A Road Less Traveled...or, Looking for My Very Own Towel

******

If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. ~ Lewis Carroll

I have never been part of the "in crowd".

Not in my school-aged years ... The nuns at the parochial school I was sentenced to would strike me on my backside or palms of my hands with a yard stick for having the audacity of questioning the unquestionable. The kids looked at me askew because of my oddity, fragility and grotesquely thin frame. A result after having spent nearly a year in a full-body cast after surviving being struck by a drunk driver, clocked doing 80 mph when he hit me. That, and my fascination with both the Kato character from the Green Hornet series (shame on Seth Rogen), and Barnabas Collins from Dark Shadows (anticipating Johnny Depp & Tim Burton's interpretation) set me apart.

Not in the teen years. ... In junior high I was the scrawny, underdeveloped, introvert. Quiet and studious. In high school, I stayed under the radar locking myself in the dance studio; writing for "above" and "underground" school newspapers; engaging in self-destructive introverted behavior as an alternative to "battling the adolescent beasties."

Not in the transition years when I opted, by default or circumstances, for a first "real boyfriend" who was seven years my senior. A boyfriend who was already the antithesis of who I wanted to become, and who ended up not being much of a boyfriend.

Not in the college years ... I was a late-start freshman, having taken time off between high school and college to work and earn money for tuition -- in an inhospitable Muslim country. I attended a very "preppy privileged" private university. Instead of being the cheerleader suggested by "boyfriend" I choreographed for a small modern dance troupe. Instead of living in dorms, I rented apartments in the surrounding gang-ridden neighborhood. Instead of joining the dominating "Greek" system, I worked 30 hours a week inputting horse racing stats into a computer program for a restaurateur / bookie racing enthusiast; and then as an editorial assistant for the Korean Consulate cultural magazine. In my spare time, I studied martial arts at night in the basement of the neglected PE building on campus; took skydiving lessons at Lake Elsinore; and would disappear to San Francisco - taking advantage of the $28 RT fare specials offered by PSA on their commuter flights between Burbank and SFO.

Neither in the law school years ... I started law school 5 months pregnant with my first child; attended a top tier law school, at night, so I could work for a DC law firm in the day to pay for tuition. Breast-fed while studying at any given hour - first child never slept between 7 p.m. and 1 a.m. Fulfilled my duties on as a Senior Editor on law review while confined to bed for 4 months with my high-risk second pregnancy (thankful for the cutting edge technology donated by the law firm...a laptop...this was 1991 and such technology was not available for general consumption).

Not in the "booster club" mom years with my two older children ... I was one of the few moms that was not living vicariously through their children, giving grief to the coaches because my child was not being doted upon as the next Olympic hopeful.

Even as a lawyer, I have been the odd-person out, pursuing "street-law" advocacy over more lucrative professional avenues. Much to the chagrin of my eldest child, and despite cutting my teeth on corporate civil litigation.

This reality has never bothered me.

And it came as no surprise to me that when I developed breast cancer, and didn't find out until the disease had already advanced to stage III, that I could not lock step with the well-developed Pink Brigade.

I agreed to the mastectomy. It was a visceral decision. The cancerous tumor was the only thing giving form, mass and shape to my left breast. I wanted it excised.

I then, however, opted out of everything else. All the cookie-cutter adjuvant treatments that I was besieged with -- offered up with icy portents of fear and dire statistics that if I didn't dive immediately into the toxic cocktails I would be accelerating the inevitable.

I dove instead into the less-chartered universe of naturopathic alternative treatments. Even in the alternative medicine world, most people I met and do meet pursue the naturopathic route only as a complementary addition to conventional adjuvant treatment (radiation and chemo) versus as a true alternative.

My treatment choices since my diagnosis in July 2009 have been very different than most. Certainly not "mainstream." And, yes, I sit here two years later having the invasive lobular carcinoma metastasize into my lymph nodes -- so I acknowledge that I fail the audition to be the poster child for "success." At the same time, I have been learning more regarding alternative medicine, and naturopathic doctors. There are a plethora of choices that I was not aware of previously (my then ND, however, should have known, shared, educated and pushed at me...but Dr. Daniel Rubin, I am trying to let go of my anger toward you <insert twitching eye and gritting toothy smile here>) and are now engaging.

At both stagings of this disease, the conventional medical community has provided me with only dire possibilities with little to nil positive outcomes. As such, it did not take me long to conclude that I deserved to explore other possibilities. After all, at the beginning of this journey the medical community was highly recommending aggressive chemo...despite an acknowledged 4% efficacy. Two years later with METS barking at my heals, the medical community highly recommended aggressive surgery and uber-aggressive radiation (no chemo this time...I guess once you drop under 4% possible efficacy even the med community throws in the towel on that option)...with an admitted only 20% potential for five-year survival if I lock-stepped. I am no mathematician, but gambler??? Hmmm....

If I am going to roll the dice I want better odds. Even if it places me back into the all-too-familiar position of being the oddity.

There has been a downfall to my choices, however. One that has been nagging at me more lately than before.

It is lonely out here on the less-travelled path.

I am used to being alone. I am comfortable (sometimes too comfortable) with alone-ness. But being alone is a different state than loneliness.

And the wisdom of Suzanne Somers is not the panacea I am craving. I have more faith in white mice and dolphins.

I do have access to a supportive blogging community. But even here, I am the odd-person out. I cannot commiserate with the devastating effects of chemo. I cannot commiserate with the hair loss; the lymphedema; the bloating; the chemo-brain. I cannot share dietary tips and recipes in battling the nausea. I cannot suggest topical relief for the inevitable skin damage from radiation treatments; nor hand-hold because I too have experienced the collateral weakening or damage to other organs as a result of the radiation. I cannot laugh and offer alternative "beauty" tips on how to fashionably conceal hair patches and baldness. I cannot offer or seek guidance as what to expect from the "next step."

I have no one to empathize with, no one who has dealt with my particular experiences on this alternative roadway. I have searched and posted on varied cancer support sites. Looking for someone who has or is walking a similar treatment path.

The universe is silent.

I have yet to find a fellow traveler who understands my reference to the "rumbling dryer" sounds that permeate by head when hooked up to a high dose vitamin C IV. The uncontrollable shaking. The "spaciness." The taste of the vitamin C within minutes of hitting my veins. The frontal headache and dry heaves. The ache and fatigue that washes over me for the remainder of the day after a treatment.

No one to bounce concerns off of ... is it a reaction to the supplements or indications of disease progression? Do they feel the same daily fatigue? Do they feel the same aches, crunches, pains? Have they felt the restless lethargy that I battle? Do they too get so very tired of the regimen, the scheduling, having to write all your own warning labels?

No one else to b*tch with as to people's reactions and responses: "But you look good...." "You would never know...." "You think you are tired...."  "At least you have your hair .... "

Would I make different choices, now that I have been on this path for over two years? Travel the more defined roadway? A roadway that sadly is becoming a congested highway as our society becomes more "advanced"?

Absolutely not.

I am too much of a coward to travel the conventional adjuvant highway. I studied that dog-eared road atlas and found it far too harrowing. I do not have the mindset.

But alas, even the Hitchhiker had his towel. A comforting and useful object. At this juncture, most days I feel that I just need my own towel.

A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value - you can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a mini raft down the slow heavy river Moth; wet it for use in hand-to- hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you - daft as a bush, but very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitch hiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have 'lost'. What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a [person] to be reckoned with. ~ Douglas Adams

"The Harsh Reality" of Pink (?)

******

I am a devotee of many of my breast cancer "colleagues" blogs. Fabulous, courageous, funny, warm, honest women whom I have never met personally. But who have provided me with a window to share my journey; as well as varying perspectives to color and inform my own path.

In viewing a link to another post  via "Desiderdata" http://desideratajourney.blogspot.com/ today, I came across a hauntingly beautiful and profound black and white retrospective, lovingly documented by a husband, of his wife's breast cancer journey.

It is a must-see: http://mywifesfightwithbreastcancer.com/. I set it to "slide-show" and was so captivated I found myself on the fourth loop before I could tear myself away. And then I found myself emotionally staggered. This is not Pink.This is the reality

It is not necessarily the battle with cancer that we (the collective "we") are fighting. Rather it is the battle with the treatment. If the cancer doesn't kill "us" the treatment most certainly will.

I knew this. But somehow the harsh reality of this obvious fact hit me in the chest today - literally. Treatment has been the most contentious battle-front, for me, since my BC-Day -- July 8, 2009.

It is not the dying of cancer that gives me night terrors. It is the living as a cancer patient that sends me physiologically reeling.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine

******

I am not usually a proponent of Big Pharma. This potential breakthrough, however, is too exciting not to share and monitor.  ~ TC

 

Breakthrough: Israel is Developing Cancer Vaccine

Vaxil’s groundbreaking therapeutic vaccine, developed in Israel, could keep about 90 percent of cancers from coming back.

As the world’s population lives longer than ever, if we don’t succumb to heart disease, strokes or accidents, it is more likely that cancer will get us one way or another. Cancer is tough to fight, as the body learns how to outsmart medical approaches that often kill normal cells while targeting the malignant ones.

In a breakthrough development, the Israeli company Vaxil BioTherapeutics has formulated a therapeutic cancer vaccine, now in clinical trials at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem. If all goes well, the vaccine could be available about six years down the road, to administer on a regular basis not only to help treat cancer but in order to keep the disease from recurring.

The vaccine is being tested against a type of blood cancer called multiple myeloma. If the substance works as hoped — and it looks like all arrows are pointing that way — its platform technology VaxHit could be applied to 90 percent of all known cancers, including prostate and breast cancer, solid and non-solid tumors.

“In cancer, the body knows something is not quite right but the immune system doesn’t know how to protect itself against the tumor like it does against an infection or virus. This is because cancer cells are the body’s own cells gone wrong,” says Julian Levy, the company’s CFO. “Coupled with that, a cancer patient has a depressed immune system, caused both by the illness and by the treatment.”

The trick is to activate a compromised immune system to mobilize against the threat.

A vaccine that works like a drug

A traditional vaccine helps the body’s immune system fend off foreign invaders such as bacteria or viruses, and is administered to people who have not yet had the ailment. Therapeutic vaccines, like the one Vaxil has developed, are given to sick people, and work more like a drug.

Vaxil’s lead product, ImMucin, activates the immune system by “training” T-cells –– the immune cells that protect the body by searching out and destroying cells that display a specific molecule (or marker) called MUC1. MUC1 is typically found only on cancer cells and not on healthy cells. The T-cells don’t attack any cells without MUC1, meaning there are no side effects unlike traditional cancer treatments. More than 90% of different cancers have MUC1 on their cells, which indicates the potential for this vaccine.

“It’s a really big thing,” says Levy, a biotechnology entrepreneur who was formerly CEO for Biokine Therapeutics. “If you give chemo, apart from the really nasty side effects, what often happens is that cancer becomes immune [to it]. The tumor likes to mutate and develops an ability to hide from the treatment. Our vaccines are also designed to overcome that problem.”

For cancers in an advanced stage, treatments like chemo or surgery to remove a large tumor will still be needed, but if the cancer can be brought down to scale, the body is then able to deal with it, Levy explains. ImMucin is foreseen as a long-term strategy — a shot every few months, with no side effects — to stop the cancer from reoccurring after initial treatments, by ensuring that the patient’s own immune system keeps it under control.

In parallel, the company is also working on a vaccine that treats tuberculosis, a disease that’s increasing worldwide, including in the developed world, and for which the current vaccine is often ineffective and treatment is problematic.

Based in Ness Ziona, Vaxil was founded in 2006 by Dr. Lior Carmon, a biotechnology entrepreneur with a doctorate in immunology from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot. In June, Vaxil signed a memorandum of understanding to merge its activities into Sheldonco, a company traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

By Rivka Borochov
For more info about this incredible vaccine, visit Vaxil on the web at www.vaxilbio.com

"What is important to you"?

******

I have been hearing...and listening...to a great deal of frustration from friends and family. My cancer journey is confusing and scary for them, understandably. Equally understandable is their frustration and confusion as to my choices in treatment and management of what has now evolved into a chronic disease. I am trying to address each of those I love and care about individually. To reassure. To help them, if not understand, to at least accept. Below is a compilation of several letters that I have written to some of my loved ones. I share them here, first, because this is where I process my cancer journey. Second, because I hope that through the venue of my blog understanding and/or acceptance will come. I have to hope. WARNING: Content May Contain Concepts of Emotional Sappiness.

Dear Loved One:

I am going to start this letter with the single most important message I wish for you to take away, and that is that I love you!

Also, you need to know that you are important to me, and I am listening very closely to your concerns. I know that you are worried. I feel deeply and appreciate your concerns...truly. 

   

I know that the prevalence of pink & pretty media coverage regarding breast cancer makes it seem that great leaps and bounds in treatment options are available. I also know, from experience, that when Susan B. Komen and their ilk speak about "cures" and "awareness" they are speaking only of early stage breast cancer. That is, breast cancer that is confined to the mammary glands, and which can be "curable" but only to a certain extent. Susan G. Komen is not about advanced stage breast cancer.

My cancer was initially discovered when it was already late-stage; and is of an infiltrating / invasive nature. Remember, this was despite years of mammos misidentifying the tumor growth solely as fibrous breast tissue. When breast cancer has metastasized, i.e., moved out of the mammaries, treatment options are few and most are longshots in achieving a positive prognosis. Regardless, I have not been sitting idly. Nor, should you presume that I am acquiescing, giving in, admitting defeat, etc. to a chronic disease.

Yes, it is true that the MD community is a bit pessimistic about my situation - save, interestingly, my oncologist who is excitedly on-board with my current protocol. Well, maybe not excited per se, but at least supportive. You must trust me, I have researched and continue to research extensively my current treatment plan. The MD community (save for my oncologist) would like to go "full guns" and "aggressive beyond measure" (these words from the radiation onc). And, according to same radiation onc, going "full guns" will only give me a 20% chance at a 5 year survival. You must remember: there is a vast difference between survival and living.  

The surgical onc clearly does not want to do the surgical "full guns" and "aggressive beyond measure" surgery -- a full axillary nodal dissection. Why?  Because  it is "messy" trying to avoid all the clusters of nerves, blood vessels, and arteries. And, she acknowledges that there is no difference in the 5 year morbidity with women who have had a full axillary nodal dissection, and those who don't. She does, however, give me a 25-30% likelihood of long term nerve damage.

I cannot articulate the appreciation I feel for you own efforts in researching treatment alternatives for me. Your own stubbornness and deep caring are two of your endearing qualities. I also appreciate the emotional difficulty you are having in sharing your research findings with me. Nothing about cancer is easy. Unfortunately, your research brought nothing new or surprising. I was aware of the challenges with my prognosis. Rightly or wrongly, I did not feel that I should dump all of the "lovely" news on you in one dose. It wouldn't be fair to you or me. Why? Because I am still coming to terms with what the medical community is saying to me. I am not prepared, yet, to be a strong shoulder for you while I answer your questions. Selfish, yes. And unapologetically so. I am getting good at being selfish these days. 

As I shared with you, the radiation oncologist here in Arizona -- who, btw is touted as the "go-to radio-onc" (imagine me raising an eyebrow of doubt) was not as forthcoming as the one you communicated with. Radio onc's 20% chance of a 5 year survival was predicated on me first going through the surgical "debulking," followed by an aggressive protocol of  "clean up" with broad-based radiation of the neck, shoulders, axillary and chest wall.

I asked radio-onc how long after such intense radiation exposure would my body begin to show signs of damage to my heart and lungs (predictably leading to heart and pulmonary failure). She would not answer.

My individual situation...my reality that I have to live with, is that I must continue with life-as-is. I am fortunate that my work is something that stirs my soul, because my working is a direct and palpable benefit to my family. Family is what is important to me. Indeed my kids come first. I will never be selfish when it comes to their immediate and long term futures. Each and every decision that I have made over the last 25 years has been about family and building a life and future for my children.

I will also not allow this chronic illness to turn my family into another "recession statistic" -- funneling funds into a medical industry that holds no hope for me. I secured Husband's agreement on that one. What that means is that I will not hurt my family financially while chasing medical pipe dreams. The decisions and treatment protocols I have decided upon (with, again, the surprising support of my medical onc) are to help me manage my chronic illness and still have a quality of life with my children, now. 

I can honestly say, I am feeling better this week - week 3 of my protocol. I do "suffer" immense nausea and fatigue after the high dose vitamin c IVs, but it passes within an hour or two with the help of lime slushies.

You will have to trust me. Your trusting me is important.
The health (emotional and physical) of my children are important to me.
Making sure my children have a competitive edge and a fighting chance in this world that seems like it is being turned on its head is important to me.
Being strong for my children, while I can and when they need me now, is important to me.

Dear-heart, we are all going to die at some point, no? That is the life-cycle. It is also very possible that the cancer may not be what kills me. It is as likely that a reckless driver on the interstate, or the space debris currently falling to earth is is what causes my death. Old age may be what finally takes me. The point is, none of us know with any certainty how we will die...only that we will.  Because of a bizarre turn of events, I am "fortunate" to have (potentially) prophetic knowledge of my demise. Embracing my mortality on a daily basis does color my daily responses and perceptions. 

What is important to me is that the time I am here is spent with meaning and with as many quality moments with those that I love. Giving up sitting on the sidelines at my son's soccer practice, so I can chase a possible treatment far away from him, pales in comparison. Attending my son's concerts; making his lunch in the morning while quizzing him on science vocab or math problems; reading with him at night snuggled in his bed together -- I would never make a choice that would steal those moments away from me, now. These moments cannot be recovered, and are real now. The future, under the best of circumstances is unpredictable. 

Not being able to have my girls reach out and share with  me all of their daily joys and sorrows (18x a day -- really!) would decimate me emotionally. Being a sounding board for the volatility of their developing adult-hoods is the reward of parenthood. My girls are growing up, now.  And there is Husband. He has been my BFF and "work in progress" for 25 years now - and I have not finished with him as yet! He is not getting out of this marriage that easily, especially when he is yet to be housebroken.

Missing all of this while I am here in the moment feeling strong and relatively healthy, well, that would kill my spirit long before my body would crumble.

~TC

Rock and a Hard Place...

******

I find this song running through my head constantly this week,
as I consider this next stage's options...
=============================================

(M. Jagger/K. Richards)

The fields of Eden
Are full of trash
And if we beg and we borrow and steal
We'll never get it back
People are hungry
They crowd around
And the city gets bigger as the country comes begging to town


We're stuck between a rock
And a hard place
Between a rock and a hard place

This talk of freedom
And human rights
Means bullying and private wars and chucking all the dust into our eyes
And peasant people
Poorer than dirt
Who are caught in the crossfire with nothing to lose but their shirts

Stuck between a rock
And a hard place
Between a rock and a hard place

You'd better stop put on a kind face
Between a rock and a hard place

We're in the same boat
On the same sea
And we're sailing south
On the same breeze
building dream churches
With silver spires
And our rogue children
Are playing loaded dice

Give me truth now
Don't want no sham
I'd be hung drawn and quartered for a sheep just as well as a lamb

Stuck between a rock
And a hard place
Between a rock and a hard place
You'd better stop
Put on a kind face
Can't you see what you've done to me

Sentinel Node Biopsies (SNB)...Unnecessary?

******

Normally when I reprint an article or study for PSA purposes I don't include, within the text, my own editorial comments. In this case, with this study, I feel compelled to throw my "two cents" in ... smack dab in the middle of the reporting. My comments, editorials, opinions, etc are noted in italics. Read on...the "dogma is strong!"

Lymph Node Study Shakes Pillar of Breast Cancer Care
By DENISE GRADY (February 8, 2011 - NY Times)

A new study finds that many women with early breast cancer do not need a painful procedure that has long been routine: removal of cancerous lymph nodes from the armpit.

Medical diagram of SNB Prep

Part and parcel of my mastectomy back in August 2009 included what is termed: a sentinel node biopsy (SNB). This is where, as a matter of protocol, the surgical oncologist removes the first few nodes from the armpit, closest in proximity of the cancerous tumor. This is surgically accomplished after a lengthy prep of injecting the nodes - through the breast tissue, with radioactive material. The trick is then to keep the patient (moi) still for nearly an hour's time, to allow the radioactive material to settle into the nodes. It is this "settling" that gives the surgeon direction as to which nodes to remove. Once removed, and while the mastectomy is concurrently being done, a pathologist reviews these nodes and determines if any further excision is required.

The discovery turns standard medical practice on its head. Surgeons have been removing lymph nodes from under the arms of breast cancer patients for 100 years, believing it would prolong women’s lives by keeping the cancer from spreading or coming back.

One would think that after 100 years of post-surgical study that this "new" information / possibility / probability should have, could have been discovered / explored sooner. The latency of this revelation, in and of itself, is greatly disturbing. And there is the tiny little fact that DESPITE having had a SNB; and DESPITE the fact that I did have one positive node but current medical protocol was to ignore it as a "false positive" -- attributable to the SNB itself...nearly two (2) years to the day it is confirmed that my breast cancer has indeed spread into my lymphatic system. What does this mean? Well, because of the active lymph nodes being so close to the primary tumor site, there is a very high probability that distant organs are affected. The challenge with ILC is, however, that it is difficult to early detect any potentially affected organ because until the invasive forms into a detectable mass. Which is my cancer hx thus far.

Now, researchers report that for women who meet certain criteria — about 20 percent of patients, or 40,000 women a year in the United States — taking out cancerous nodes has no advantage. It does not change the treatment plan, improve survival or make the cancer less likely to recur. And it can cause complications like infection and lymphedema, a chronic swelling in the arm that ranges from mild to disabling.

Example of lymphedema
patient with a medical sleeve

I was very fortunate. Aside from some initial post-surgical swelling, I did not develop lymphedema -- although my med-pro team was fully anticipating I would. Because of the SNB, however, I need to ensure that during any sort of medical examination (routine or otherwise) my blood pressure is not taken on my left side -- the SNB site. Reason: lymphedema can occur at any time by this simple routine exam as a result of having had an SNB. It is notable that even when I am being examined by a member of my "cancer team" I still have to remind each and every one of them -- each and every time, not to measure my blood pressure on my left-side. Inevitably, and strangely, they all gravitate to the left.

Removing the cancerous lymph nodes proved unnecessary because the women in the study had chemotherapy and radiation, which probably wiped out any disease in the nodes, the researchers said. Those treatments are now standard for women with breast cancer in the lymph nodes, based on the realization that once the disease reaches the nodes, it has the potential to spread to vital organs and cannot be eliminated by surgery alone.

This aspect of the study particularly interests me for two reasons: (1) One of out of the three nodes that I had removed did test positive for cancer cells. I was told, however, that because of a then-recent study in 2009, protocol had changed and advised that there was a strong probability that cancer cells are unintentionally injected into the nodes as a result of the surgical procedure itself. As such, since it was my third node that was positive, the "protocol" was "to do nothing" further, surgically. (2) That said, anyone following my journey will know that I opted out of both chemo and radiation -- despite the heavy-handed pressure by my "cancer team" to aggressively pursue both. I opted out, because of: (a) the disparity within the global medical community as to the efficacy of chemo and radiation in prolonging life after cancer; (b) my own personal "efficacy" test (Oncotype DX) that concluded I would only have up to a 4% margin of efficacy if I underwent chemo; and (c) not finding one medical professional who themselves would subject themselves to radiation treatment (though none of them would "publicly" admit these personal views).

Experts say that the new findings, combined with similar ones from earlier studies, should change medical practice for many patients. Some centers have already acted on the new information. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan changed its practice in September, because doctors knew the study results before they were published. But more widespread change may take time, experts say, because the belief in removing nodes is so deeply ingrained.

“This is such a radical change in thought that it’s been hard for many people to get their heads around it,” said Dr. Monica Morrow, chief of the breast service at Sloan-Kettering and an author of the study, which is being published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The National Cancer Institute paid for the study.

This again begs my initial question -- why did this "radical change" take 100 years to publicly disseminate.

Doctors and patients alike find it easy to accept more cancer treatment on the basis of a study, Dr. Morrow said, but get scared when the data favor less treatment.

The above statement makes me ponder just how many of us "patients" they polled. Sadly, I find that many of my fellow breast cancer-club member's have made far-reaching medical decisions solely based on their initial fears. On the other hand, I have also found, and continue to find, a growing number of club members who share my belief that decisions can only be made after extensive research and questioning. And, after extensive research and questioning many of us discover that the "science" behind adjuvant treatment does not play out in our favor; so we opt-out.

The new findings are part of a trend to move away from radical surgery for breast cancer. Rates of mastectomy, removal of the whole breast, began declining in the 1980s after studies found that for many patients, survival rates after lumpectomy and radiation were just as good as those after mastectomy.

The trend reflects an evolving understanding of breast cancer. In decades past, there was a belief that surgery could “get it all” — eradicate the cancer before it could spread to organs and bones. But research has found that breast cancer can begin to spread early, even when tumors are small, leaving microscopic traces of the disease after surgery.

Sentinel node biopsy incision

To the credit of my surgical oncologist (Lise Walker) she was not so arrogant as to believe that surgery could "get it all."  Indeed, she and I had a spirited discussion of the known microscopic cancer cells that were left in my body post-mastectomy. FYI - I did not have the option of a lumpectomy. My tumor was 6.2 cm - i.e., of such expanse that it spread throughout my entire left breast. BTW - it was in Lise Walker's office that I first discovered the book: "What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About Breast Cancer."

The modern approach is to cut out obvious tumors — because lumps big enough to detect may be too dense for drugs and radiation to destroy — and to use radiation and chemotherapy to wipe out microscopic disease in other places.

Modern? Cut, slash and burn has been the protocol for over 50+ years.

But doctors have continued to think that even microscopic disease in the lymph nodes should be cut out to improve the odds of survival. And until recently, they counted cancerous lymph nodes to gauge the severity of the disease and choose chemotherapy. But now the number is not so often used to determine drug treatment, doctors say. What matters more is whether the disease has reached any nodes at all. If any are positive, the disease could become deadly. Chemotherapy is recommended, and the drugs are the same, no matter how many nodes are involved.

This latter sentence is frightening. Not because it causes me to reflect on my choice not to undergo adjuvant treatment. But because it is these types of statements that were used to try and bully me into acquiescing to chemo and radiation -- despite the undisputed medical conclusion that I would not benefit from chemo. It is these types of statements that plant fear into persons dealing with breast cancer and emotionally and mentally inhibits them from becoming informed patients.

Injection of the the radioactive material
in prep for the node biopsy

"...and the drugs are the same, no matter how many nodes are involved." This admission also sends chills down my spine. It should be a big ol' red flag that in light of it taking the med-pros 100 years to publicly declare this "nodal" revelation, that the med-pros are still unwilling, as a community, to reveal that the "standard protocol" for treating breast cancer reached a plateau decades ago. Refer back to my "audience with the Great Oz back in September, 2009."

The new results do not apply to all patients, only to women whose disease and treatment meet the criteria in the study.

The tumors were early, at clinical stage T1 or T2, meaning less than two inches across. Biopsies of one or two armpit nodes had found cancer, but the nodes were not enlarged enough to be felt during an exam, and the cancer had not spread anywhere else. The women had lumpectomies, and most also had radiation to the entire breast, and chemotherapy or hormone-blocking drugs, or both.

The study, at 115 medical centers, included 891 patients. Their median age was in the mid-50s, and they were followed for a median of 6.3 years.

After the initial node biopsy, the women were assigned at random to have 10 or more additional nodes removed, or to leave the nodes alone. In 27 percent of the women who had additional nodes removed, those nodes were cancerous. But over time, the two groups had no difference in survival: more than 90 percent survived at least five years. Recurrence rates in the armpit were also similar, less than 1 percent. If breast cancer is going to recur under the arm, it tends to do so early, so the follow-up period was long enough, the researchers said.

One potential weakness in the study is that there was not complete follow-up information on 166 women, about equal numbers from each group. The researchers said that did not affect the results. A statistician who was not part of the study said the missing information should have been discussed further, but probably did not have an important impact.

It is not known whether the findings also apply to women who do not have radiation and chemotherapy, or to those who have only part of the breast irradiated. Nor is it known whether the findings could be applied to other types of cancer.

The results mean that women like those in the study will still have to have at least one lymph node removed, to look for cancer and decide whether they will need more treatment. But taking out just one or a few nodes should be enough.

Dr. Armando E. Giuliano, the lead author of the study and the chief of surgical oncology at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif., said: “It shouldn’t come as a big surprise, but it will. It’s hard for us as surgeons and medical oncologists and radiation oncologists to accept that you don’t have to remove the nodes in the armpit.”

Dr. Grant W. Carlson, a professor of surgery at the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, and the author of an editorial accompanying the study, said that by routinely taking out many nodes, “I have a feeling we’ve been doing a lot of harm.”

Indeed, women in the study who had the nodes taken out were far more likely (70 percent versus 25 percent) to have complications like infections, abnormal sensations and fluid collecting in the armpit. They were also more likely to have lymphedema.

I can attest to the abnormal sensations (euphemism for pain), that continue each and every day, to this day, since the SNB and mastectomy in August 2009.

But Dr. Carlson said that some of his colleagues, even after hearing the new study results, still thought the nodes should be removed.

“The dogma is strong,” he said. “It’s a little frustrating.” 

This understated sentiment can be broadly applied in all aspects of the breast cancer industry.

Eventually, he said, genetic testing of breast tumors might be enough to determine the need for treatment, and eliminate the need for many node biopsies.

BRCA Genes I & II Mutation

Had extensive genetic testing prior to the SNB and mastectomy. Did not alter the course of treatment adamantly lobbied for by the "cancer team."

Two other breast surgeons not involved with the study said they would take it seriously.

Dr. Elisa R. Port, the chief of breast surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan, said: “It’s a big deal in the world of breast cancer. It’s definitely practice-changing.”

Dr. Alison Estabrook, the chief of the comprehensive breast center at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt hospital in New York said surgeons had long been awaiting the results.

“In the past, surgeons thought our role was to get out all the cancer,” Dr. Estabrook said. “Now he’s saying we don’t really have to do that.”

But both Dr. Estabrook and Dr. Port said they would still have to make judgment calls during surgery and remove lymph nodes that looked or felt suspicious.

The new research grew out of efforts in the 1990s to minimize lymph node surgery in the armpit, called axillary dissection. Surgeons developed a technique called sentinel node biopsy, in which they injected a dye into the breast and then removed just one or a few nodes that the dye reached first, on the theory that if the tumor was spreading, cancer cells would show up in those nodes. If there was no cancer, no more nodes were taken. But if there were cancer cells, the surgeon would cut out more nodes.

Although the technique spared many women, many others with positive nodes still had extensive cutting in the armpit, and suffered from side effects.

A lymphedema patient, without
the medical sleeve

“Women really dread the axillary dissection,” Dr. Giuliano said. “They fear lymphedema. There’s numbness, shoulder pain, and some have limitation of motion. There are a fair number of serious complications. Women know it.”

After armpit surgery, 20 percent to 30 percent of women develop lymphedema, Dr. Port said, and radiation may increase the rate to 40 percent to 50 percent. Physical therapy can help, but there is no cure.

The complications — and the fact that there was no proof that removing the nodes prolonged survival — inspired Dr. Giuliano to compare women with and without axillary dissection. Some doctors objected. They were so sure cancerous nodes had to come out that they said the study was unethical and would endanger women.

“Some prominent institutions wouldn’t even take part in it,” Dr. Giuliano said, though he declined to name them. “They’re very supportive now. We don’t want to hurt their feelings. They’ve seen the light.”

A Little Sunday Reflection

******

When you read Alice in Wonderland, you will find yourself trying to make sense of an illogical story. Alice, the key character, also experiences similar frustrations. But in the end, she emerges wiser with the learning involved in each situation. Everyone faces absurd choices in life. If you shrug off these choices as anomalies to your perfect life, you gain nothing. But if you try to learn from these absurdities, you will gain a lot of wisdom.

By Simran Khurana


Cancer, whether it be breast, prostrate, pancreatic, lung, brain, uterine, cervical, esophageal, skin, et. al., is a rude anomaly introduced into our individualistic lives. This rude awakening, however, gives us the opportunity to search out knowledge and make choices that reveal so much of who we really are - not just who we thought we were.

Coley's Controversial "Cancer / Fever" Connection

******

As a result of my month-long battle with flu, pneumonia, bacterial infections and high fevers (102.5+), my partner reminded me of an interesting theory regarding the benefits of high fevers in combatting cancer cells. I started to dig around to find a reader-friendly summary and history of the "cancer/fever theory" and found the following two articles. They are a good introduction to the controversial hypothesis. The url for the source website is listed at the end.

Fever can save lives and heal cancer. Here is a possibly life-saving article detailing the vital importance of non-interference with the body’s self-healing in the case of fevers healing the body, especially in virus (lung) infections, together with articles on the strong connection between fever or induced hyperthermia and cancer healing (including spontaneous remissions).

Fever and Cancer Healing
Fever, Cancer Incidence and Spontaneous Remissions
Kleef R, Jonas WB, Knogler W, Stenzinger W., Office of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Summary: [T]he occurrence of fever in childhood or adulthood may protect against the later onset of malignant disease; spontaneous remissions are often preceded by feverish infections.

OBJECTIVE: Accumulating evidence exists for (1) an inverse correlation between the incidence of infectious diseases and cancer risk and (2) an inverse correlation between febrile infections and remissions of malignancies. This review is part of an effort of the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health to examine this evidence.

METHODS: A review of the literature to a key word search was undertaken, using the following key words: fever, infectious diseases, neoplasm, cancer incidence and spontaneous remission.

RESULTS: The data reviewed in this article support earlier observations on the topic, i.e. that the occurrence of fever in childhood or adulthood may protect against the later onset of malignant disease and that spontaneous remissions are often preceded by feverish infections.

CONCLUSION: Pyrogenic substances and the more recent use of whole-body hyperthermia to mimic the physiologic response to fever have successfully been administered in palliative and curative treatment protocols for metastatic cancer. Further research in this area is warranted.

Copyright 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel Dec 22 2003

Compare Terminal Colon Cancer Patient Healed Via Complete Budwig Protocol, Healthy Today. His healing journey involved multiple fever spells, both spontaneous and self-induced by epsom salt baths, each of which left him feeling better. Also see the powerful confirming observations reported in Homeopathy, Carcinosinum and Cancer: Cancer patients are regularly recorded as stating: "I cannot remember that I ever had fever." As their bodily defenses are rekindled (such as by homeopathic [= energetic] treatment), RESTORATION OF REACTIVITY, from the tumoral stage back to the infectious stage, takes place: "A process of cleaning out at all levels takes place, poisonous relationships are broken off or corrected, ... and a marked influenza or inflammation with high fever for the first time in twenty years cleans the poison from his body. All this means that the reactivity is increasing. ... Also the suppression of fever, a defense mechanism par excellence, the use of antibiotics and corticosteroids can lower the defense mechanisms.”

Microbially Induced Fever and Spontaneous Cancer Remissions (“Coley's toxins”) -- excerpted from The Promise of William B. Coley

by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D., September 2002

NOTE: Readers can find out more about this program by calling Gar Hildenbrand of the Issels Treatment Center at 858-759-2966.

Last week I spoke about the promise represented by the phenomenon of "spontaneous remissions." These are cures of cancer that occur without medical intervention. While rare, they are well documented. For centuries, doctors have dreamed of harnessing this phenomenon to create a natural cure for cancer.

In the 1890s, a young New York surgeon, fresh out of Yale University and Harvard Medical School, made a fascinating discovery. Desperate to find a cure for bone cancer, he searched the records of New York Hospital to see if anyone had ever been cured of the advanced form of that disease. He discovered that one man with advanced sarcoma had contracted an infectious skin disease called erysipelas in the hospital. He not only survived the infection but his cancer went into a "spontaneous" remission.

Most doctors would have shrugged their shoulders and moved on to the next case. But William B. Coley was no ordinary doctor. He was the Sherlock Holmes of cancer. He went to the address listed on the man's records, but the man had moved. And so he tracked him from tenement to tenement until finally in 1888 he found the man alive, well, and cancer-free seven years after the spontaneous cure.

This was an event that changed the course of Coley's life. In 1891, he began treating patients with the same organism that caused erysipelas, a germ called Streptococcus pyogenes. His first patient developed a raging fever, and then the "miracle" occurred: the tumors of his tonsils and neck completely disappeared, and only a scar remained. This man, who could only swallow liquids and whisper when Coley started the treatment, made a complete recovery. (Ten years later he was still free of cancer.) Coley inoculated nine more patients with live erysipelas microbes and discovered that physicians in Germany, such as Dr. Busch, were doing the same thing independently of his own discovery. In 1893, he tabulated the first results and published his first article on the method. Out of seventeen cases of advanced cancer, four were permanently cured, ten showed improvement, while three showed no improvement at all.

While some people saw their cancers regress with the use of live bacteria, others died. In addition to its risks for the patient being treated, using live bacteria was dangerous to other patients and to the staff. So Coley conceived the idea of using killed bacterial byproducts. He added a nonpathogenic organism called Serratia marcescens to the "soup" and started treating patients with this mixture.

The world quickly dubbed this combination "Coley's toxins," since they represented the toxic byproducts of the bacteria without the bacteria themselves. However, the word "toxins" was an unfortunate choice. (A more acceptable name for the treatment is "mixed bacterial vaccine.") The bacteria deliberately caused side effects, such as fever and malaise. But they were not toxic in the sense that radiation or chemotherapy is toxic. They did not destroy the immune system but put it through a rigorous drill that often resulted in the shrinkage or disappearance of the tumor.

Over the years Coley published dozens of articles in the best medical journals. These recorded his success (and sometimes his failure) in applying the mixed bacterial vaccine to people with advanced cancer. In sarcomas, he claimed 41 percent complete cures. In other kinds of cancer there were many astounding remissions.

There were drawbacks to the treatment, however. Having frequent fevers is trying on the patient. The preparations (mostly made for Coley by Parke-Davis) were variable in their potency. This led to much confusion and disappointment. Some doctors, initially enthusiastic about the treatment, became disillusioned when they used less effective preparations. Oftentimes, doctors did not use the toxins aggressively enough. It took a tremendous belief to persevere with this treatment. Nevertheless, despite the difficulties and drawbacks, there is no doubt in my mind that Coley's toxins represented one practical application of the idea of spontaneous remission to treatment.

The subsequent history of Coley's toxins is rather sad. Coley died in 1936. He never wrote a book about his amazing life experience, and his journal articles began to gather dust in medical libraries. His son, Bradley Coley, MD, continued to use the vaccine at Memorial Sloan-Kettering into the 1950s, but in an increasingly hostile environment. First radiation and then chemotherapy became directly competitive with this more natural approach. Coley's daughter, Helen Coley Nauts, founded the Cancer Research Institute of New York to save and promote his work. She was an amazing presence in the cancer field for many decades. But although she got her father removed from the American Cancer Society "quack list" in the mid-1970s, she was never able to get his treatment used widely.

I first heard of Coley from his Memorial colleague, Kanematsu Sugiura, DSc, who compared his own problems with laetrile to those experienced by Coley in the 1920s and 1930s. Through Lloyd Old, MD, then vice president of Sloan-Kettering Institute, I interviewed Mrs. Nauts at her home on Park Avenue in 1975. This was an eye-opener, to say the least. Mrs. Nauts remained a good friend for many years. She had a vast influence on cancer, befriending and supporting many young researchers. She died on January 2, 2001, at the age of 93.

At the present time, there are few clinics that use Coley's toxins as part of a comprehensive treatment protocol. One that interests me very much is an inpatient program in Tijuana, Mexico, that combines Coley's toxins with the Gerson diet [also compare Juicing & Juicers] and other forms of immunotherapy.

Copyright © Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. CancerDecisions®

Compare Terminal Colon Cancer Patient Healed Via Complete Budwig Protocol, Healthy Today. His healing journey involved multiple fever spells, both spontaneous and self-induced by epsom salt baths, each of which left him feeling better.

Also see the powerful confirming observations reported in Homeopathy, Carcinosinum and Cancer: Cancer patients are regularly recorded as stating: "I cannot remember that I ever had fever." As their bodily defenses are rekindled (such as by homeopathic treatment), RESTORATION OF REACTIVITY, from the tumoral stage back to the infectious stage, takes place: "A process of cleaning out at all levels takes place, poisonous relationships are broken off or corrected, ... and a marked influenza or inflammation with high fever for the first time in twenty years cleans the poison from his body. All this means that the reactivity is increasing.”

Dedicated to Joyful Healing
© 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 & 2010 www.healingcancernaturally.com
All Rights Reserved
Copyright Notice
USE OF THIS SITE SIGNIFIES YOUR AGREEMENT TO THE DISCLAIMER.
Paradise Now
Ursula R. M. Schmid. P.O. Box 120244, 10592 Berlin, Germany,
Fax: +49 30 2639173 02053

http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/nature_heals2.html#Fever and Cancer healing

Her Friend...

******

Dear "Her Friend." Please forgive me for my impulsive presumption to share your expressions on my blog. They are so honest. One of the more honest things I have heard or read from an involved spectator. So much so that I felt compelled to memorialize them as part of my personal (public) journal. Your honesty empowers me. Thank you!

Her Friend...we just found out yesterday that it is HER2 invasive ductal carcinoma. I say "we" because she is such a huge part of my heart and life that I really feel like this is happening to both of us. I'm angry about so many things.

I'm angry that she has to go through the worst part, when it should be me. She, like you, has always been the healthy one...organic, vegetarian, non-smoker, nature lover, etc. while I always do everything "wrong". I only quit smoking a year ago (except during the breeding years) when I was forced to in order to donate. For years and years she has been nagging me about all the things that are bad for me.

I'm angry that I can't be there with her for every doctor appointment and treatment, etc. because she now lives 2 hrs away and I have to work a job I hate for a man I hate even more.

I'm angry this disease is threatening to take my best friend away from me and there is no other person in the world who knows me like she does.

I'm angry about things I can't even articulate. I'm just angry.

And then I feel guilty because it feels so selfish to be angry. After all, it's not my body, it's her body. It's not my life being threatened, it's her life.

And now I feel guilty for ranting to you, when you are having to live with this fight every day.

This sucks!

=============

TC...Cancer sucks chica -- for everyone. Be angry. Be confused. But do not indulge in guilt. Feel. Face and embrace all those emotions and own them. Have a glass of wine. Have a smoke, if you need. Then get off your arse, get empowered, and let your BFF know that you are there in any way she may need -- which may include giving her some distance.

I truly believe that cancer sucks more for those whom we love that are the spectators. I found a bizarre...surreal, actually, clarity in being forced to confront my immortality. It is stifling and liberating at the same time. Help each other find that clarity.

Med-Pros Revisited . . .

******
For the record...

I never meant to imply that ALL (or even ANY) med-pros are evil, per se. I have never meant to imply that the med-pros that I have been personally dealing with are themselves evil. My personal experiences do not reflect a general banality of evil in the medical profession, but rather, I believe, a critical flaw in the manner in which our medical system is run in this country. (I say, in this country because I am not familiar enough with the medical politics of other country's health care systems (although I have been a patient in a few). My personal experiences have informed me that the "flaw" in the U.S. medical system is that the profit margin of pharmaceutical companies have far too much influence upon the education and training in our medical schools, as well as our "regulatory" government agencies (i.e., FDA). I also believe that med-pros who think "outside of the pharma box" are penalized if not ostracized, because of their potentiality in negatively impacting pharma's bottom-line.

My first medical onc - Kato, was the most pleasant man. I truly enjoyed our conversations. When push came to shove...meaning when I pushed him outside of his comfort zone, his "world weariness" kicked in and he became ineffectual for me. He could only offer me the cookie-cutter approach -- which was confirmed (and he acknowledged) would have little to no effect on my breast cancer and lots of harm. His "medical tool box" was severely limited.

Dr. Lise Walker, my surgical onc for the mastectomy, was more than competent (and had a good beside manner). If and when I have to consider a mastectomy on the right breast, I would go to her again. She was also instrumental on my "quest" to look beyond the prix fixe menu of adjuvant treatment as it was on her office shelf that I was introduced to "What Your Doctor May NOT Tell You About Breast Cancer" by John R. Lee, M.D.

Dr. Coral Quiet -- the radiation onc whom I consulted numerous times and whom I too pushed outside of her comfort zone -- when pushed, gave me the name of Dr. Michael Lagios - a consulting pathologist and head of the breast cancer center at Stanford Medical Center. Lagios was integral in my decision not to pursue conventional adjuvant treatment.

Dr. Bryan Gawley - reconstructive surgeon. . . well, as I wrote on his holiday card: "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again; but Bryan and his nurse Brenna certainly could!" (Though I still look in the mirror and feel that a black teased hair-style with white bolt streaks on the sides would be more fitting for my new "look.")

Except for the one nurse who unnecessarily assaulted me with a catheter when I was being prepped for surgery this last time (she was stressed that I had not peed for a pregnancy test, and felt that I was unable to waive the test as I had been given a "happy" injection into my IV already) I have not had one single complaint to blog about with regard to the plethora of nurses that have assisted me. I have always known that if you want the true scoop on an individual doctor, get to know the nurses in their practice. It was Oz's belligerent treatment of his own nurse, as well as the general malaise of his entire nursing staff, that solidified my truly negative impressions of him.

Indeed, I do not even view "Oz" as evil. Pompous, arrogant, rude, belligerent, bastard, ass-hole definitely. Evil, no.

"Evil" requires a certain malicious intelligence. And, fortunately, I have not come across any med-pro whose IQ leans in that direction.

PSA - Benefits of Vitamin C . . . (Part Three)

******

National Institute of Health Confirms Vitamin C Effectiveness


National Institute of Health / National Cancer Institute – “Early clinical [Cameron/Pauling] studies showed that high-dose - oral OR intravenous vitamin c, may improve symptoms and prolong life in patients with terminal cancer. Double-blind placebo-controlled [Mayo Clinic] studies of oral vitamin C therapy showed no benefit. Recent evidence shows that oral administration of the maximum tolerated dose of vitamin C (18 g/d) produces peak plasma concentrations of only 220 µmol/L, whereas intravenous administration of the same dose produces plasma concentrations about 25-fold higher. Larger doses (50–100 g) given intravenously may result in plasma concentrations of about 14 000 µmol/L. At concentrations above 1000 µmol/L, vitamin C is toxic to some cancer cells but not to normal cells in vitro.

We found 3 well-documented cases of advanced cancers, confirmed by histopathologic review, where patients had unexpectedly long survival times after receiving high-dose intravenous vitamin c iv therapy. We examined clinical details of each case in accordance with National Cancer Institute (NCI) Best Case Series guidelines. Tumour pathology was verified by pathologists at the NCI who were unaware of diagnosis or treatment. In light of recent clinical pharmacokinetic findings and in vitro evidence of anti-tumour mechanisms, these case reports indicate that the role of high-dose intravenous vitamin c iv therapy in cancer treatment should be reassessed.”

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1405876

Dr. Mark Levine of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues note that, in vitro, vitamin C is toxic to some cancer cells but not normal cells at concentrations above 1000 µmol/L. IV doses in the range of 50-100 g result in plasma levels of about 14,000 µmol/L.

The team analyzed clinical and histological data from three patients with advanced cancer who responded to high-dose IV vitamin C.

The first patient was a 51 year-old-women with advanced renal cell carcinoma, treated with nephrectomy, and several small lesions in the lung "consistent with metastatic cancer." She received IV vitamin C 65 g twice a week for 10 months, in combination with other alternative therapies, including thymus protein extract. Repeat chest radiography revealed one small spot, assumed to be a scar. Five years later, new lung masses were detected.

The patient again received intravenous vitamin c, with unsuccessful results. The second patient, a 49-year-old man, had bladder cancer with multiple satellite tumors. He received IV vitamin C 30 g twice a week for three months, followed by 30 g vitamin C once every 1-2 months for four years. . Nine years after diagnosis, the patient is in good health, without signs of disease.

Case three was a 66-year-old woman with B-cell lymphoma invading paraspinal muscle and bone at L4-5. She received IV vitamin C 15 g twice weekly for 7 months, then 15 g every 2-3 months for about one year. Ten years after diagnosis, the patient is in good health.

Dr. Levine and colleagues note that all three patients survived for longer than expected for the types and stages of cancers that they had. At the doses delivered, vitamin C "is a pro-drug for hydrogen peroxide formation in extracellular fluid," they explain. Histology results also showed evidence of tumor hemorrhage, attributable to ascorbate.

The investigators conclude that "the role of high-dose intravenous vitamin c therapy in cancer treatment should be reassessed."

Life Happens. . . Even if You Have Cancer

****** Just because I am a person dealing with breast cancer; and adjuvant treatment options; and trying to find an enlightened oncologist that I can partner with in my quest for long term survival, does not mean that I am immune from the mundane and frustrating aspects of day-to-day life! No "get out jail card" here!

Hard drives still crash. Rebuilding a professional and business life that is sustained by said hard drive is still an agonizing and time-consuming endeavor. (And yes, Alice, I have now invested in yet a THIRD back up system. This techno-nightmare enabled me to discover that off-site data preserve and central network system do have gaps.)

Work still can become all consuming 7-day a week grinds. Can or should I complain? Absolutely NOT! Not in this economy! It does, however, put the breaks on side indulgences (like sleep, writing, and social contacts).

Kids still need to get early decision college applications done and study for SAT subject matter tests -- both of which, ironically, share deadlines. The tension that combustible combo causes is fodder for entirely different blog!

Husbands and business partners still have to travel for days at a time to tend to the needs of our diverse clientele, leaving me solo at the helm on both fronts.

And yes quarterly tax reports (ooohhh...taxes...the other half of life's universal certainties) and end-year planning for all of my myriad avocations have arrived. Hello!

Who has time to deal with cancer? Life itself eats up all available time!

Just Practicing - An Update

******
I have heard from 6 lovely friends over the last three days. The commentary is all the same. I have read your blog and know what is happening, but HOW ARE YOU FEELING?
I found this an interesting question. Interesting, because this blog is my emotional outlet. The narrative of HOW I AM FEELING. So, I re-read my entries, and tried to be objective. From the entries it would seem to me that my feelings are indeed all encapsulated on this blog. They can be summed up, and in no significant ranking, as:




Frustrated
Cynical
Sardonic (is that a feeling?)
Appreciative
Challenging (more of an action-word, I know. but anyone who knows me knows that I am constantly in-motion)
Surreal (a sensation yes, but an emotion? probably not, but I include it because it really does captures the daily state of my mental being)

So, looking at the above list, it appears fairly comprehensive -- to me -- of where my head and emotions have been these last few weeks. With that in mind, to answer the question, how am I feeling?

WEELLLLLLLLLL..........

I hit my 3 week mark since the mastectomy and I am frustrated at my lack of stamina and the screaming of my nerve endings in the surgical site! Reminder: a mastectomy is the lobing off of an appendage, albeit a small and inconsequential one. Nonetheless, there is "shadow" pain associated with a missing appendage - no matter the nature of the protrusion.

I asked the reconstructive surgeon if it was "normal" to feel like my body is trying to purge the expander, a la Sigourney Weaver and ALIENS. YES! He answered quite enthusiastically. Apparently I just came up with another way of describing that my body is vociferously objecting the presence of a prosthetic.

What is surreal, is that I am a card-carrying prosthetic recipient. A synthetic "expander" now occupies the space under my chest-muscle wall, directly underneath where my breast innards used to be. Got the card in my wallet, complete with a picture and model #. I'm supposed to carry it there as a "just in case." Like, just in case I'm in an accident and the bugger pops! So with the card and the clean thong I keep in my handbag I'm giving a whole new meaning to the Girl Scouts motto: "Be prepared!".

I am frustrated in that speaking to the med pros, here in-state and out-of-state, I cannot pin down a personalized prognosis. (This is the second most asked question I get.) All I get is the insistence that in order to statistically have a chance at the "standard" 10 year survival rate for ILC I must succumb to the standard adjuvant treatments.

The emotional and mental challenge of this lack of individualistic answer is that my PetScan came back with NOTHING, NADA, RIEN, NICHTS remarkable. Indeed, my margins after the removal of the entire left-lady were clean. Annnnnddddd, of the 3 lymph nodes removed, only one had "uncontained" tumor cells -- which, apparently as of 4 weeks ago the ICBC* concluded that the course of action is "do nothing." (BTW, what I could glean from this medical verbiage essentially amounted to: "dunno why this is the recommendation," but maybe it based on the assumption that the tumor cells could have been placed in that node by virtue of the initial diagnostic biopsy. OOPS! Medical conclusion, if that is the case, is that the little buggers won't survive because the environment they were "pushed" into is not conducive for them to grow. Hmmm.  I summarized my understanding to the onc surgeon who responded, "yea...pretty much.")

How can I not be frustratingly sardonic, cynically appreciative of my situation, and surreally (sp..word?) challenged but all this expertise and knowledge?

All cynicism aside, and most importantly, I truly appreciate the random acts of kindness that I am shown daily by those who are following (and commenting on) my blog; those who care enough to ask me questions; and those who are thinking of me -- no matter WHAT you are thinking - at least I am in your thoughts.


*ICBC = industrial complex of breast cancer