Re: cancer, and chemo

[Guest guest]

I have just spent some time with Teo in Penang. is a professor of

Botany who became interested in the healing potential of herbs. He has a growing

reputation in south-east asia and has regular groups of long term survivors in

Penang, Kuala Lumpur and in Jakarta. He told me that he had some interesting

data that strongly suggested that chemo causes mets. He has a lot of breast

cancer patients and after a few years of collecting data - he collects a lot of

data from his patients - he analysed his Penang group and found that almost

invariably cancer returned after a few years. He found the same pattern in his

KL group. He then assumed that this was just the way things were. However, when

he looked at his Jakarta group he found that the cancer had not returned in most

of his patients. The key difference between his Indonesian patients and his

Malaysian patients was the fact that very few of the Indonesians had been able

to afford chemo.

So...!

Chamberlain

www.fightingcancer.com

> Joe, There is a question on the breastcancer. org forum chemo before and after

thread asking if anyone has survived 6 years chemo. There are many on there that

have which shocked me because I only know one personally and have seen the rest

die. They say chemo saved their life and me on the other hand still lean towards

it poisoning me and don't want it at this point, but would do anything to save

my life if I am faced with that.

>

I have to chime in here. I am NOT a fan of chemo and have declined it for the

past 2.5 years (since being dx with mets). However, my original dx was 10 years

ago last month and I didn't know, then, what I know now. I did chemo ... and

high-dose w/stem cell transplant ... and radiation to BOTH sides of my chest.

Was it fun/easy? NO! And guess what? I still metastasized, so it didn't

really work or I wouldn't be in this position now. That being said, I am still

alive, 10 years post-chemo and have no lingering after-effects that I can tell,

except for the chemo brain that is still there. Of course, the chemo did kill

off my ovaries and perhaps it's the menopause at 40 that did my brain in! LOL

xxoo

[Guest guest]

Two things that stuck in my mind were, " However, when he looked at his Jakarta

group he found that the cancer had not returned in 'most' of his patients. The

key difference between his Indonesian patients and his Malaysian patients was

the fact that very 'few' of the Indonesians had been able to afford chemo. "

The words 'most' and 'few' qualify the statement and while I have not and expect

not to have chemotherapy yes, have heard it causes mets. We know it does a lot

of things, none of which I want to happen to me.

Has it been proven that it causes mets? I cannot tell from the above statement

because apparently there might have been mets to some that received chemotherapy

and some that did not. Since we feel confident it devastates the immune

system, like anything else that does, perhaps that is the causative effect it

has???

How much can we rely upon small numbers of patients, if it was a small number,

to determine what caused what but then one must certainly look harder at what is

being said as regards chemotherapy perhaps actually causing mets. People get

mets without any treatment of any kind as well as when avoiding chemotherapy so

the puzzle gets more difficult with each thought. Interesting regardless.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

,

I and many others have noticed the correlation between

chemotherapy and metastasis. Teo has written a most

interesting book on the use of rodent tuber for cancer. There is

still confusion among many as to the correct species in spite of his

clear explanation. Thank you for posting.

See below:

Twenty-Seventh Annual San Breast Cancer Symposium (abstract 6014)

(Oncol News Int'l, Vol 14, #5, May '05)

Using a technique that quantifies circulating tumor cells, German

investigators have shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy with

paclitaxel (taxol) causes a massive release of cells into the

circulation, while at the same time reducing the size of the tumor.

The finding could help explain the fact that complete pathologic

responses do not correlate well with improvements in survival.

In the study, breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant

chemotherapy gave blood samples in which epithelial antigen-positive

cells were isolated. Such cells are detected in most breast cancer

patients but are rarely found in normal subjects. The investigators

measured the levels of circulating tumor cells before and during

primary chemotherapy with several different cytotoxic agents.

Paclitaxel (taxol) produces the greatest degree of tumor shrinkage

but also the greatest release of circulating tumor cells. In three

different paclitaxel-containing regimens, circulating cell numbers

massively increased, whereas tumor size decreased. These cells

remained in the circulation for at least five months after surgery.

The tumor shrinks, but more cells are found in the circulation. This

corresponds with a high pathologic complete response during

paclitaxel treatment, but in the end, this is not reflected in

improved survival. These cells are alive in the circulation. The

results indicate that monitoring of circulating tumor cells can

contribute to understanding of tumor-blood interactions and may

provide a valuable tool for therapy monitoring in solid tumors.

What this recent study has shown, so far, that in three different

paclitaxel (taxol) containing regimens, as the tumor collapses (a

clinical response, not cure), it produces the greatest release of

circulating tumor cells. The study has not looked at any other

combination regimens.

With these cells being alive in the circulation, it may mean that a

patient with invasive breast cancer without lymph node involvement

(where systemic treatment " may " benefit), or a patient with invasive

breast cancer that involves lymph nodes (where systemic treatment is

" usually " recommended), would need additional (anti-estrogen)

treatment, such as Tamoxifen (it may be given alone or in addition to

chemotherapy, if given).

It has been shown that Tamoxifen treatment will reduce circulating

tumor cells in some patients, but not all. It has been shown that

Herceptin treatment will reduce circulating tumor cells in patients

with HER2-negative tumors, but less pronounced in HER2-positive tumors.

The results of this kind of study are coming out slowly and quietly

and indicate that taxol containing regimens didn't prolong survival

over other more conventional and less expensive cytotoxic drugs. It

may indeed give clincial response (tumor shrinkage), sometimes

impressive, however, these are mostly short-lived and relapses after

a response to taxanes (taxol) are often dramatic.

Even if one or more chemotherapy regimen is identified as being

likely to work on a particular cancer, has the science advanced to

tell us whether application of the chosen chemotherapy regimen will

not cause other changes that also cause cancer to later return and

perhaps be even harder to treat? Is it a case of chemotherapy being

bad, in cases where it apparently works? Traditional chemotherapy is

mutagenic (changes in form), you might kill off a whole lot of

cancer, only to cause a mutation in the remaining cancer, such that

the remaining cancer behaves in a more agressive fashion.

These studies tell us that much more work needs to be done, and

oncologists need to adapt treatment to the patient. There are over

100 chemotherapeutic agents, all of which have approximately the same

probability of working. The tumors of different patients have

different responses to chemotherapy. It requires individualized

treatment based on testing individual properties of each patient's cancer.

Twenty-Seventh Annual San Breast Cancer Symposium (abstract 6014)

(Oncol News Int'l, Vol 14, #5, May '05)

At 09:53 AM 8/16/2009, Chamberlain wrote:

>

>I have just spent some time with Teo in Penang. is a

>professor of Botany who became interested in the healing potential

>of herbs. He has a growing reputation in south-east asia and has

>regular groups of long term survivors in Penang, Kuala Lumpur and in

>Jakarta. He told me that he had some interesting data that strongly

>suggested that chemo causes mets. He has a lot of breast cancer

>patients and after a few years of collecting data - he collects a

>lot of data from his patients - he analysed his Penang group and

>found that almost invariably cancer returned after a few years. He

>found the same pattern in his KL group. He then assumed that this

>was just the way things were. However, when he looked at his Jakarta

>group he found that the cancer had not returned in most of his

>patients. The key difference between his Indonesian patients and his

>Malaysian patients was the fact that very few of the Indonesians had

>been able to afford chemo.

[Guest guest]

(Edited by moderator to eliminate long string of old posts. Please remember to

trim your posts. Thank you)

While anecdotal, I nursed my late husband through cancer 5 years ago. His

original diagnosis was lung cancer stage one. They ended up removing his left

lung and offered him chemo as a preventive measure. I would not have accepted

it, but this was his journey. While he recovered from the surgery and was doing

quite well, he began to go downhill after chemotherapy. Three months after chemo

he was losing weight and experiencing terrible pain. Scans indicated mets

appearing in his adrenals etc. Diagnosed terminal. He died several months later.

Now I am facing this journey and while I have accepted radiation to reduce tumor

mass and give me a chance to adopt alternative treatments there is not a chance

in hell that I would use chemo.

Cheryl