Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

[Guest guest]

760 women is not a very large sampling at all, and not very scientific either simply by passing out a questionaire. One also has to look at the CA a woman has--estrogen positive or negative. That makes all the difference in the world whether a woman must or should receive chemo and radiation, or whether a simple lumpectomy would suffice. My mother, when diagnosed, had a barely visible CA, and in fact, the first time around, a radiologist didn't see it. It was only when her doc looked at the film and questioned a "spot" that he had another radiologist look at it, and it was confirmed. In addition, her CA was the type that does not respond to tamoxifen or that could simply be resolved with a lumpectomy alone. She had a very high percentage that it would return and she had to undergo chemo and radiation. That was almost 2.5 yrs ago, and to date, she has remained CA free. So, the study below is not very scientific, nor very accurate, and is not an accurate sampling of a percentage of women for this author to accurately and confidently convey to women that if their CA is less than a cm in size they don't need any adjuvant therapy. e ----- Original Message ----- From: Patty Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:47 PM Subject: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer? ----- Original Message -----From: "ilena rose" <ilena@...><Recipient List Suppressed:>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:37 PMSubject: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?> http://www.ivanhoe.com/docs/newsflash/thebesttreatmentforbreastcancer.html>> The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?>> Jan. 4, 2002 (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- New research suggests breast cancerpatients> with tumors less than a centimeter in size may be better off in the end ifthey> forego treatment with chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen after their surgery.>> Doctors know women with larger tumors benefit from additional, oradjuvant,> therapy after initial treatment for their cancers. However, they are notsure> whether women with very small tumors really need this treatment, since therisk> of recurrence for them is so low. In this study, investigators from UCLAfound> the risk of a long-term decline in physical functioning caused by the> treatments outweighed any benefits of the additional therapy among womenwith> very small tumors.>> The study involved about 760 women who were an average of 6.3 years pasttheir> initial diagnosis of cancer and who had remained disease-free. Each filledout> an extensive questionnaire on quality of life issues ranging from physicaland> social functioning to sexual desire and body image.>> Results show breast cancer survivors report an excellent quality of life> overall. However, when researchers compared results for women with verysmall> tumors who had received additional treatment with chemotherapy and/ortamoxifen> to those who had not received additional treatment, they found those who> received additional therapy scored lower on physical functioning measures.>> Ganz, M.D., from UCLA, is quoted as saying, "The question hasbeen> asked: Should every woman, even those with very small tumors, receive> chemotherapy or tamoxifen or both after surgery? I think, in light of this> research, the answer may be no. This study shows there are some subtlecosts to> be paid with adjuvant therapy. But the only place this would carry anyweight> would be in women with tumors less than a centimeter in size.">> SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2002;94:39-49>>>>

[Guest guest]

However, it must be remembered that chemotherapy is a very toxic therapy and the risks must be assessed. To quote from "The Gerson Therapy"

"Everyone must realize that any form of chemotherapy is a precursor to damaging the physical conditioning of all individuals who take in cytotoxic agents of any kind.

Some years after chemotherapy has been received, patients may develop secondary cancers such as acute leukemia. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified twenty different commonly used anticancer agents which actually are powerful carcinogens in their own right. Such cancer-causing occurences are frequently associated with two particular popular commercial alkylating agents, Cytoxan and Alkeran, as well as almost all of the hormonelike anti-cancer chemicals. Combinations of these deadly drugs given to patients as a "cocktail" are even worse in their residual cancer aftereffects.

In his respected medical text "Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology," the staunch chemotherapy advocate Leonard DeVita, MD, admits to the cancer-promoting properties of cytotoxic drugs. Dr. DeVita states: "Chemotherapy combinations can significantly raise the risk of secondary tumors, especially nonlymphcytic leukemias. The combination of cyclophosphamide, lomustine, and vincristine [three cytotoxins] lead to a leukemia incidence of 14 percent over 4 years after treatment. Nitrogen mustard, vincristine, prednisone, and procarbazine for the treatment of Hodgkin's disease yield leukemia rates up to 17 percent....Radiation further increases the risk of leukemia."

Personally, I would reject chemotherapy or radiation outright without batting an eye.

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: e Rene

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 6:20 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

760 women is not a very large sampling at all, and not very scientific either simply by passing out a questionaire. One also has to look at the CA a woman has--estrogen positive or negative. That makes all the difference in the world whether a woman must or should receive chemo and radiation, or whether a simple lumpectomy would suffice. My mother, when diagnosed, had a barely visible CA, and in fact, the first time around, a radiologist didn't see it. It was only when her doc looked at the film and questioned a "spot" that he had another radiologist look at it, and it was confirmed. In addition, her CA was the type that does not respond to tamoxifen or that could simply be resolved with a lumpectomy alone. She had a very high percentage that it would return and she had to undergo chemo and radiation. That was almost 2.5 yrs ago, and to date, she has remained CA free.

So, the study below is not very scientific, nor very accurate, and is not an accurate sampling of a percentage of women for this author to accurately and confidently convey to women that if their CA is less than a cm in size they don't need any adjuvant therapy.

e

----- Original Message -----

From: Patty

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:47 PM

Subject: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

----- Original Message -----From: "ilena rose" <ilena@...><Recipient List Suppressed:>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:37 PMSubject: The Bes t Treatment for Breast Cancer?> http://www.ivanhoe.com/docs/newsflash/thebesttreatmentforbreastcancer.html>> The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?>> Jan. 4, 2002 (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- New research suggests breast cancerpatients> with tumors less than a centimeter in size may be better off in the end ifthey> forego treatment with chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen after their surgery.>> Doctors know women with larger tumors benefit from additional, oradjuvant,> therapy after initial treatment for their cancers. However, they are notsure> whether women with very small tumors really need this treatment, since therisk> of recurrence for them is so low. In this study, investigators from UCLAfound> the risk of a long-term decline in physical functioning caused by the> treatments outweighed any benefits of the additional therapy among womenwith> very small tumors.>> The study involved about 760 women who were an average of 6.3 years pasttheir> initial diagnosis of cancer and who had remained disease-free. Each filledout> an extensive questionnaire on quality of life issues ranging from physicaland> social functioning to sexual desire and body image.>> Results show breast cancer survivors report an excellent quality of life> overall. However, when researchers compared results for women with verysmall> tumors who had received additional treatment with chemotherapy and/ortamoxifen> to those who had not received additional treatment, they found those who> received additional therapy scored lower on physical functioning measures.>> Ganz, M.D., from UCLA, is quoted as saying, "The question hasbeen> asked: Should every woman, even those with very small tumors, receive> chemotherapy or tamoxifen or both after surgery? I think, in light of this> researc h , the answer may be no. This study shows there are some subtlecosts to> be paid with adjuvant therapy. But the only place this would carry anyweight> would be in women with tumors less than a centimeter in size.">> SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2002;94:39-49>>>>

[Guest guest]

Patty,

While I am not in complete agreement on chemo I have to tell you about a lady at work who has a 9 year old grandson with Leukemia, he was diagnosed 2 years ago and has been through hell, at this young age.

They told him without Chemo he would die within a short time, but with chemo he has a 90% chance of recovery(did I mention that working in a hospital I must say children do better than adults on chemo esp. with leukemia) this is proven to be true.

Anyhow this child has been declared finally, completely cancer free, now I am not sure how you or other parents would have handled a nine year old with cancer, but I am glad so glad this child went the route he did, I think that there may be other ways of curing cancer, if you have the time, however some patients don't and yes it is very toxic, but this child is now cancer free and has a great chance at a normal life, so you cannot dispute that cancer can be cured with conventional treatments.

Also my husband new a women who tried to cure herself with natural remedies, and she ended up with cancer that spread to her entire body and she died, so it is really hard to tell someone to forgoes chemo when they are diagnosed with a fatal disease.

Personally I would probably not take chemo and just accept death, sounds easy right, but what many people are unaware of is what a tumor actually does and how it grows out of control in some individuals and if they don't do some type of chemo or radiation these tumors can grow so large the pain would be intense, I took care of a woman who had a necrotizing breast tumor this tumor was the size of my fist and was actually protruding through her chest wall, it was awful, you could not go in that room with out almost falling over from the smell, it was very very sad, anyhow, they had to use palliative measures to keep her comfortable, and chemo was one of them, so there are always two sides to these stories, and it is hard to say what to do, you think, oh I will eat this diet and that will help me, but cancer is not so simple to get rid of, I am not saying it cannot be done, but I think it is risky to think you can cure yourself, there is allot of reasons why they use chemo, one is because it kills rapidly dividing cells, and so while it kills the cancer it kills the good cells too, esp. hair, and other things, organs can be affected. I think someone with cancer needs to look at several options, there is the cancer treatment centers for America that I have heard have an excellent way of treating patients and not always with chemo.

I think this have come along way and much is still to be learned, but when you have kids, grandchildren etc, it is pretty hard to say no we will not do the chemo we will try this natural method, and then if they die on you, how you live with that is hard, so it is tough.

Again I am just blabbering with my own opinions here, not meant to sound mad, just from my own personally experience, chemo is not always the right or wrong choice it is kind of up to the individual.

----- Original Message -----

From: Patty

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:56 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

However, it must be remembered that chemotherapy is a very toxic therapy and the risks must be assessed. To quote from "The Gerson Therapy"

"Everyone must realize that any form of chemotherapy is a precursor to damaging the physical conditioning of all individuals who take in cytotoxic agents of any kind.

Some years after chemotherapy has been received, patients may develop secondary cancers such as acute leukemia. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified twenty different commonly used anticancer agents which actually are powerful carcinogens in their own right. Such cancer-causing occurences are frequently associated with two particular popular commercial alkylating agents, Cytoxan and Alkeran, as well as almost all of the hormonelike anti-cancer chemicals. Combinations of these deadly drugs given to patients as a "cocktail" are even worse in their residual cancer aftereffects.

In his respected medical text "Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology," the staunch chemotherapy advocate Leonard DeVita, MD, admits to the cancer-promoting properties of cytotoxic drugs. Dr. DeVita states: "Chemotherapy combinations can significantly raise the risk of secondary tumors, especially nonlymphcytic leukemias. The combination of cyclophosphamide, lomustine, and vincristine [three cytotoxins] lead to a leukemia incidence of 14 percent over 4 years after treatment. Nitrogen mustard, vincristine, prednisone, and procarbazine for the treatment of Hodgkin's disease yield leukemia rates up to 17 percent....Radiation further increases the risk of leukemia."

Personally, I would reject chemotherapy or radiation outright without batting an eye.

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: e Rene

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 6:20 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

760 women is not a very large sampling at all, and not very scientific either simply by passing out a questionaire. One also has to look at the CA a woman has--estrogen positive or negative. That makes all the difference in the world whether a woman must or should receive chemo and radiation, or whether a simple lumpectomy would suffice. My mother, when diagnosed, had a barely visible CA, and in fact, the first time around, a radiologist didn't see it. It was only when her doc looked at the film and questioned a "spot" that he had another radiologist look at it, and it was confirmed. In addition, her CA was the type that does not respond to tamoxifen or that could simply be resolved with a lumpectomy alone. She had a very high percentage that it would return and she had to undergo chemo and radiation. That was almost 2.5 yrs ago, and to date, she has remained CA free.

So, the study below is not very scientific, nor very accurate, and is not an accurate sampling of a percentage of women for this author to accurately and confidently convey to women that if their CA is less than a cm in size they don't need any adjuvant therapy.

e

----- Original Message -----

From: Patty

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:47 PM

Subject: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

----- Original Message -----From: "ilena rose" <ilena@...><Recipient List Suppressed:>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:37 PMSubject: The Bes t Treatment for Breast Cancer?> http://www.ivanhoe.com/docs/newsflash/thebesttreatmentforbreastcancer.html>> The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?>> Jan. 4, 2002 (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- New research suggests breast cancerpatients> with tumors less than a centimeter in size may be better off in the end ifthey> forego treatment with chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen after their surgery.>> Doctors know women with larger tumors benefit from additional, oradjuvant,> therapy after initial treatment for their cancers. However, they are notsure> whether women with very small tumors really need this treatment, since therisk> of recurrence for them is so low. In this study, investigators from UCLAfound> the risk of a long-term decline in physical functioning caused by the> treatments outweighed any benefits of the additional therapy among womenwith> very small tumors.>> The study involved about 760 women who were an average of 6.3 years pasttheir> initial diagnosis of cancer and who had remained disease-free. Each filledout> an extensive questionnaire on quality of life issues ranging from physicaland> social functioning to sexual desire and body image.>> Results show breast cancer survivors report an excellent quality of life> overall. However, when researchers compared results for women with verysmall> tumors who had received additional treatment with chemotherapy and/ortamoxifen> to those who had not received additional treatment, they found those who> received additional therapy scored lower on physical functioning measures.>> Ganz, M.D., from UCLA, is quoted as saying, "The question hasbeen> asked: Should every woman, even those with very small tumors, receive> chemotherapy or tamoxifen or both after surgery? I think, in light of this> researc h , the answer may be no. This study shows there are some subtlecosts to> be paid with adjuvant therapy. But the only place this would carry anyweight> would be in women with tumors less than a centimeter in size.">> SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2002;94:39-49>>>>

[Guest guest]

One thing that is not discussed is if the people who are trying to cure themselves naturally are doing all the right and necessary things. Like totally eliminating salt. Doing coffee enemas. Eating and juicing 20 lbs. of organic fruits and vegetables daily. Removing everything else from the diet that is poisonous or not health promoting, and more. So many times I see people knock down alternative therapy because they "know someone who tried it" (whatever "it" is) and failed to get better. There are too many variables that are not discussed. However, if you want to hear cases of people who did cure themselves from cancer and degenerative diseases, I can direct you to many, many testimonies. There are success stories on both sides of the fence.

Whatever "negatives" are attributed to alternative medicine, you can say the same things about chemotherapy treatments. For some reason there is this prevailing opinion that chemotherapy works, while all the rest of the treatments remain unproven. The truth is that chemotherapy doesn't always work, either, and in fact, leaves a patient more immunologically damaged than when they started out. So, are they really better off?

I would feel so much better if I knew that those who are debating this issue had actually done their reading. Have you actually read the books on the Gerson therapy and how it cures cancer? How chemotherapy actually reduces the chance for full health? (No doubt there are recoveries, but just what is the state of the immune system afterwards?) How many opinions have been given here without investigation into the other side?

Please don't misconstrue my point here. I am not pointing fingers. I am merely pointing out that alot of this discussion happens without the full knowledge of the other side. I am not angry, trying to instigate a fight with anyone, or create dissensionon the group. I am just hoping that if you are really interested, you will do your homework.

Love,

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: Heer

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:17 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

Patty,

While I am not in complete agreement on chemo I have to tell you about a lady at work who has a 9 year old grandson with Leukemia, he was diagnosed 2 years ago and has been through hell, at this young age.

They told him without Chemo he would die within a short time, but with chemo he has a 90% chance of recovery(did I mention that working in a hospital I must say children do better than adults on chemo esp. with leukemia) this is proven to be true.

Anyhow this child has been declared finally, completely cancer free, now I am not sure how you or other parents would have handled a nine year old with cancer, but I am glad so glad this child went the route he did, I think that there may be other ways of curing cancer, if you have the time, however some patients don't and yes it is very toxic, but this child is now cancer free and has a great chance at a normal life, so you cannot dispute that cancer can be cured with conventional treatments.

Also my husband new a women who tried to cure herself with natural remedies, and she ended up with cancer that spread to her entire body and she died, so it is really hard to tell someone to forgoes chemo when they are diagnosed with a fatal disease.

Personally I would probably not take chemo and just accept death, sounds easy right, but what many people are unaware of is what a tumor actually does and how it grows out of control in some individuals and if they don't do some type of chemo or radiation these tumors can grow so large the pain would be intense, I took care of a woman who had a necrotizing breast tumor this tumor was the size of my fist and was actually protruding through her chest wall, it was awful, you could not go in that room with out almost falling over from the smell, it was very very sad, anyhow, they had to use palliative measures to keep her comfortable, and chemo was one of them, so there are always two sides to these stories, and it is hard to say what to do, you think, oh I will eat this diet and that will help me, but cancer is not so simple to get rid of, I am not saying it cannot be done, but I think it is risky to think you can cure yourself, there is allot of reasons why they use chemo, one is because it kills rapidly dividing cells, and so while it kills the cancer it kills the good cells too, esp. hair, and other things, organs can be affected. I think someone with cancer needs to look at several options, there is the cancer treatment centers for America that I have heard have an excellent way of treating patients and not always with chemo.

I think this have come along way and much is still to be learned, but when you have kids, grandchildren etc, it is pretty hard to say no we will not do the chemo we will try this natural method, and then if they die on you, how you live with that is hard, so it is tough.

Again I am just blabbering with my own opinions here, not meant to sound mad, just from my own personally experience, chemo is not always the right or wrong choice it is kind of up to the individual.

----- Original Message -----

From: Patty

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:56 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

However, it must be remembered that chemotherapy is a very toxic therapy and the risks must be assessed. To quote from "The Gerson Therapy"

"Everyone must realize that any form of chemotherapy is a precursor to damaging the physical conditioning of all individuals who take in cytotoxic agents of any kind.

Some years after chemotherapy has been received, patients may develop secondary cancers such as acute leukemia. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified twenty different commonly used anticancer agents which actually are powerful carcinogens in their own right. Such cancer-causing occurences are frequently associated with two particular popular commercial alkylating agents, Cytoxan and Alkeran, as well as almost all of the hormonelike anti-cancer chemicals. Combinations of these deadly drugs given to patients as a "cocktail" are even worse in their residual cancer aftereffects.

In his respected medical text "Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology," the staunch chemotherapy advocate Leonard DeVita, MD, admits to the cancer-promoting properties of cytotoxic drugs. Dr. DeVita states: "Chemotherapy combinations can significantly raise the risk of secondary tumors, especially nonlymphcytic leukemias. The combination of cyclophosphamide, lomustine, and vincristine [three cytotoxins] lead to a leukemia incidence of 14 percent over 4 years after treatment. Nitrogen mustard, vincristine, prednisone, and procarbazine for the treatment of Hodgkin's disease yield leukemia rates up to 17 percent....Radiation further increases the risk of leukemia."

Personally, I would reject chemotherapy or radiation outright without batting an eye.

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: e Rene

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 6:20 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

760 women is not a very large sampling at all, and not very scientific either simply by passing out a questionaire. One also has to look at the CA a woman has--estrogen positive or negative. That makes all the difference in the world whether a woman must or should receive chemo and radiation, or whether a simple lumpectomy would suffice. My mother, when diagnosed, had a barely visible CA, and in fact, the first time around, a radiologist didn't see it. It was only when her doc looked at the film and questioned a "spot" that he had another radiologist look at it, and it was confirmed. In addition, her CA was the type that does not respond to tamoxifen or that could simply be resolved with a lumpectomy alone. She had a very high percentage that it would return and she had to undergo chemo and radiation. That was almost 2.5 yrs ago, and to date, she has remained CA free.

So, the study below is not very scientific, nor very accurate, and is not an accurate sampling of a percentage of women for this author to accurately and confidently convey to women that if their CA is less than a cm in size they don't need any adjuvant therapy.

e

----- Original Message -----

From: Patty

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:47 PM

Subject: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

----- Original Message -----From: "ilena rose" <ilena@...><Recipient List Suppressed:>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:37 PMSubject: The Bes t Treatment for Breast Cancer?> http://www.ivanhoe.com/docs/newsflash/thebesttreatmentforbreastcancer.html>> The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?>> Jan. 4, 2002 (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- New research suggests breast cancerpatients> with tumors less than a centimeter in size may be better off in the end ifthey> forego treatment with chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen after their surgery.>> Doctors know women with larger tumors benefit from additional, oradjuvant,> therapy after initial treatment for their cancers. However, they are notsure> whether women with very small tumors really need this treatment, since therisk> of recurrence for them is so low. In this study, investigators from UCLAfound> the risk of a long-term decline in physical functioning caused by the> treatments outweighed any benefits of the additional therapy among womenwith> very small tumors.>> The study involved about 760 women who were an average of 6.3 years pasttheir> initial diagnosis of cancer and who had remained disease-free. Each filledout> an extensive questionnaire on quality of life issues ranging from physicaland> social functioning to sexual desire and body image.>> Results show breast cancer survivors report an excellent quality of life> overall. However, when researchers compared results for women with verysmall> tumors who had received additional treatment with chemotherapy and/ortamoxifen> to those who had not received additional treatment, they found those who> received additional therapy scored lower on physical functioning measures.>> Ganz, M.D., from UCLA, is quoted as saying, "The question hasbeen> asked: Should every woman, even those with very small tumors, receive> chemotherapy or tamoxifen or both after surgery? I think, in light of this> researc h , the answer may be no. This study shows there are some subtlecosts to> be paid with adjuvant therapy. But the only place this would carry anyweight> would be in women with tumors less than a centimeter in size.">> SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2002;94:39-49>>>>

[Guest guest]

I agree with you 100% on this, I too would love to know more about this , unfortunately you hear stories like this all the time and don't know enough to substantiate the facts.

I still would be frightened if it was my child with leukemia to say no to something that in Children can be 90% effective, however I agree Patty and am not in any way trying to say your not right, just kind of giving the other side, after working in a hospital environment for so long, I have seen things often, people who die from complications of being non compliant with meds, and people who get well from chemo, and people who die from cancer with and without chemo, it is a terrible illness and I think if there were a cure, be it natural or medications then everyone would be doing it, no matter what it was and no one would be dying.

Love,

PS I do believe that Suzanne Summers is treating herself for breast cancer with nutrition and is doing well, so there are many many different opinions and aspects of this stuff.

so to speak.

Love,

----- Original Message -----

From: Patty

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:43 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

One thing that is not discussed is if the people who are trying to cure themselves naturally are doing all the right and necessary things. Like totally eliminating salt. Doing coffee enemas. Eating and juicing 20 lbs. of organic fruits and vegetables daily. Removing everything else from the diet that is poisonous or not health promoting, and more. So many times I see people knock down alternative therapy because they "know someone who tried it" (whatever "it" is) and failed to get better. There are too many variables that are not discussed. However, if you want to hear cases of people who did cure themselves from cancer and degenerative diseases, I can direct you to many, many testimonies. There are success stories on both sides of the fence.

Whatever "negatives" are attributed to alternative medicine, you can say the same things about chemotherapy treatments. For some reason there is this prevailing opinion that chemotherapy works, while all the rest of the treatments remain unproven. The truth is that chemotherapy doesn't always work, either, and in fact, leaves a patient more immunologically damaged than when they started out. So, are they really better off?

I would feel so much better if I knew that those who are debating this issue had actually done their reading. Have you actually read the books on the Gerson therapy and how it cures cancer? How chemotherapy actually reduces the chance for full health? (No doubt there are recoveries, but just what is the state of the immune system afterwards?) How many opinions have been given here without investigation into the other side?

Please don't misconstrue my point here. I am not pointing fingers. I am merely pointing out that alot of this discussion happens without the full knowledge of the other side. I am not angry, trying to instigate a fight with anyone, or create dissensionon the group. I am just hoping that if you are really interested, you will do your homework.

Love,

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: Heer

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:17 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

Patty,

While I am not in complete agreement on chemo I have to tell you about a lady at work who has a 9 year old grandson with Leukemia, he was diagnosed 2 years ago and has been through hell, at this young age.

They told him without Chemo he would die within a short time, but with chemo he has a 90% chance of recovery(did I mention that working in a hospital I must say children do better than adults on chemo esp. with leukemia) this is proven to be true.

Anyhow this child has been declared finally, completely cancer free, now I am not sure how you or other parents would have handled a nine year old with cancer, but I am glad so glad this child went the route he did, I think that there may be other ways of curing cancer, if you have the time, however some patients don't and yes it is very toxic, but this child is now cancer free and has a great chance at a normal life, so you cannot dispute that cancer can be cured with conventional treatments.

Also my husband new a women who tried to cure herself with natural remedies, and she ended up with cancer that spread to her entire body and she died, so it is really hard to tell someone to forgoes chemo when they are diagnosed with a fatal disease.

Personally I would probably not take chemo and just accept death, sounds easy right, but what many people are unaware of is what a tumor actually does and how it grows out of control in some individuals and if they don't do some type of chemo or radiation these tumors can grow so large the pain would be intense, I took care of a woman who had a necrotizing breast tumor this tumor was the size of my fist and was actually protruding through her chest wall, it was awful, you could not go in that room with out almost falling over from the smell, it was very very sad, anyhow, they had to use palliative measures to keep her comfortable, and chemo was one of them, so there are always two sides to these stories, and it is hard to say what to do, you think, oh I will eat this diet and that will help me, but cancer is not so simple to get rid of, I am not saying it cannot be done, but I think it is risky to think you can cure yourself, there is allot of reasons why they use chemo, one is because it kills rapidly dividing cells, and so while it kills the cancer it kills the good cells too, esp. hair, and other things, organs can be affected. I think someone with cancer needs to look at several options, there is the cancer treatment centers for America that I have heard have an excellent way of treating patients and not always with chemo.

I think this have come along way and much is still to be learned, but when you have kids, grandchildren etc, it is pretty hard to say no we will not do the chemo we will try this natural method, and then if they die on you, how you live with that is hard, so it is tough.

Again I am just blabbering with my own opinions here, not meant to sound mad, just from my own personally experience, chemo is not always the right or wrong choice it is kind of up to the individual.

----- Original Message -----

From: Patty

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:56 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

However, it must be remembered that chemotherapy is a very toxic therapy and the risks must be assessed. To quote from "The Gerson Therapy"

"Everyone must realize that any form of chemotherapy is a precursor to damaging the physical conditioning of all individuals who take in cytotoxic agents of any kind.

Some years after chemotherapy has been received, patients may develop secondary cancers such as acute leukemia. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified twenty different commonly used anticancer agents which actually are powerful carcinogens in their own right. Such cancer-causing occurences are frequently associated with two particular popular commercial alkylating agents, Cytoxan and Alkeran, as well as almost all of the hormonelike anti-cancer chemicals. Combinations of these deadly drugs given to patients as a "cocktail" are even worse in their residual cancer aftereffects.

In his respected medical text "Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology," the staunch chemotherapy advocate Leonard DeVita, MD, admits to the cancer-promoting properties of cytotoxic drugs. Dr. DeVita states: "Chemotherapy combinations can significantly raise the risk of secondary tumors, especially nonlymphcytic leukemias. The combination of cyclophosphamide, lomustine, and vincristine [three cytotoxins] lead to a leukemia incidence of 14 percent over 4 years after treatment. Nitrogen mustard, vincristine, prednisone, and procarbazine for the treatment of Hodgkin's disease yield leukemia rates up to 17 percent....Radiation further increases the risk of leukemia."

Personally, I would reject chemotherapy or radiation outright without batting an eye.

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: e Rene

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 6:20 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

760 women is not a very large sampling at all, and not very scientific either simply by passing out a questionaire. One also has to look at the CA a woman has--estrogen positive or negative. That makes all the difference in the world whether a woman must or should receive chemo and radiation, or whether a simple lumpectomy would suffice. My mother, when diagnosed, had a barely visible CA, and in fact, the first time around, a radiologist didn't see it. It was only when her doc looked at the film and questioned a "spot" that he had another radiologist look at it, and it was confirmed. In addition, her CA was the type that does not respond to tamoxifen or that could simply be resolved with a lumpectomy alone. She had a very high percentage that it would return and she had to undergo chemo and radiation. That was almost 2.5 yrs ago, and to date, she has remained CA free.

So, the study below is not very scientific, nor very accurate, and is not an accurate sampling of a percentage of women for this author to accurately and confidently convey to women that if their CA is less than a cm in size they don't need any adjuvant therapy.

e

----- Original Message -----

From: Patty

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:47 PM

Subject: Fw: The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?

----- Original Message -----From: "ilena rose" <ilena@...><Recipient List Suppressed:>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:37 PMSubject: The Bes t Treatment for Breast Cancer?> http://www.ivanhoe.com/docs/newsflash/thebesttreatmentforbreastcancer.html>> The Best Treatment for Breast Cancer?>> Jan. 4, 2002 (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- New research suggests breast cancerpatients> with tumors less than a centimeter in size may be better off in the end ifthey> forego treatment with chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen after their surgery.>> Doctors know women with larger tumors benefit from additional, oradjuvant,> therapy after initial treatment for their cancers. However, they are notsure> whether women with very small tumors really need this treatment, since therisk> of recurrence for them is so low. In this study, investigators from UCLAfound> the risk of a long-term decline in physical functioning caused by the> treatments outweighed any benefits of the additional therapy among womenwith> very small tumors.>> The study involved about 760 women who were an average of 6.3 years pasttheir> initial diagnosis of cancer and who had remained disease-free. Each filledout> an extensive questionnaire on quality of life issues ranging from physicaland> social functioning to sexual desire and body image.>> Results show breast cancer survivors report an excellent quality of life> overall. However, when researchers compared results for women with verysmall> tumors who had received additional treatment with chemotherapy and/ortamoxifen> to those who had not received additional treatment, they found those who> received additional therapy scored lower on physical functioning measures.>> Ganz, M.D., from UCLA, is quoted as saying, "The question hasbeen> asked: Should every woman, even those with very small tumors, receive> chemotherapy or tamoxifen or both after surgery? I think, in light of this> researc h , the answer may be no. This study shows there are some subtlecosts to> be paid with adjuvant therapy. But the only place this would carry anyweight> would be in women with tumors less than a centimeter in size.">> SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2002;94:39-49>>>>

[Guest guest]

Hi e & other Ladies,

This kind of thinking simply leads to pre-determination of one's illness, which may never happen. However, if you believe something strongly enough, it is very likely to come true. Why? Because you made up your mind in advance about your destiny, and would not allow anything different to happen.

According to my medical records, dx's, etc., I should at least be in a whee-chair when I am 'out & about', however, I'm not, and never intend to be. It's bad enough to have to rest and sleep as much as I do, however, I still lead a normal life --- I've simply had to temporarlily give up my ballroom dancing!

Mind over matter goes a long ways,

MM

Martha MurdockNational Silicone Implant Foundationwww.topica.com/lists/BreastImplantNews/