love is health
To Chemo, or not to chemo?9/25/2013 I've been reading a lot of information about natural approaches to fighting cancer. My first round of therapy is scheduled for next Thursday. That leaves me enough time to seriously consider the merits of it. Consider the following:
Reasons to avoid it 1) Nothing, not even chemotherapy, can eliminate the risk of recurrence. There is no guarantee. My friend went through chemo, only to have a stage IV metastatic recurrence. My cousin had the same experience. If you visit a breast cancer message board, you will see the stories of hundreds of women who have experienced recurrence after chemo, radiation, and surgery. Chemo is known to reduce risk, but it does not eliminate it. Nothing does. This is a chronic illness. 2) Our bodies are built to kill cancerous cells. We generate millions of cancerous cells throughout our lifetime, and successfully eradicate them. Cancer cells get out of control only when we compromise our body's ability to fight. We do this by eating the wrong foods, using the wrong cosmetics, and by living stressful lives. I am most certainly guilty of having made some very poor food choices in the past (2-3 servings of red meat in 1 meal, ice cream every day, not reading labels, carrying my stress). If I give my body the proper tools to fight this, it will do its job. 3) If our immune system is largely responsible for eradicating cancerous cells, it doesn't make sense to me that crashing my immune system will help me. I get that the logic here is to destroy all rapidly developing cells, but that includes my white blood cells (more specifically, my NK cells). NK cells are cancer destroyers. I feel like chemo is the equivalent of dropping an A-bomb over a combat area where you know you have troops fighting the enemy. How about I just better arm my troops instead. 4) Inflammation and angiogenesis are hugely responsible for the growth and proliferation of cancer cells. Chemo promotes both of these responses. Inflammation (the simple act of swelling) leads to angiogenesis - the generation of new blood vessels. Think about it: You get hurt, the area inflames, and your cells send signals for more blood (thereby more blood vessels) to bring coagulates and nutrients to the area to promote healing. New cells are generated in the area to replace the damages ones. The area heals: voila. However, with cancer, inflammation functions like a wound that never heals. The inflammatory response, as it relates to cancer, tricks your body into allowing cancer to keep regenerating without ever stopping. So swelling/ inflammation is the breeding ground for cancer. Therefore, if I inflame my body with chemo, how does it make sense that I will heal it? 5) There are things I can do (specifically dietary and environmental changes) to prevent recurrence. I won't tell you how much my most recent grocery bill was, but I will tell you it was pricey. But you know what's more expensive? Medical bills to treat a recurrent tumor or metastasis. I'd say 80% of our purchases are organic. I also shop specifically for cancer-fighting foods. I no longer use tupperware for transporting food, and opt for glassware instead. I microwave food sparingly. I just swapped out my antiperspirant for naturally derived deodorant. My makeup drawer is next on the list for an overhaul. It's amazing how much shit we are surrounded by that is slowly killing us, or making it harder for us to stay healthy. I have become vigilant. My eyes are opening. Along with this vigilance comes the ability to monitor my breasts as well. I will likely get MRI's every 6 months to ensure I don't have any recurrences. If for whatever reason I do (knock on wood), I will catch them early. 6) The standard of care was not created with me in mind. It's too generic. The All-knowing Standard of Care used to prescribe a treatment plan for patients is based on clinical trials of thousands of women, mostly over 40, and mostly on a (SAD) Standard American Diet. They are not representative of me, and therefore neither is their treatment plan. When researchers come up with a treatment plan for female contact sport athletes under 35 who are ER+, PR+, Her2-, who already have a relatively clean diet, then the standard of care will be more compelling for me. Reasons to do it. 1) The alternative path is not black/ white. That's scary. The appealing thing about chemo is that I'd go through 4 treatments, and be on tamoxifen for 4 years. It's a cut out, clear plan. Not doing chemo means having to formulate a plan on my own, just relying on my own research and grit to stick to whatever plan I create. But what if I am horribly wrong? What if I didn't do enough research? I am neither an oncologist, nor nutritionist. However, I have yet to meet one who says "yeah, forgoing chemo is a GREAT idea". 2) It's just 4 treatments. 4 ephemeral treatments. It will be over before I know it, and I will be done before Christmas. 3) My doctor told me to, and I trust him. I realize how stupid this sounds. But I have to put it out there. I am an incredibly trusting person, perhaps to a fault. So when someone who has taken a pledge not to harm me (or anyone else) says that this is the *best* option, I want to believe them. I have no reason not to. They have been treating thousands of patients for decades now. I am only dealing with my first - me. Defying this recommendation is a fundamental "F*ck you" to the very people trying to help me - those who I have entrusted with my health to this point. I take that gesture very seriously. 4) Without knowing the exact cause for getting breast cancer, it's hard to calculate an exact solution on my own. We still cannot explain why, despite all odds, I got it to begin with. I am pretty damn healthy. I work out regularly. I eat pretty cleanly (better than ever in the last 1.5 year). I am pretty positive and not easily depressed. I am only 30 (just barely 30 when I felt my lump). In any patient, finding a precise solution is impossible. Therefore, chemo is the most versatile solution to eradicating and rogue cells. 5) I have to do something, like, NOW. In reading a ton, I have learned that tumors are kind of like the Hydra. (Not the good Hydra - I mean the O.G. Hydra). Primary tumors send out a chemical signal that says, "Hey rogue cells! Don't set up fight clubs anywhere else". So when the primary tumor is removed, that signal ceases, meaning the rogues are able to set up franchises (e.g. tumors) anywhere. Per the Almighty Standard of Care, there is a very narrow window of time in which chemotherapy needs to begin after surgery to prevent rogues from establishing their new tumor sites - within 6 weeks from surgery. Guess what week I am in. That's right. Something has to be done NOW. (BTW: I really wish I would have know this before I ate all that ice cream and churros post-surgery. Mistakes were made.) Food for thought There is not enough information available that accurately compares or even evaluates a variety of treatments. The scientific standard to determine if a treatment is effective is the randomized, controlled, double blind study. But how do you even begin to evaluate a lifestyle change using this narrowly defined standard? How do you measure the anecdotal experiences of hundreds of thousands of people who were successfully treated through unconventional means? This standard for evidence is so narrow that it makes proving the effectiveness of some things nearly impossible. That said... Cancer research is in its infancy. Only after becoming a patient did I realize just how much we don't know about cancer. We're still pretty much in the dark. As a result, our methods of treatment are pretty barbaric, because we don't have enough information (yet) to know what's actually best to do. Unfortunately, nutrition and environmental factors seem to be at the bottom of the research pile. Most of the focus has been on genetics and chemical treatment. Can you imagine if, 50 years from now, we discovered (and by discovered, I mean took seriously the notion) that dietary/ lifestyle changes were effective cancer treatments? What if there is another cure that we just haven't realized yet? The prevalence of cancer has increased exponentially since WWII. The end of that war was a significant industrialization marker. We changed how we raise, process, package, and distribute food and other products. Since then, our food changed. Our chemical exposure changed. Our stress levels changed. I can guarantee that anyone reading this has numerous toxic chemicals pulsing through their body that far exceed EPA or FDA standards for toxicity. The way our food is raised and processed has changed so significantly, making health dangers simultaneously ubiquitous and clandestine. Your milk, assuming it is not organic, is dangerous. Your non-organic produce is toxic. Even your grass-fed, organic, free to roam meats can be dangerous if packaged incorrectly. Bottled water, especially in AZ where it is constantly exposed to heat, is poisoned. I don't say these things to be alarmist. I say them to point out how pervasive these pitfalls are. They are everywhere, are we are ill equipped and ill-educated to navigate these landmines. Of course cancer rates have gone up. We haven't done much to stop it. All this said (and much left unsaid), I have a heavy decision to make, and the clock is ticking.
4 Comments
AboutSnapshots in time across a span of years managing breast cancer Archives
June 2020
Categories
All
|