total blood transfusion for metastatic cancer

Let us know what you find out.

Somehow, I would imagine they would deny this because of the sheer numbers of cancer patients...along with how much blood would be needed for each patient.

And of course, I'm sure the COST is prohibitive...

And I'll just bet that the chance of recurrence would negate this procedure...just the small percentage of What If?

Will be interested to hear what your doctor has to say...

pete43lost_at_sea said:

the transfusion will disable your immune system

based on phd researcher aust blood bank, and he ahould know.

i wad told to never get a transfusion unless life or death.

i like your thinking, look up ozone and photoperisis, examples of effective alternative blood based therapy.

removab kills ctcs via immune memoey t cell response, see my blog, medical references if interested. its experimental and sort of tested, at leaston me and a few trail blazers.

hugs,

pete

I have never heard of a blood transfusion disabling the immune system.  Certainly there are risks with transfusions based on campatibility and purity of the blood source.

Cancer patients do receive transfusions during surgeries and selective blood parts for low cell counts.

I would be interested in any documented information regarding this issue.  If it should only be considered in a life or death situation, I would think every cancer patient should carry some kind of medic alert regarding transfusions, even if it only relates to whole blood transfusions.

Total blood replacement is different than a transfusion.  While I know it can be done in infants, I am not sure it is possible in adults.  Even if possible, I am not sure how effective it would be unless the source of the cancer has not been killed/removed first. 

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Marie who loves kitties

this very question.  He told me it would be ineffective because it wouldn't remove the tumors and the tumors would keep spitting out new cancer cells so total waste of time. 

hippiechicks said:

Hmmmmm....but if the tumors

Hmmmmm....but if the tumors are removed with surgery...then what??

 

If you don't have tumors then you don't have any disease that shows on scans so why would you do a transfusion if there is no detectable disease?   It doesn't make sense to go through a blood transfusion as a "mop-up" treatment for rogue cancer cells and transfusions don't completely empty every organ of blood so there could very easily  be cancer cells in hiding.  If your cancer is undectable I think it makes more sense to do things to keep the immune system functining good so your own body can kill individual cells.

I was thinking the same as you about at least getting a lot of circulating cells out of the body but my onc should his head and said he didn't believe the results would be worth going through the process, but he was speaking to my situation (I have tumors in liver/lungs). 

luvinlife2 said:

Doea a total blood transfusion

completely empty the body of all blood cells?  I don't know much about organ transfusions.  What about microscopic cells that could be left inside an organs such as the liver, lungs or bones.  Would a complete blood transfusion remove everything?

I don't believe there is a means of totally draining the body of blood and putting new in.  If not drained, then the new would mix with the old, and there would be no reason to do it.

Our best hope would be for the invention of a blood filtration system which would catch the microscopic cancer cells.which might be of benifit to prevent spread to other organs.  It would however not remove cancer already rooted in organs.

Marie who loves kitties

pete43lost_at_sea said:

this was just advice from a trusted expert friend

dear marie,

from memory and this was told to me prior to my resection, its the fact that our blood is made up of many different types of cells, of course the dna will be different between donor and recipient. i am on a research holiday, my friend is also away diving until after i leave for germany, so my opinion is just that, but its come from a reliable source. the same one that advised against chemo at the very beginning of my treatment, for which i am grateful.

but because you are always so helpful here is the detailed info.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2265/

our immune systems are so fragile, stress disables them, love boosts them, operations disable them and so do toxins bpa's and mercury etc etc.

a transfusion is just another assult.

hugs,

Pete

I read the site you referenced and it appears to be talking about "incompatible blood" being transfused and the actions the immune system takes to that "foreign invasion".

I was with my sis at her chemo treatment today and asked about the issue of blood transfusions.  The bottom line is that blood transfusions can be medically safe when the proper care of cross type and match plus screening for diseases such as AIDS is done on the supplied blood.  That said, I think that the medical community does not want to transfuse anyone unless it is absolutely necessary.  Even for planned surgeries, many docs prefer for the patient to pre-donate their own blood, just in case it is needed.

There is no doubt about it, introducing foreign matter, be it blood, chemo, radiation, meds, etc. can have an effect on how our body responds.

As always it is interesting to debate things with you.

Hugs,

Marie who loves kitties

pete43lost_at_sea said:

immunotherapy emerging, its the basis of my strategy

my phd friend, is really really smart. he has seen the damage of blood transfusions and the immune system. i trust his advice, and share it.

another point of difference between conventional medical wisdom.

protecting our immune system = better quality and quantity of life in my not so humble opinion.

the irony, is that chemo nurses and oncologists are experts at destroying immune systems, not protecting or rebuilding them.

none of the 6 oncologists could offer advice to me to get my white blood cells up. but then they would have to do detail immune system test which would prove the damage of chemo. we could not have patients seeing that, they would question the rational of chemo.

alas blood transfusions fall into the same category, if you have to have one, do it and don't stress. my doctors knew my clear preference against transfusions.

discussing interesting therapies always a pleasure my friend.

if you want proof then do a detailed immune study before and after chemo. ironically the immune system in an active chemo regime maybe so deficient that the transfusion maybe safer, ie no cells to mount an immune response. how ironic.

hugs,

Pete

Pete, what in your opinion is the best way to build up your immune system? With all the studies lately that are saying anti-oxidents can effect chemo treatments, I don't know what to do or who to believe.

I also think your immune system plays a huge part in the fight on cancer, but when I asked the onc, she said to limit supplements such as vitamin c as well as anti- oxidents. It is very confusing.

pete43lost_at_sea said:

not quiet my understanding kathy

the ctc's rarely get to zero, a count above 2 indicates a metastatic risk. no else here has done the rgcc analysis or discussed the results.

the point of ned, is a false hope is a sense, as the tumours that exist say are 2.9mm, when the ct picks up 3mm and above so, so its possible to be ned and still have tumours.

my exact case at this very moment, and why the surgeon advised a full hipec/peritonecomy while i am NED and CEA almost in normal range.

here is the http://www.rgcc-genlab.com/?personnel

the science here is aimed at reducing ctc's, it works well. my current success is based on these tests and recommended chemo/natural therapies.

you can soon order the test online, it costs about $2000 and is a good investment in my opinion, i am doing my second full test in the next few days to guide my maintenance therpay in the german labs.

i hope this helps, my friend says the developer of this test will get a noble prize one day, i would not be surprised.

I am grateful the test exists, i have more confidence in its results, but having a very competant alternative specialist to analyse and guide therapy essential. you cannot do it yourself, i tried and failed, but in expert hands the reports are criticial to beating this illness in my opinion. a few studies cited on the companies website.

hugs,

Pete

I agree Pete

That why I said no dectable disease.  I know the chances of tiny tumors or remaining "undectable" disease remains high.  I was looking from a medical standpoint if tests show nothing then it doesn't make sense to go through something like a blood transfusion to treat "nothing".   If I can get to NED, I will not consider my cancer gone and will continue to weaken any remaining disease with my alternative treatments, perhaps even some low dose xeloda for a period of time until I've had a few consistent scans and my ctc test comes back from Germany with the numbers my nat onc is looking for. 

ps. $2000.00 is a lot...I don't pay anything remotely close to that for my ctc.