Cancer TreatmentsLike most doctors, oncologists rarely receive training in nutrition. Instead they learn about radiotherapy and pharmaceuticals including the latest cancer drugs. However, in spite of what we hear about new drugs and "cures," there has been little change in the death rate for the major cancers in the last thirty years. All that has changed is that earlier diagnosis is possible due to better screening, meaning that patients may live a few years longer. This may take some patients past the five-year survival mark, and five years is the point at which one is counted as a "survivor." [1] Yet, although there has been progress in nutritional treatment for cancer, most oncologists are unaware of it and/or refuse to believe it. They often tell patients to discontinue all supplements during chemotherapy because they might interfere with the effectiveness of the cancer treatment. Actually, the opposite is true. Most oncologists do not even tell their patients that they can improve the outcome of their treatment by eating more fruits and vegetables. [2] I searched to find an oncologist who sounded more holistic, and she does encourage her patients to improve their outcomes with diet. There is ongoing data manipulation to convince the public that chemotherapy is more effective now than it was in the past. Improved early detection of cancer makes it seem as if patients are living longer, and studies in which current data is compared to older studies give the impression that the increased survival time is due to new treatments. Another misleading strategy is to compare high-dose to low-dose use of a chemotherapeutic drug. The high-dose patients live longer because they are the patients who are in better shape to begin with. (The sickest patients may not tolerate the toxicity of the high dose). Furthermore, if a patient is started on the high dose and must drop down on dosage or drop out of the study, that patient is not counted. [3] The decision about what type of treatment to pursue after the diagnosis of cancer is very personal, unique to each individual. I cannot and do not want to appear to be telling you what to do. In the first chapter of Healing Basics I wrote about agreeing to take chemotherapy, if needed, in reaction to my husband's despair, so I realize that personal circumstances are factors in the decision. However, I would urge you to choose your oncologist carefully. Be sure he or she is willing to let you pursue natural strategies along with conventional treatments. In addition, check the track record of any doctor you are considering. There are doctors who over-treat, and may actually seem to eradicate the cancer, but the patient then dies of side effects like heart failure. [4] Although there is always a feeling of urgency to get started on treatment, you would do well to take a little time and choose your oncologist wisely. Chemotherapy is very effective in saving lives with some kinds of cancers. For example, there is a greater than 90% cure rate for children with T-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) when treated with chemotherapy. Our great-nephew took a three and one half year course of chemotherapy for ALL and is doing very well. In the case of cancers which have a high cure rate from chemotherapy, if your personal circumstances make it reasonable, you might consider taking it. There are other types of cancer, often solid tumor cancers, for which chemotherapy is not likely to save your life. Oncologists speak of chemotherapy bringing about "tumor response." This means the tumor shrinks or stops growing. It may or may not buy you a little time, but it is not a cure, although it might be implied that it could be. [5] Chemotherapy is toxic; the hope is that it is more toxic to dividing cancer cells than it is to normal cells. Patients who are not well nourished are more likely to suffer toxic effects and are more likely to suffer a relapse of the cancer later on. [6] Chemotherapy may be given when the lymph nodes are clear and there is no indication that the cancer has spread. A friend who had a mastectomy was told by her oncologist that she needed to have a genetic test, and if she was at high risk for cancer genetically, should take chemotherapy. (I suggested that she insist on having a PET scan that showed evidence of metastasis before considering chemotherapy). Thankfully, her genetic tests results were good. It made no sense for her to take chemotherapy without some indication of spread because a study showed that breast cancer patients who were given chemotherapy had earlier relapses of their cancer than women given hormone therapy alone. [7] Dr. Russell Blaylock reports that it is his clinical impression, backed up by medical literature dating back to 1987, that chemotherapy makes cancer more aggressive and likely to metastasize. [8] When I agreed to take chemotherapy if needed because of my husband's despair, I did not have the information in this paragraph. Now I would refuse to take chemotherapy no matter what the circumstances. Chemotherapy can cause complications and side effects in every and any part of the body, some of which can be lessened with nutritional support. (See pages 82 to 106 of Natural Strategies for Cancer for more about this). Since a primary audience for this book is people with allergies, I must tell you that one of chemotherapy's side effects can be causing food allergies, even in previously non-allergic people. Chemotherapy kills the rapidly dividing cells that line the intestine, and can cause leaking of whole or partially digested food proteins into the bloodstream, thus inducing new food allergies. This diverts an already over-burdened immune system away from the more important job of fighting cancer cells. Chemotherapy can also cause an overgrowth of Candida albicans in the intestine or other parts of the body. Intestinal yeast can potentially lead to more or worsening food allergies. [9] Radiotherapy to the abdominal area also damages the intestinal lining, leading to food allergies, and also causes intestinal overgrowth with Candida albicans. [10] Although they are much less problematic than chemotherapy or radiotherapy, the decision to take hormone drugs for reproductive cancers should be considered carefully before you begin treatment. My cousin suffered a complex tibial plateau fracture after being on hormone drugs for breast cancer for a short time. Several months later she broke her pelvis in a fall that was minor enough that got up from it and didn't get an X-ray until the next day. After the first fracture, she was given a bone density test that showed osteopenia. I told her that she should have her vitamin D blood level checked and get on the correct dose of vitamin D for her, plus take not just calcium, but magnesium and critical bone-building trace minerals and vitamins. [11] See the PDF 20 Key Nutrients For Bone Health footnoted below for more about what nutrients are needed and click here for Douglas Laboratories Bone Co-Factors, an excellent hypoallergenic bone supplement. Although my breast cancer was hormone receptor negative and would not be influenced by hormone drugs, my oncologist discussed them with me so I would know all the options. She said if I were to take the drugs, they would not prevent a recurrence of the same cancer, but could prevent a new breast cancer. She also told me that hormone drugs can cause ovarian cancer. We agreed that I would skip the drugs and practice every possible natural strategy instead. Footnotes
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||