Re: Breast cancer tumor surgery increases metastases?

[Guest guest]

All procedures that 'invade', surgery or biopsy, have the potential for

'seeding' cancer cells which eventually can metastasize to distant locations.

This is accepted fact. Whether or not it does at any given time cannot be

determined and some surgeons claim, like my Urologist, that they 'Minimize' the

risk by flooding the Bladder with water Does this work all the time? I

decided against the biopsy. BTW, the Urologist admitted there was a risk.

One has to weigh that risk against what they perceive to be a benefit.

Decision, decisions, decisions. Most important, it is up to each of us to

decide and not for any of us to criticize that decision. One can, and should,

attempt to correct what they believe to be a mis-statement.

Joe

[Guest guest]

Hi, from my experience with immunologist, endocrinologist, neurologist and

nephrologist there is several molecules and chemicals in several medicinl

mushrooms that work, go to www.pegasusbp.org and there is more at

www.mmushroom.com

>

> All procedures that 'invade', surgery or biopsy, have the potential for

'seeding' cancer cells which eventually can metastasize to distant locations.

This is accepted fact. Whether or not it does at any given time cannot be

determined and some surgeons claim, like my Urologist, that they 'Minimize' the

risk by flooding the Bladder with water Does this work all the time? I

decided against the biopsy. BTW, the Urologist admitted there was a risk.

>

> One has to weigh that risk against what they perceive to be a benefit.

Decision, decisions, decisions. Most important, it is up to each of us to

decide and not for any of us to criticize that decision. One can, and should,

attempt to correct what they believe to be a mis-statement.

>

> Joe

>

>

[Guest guest]

I may be approaching the daily limit of six postings per individual, but here

goes.

I assume the Mushroom information was a response to my concerns over 'seeding'

and perhaps Mushrooms boost the immune system enough to overcome this

concern......to a degree- because nothing is a guarantee against seeding so I

say, to use a popular expression, for me only, 'Thanks, But No Thanks'.

As asked before, 'you do know the percentage of people getting mets from the

possible 'seeding' don't you?'

My answer to that: 100% for the poor soul that gets metastases because of

seeding!

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

There is lots of data, experiments and clinical work that suggests that

surgery can actually promote recurrence. Such as this:

Probing Surgery's Link To Cancer Recurrence

http://www.gordonresearch.com/articles_cancer/probing_surgery_link_cance\

r_recurrence.html

" In studying the relapse patterns of the 1,173 women, who were treated

at the Milan Cancer Institute in Italy only with surgery and then

followed for 16-20 years, the researchers determined that younger women

are the hardest hit by surgery-induced angiogenesis. According to the

analysis, 20% of premenopausal women whose cancer had spread to their

lymph nodes at the time of diagnosis relapsed within the first 10

months after surgery. This relapse rate was twice as high as that of

women after menopause whose cancer had spread to the lymph nodes,

indicating that surgery-induced angiogenesis may be regulated in some

way by hormones. "

Cancer cells are always travelling through the blood stream, so I guess

seeds are often there. Research suggests the primary cancer inhibits the

growth of the secondary cancers by the release of some chemicals, but if

you take away the primary tumor, this control is taken away.

Jerry Brunetti talks about it in his lectures about cancer. He has a lot

of interesting things to say.

http://www.nuganics.com.au/2007/07/06/jerry-brunetti-food-as-medicine/

" In 1999 he was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and given 6

months to live. He did not submit to chemotherapy, but rather, developed

his own unique dietary approach to enhance his immune system. "

Dr Gordon mentions problems with surgery in his conferences.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-9079394681528372745

You can find other video's of his on Google Video.

Dr Contreras also has interesting things to say about various

treatments.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4273844933746642993

zanaglen@... wrote:

>

> Hello folks.

> Is there any evidence that breast cancer tumor removal surgery

(especially

> of larger tumors) can cause an increased rate in metastases?

>

> Thank you,

> Glen from Illinois, USA

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe this website with Jerry Brunetti's presentation is easier to to

view.

Part 1.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual & videoid=603\

80649

Part 2.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual & VideoID=604\

31385

Around 08:00 to 15:00 minutes into the video he speaks about

tumors, angiogenesis and anti-angiogenic substances. But the whole

first part is good to watch. He says that the primary tumor releases

" anti-angiogenic substances " into the blood stream to suppress the

metastases from growing in the body. I did a quick search and found

this paper:

Decrease in circulating anti-angiogenic factors (angiostatin and

endostatin) after surgical removal of primary colorectal carcinoma

coincides with increased metabolic activity of liver metastases.

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymsy/article/PIIS0039\

606004003666/abstract

<http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymsy/article/PIIS003\

9606004003666/abstract> " Removal of a primary colorectal tumor

resulted in an increase in metabolic activity in its liver metastasis.

Concomitantly, levels of angiostatin and endostatin in urine and

plasma, respectively, dropped. This finding indicates that the primary

tumor suppressed angiogenesis in its distant metastasis, and that

removal of the primary lesion caused a flare-up in vessel neoformation

and, thus, enhanced metabolic activity in its liver metastasis. "

There's a hypothesis here about endostatin a natural anti-angiogenic

substance:

Hypothesis: primary anti-angiogenic method proposed to treat early stage

breast cancer

http://www.elopt.com/Dormancy-stabilization-and-retention-6-27-07.pdf

....a patient with 5 cm tumor and 10 lymph nodes with cancer can expect

only 10% probability of cure with simple surgical removal of the primary

tumor. Patients rarely die from the primary tumor but from later distant

relapse of the cancer.

After surgery to remove the primary tumor, adjuvant therapy is often

administered to help prevent or **delay** any possible appearance of

distant metastases in the next 15–20 years. It may be in the form of

cytotoxic chemotherapy or less toxic hormone therapy. There are

well-established means and guidelines to determine which if either or

both of these therapies is indicated for any particular patient.

However, treatment for early stage breast cancer too often ultimately

fails in that metastatic disease is discovered within 15 or so years

after initial diagnosis. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves absolute cure

rates by up to 15%. Hormone therapy has approximately the same level of

benefit.

Treatment for metastatic disease is still mainly palliative in that long

term survival is rare. The median duration of survival after relapse

from early stage breast cancer is two years. There is an urgent need for

improved treatments for early stage breast cancer that are far more

effective in preventing relapses for long periods of time –

hopefully until the person dies of another disease or old age. Based on

the experience over the past few decades, we are more likely to make an

impact by learning how to more effectively prolong remission in early

stage breast cancer than we are in learning how to eradicate a tumor

that is macroscopic in size.

....

A surprising finding from our analysis was that the surgery to remove

the primary tumor apparently often kick-starts growth of the dormant

cells and avascular micrometastases. Most relapses occur within the

first 5 years after surgery and are mainly events that are triggered

into growth from surgery. We have suggested that one of the side effects

of surgery is to stimulate division of dormant single malignant cells

and stimulate angiogenesis of dormant micrometastases. The latter is

most apparent for the premenopausal node-positive population. According

to these reports, 20% of premenopausal node-positive patients undergo

surgery-induced angiogenesis and over half of all relapses in breast

cancer are accelerated by surgery. There is no direct evidence that this

quantitative prediction is correct but there is strong indirect evidence

mainly from mammography data that it is valid and numerically accurate.

These surgery-induced effects reduce the benefit of early detection.

Most persons derive benefit from early detection since they will be

diagnosed with less extensive disease but paradoxically other persons

will relapse and die earlier as an unfortunate consequence of early

detection. This counterintuitive effect is most apparent in young women.

Our more recent work suggests that this can partially explain the excess

breast cancer mortality of African-Americans, since the average age of

diagnosis of African-Americans is 46 years compared to 57 years for

European-Americans. This excess first appeared in the 1970s when

mammography began.

[Guest guest]

> However, treatment for early stage breast cancer too often ultimately

> fails in that metastatic disease is discovered within 15 or so years

> after initial diagnosis. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves absolute cure

> rates by up to 15%. Hormone therapy has approximately the same level

of

> benefit.

Is that what we are talking about? 15 or so years? Most of our mets

women who are under the age of 40, were either diagnosed with mets

initially, or were diagnosed with mets less than 5 years after their

original diagnosis.

> Treatment for metastatic disease is still mainly palliative in that

long

> term survival is rare. The median duration of survival after relapse

> from early stage breast cancer is two years. There is an urgent need

for

> improved treatments for early stage breast cancer that are far more

> effective in preventing relapses for long periods of time –

> hopefully until the person dies of another disease or old age. Based

on

> the experience over the past few decades, we are more likely to make

an

> impact by learning how to more effectively prolong remission in early

> stage breast cancer than we are in learning how to eradicate a tumor

> that is macroscopic in size.

Absolutely. We can all agree with these statements.

> A surprising finding from our analysis was that the surgery to remove

> the primary tumor apparently often kick-starts growth of the dormant

> cells and avascular micrometastases. Most relapses occur within the

> first 5 years after surgery and are mainly events that are triggered

> into growth from surgery. We have suggested that one of the side

effects

> of surgery is to stimulate division of dormant single malignant cells

> and stimulate angiogenesis of dormant micrometastases. The latter is

> most apparent for the premenopausal node-positive population.

According

> to these reports, 20% of premenopausal node-positive patients undergo

> surgery-induced angiogenesis and over half of all relapses in breast

> cancer are accelerated by surgery. There is no direct evidence that

this

> quantitative prediction is correct but there is strong indirect

evidence

> mainly from mammography data that it is valid and numerically

accurate.

So, in the above, we are told one thing, but then it is not backed up

due to the fact that there is no direct evidence that the prediction is

correct. But how do they tell this from mammography data? The breast

cancer that we younger women have is more aggressive than what the

post-menopausal women have. The fact that so many of us hit stage 4 so

early and quickly is probably because we already were at stage 4 prior

to diagnosis. Many young women are not ever scanned for mets unless

they present with symptoms. So, there are probably a lot of stage 1 and

2 women walking around out there who are already stage 4. And as we

know, traditional treatment for breast cancer can either work or it

can't, and there you go.

I find it fascinating that surgery to remove the primary can cause mets

to grow. I understand this and have been studying it for awhile. But

as an actual woman who had breast cancer surgery, I would prefer to not

be hit in the face with the fact that my chances of dying have increased

because I had surgery. It is good to remember that this group is for

discussion of alternative cancer treatments but that many of us actually

do have cancer and are fighting for our lives. I don't feel these

points do anything to help us survive and can increase the " blame the

victim " mentality, which is very counter productive.

> These surgery-induced effects reduce the benefit of early detection.

> Most persons derive benefit from early detection since they will be

> diagnosed with less extensive disease but paradoxically other persons

> will relapse and die earlier as an unfortunate consequence of early

> detection. This counterintuitive effect is most apparent in young

women.

Yes, we live this daily in the other group I belong to. This morning we

lost another beautiful young mother to breast cancer. She is the third

to die this summer, and she was 36 years old. But again, the above

talks about early detection, but does not acknowledge that many younger

women are already stage 4 - so though we think it was " found early " the

fact is that the mets was just not diagnosed. This may screw the

numbers.

> Our more recent work suggests that this can partially explain the

excess

> breast cancer mortality of African-Americans, since the average age of

> diagnosis of African-Americans is 46 years compared to 57 years for

> European-Americans. This excess first appeared in the 1970s when

> mammography began.

But also that African-American women tend to not be diagnosed early due

to the fact they do not go to the doctor, or are underinsured or have no

insurance to pay for the screening. I do know that many studies fail to

discuss the fact that more and more women in their 20s, 30s, and early

40s are being diagnosed with more aggressive cancers that no one can do

anything about.

ar

[Guest guest]

>

> > However, treatment for early stage breast cancer too often

ultimately

> > fails in that metastatic disease is discovered within 15 or so years

> > after initial diagnosis. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves absolute

cure

> > rates by up to 15%. Hormone therapy has approximately the same level

> of

> > benefit.

>

>

> Is that what we are talking about? 15 or so years? Most of our mets

> women who are under the age of 40, were either diagnosed with mets

> initially, or were diagnosed with mets less than 5 years after their

> original diagnosis.

I thought it sounded high too, because like you said, you tend to hear

it occurring earlier quite often. But they actually write *within* 15 or

so years, not *in* 15 or so years. So that time frame is more general

and includes all mets situations, both early and later ones.

Did you have a read of the paper? Here is the link again:

Primary antiangiogenic method proposed to treat early stage breast

cancer:

http://www.elopt.com/Dormancy-stabilization-and-retention-6-27-07.pdf

They are actually writting about a way to treat cancer with a long term

natural therapy, rather than aggressively with chemotherapy, which may

instead shorten life (but not always) and which also seriously affects

QOL during and after treatment, which must be considered. PS., having

said that, if one has chosen conventional treatment, I think QOL and

outcome with conventional treatments can be improved significantly if

aggressive supplementation and things like juicing and detoxing are

employed. But I still think there are other effective non-toxic natural

healing options available.

They write, " Patients rarely die from the primary tumor but from later

distant relapse of the cancer. " So this is where their information about

surgery fits in.

They propose using Endostatin, a natural anti-angiogenic compound

produced by the body. Endostar is a newer more effective form of

Endostatin developed in China.

" Background: Women with Down syndrome very rarely develop breast cancer

even though they now live to an age when it normally occurs. This may be

related to the fact that Down syndrome persons have an additional copy

of chromosome 21 where the gene that codes for the antiangiogenic

protein Endostatin is located. Can this information lead to a primary

antiangiogenic therapy for early stage breast cancer that indefinitely

prolongs remission? A key question that arises is when is the initial

angiogenic switch thrown in micrometastases? We have conjectured that

avascular micrometastases are dormant and relatively stable if

undisturbed but that for some patients angiogenesis is precipitated by

surgery. We also proposed that angiogenesis of micrometastases very

rarely occurs before surgical removal of the primary tumor. "

" Conclusion: We propose a therapy for early stage breast cancer

consisting of Endostatin at or above Down syndrome levels starting at

least one day before surgery and continuing at that level. This should

prevent micrometastatic angiogenesis resulting from surgery or at any

time later. Adjuvant chemotherapy or hormone therapy should not be

necessary. This can be continued indefinitely since there is no acquired

resistance that develops, as happens in most cancer therapies. "

....

" Based on our computer simulations of clinical data, when a person is

diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, it is rare that any sites of

metastatic disease deposits have achieved angiogenesis. That is, at the

time of detection, other than the primary tumor, there are usually only

disseminated distant dormant single cancer cells and distant dormant

avascular deposits present. In human breast cancer, single dormant cells

have been proven but (more difficult to observe) dormant avascular

micrometastases have not yet been visualized. "

" A surprising finding from our analysis was that the surgery to remove

the primary tumor apparently often kick-starts growth of the dormant

cells and avascular micrometastases. Most relapses occur within the

first 5 years after surgery and are mainly events that are triggered

into growth from surgery. We have suggested that one of the side effects

of surgery is to stimulate division of dormant single malignant cells

and stimulate angiogenesis of dormant micrometastases. The latter is

most apparent for the premenopausal

node-positive population. According to these reports, 20% of

premenopausal node-positive patients undergo surgery-induced

angiogenesis and over half of all relapses in breast cancer are

accelerated by surgery. There is no direct evidence that this

quantitative prediction is correct but there is strong indirect evidence

mainly from mammography data that it is valid and

numerically accurate. "

But, they go on to say:

" Perhaps not coincidentally, adjuvant chemotherapy works best by far for

premenopausal patients who are node-positive. According to our theories,

the reason for this is that sudden metastatic tumor growth just after

surgery produces a chemosensitive window just at the time when adjuvant

therapy was empirically found to be most effective. The implication is

that surgery produces a disruption and acceleration of disease and then

adjuvant chemotherapy is used to address the effects of the disruption. "

> > A surprising finding from our analysis was that the surgery to

remove

> > the primary tumor apparently often kick-starts growth of the dormant

> > cells and avascular micrometastases. Most relapses occur within the

> > first 5 years after surgery and are mainly events that are triggered

> > into growth from surgery. We have suggested that one of the side

> effects

> > of surgery is to stimulate division of dormant single malignant

cells

> > and stimulate angiogenesis of dormant micrometastases. The latter is

> > most apparent for the premenopausal node-positive population.

> According

> > to these reports, 20% of premenopausal node-positive patients

undergo

> > surgery-induced angiogenesis and over half of all relapses in breast

> > cancer are accelerated by surgery. There is no direct evidence that

> this

> > quantitative prediction is correct but there is strong indirect

> evidence

> > mainly from mammography data that it is valid and numerically

> accurate.

>

> So, in the above, we are told one thing, but then it is not backed up

> due to the fact that there is no direct evidence that the prediction

is

> correct. But how do they tell this from mammography data? The breast

> cancer that we younger women have is more aggressive than what the

> post-menopausal women have. The fact that so many of us hit stage 4

so

> early and quickly is probably because we already were at stage 4 prior

> to diagnosis.

Sorry, sometimes I get confused about what you are saying or asking

exactly. You might want to read the paper. It's interesting, but

unfortunately they have to lay the facts on the table to explain the

solution. They a proposing a good therapy, that some people were

successfully using, but it was discontinued by the company making

Endostatin. Now an improved drug, Endostar, is continued in China. Those

people who were on Endostatin are desparately trying to get Endostar to

replace the Endostatin.

> Many young women are not ever scanned for mets unless

> they present with symptoms. So, there are probably a lot of stage 1

and

> 2 women walking around out there who are already stage 4.

Sorry, I couldn't understand exactly what you are trying to say here.

Most scans only show cancer when many doctors would consider it as

actually " late " stage, because it's already a billion or more cells or

something like that.

> I find it fascinating that surgery to remove the primary can cause

mets

> to grow. I understand this and have been studying it for awhile. But

> as an actual woman who had breast cancer surgery, I would prefer to

not

> be hit in the face with the fact that my chances of dying have

increased

> because I had surgery. It is good to remember that this group is for

> discussion of alternative cancer treatments but that many of us

actually

> do have cancer and are fighting for our lives. I don't feel these

> points do anything to help us survive and can increase the " blame the

> victim " mentality, which is very counter productive.

You need to remember that most of this data comes from people who

probably only follow the doctor's orders and do nothing in addition to

conventional treatments. No supplements, diet changes, etc etc. This

situation annoys me no end. So much data, but little is changed in the

conventional treatment system.

People like you who take their health into their own hands probably

don't fit into this data. People who do many extra things improve their

chances significantly, don't you think?

> I do know that many studies fail to discuss the fact that

> more and more women in their 20s, 30s, and early

> 40s are being diagnosed with more aggressive cancers

> that no one can do anything about.

I think " no one can do anything about " should mean using conventional

treatments. Once conventional treatments have been used and failed,

natural healing treatments will be more difficult. The main reason why

chemo is unsuccessful is that it damages the body so much, the immune

system can't fight cancer in other parts of the body.

PS. I hope what I write isn't too unpleasant. I don't mean to " blame the

victim " like you said. I'm sure what you are doing will work just fine.

[Guest guest]

Hello algarve7,

> I thought it sounded high too, because like you said, you tend to hear

> it occurring earlier quite often. But they actually write *within* 15

or

> so years, not *in* 15 or so years. So that time frame is more general

> and includes all mets situations, both early and later ones.

>

> Did you have a read of the paper? Here is the link again:

I did read the paper. It is fascinating, to say the least.

> Primary antiangiogenic method proposed to treat early stage breast

> cancer:

> http://www.elopt.com/Dormancy-stabilization-and-retention-6-27-07.pdf

>

> They are actually writting about a way to treat cancer with a long

term

> natural therapy, rather than aggressively with chemotherapy, which may

> instead shorten life (but not always) and which also seriously affects

> QOL during and after treatment, which must be considered. PS., having

> said that, if one has chosen conventional treatment, I think QOL and

> outcome with conventional treatments can be improved significantly if

> aggressive supplementation and things like juicing and detoxing are

> employed. But I still think there are other effective non-toxic

natural

> healing options available.

I agree. I am horrified by thought of chemo. It would be fantastic to

see something positive happen within the cancer community. Something

that didn't involve damaging the body so horribly. I do know one woman

who did the Master Cleanse a year after completing chemo and she became

so ill she almost went to the hospital. It scares me that chemo does

that. And I also know two women who died from the chemo, and chemo

induced ailments, as opposed to the cancer. Though, one woman was stage

4, the other one was early stage.

Oh, what I wanted to say was that for ER positive women, they now use

hormonal treatments before chemo. This is a step in the right

direction. However, the hormonals are still nasty.

> " Background: Women with Down syndrome very rarely develop breast

cancer

> even though they now live to an age when it normally occurs. This may

be

> related to the fact that Down syndrome persons have an additional copy

> of chromosome 21 where the gene that codes for the antiangiogenic

> protein Endostatin is located. Can this information lead to a primary

> antiangiogenic therapy for early stage breast cancer that indefinitely

> prolongs remission? A key question that arises is when is the initial

> angiogenic switch thrown in micrometastases? We have conjectured that

> avascular micrometastases are dormant and relatively stable if

> undisturbed but that for some patients angiogenesis is precipitated by

> surgery. We also proposed that angiogenesis of micrometastases very

> rarely occurs before surgical removal of the primary tumor. "

I guess I don't understand how they can say this with certainty. Since

the vast majority of cancer patients have surgery when diagnosed, I

would believe this statement to be false. I don't think it has to do

with surgery 100% . My mother and her father both died of cancer that

went undiagnosed until a few weeks prior to their deaths. There was no

surgery or treatment. I believe that if the cancer has the ability to

spread, it will. I believe that many cancers do not have the ability to

go metastatic. This is my opinion, of course, and based on my own

observations.

> " Conclusion: We propose a therapy for early stage breast cancer

> consisting of Endostatin at or above Down syndrome levels starting at

> least one day before surgery and continuing at that level. This should

> prevent micrometastatic angiogenesis resulting from surgery or at any

> time later. Adjuvant chemotherapy or hormone therapy should not be

> necessary. This can be continued indefinitely since there is no

acquired

> resistance that develops, as happens in most cancer therapies. "

I personally love this idea. It would be fantastic if it works. I used

fractured citrus pectin (I believe that is what it was called) to keep

stray cancer cells from finding a new home during the time of my

surgery.

> " Based on our computer simulations of clinical data, when a person is

> diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, it is rare that any sites of

> metastatic disease deposits have achieved angiogenesis. That is, at

the

> time of detection, other than the primary tumor, there are usually

only

> disseminated distant dormant single cancer cells and distant dormant

> avascular deposits present. In human breast cancer, single dormant

cells

> have been proven but (more difficult to observe) dormant avascular

> micrometastases have not yet been visualized. "

I would need to know how old the women were. With the number of women I

know who are diagnosed at stage 4, well, I can understand that it is a

small minority, but it still happens. But, I also find the above

statement to be difficult to prove. We know that cancer cells must

replicate a huge number of times before they can be seen on a scan. So,

just because they can't " see " them, doesn't mean they aren't there,

growing. I think this is where my point is.

> " A surprising finding from our analysis was that the surgery to remove

> the primary tumor apparently often kick-starts growth of the dormant

> cells and avascular micrometastases. Most relapses occur within the

> first 5 years after surgery and are mainly events that are triggered

> into growth from surgery. We have suggested that one of the side

effects

> of surgery is to stimulate division of dormant single malignant cells

> and stimulate angiogenesis of dormant micrometastases. The latter is

> most apparent for the premenopausal

> node-positive population. According to these reports, 20% of

> premenopausal node-positive patients undergo surgery-induced

> angiogenesis and over half of all relapses in breast cancer are

> accelerated by surgery. There is no direct evidence that this

> quantitative prediction is correct but there is strong indirect

evidence

> mainly from mammography data that it is valid and

> numerically accurate. "

I still don't think this is valid. How can they rely on mammography

data? We know that mammography does NOT pick up many cancers and we

know that the tumor must be of at least a certain size to be spotted.

> But, they go on to say:

>

> " Perhaps not coincidentally, adjuvant chemotherapy works best by far

for

> premenopausal patients who are node-positive. According to our

theories,

> the reason for this is that sudden metastatic tumor growth just after

> surgery produces a chemosensitive window just at the time when

adjuvant

> therapy was empirically found to be most effective. The implication is

> that surgery produces a disruption and acceleration of disease and

then

> adjuvant chemotherapy is used to address the effects of the

disruption. "

Yes, this is true. Also, for small tumors, there is an oncotype score

used to decide if chemo is a good choice for the patient or not.

(I previously said:)

> > So, in the above, we are told one thing, but then it is not backed

up

> > due to the fact that there is no direct evidence that the prediction

> is

> > correct. But how do they tell this from mammography data? The breast

> > cancer that we younger women have is more aggressive than what the

> > post-menopausal women have. The fact that so many of us hit stage 4

> so

> > early and quickly is probably because we already were at stage 4

prior

> > to diagnosis.

>

> Sorry, sometimes I get confused about what you are saying or asking

> exactly. You might want to read the paper. It's interesting, but

> unfortunately they have to lay the facts on the table to explain the

> solution. They a proposing a good therapy, that some people were

> successfully using, but it was discontinued by the company making

> Endostatin. Now an improved drug, Endostar, is continued in China.

Those

> people who were on Endostatin are desparately trying to get Endostar

to

> replace the Endostatin.

I am sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to say is that it would

APPEAR that surgery kicked off the mets growth, but the truth is that

the women were probably already stage 4 at the time of diagnosis.

Because many doctors do not do thorough scans unless there are symptoms

showing - mets will go undetected for years. So, perhaps it looked like

the surgery kicked it off, but it was already there.

>

> Sorry, I couldn't understand exactly what you are trying to say here.

> Most scans only show cancer when many doctors would consider it as

> actually " late " stage, because it's already a billion or more cells or

> something like that.

Okay, I'm going to say it again and I hope it is clear this time. Many

women are MISDIAGNOSED as early stage cancer, when in fact, they are

late stage already due to micromets in the body. But because the

doctors don't do yearly scans, it is not found until years later.

For instance, a young mother I met recently was diagnosed at stage 1.

But someone told her to drop her oncologist and see another one who did

thorough scans and found that the woman was actually stage 4. No

surgery, no treatment yet. She was MISDIAGNOSED. This happens a lot.

Some doctors scan yearly - these women will more than likely have their

mets caught at an earlier stage. But many doctors will only scan when

there are symptoms - causing mets to be detected at a later stage.

(Stage not meaning cancer staging)

> You need to remember that most of this data comes from people who

> probably only follow the doctor's orders and do nothing in addition to

> conventional treatments. No supplements, diet changes, etc etc. This

> situation annoys me no end. So much data, but little is changed in the

> conventional treatment system.

Very true. I agree. They know the stuff doesn't work, often, and

damages the body, often, yet it is all they recommend.

> People like you who take their health into their own hands probably

> don't fit into this data. People who do many extra things improve

their

> chances significantly, don't you think?

I don't know. What we see in our group of young women is that it really

doesn't matter what they do or don't do. Cancer will either take them

or it won't. Sounds fatalistic, I know. I think that quality of life

is an important issue. But I have watched amazingly healthy women die

quickly and others who are overweight and eating horribly, etc, never

hit stage 4. I was eating an anti-cancer diet for seven years prior to

my diagnosis. If I had not been eating that diet, how much worse off

would I be? We'll never know, I suppose.

> > I do know that many studies fail to discuss the fact that

> > more and more women in their 20s, 30s, and early

> > 40s are being diagnosed with more aggressive cancers

> > that no one can do anything about.

>

> I think " no one can do anything about " should mean using conventional

> treatments. Once conventional treatments have been used and failed,

> natural healing treatments will be more difficult. The main reason why

> chemo is unsuccessful is that it damages the body so much, the immune

> system can't fight cancer in other parts of the body.

I agree.

> PS. I hope what I write isn't too unpleasant. I don't mean to " blame

the

> victim " like you said. I'm sure what you are doing will work just

fine.

Thanks. I wish you and your wife only the best.

ar

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know what the figure relating to 15% improvement relates to?

If the improvement in survivability is 'up to 15%', and I'm glad to see the word

'Absolute' used, and for discussion's sake a survival rate is normally 60

months, then the benefit would be 'up to 9 more months'. Up to leaves a lot

of room for us to question what the real effect is. Of course I am using a

figure of 60 months which I have no idea is valid to use.

The details given in studies leave a lot of unanswered questions when 'up to' is

used. That could be most only getting a couple of percent gain and perhaps a

few the full 15% or the other way around except if the 15% was the norm that

would be heralded.

We are left with unanswered questions and not even sure what the questions are.

Joe C.