a stage four.
It simply does not work that way, and too, too many here
have realized that too, too late.
If an "alternative" is chosen, do that "alternative" first. An
"alternative" will not destroy the immune system or make the
body too weak to fight for itself, but a harsh, toxic chemical,
or radiation will. Once the body is made too weak, it might be
too late to expect much from any "alternative".
Take your time and explore all the options available, both
mainstream western medicine and the alternatives.
The choice is your husband's and your's. Do not rush!
My very best to you both,
John
John23, what ARE you going on about? I only rarely come here (and I thought I had joined a while ago but have just rejoined) but if your posts are typical for the quality of information here Im glad Im not here more often.
Yes Stage 1s die, thats why their survival statistic isnt 100%, but it is something like 90% @5 years against someone who is stage IV at diagnosis whose statistical chance according to the current statistics is 10%. Yes its statistics and if it happens to you your statistic is 100% but a stage one diagnosis very clearly offers a better prognosis than stage IV IF treatment is then carried out. Yes it can still prgress and yes it can be wrongly diagnosed but on the whole, with conventional treatment, you are better off at Stage 1 than at IV.
I dont have enough experience with this board to know whether you are a survivor are just an anti-pharma activist and personally I base my treatment choices on evidence, not conspiracy-theory paranoia, but if I was an inexperienced poster I would look at some of the obvious BS you have posted just in this thread and wonder how much the rest of your advice is worth.0 -
I dunno where you live, butJohn23 said:Winter Marie -
Re:
"Um, NO!! There are down right DANGEROUS stuff being touted as
Alternative, so we need to be mindful of which words we use. "
You are correct, and I shouldn't be too hasty to use the word "alternative"
in the same sentence as what might be good.
But.... along that same thought... What chemotherapy drug is not a well
known and accepted carcinogenic? What one chemical used, is not known
to cause neurological problems, some of what can be permanent?
The better question would be: why doesn't the cancer industry, or the
American Cancer Society / NCI inform us of the dangers inherent with
every chemical presently used for "chemotherapy" and warn us against
using it? Why (and how) does it manage to find time and resources to
inform us about the dangers of "alternatives"?
Odd, isn't it? We can pump carcinogenic chemicals into our body,
but anything else is "bad"? We can be bombarded with radioactivity,
that great technology that causes cancer in any living creature, but
a coffee enema will kill us?
They know the side effects of every chemical, and that some can be
debilitating and permanent. They can guarantee we will suffer some
of the side effects, but can not guarantee any success of that same chemical.
Yet..... they can tell us of the hazards of an"alternative" and add the
claim that there is no proof it will help us......
There is, and always has been, a tremendous amount of semantics
and hypocrisy regarding the use of anything except western medicine's
answer to "good health".
But yes, you are absolutely correct..... there are many useless alternatives
out there, and all one does with their use, is waste time. I can certainly
think of better things to do with a cup of Starbucks, than funnel it up my.....
You made a good point anyway. (I always loved that about you)
Stay well, willya'?
John
I dunno where you live, but when I started Chemo I was fully aware of the issues and problems. Given that studies show a significant advantage to chemo over no chemo I said "bring it on" and - I had no side effects, let alone lasting ones (but I admittedly didnt do Oxi).
I find it fascinating 8and frustrating) that while you appear to be doing a good thing (encouraging independant thought and exploration of alöternatievs) you are doing it using the typical weasel-vocabulary and the conspiracy-theorists and snake-oil merchants. You talk about "They" all the time, how "They" are forcing us to poison ourselves and how "They" are trying to keep supposedly healthy "alternative" cures from us, and yet you fail to address the "theys" on the alternative side - Where IS the proof that brewing tea from a spadeful of forest floor (yes I know thats not what TCM is but its what it always looks like) cures cancer? Why do "They (alternative)" always duck the proof question? Why do "They (alternative)" spend so much time compaining about "Big Pharma" and so little time getting off their **** and financing a cure? Why do "They (alternative)" always witter on about obvious truths such as Chemo doesn't cure, chemo does damage, radiation does damage and try and pretend all this is some great secret "They" are keeping from us?
Lots of semantics and hypocrisy on both side and STILL radiation/chemo/surgery is the only tool we have that reproducably works on any level, however low and unsatisfactory.0 -
WTG Danker!danker said:chemo
I had a chemo pump 24/7 for the 5 weeks I was getting radiation. After resection and iliostomy take down onc wanted more chemo. Surgeon said it wasn't necessary.I went with the surgeon since didn't care for chemo side effects. Now over two years out from resection stil NED. As the king of Siam said;"tis a puzzlement."
Keep up the good fight! What ever you did, you have made the right decisions for your health. NED for two years is awesome!
Best Always, mike0 -
Dear So Worried...
sorry you have had to come to this site for support -- I really wish no one would have to deal with any cancer.
I am stage 4 colorectal cancer. I have had a colon resection and three weeks later a lung resection. I'm now going through chemo (FolFox). I have completed treatment 5 of 12 treatments total.
Also, I'm managing to work through the treatments, but I've been "out of work" for a couple days per treatment and I pretty much lose a weekend every other week (sleeping and chemo hangover).
Chemo, for me, has disrupted some things but not completely. So far I'm getting through it.
My doctor basically explained that I had a 70% chance of a recurrence without chemo and about a 50% chance of recurrecne with chemo. I'm also not naive to think that these numbers are exact -- they are simply his best estimates/guesses given his knowledge of studies and reports...
Anyway, we did decide to throw the dice and hope the chemo kicks the odds in my favor.
But I have to admit that with each treatment I wonder if the pain (side effects) of chemo are worth it... Then again, I remind myself that I've thrown the dice and I simply need to endure this stuff and trust in God.
Good luck with the decision!
Keep us posted.0 -
doctors do guestimatesSo Worried said:Phil...
Oh, ok!! (regarding you and John) The picture of your son is so cute. Looks like a little Hollywood star! lol
This is what I wish -
I wish when we went to our 2nd opinion oncologist, he oould show us a written report with statistics of people around my hubby's age, with pretty much the same cancer, right colon, resection...with the same characteristics, moderately differentiated, slow growing, stage 2a, and show us how many did chemo and how many didn't do chemo...maybe a 3-7 yr time frame..and how they are doing today! Now those would be real statistics I would be interested in. I realize though that all people and cancers are different..and they respond differently..but this would be something I would still want to see. I wonder if people request things like that when they go to oncologists? Maybe I am expecting too much...but that would be nice to see.
I believe that people are unique and cancers are unique within people. And unfortunately the studies available to doctors are very limited. They may study a specific kind of cancer but rarely are they looking at age of the person with cancer, or overall health of the person with cancer (weight, cardio fitness)... Nor are they looking at variations within the diagnosis (e.g. multiple tumors, solitary tumors, etc.)...
So my belief (not fact) is that doctors are forced to extrapolate from studies that may resemble a person's case in order to come up with some prognosis...
I wish that they had more data and better data so they could do a better job of extrapolating and applying true knowledge, but I simply don't think that we are there yet.
Also, we would need data on alternative treatments as well. There is some data available but not nearly as much as the data on traditional treatments. There is also probably more ungrounded beliefs about alternative treatments -- and that does worry me some.
Anyway, for me it bowls down to praying and taking some leaps of faith. And my leap was to take the chemo and hope that was the rescue that God has sent my way.
Thanks to everyone for some very interesting posts.0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.6K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 308 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 395 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 791 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 235 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 56 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.4K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 534 Sarcoma
- 719 Skin Cancer
- 647 Stomach Cancer
- 190 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards