To Chemo Or Not?

KDR · 01-12-2011, 11:23 AM

Good afternoon, all. I've been doing research on chemotherapy since my diagnosis in June. I sometimes stumble on websites such as the one I'm going to paste that suggest chemo is a known carcinogen and there is a "better way." I then ask myself, "How many patients sitting in the waiting room would trade the chemo that is working for them for natural treatment?," and the ultimate answer in my head is "None." But could it be possible that maybe there's some truth to alternatives? I'm just not feeling that well lately (discomfort at tumor sites, neuropathy, hot flashes, et al.), and I'm beginning to wonder. Take a look:
http://www.cancertruth.net/newsletter_2010jul.html/

StephN · 01-12-2011, 11:46 AM

I would not think twice about that web site.

Once you realize that cancer cells are the MOST DIFFICULT of all the kinds of cells to KILL, the reasoning of using a substance that is poisonous to the extent that it will kill those cells and not all of the rest of our cells, becomes more reasonable.

The Hippocratic oath may seem hypocritic, but is cutting off a gangrenous leg to save the patient any more horrible treatment then trying to kill cells that are trying to kill us by using the resource of our bodies as food for tumors?

Personally I would rather kill my tumors than be a ready banquet table for the buggers.

Medical science is working on more targeted therapies that will affect only the cancer cells themselves, which lessens the "scorched earth" effect, even in combination with the more toxic drugs.

I vote for targeted drugs over apple cider vinegar. Perhaps use of the apple cider vinegar by a person who has not yet been diagnosed with any cancer would have a good overall health affect, but IMHO will not stop cancers that are already running around the track.

Joan M · 01-12-2011, 11:49 AM

Karen,

I often don't know what to make of these reports. Sometimes I think there's something to a natural cure, and some people accuse the pharmaceutical companies of hiding such a cure. Yet I think that if a cure like that existed big business would be right on top of it.

Natural products are used to make chemo, like sponge in Havalen and the yew tree in Taxol, but the drugs turn out to be very toxic. I know, I took Taxol.

Cancer research also includes looking at natural cures, and Memorial-Sloan Kettering is a leader in this, at least according to Dr. Larry Norton who is a breast oncologist there. At a lecture, he spoke somewhat about this.

I hope your mom is doing well today.

Joan

Ellie F · 01-12-2011, 12:14 PM

I agree with Joan. This is a difficult area to get to grips with. Many chemos have there origin from natural sources as has been said. There is quite a body of growing evidence that suggests various natural substances can effect the cancer cell pathway. Whether or not these are enough to keep established cancer from growing seems to be questionable? However some respected cancer biologists for example Bharat Aggarwal from MD Anderson have published significent peer reviewed research on the role of natural substances on cancer prevention and treatment.
Ellie

StephN · 01-12-2011, 12:19 PM

One more reason to fear our environment and go for the big guns to treat cancers. And avoid BPA as best we can.

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clea...sphenol-a.html

What is BPA? (From the article.)
"BPA is one of the most common chemicals to which we are exposed in everyday life. It is the building block of polycarbonate plastic and is also used in the manufacture of epoxy resins. According to Environment Canada (the Canadian equivalent of the EPA), more than 4 billion kilograms (4.4 million tons) of the chemical were produced globally in 2006, and more than 1 billion kilograms (1.1 million tons) were produced in the United States in 2007 (CEPA, 2009)."

I found the below statement absolutely mind-boggling and is also relevent to the "can positive thinking help cure our cancer" thread.

"Studies using cultures of human breast cancer cells demonstrate that BPA acts through the same response pathways as the natural estrogen estradiol (Rivas, 2002; Welshons, 2006). BPA can interact weakly with the intracellular estrogen receptor (ER), and it can also alter breast cell responsiveness and induce cell proliferation in vitro and in vivo. It affects cellular functions through interactions with the membrane estrogen receptor (Watson, 2005; Wozniak, 2005). Along with its many other effects on cell growth and proliferation, BPA has been shown to mimic estradiol in causing direct damage to the DNA of cultured human breast cancer cells (Iso, 2006).
In the presence of BPA, cells from the non-cancerous breast of women diagnosed with breast cancer had a gene-response profile associated with the development of highly aggressive tumors (Dairkee, 2008). Two new studies indicate that BPA reduces the efficacy of common chemotherapy agents (cisplatin, doxirubicin and vinblastin) in their actions against proliferating breast cancer cells when tested in cell systems (LaPensee, 2009; 2010). Thus, not only does early exposure to BPA lead to an increased risk for development of breast tumors, but exposure to BPA during chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer may make the treatment less effective."