Quality of advice, Lorraine Day, and other matters

[Guest guest]

Kathy and all,

Thanks for the response, Kathy.

> Message: 4

> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:07:26 EDT

> From: InghamSeeker@...

> Subject: Re: Quality of advice?

>

> To Moran, Surgeon:

>

> , thank you for your response to my post concerning the

> regimen I use

> for breast cancer. IMO, it is important that we get to hear both

> confirming

> and opposing opinions regarding such serious health matters.

> Please note,

> however, that I was responding to a request for this information

> from someone

> who had already chosen " alternative " methods to heal her cancer.

> Thousands

> have chosen not to have surgery, chemo and radiation due to the

> negative side

> effects of these modalities.

I have been following alternative treatment of cancer for several years,

and the vast majority of AM users continue to have at least some

conventional treatments.

>

> To answer your question about my diagnoses, the specimen used was

> a " right

> breast mass aspirate (2 slides rec'd.) " by find needle biopsy.

> The diagnoses

> was: " Positive for malignant cells. Mammary carcinoma with features

> suggestive of lobular-type. "

Thankyou. This means it almost certainly is cancer, although sometimes the

results of cytology are overturned upon removal of the lump. It is

interesting (and good for you) if it is a lobular cancer, as these have a

much better prognosis on average than the much more common ductal cancer.

They are slowly growing and usually extremely hormonally sensitive. I

wonder if one or other of the many treatments you are using has an

antiestrogen effect, like tamoxifen. Some phytooestrogens and isoflavones

could have this effect, and it would be one explanation for the reduction in

size.

I do not consider myself " cured " of

> cancer. I

> believe that I have my cancer under control at this point in time

> and that

> the formerly cancerous lump in my breast is benign due to the

> steps I took to

> make this so. I also believe that I am still at risk for a recurrence of

> cancer, which is why I continue to follow the regimen I began

> three years ago.

>

> My remark that conventional treatment may be worse than the disease is

> well-founded. First, excision of a cancerous tumor may spread

> the disease by

> piercing the protective envelope that surrounds the tumor,

> allowing cancerous

> cells to travel to other parts of the body.

I am sorry, but this is one of the most pernicious myths of alternative

medicine, and unnecessarily scares many people.

In your case the tumour would have been removed with a good 1cm margin of

surrounding normal breast tissue, the surgeon being as careful as possible

not to go close to the cancer anywhere. Tumour spread is not even a

theoretical issue with competent and gentle surgery, which aims to keeps as

far away from the cancer cells as is anatomically possible. People seem to

imagine us meticulously dissecting out visible cancer. It is nothing like

that, for we know that if we go too close to the cancer recurrence at the

operation site is likely. It is this rather than distant spread that is the

worry with surgery.

So the risk of causing distant spread with careful surgery is about the same

as exists with everyday knocks and bumps to the tumour, or with palpation

(feeling) of the tumour, or with the needle biopsy. The proven high cure

rates with surgery alone with many types of early cancer (even after

INCISIONAL BIOPSY- cutting into the tumour) should firmly disprove this myth

for all practical purposes.

The notion that we surgeons would continue to advocate surgery despite

" allowing cancer cells to spread to other parts of the body " is very

hurtful, as is the implication that we might never have considered this

point ourselves in well over a century of treating cancer. Please allow me

a small but bitter jibe ---- this reflects the cloistered nature of much AM

ideology, because it can so easily be refuted by looking at information

outside the usual incestuous circle of AM information sources.

> suppress the immune system, which is not the right approach (IMO) while

> battling a disease that is caused by a suppressed immune system.

It has been confirmed that these modalities suppress the immune system. So

does surgery, but it recovers quickly after all of these.

The problem with the immune system theory is that common types of cancer are

demonstrably NOT due to any general failure of the immune system. The

cancer develops as the result of a mutation to its DNA. The actual gene

sequences involved have now been identified for many cancers. The immune

system can't react to the cancer as it does not recognise the cells as

foreign -- not surprisingly since they arise from the body's own cells. It

doesn't matter how strong the immune system is.

Severe immune suppression in AIDS and transplant patients certainly can

induce some cancers, but mainly rare specific types of cancer (Kaposi's

tumours etc.).

> Chemo and

> radiation are often the cause of death, not the cancer itself,

> because they

> poison the entire system.

Sometimes they can inadvertently cause death when used in certain ways. I

don't know what " poison the entire system " means, in medical terms. But the

radiotherapy and chemotherapy used to treat widespread disease is a very

different process to that used in primary treatments such as we are

discussing here.

The chemotherapy used as an adjunct in premenopausal breast cancer is a

relatively mild regime and while I do not pretend that it is fun, it must be

very rarely fatal. It produces a small increase in cure rates (well

proven, nevertheless). If a woman refused to have it after full informed

consent I would not push it. Other surgeons may well not either.

The radiotherapy is more important if the breast is to be preserved, to

prevent local recurrence, which can occur in up to 20% of cases after

lumpectomy otherwise. It is much less often necessary after mastectomy

where wider clearances of the cancer can be obtained. The breast can become

swollen and sore for quite a while after radiotherapy, but other side

effects are unusual, as with modern techniques any effect on tissues other

than the breast can be minimised.

Was all this gone into thoroughly with you at the time? Were you offered

the opportunity to talk to women who have undergone the treatment?

I choose to let my body do what it was

> meant to

> do, eliminate cancer cells if given the proper environment to do so, by

> building my immune system. Obviously, the is not the answer for

> every woman

> with breast cancer - but it is my answer and it has served me

> well. I still

> have my breast, I have shrunk my tumor by half, and my immune system is

> strong and getting stronger each day that I continue on this program.

>

> Conventional treatment would have: removed most of my breast

> (the surgeon

> stated that for my pea-sized tumor a mass of approximately the size of a

> lemon would have been removed - which, frankly, is most of my breast)

This sounds excessive. It would not necessarily include any skin, which

mainly controls breast size and shape in small breasts. Usually a one cm

margin would be adequate-- about a golf ball size in your case. In even

small breasts an 8 mm tumour can usually be excised with minimal, if any,

deformity.

;

> removal of lymph nodes (the surgeon stated that 10 to 12 lymph

> nodes would

> be removed), leaving my right breast and arm wide open to a variety of

> infections and a recurrence of cancer

Not so. The removal of glands is partly to remove any that are involved by

cancer, but also for prognostic information. If the glands were involved

there is a much stronger possibility that cancer will have already spread

via the bloodstream and chemotherapy should be more seriously considered.

If they are heavily involved radiotherapy to the axilla may be advised to

prevent recurrence. We prefer not to have to do this because it is then

that you risk the swollen arms and infections, but it is better than

uncontrolled cancer under the arm.

Many centres now are trying sentinel node biopsy after lymph node mapping

which it is hoped will enable the same information to be obtained by the

removal of one lymph node only (there are about thirty under the arm).

We constantly try to make our treatments as easy as possible for the

patient, without compromising cure rates. But there is no biological

principle that says that cancer should be easy to treat, nor evidence that

this is so. My guess is that the cure rate with alternatives, judging from

the number of believable anecdotes around, is no higher than one in a

hundred. I am here to be convinced otherwise, if anyone has firm figures.

; radiation and chemo,

> leaving my immune

> system unable to fight a systemic disease that is in no way

> confined to my

> right breast.

There are no grounds for this.

>All of this for an 85% cure rate? No way!!

I assume you were at the time, in your turn, being given the impression

that you could achieve a better? -- equivalent? cure rate using alternative

treatments. This is why we are having this discussion, because I believe

people who choose this course are risking their lives and possibly

horrendous disability by following what may be no more than a nice dream.

You and others here are now passing this dream on to others.

My own experience of people who have chosen this course is that they have

always come to grief. Perhaps I have only seen the unlucky ones, but they

have come back with much more advanced cancers, and wind up being forced to

have even more aggressive treatment than may have been initially possible,

with little prospect of cure, simply to control unpleasant local disease.

The cancer may be ulcerating through the skin, and smelly enough that their

family insists they seek treatment, and painful. Are you prepared to

accept partial responsibility for outcomes like this, when you tell someone

that conventional treatments are often worse than the disease?

Someone mentioned Lorraine Day. Yes, I am familiar with her case. She

skates over the obvious fact that her cancer got into the state shown on her

web site precisely because it was neglected while she was trying

alternatives. She clearly refused radiotherapy after a lumpectomy, and

this is why she had the recurrence in the first place. Elsewhere she says

how she was trying Essiac, which did not work for her. This had to be

during the period that the tumour grew to this size. Even if she

eventually found an alternative treatment that worked, she is a warning as

to how bad things can get while avoiding proven treatments.

I am not convinced by her case, as she has a lot of photos on her site, but

no " after " one showing the supposedly triumphant final outcome. Why is

this, when it would be such a dramatic confirmation of what she claims? Are

there now surgical scars or evidence of radiotherapy?

I have certainly only ever seen such tumours in grossly neglected cancers,

and do not believe for one moment that it grew to this size in " less than

three weeks " . Nor do I trust a doctor who makes money selling videotapes

of a cancer cure, but who doesn't bother to publish even her own supposedly

spectacular cure in a medical journal. Nor do I trust anyone so heavily

into medical conspiracies - I KNOW this is nonsense.

I think it is possible that she eventually had radiotherapy and/or surgery,

but in common with many others, chooses to attribute her " cure " to the

alternative treatments. If anyone knows for sure otherwise let me know, and

I will notch her up as " probable " , rather than " dubious " . Her approach,

from memory, is Gerson-like , which I have investigated without being

impressed.

You may be right that more people are using alternatives in preference to

conventionals. This would explain why in the last 12 months there have been

a number of cases appearing in the media where people who have done this

and found it didn't work. The Liam Holloway case in New Zealand, and

Tyrell Dueck's miserable death in Canada come to mind.

I believe these are the tip of an iceberg. Mostly we don't hear about the

failures of alternatives. In the above cases it was only because minors

were involved, resulting in court actions and publicity. The other source

of such data is the sad outcome of so many celebrity accounts of " how I won

my battle with cancer (using alternatives) " in the weeklies. Most of these

have used conventional treatment too, so no one has anything to be proud of

here.

>

> IMO, surgery, chemo and radiation are barbaric under these

> circumstances.

> There is good science to demonstrate that the alternatives I chose have

> merit.

So you say. I would like to see this " good science " . I have been looking

for it for a long time now.

If the tumor were to start growing, I would have surgery

> to remove it

> - this was always my intent - but I would never have chemo and

> radiation for

> breast cancer.

I would encourage you to at least do that.

>

> I hope that I have answered your questions completely.

>

> Sincerely, Kathy.

I did not intend to get into the above, but some readers may be interested

in what a surgeon thinks of your remarks about conventional treatment. I

really just wanted to make the point here that early cancer of many common

types can be cured with considerable reliability by conventional treatments,

and that even in those not cured it can prevent some rather awful problems

developing. This has to be contrasted with totally unknown prospects with

AM. Believe me, I've looked.

I feel relieved that yours is a favourable breast cancer, and think it is

likely that you will still do well if the cancer starts growing again. One

of my patients with lobular cancer started getting local recurrences on the

chest wall 26 years ago. With breast cancer this can be a very serious

sign, but after removal of many small recurrences and quite heavy

radiotherapy, it is now over ten years or so since she had one, and she

remains quite well.

Thankyou.

Regards,

.

>

>

>

> ________________________________________________________________________

> ________________________________________________________________________

>

> Message: 5

> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:21:29 -0700

> From: " Art Brown " <abrown101@...>

> Subject: to JR

>

> Hi JR -