Breast Cancer

Three years ago I had two positive biopsies that are positive estrogen/progesteren reseptors. I had been taking Prempro for about 10 years to treat the symtoms of menopause.  They were early and small. My previous mamogram was one year to the date and all of my films since I was 40 are in the same location. I took my slides and xrays to USC Norris Cancer center for a second opinon.  They said that a mastectomy would be the best way to deal with it.  However all my doctors told me that I had time to think it over and plan my reconstruction whenever I felt comfortable.  So I waited and waited and had another mamogram and ultrasound and started Armididex immediately.  The ultasound showed that the largest cancer had shrunk and the smaller one was not visible at all.  So, they sent me for an MRI, and one year later, another MRI.  No one can find the cancers.  They are gone.  I don't tell anyone my story because I'm afraid it will cause other women to put off the treatment that has been offered.  But one thing I would like everyone to think about.  If you go to a surgeon you will be given a surgical answer.  Maybe there should be less surgery.  Maybe there are other answers out there and we are too afraid to look for them.  This is my story, I hope that it will be considered another piece of information in this confusing issue.  I have many other positive factors in my wellness.  I have a long genetic life line.  I do not have any other illnesses and in fact have never had the flu.  I am physically fit all of my life and spend a great deal of time outside.  I hope some reads this and can be given courage to find answers that are not readily available.  I don't know how this will turn out, but so far so good.  I am sure to keep on track with my follow up and mamograms and MRIs.  Thanks for letting me share

Thanks for posting this.  I've always wondered if surgery is acually the best option (when it is an option.)  I think sometimes it can make the cancer spread more agressivly if you remove a tumor.  But on the other hand, you think "cancer...get it out of my body".  It is a confusing issue, but thanks for sharing your storey, it just prooves that sometimes surgery is not the best solution.

Thanks so much for that. I agree that it's important for you to share this information with other women, because many experts feel the way you do, I think, that surgery isn't the only answer. I hope other people find the courage from your message. I read this article that I thought you and others may be interested in reading about alternative methods: 

www.wellsphere.com/breast-cancer-article/hormonal-therapy-for-breast-cancer:-new-options/79989

 so happy that you are well,

 Andrea

 

 

Saying that this site lists alternative methods could be misleading. 

When dealing with cancer most people  think of "alternatives" as non-conventional, non-traditional or non-orthodox treatment or therapies (use of herbs, foods, supplements - natural rather than manmade therapy: e.g.IV Vitamin C, grape seed extract, the Budwig diet) 

The site in your message talks about Tamoxifen, Arimidex, Femara, Aromasin (hormonal based therapy) for treatment of breast cancer.  There is nothing natural about these drugs: these are man-made synthetic prescription drugs and are conventional, traditional, orthodox therapies.  You are correct in that they are different from surgery or radiation,  and they are not what most people consider to be "chemo"  (e.g. Taxol, Herceptin, Adriomycin, etc.) But they indeed have become the conventional/traditional treatment of choice for estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer by the established non-holistic medical community.  As such they are not alternative therapy but routine conventional medical treatment.

If you want to keep posting the link to this web site, perhaps a  more and less misleading label would be  hormonal treatment rather than alternative therapy.

Sincerely,

Tre

 

On 9/10/2008 trehouse60 wrote:

Saying that this site lists alternative methods could be misleading. 

When dealing with cancer most people  think of "alternatives" as non-conventional, non-traditional or non-orthodox treatment or therapies (use of herbs, foods, supplements - natural rather than manmade therapy: e.g.IV Vitamin C, grape seed extract, the Budwig diet) 

The site in your message talks about Tamoxifen, Arimidex, Femara, Aromasin (hormonal based therapy) for treatment of breast cancer.  There is nothing natural about these drugs: these are man-made synthetic prescription drugs and are conventional, traditional, orthodox therapies.  You are correct in that they are different from surgery or radiation,  and they are not what most people consider to be "chemo"  (e.g. Taxol, Herceptin, Adriomycin, etc.) But they indeed have become the conventional/traditional treatment of choice for estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer by the established non-holistic medical community.  As such they are not alternative therapy but routine conventional medical treatment.

If you want to keep posting the link to this web site, perhaps a  more and less misleading label would be  hormonal treatment rather than alternative therapy.

Sincerely,

Tre

my mom took taxol and herceptin, and taxol is a natural as you can get it's made from a tree and it only targets the cancer cells, unlike the regular chemo.  We know because did have that treatment along with the supplements, and acupuncture, and only after say 5 months cancer could not be found in lung or breast.  You can visit this website on how and our experience with breast cancer      www.txhope4u2gbu.bravehost.com

there are many ways to get cancer these days, and thank God for it our prayer are with you all, to find a diff route to combat cancer.

I agree that taxol may be one of the safer, less toxic chemotherapeutics available, and  much more effective at killing some types of cancer than previous drugs were, but I must point out that taxol is no longer a pure, natural drug.

At first the compound known as taxol WAS extracted from the bark of the Pacific yew tree. But getting enough drug from the tree bark  to supply world-wide demand would be impossible without totally decimating native populations of the tree.

"From 1967 to 1993, almost all paclitaxel produced was derived from bark
from the Pacific yew, the harvesting of which kills the tree in the
process." 

This meant that the drug company had to find another way to produce it.  Their research turned to the needles of the English yew tree, which also produced the compound, but not in large enough quantity or quality to keep manufacturing the drug, so the company researched how to start with the basic components of the compound and produce it synthetically (man-made in the lab.)

"By late 1989 ... developed a semi-synthetic route to paclitaxel with twice the yield ......patented an
improved process with an 80% yield. BMS took the process in-house and
started to manufacture paclitaxel in Ireland from 10-deacetylbaccatin
isolated from the needles of the European yew. 
In early 1993, BMS were able to announce that they would cease reliance
on Pacific yew bark by the end of 1995, effectively terminating the
ecological controversy over its use....Currently, all paclitaxel production for BMS uses plant cell
fermentation (PCF) technology ....This starts from a specific taxus cell line propagated in aqueous
medium in large fermentation tanks. Paclitaxel is then extracted
directly, purified by chromatography and isolated by crystallization.
Compared to the semi-synthesis, PCF eliminates the need for many
hazardous chemicals and saves a considerable amount of energy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxol  (This Wikipedia  info on taxol is pretty consistent with this 2002 article from Florida State University's research dept, which had intimate involvement in developing the drug:

http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/fall2002/taxol.html

So, in laymens terms, Taxol marketed from the mid-60's to the mid-90's was a mostly pure herbal preparation. Then it became a semi-synthetic drug, and now it is a genetically-engineered drug. It's still derived from a natural compound, but it's very far removed from the original extract from the Pacific yew tree bark, or even the English yew tree needles.

see this site - it lists the side effects of Taxol - some of them are pretty nasty

http://www.chemocare.com/bio/taxol.asp

Anecdotal evidence shows that the Native Americans and herbal healers who used things like the Pacific yew tree's bark were able to give these herbal treatments with a minimum of side effects - most often just some nausea. Perhaps they didn't need to give it in as big of doses as the genetically- engineered product requires. 

sincerely,

Tre

 

 

On 9/12/2008 Joynhope4espie wrote:

In your answer to my taxol message, why are you eager to discourage something has helped many without any side effects?  The only thing that happened to mom was her hair loss and nothing else!  Nothing!  Her hair kept growing as it was falling off, something that doesn't happen with regular chemo....

 Give some hope to the hopeless for God's sake!  You don't know what is really in taxol, your are just quoting what you read, we are talk ing about what we have used!

 Have you used Taxol, or herceptin?  If not, then you really don't know the actual experience with it.

If your told you have cancer, and your going to do die, anything is worth the trying, perhaps ever yourself if you haven't dwelt with cancer yourself, not your family, you personally.

We know first hand, been there done that!  We can say with full assurance it's NOT as nasty as you make it out to be, but sure is better than regular Checmo and other stuff they use.

I hope you have not discourged someone from perhaps becoming clean of cancer with Taxol, especialy if you haven't even used it yourself.

 thanks for your comments, and I don't have any intention of continuing with this message again.....

Perhaps my previous messages about Taxol and the hormonal breast cancer therapies have been misunderstood.

I am not trying to discourage anyone from using them.

I just wanted to let people know that if anyone in
the medical community is telling patients that taxol is a natural drug
that is made from yew tree bark, or that Aromasin, Arimidex, etc, are natural/alternative therapies - that information is not correct. True,  these therapies may not have the toxicity of earlier chemo treatments,  but they do have the potential to cause some of the same
problems. 

A lot of people search this
board for information about natural treatment, and for them it is important to know that these are not natural treatments.

  Believe me: I do have some very pertinent knowledge about cancer.  I've been diagnosed with
cancer 3 seperate times. I had 3 major surgeries for cancer in a 4 month period, followed by
chemo and radiation. While my experience with chemo was not anywhere near as bad
as many others have had - and for that I am eternally grateful and DO realize how fortunate I am -  I still lost my hair, was nauseated and
couldn't eat, threw up and had diarrhea, had no energy, would go to work and then have
to go home after just an hour or two or be not able to go to work at
all.  I spent more than a year recovering from those treatments, and now
5 years later I am fighting metastasis.  

I also know the desperation of not being able to take the recommended conventional treatment and having to scramble to find something else that will work - because I know that if I DON'T find some way to fight this, it will take over and it WILL kill me, sooner rather than later.

Perhaps had taxol been
recommended for me in 2002 I wouldn't have  been that sick with chemo, and the
cancer would not have spread.  I did research taxol quite thoroughly and asked about the possibility of
using taxol for treatment when I was diagnosed with metastasis earlier this year. At that time the dr said that chemo would not
be necessary, he  has told me in more recent days that if my metastasis comes out of
the remission brought about by herbal treatment, that should I  become symptomatic due to the cancer in my lungs,  he will recommend immediate treatment with Taxol at the very highest dosage he can possibly give me. 

I haven't just dealt with cancer in my own life, and I haven't just dealt with it as a nurse: I have watched and have cared for family members - including my
mother -  and friends - including my very best friend - as they suffered and died
from cancer. So yes, if the time comes my oncologist recommends taxol,  I will very seriously consider taking it.

And yes, I DO know what goes into the
drug.  As I said, I researched taxol very thoroughly when I was diagnosed with
metastasis earlier this year. I researched yew tree bark, too.  I know that it  has been used
for decades as a natural healer by Native Americans and others who
KNEW that Mother Nature has provided the resources to fight disease. I know that the compound contained within that bark is very effective in killing cancer - indeed it is probably one of the most powerful cancer killers known to man.
  I would even have purchased yew tree extract to treat myself if I
could have afforded it - but as the Pacific yew tree is now close to
being an endangered species the extract is VERY VERY expensive, insurance will not cover alternative therapies,  and I do not
have the means to pay that much. I also looked at extract from English yew tree needles - it's available, it's probably very effective, but I can't afford it, either.

I have 5 years of
nursing education and 16 years of practice in the nursing field behind
me. That doesn't necessarily make me a better person than anyone else.  I will be the first to admit that I have much much much to learn, and that there are things I can learn from anyone. Indeed there is a plenty I have learned from many posters to the board, and I am thankful when they present stuff I don't know or help me to see things from a different perspective. 

It does, however, mean that I am not just quoting what I
have read  - if I don't understand it, if I haven't been able to learn from it, I won't quote it, and I won't use it as a reference in my messages.  If by virtue of my educational and clinical experience I cannot grasp the nature of what I am reading or hearing,  I will either find a way to break it down and research it throughly until I do understand it, or I will leave it alone and freely admit that it's way over my head. 

I'm not a chemist or scientist, but I've worked professionally with herbs, and I have a smattering of understanding that it's possible to take cells from a plant and keep them growing indefinitely.  I understand the very basic differences between taking tree bark and using a solvent to extract the active ingredients to make a natural medicant, versus using the cellular line of that tree bark to genetically produce the compound. They  aren't at all the same process and the difference in those processes certainly can make a significant difference in how the medicant affects the human body.

That's why I think people need to be properly informed about what the treatment they are getting really is.  Yes, natural remedies certainly can and sometimes DO have unwanted side effects. But when you change a natural remedy into a synthetic or a genetically engineered chemical, those side effects can also change drastically, and quite often become more pronounced.  I think people have a right to know about that, too.

Arnold makes an excellent point:   there just is NO WAY everyone in the world can use actual real yew tree bark or needle extract to treat their cancer. As with so many other of Mother Nature's wonderful healers, there just isn't enough to go around.  If people want to use this wonderful cancer killer, for almost 100% of those people synthetic or genetically engineered or otherwise massively produced is the ONLY way to go.  In that respect Taxol is a really good drug. The synthetic hormonal treatments for breast cancer can be really good drugs.  Conventional treatments can and do help thousands and thousands of people in their battle with cancer.

I just think people should be given the opportunity to know that if they are looking for a natural means of treatment, Taxol and the anti-estrogen drugs are NOT the way to go.

 There is still WAY too much we don't know about cancer and how to
prevent or treat it. No matter what anyone chooses for themself in the way of treatment, I truly do wish the best for all in winning their battle.

Sincerely,

Tre